Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: jeffwarne on October 01, 2013, 08:59:30 PM
-
The contributors on this formum form in my opinion, some of the most well traveled and educated opinions in golf today.
That said, most every time I see a respected poster list his favorite courses (Sean Arble, my hero, excepted), it's always NGLA, Pine Valley, Cypress,Seminole, Sand Hills. Royal Melbourne, Bandon courses.
I get it , they're all great, but isn't there room for someone to throw out a Brora, a Creek, a Pennard, a Sleepy Hollow, a Portsalon, a Cullen or a Dunaverty, or even a freaking Goat Hill?
I don't mean as a cult GCA favorite, but as an actual favorite.
I find it very hard to believe anyone would pick Seminole over Pennard, Narin and Portnoo, or Portsalon,or a large selection of English courses UNLESS they were worried about future access or GCA brownie points .
Let the crusifiction begin.........
-
I'm not alone. Scary isn't it?
-
I'm certainly scared....
-
There is a difference between my favorite course and the best course I've played. My very favorite course is Musgrove Mill GC. In fact I did an In My Opinion. http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/musgrove-mill/
There is nothing about it I don't like.
-
Tommy, I've seen your work
exception granted- ;) ;D
-
Two days ago someone started a thread on Great Courses You Don't Like, and it has already reached 3 pages. Fun discussion, and I don't think people are being Shunned...
That said, of course there's Group Think here. I doubt that a lot of original thinkers spend time on a blog like this. It's custom made for people who tend to hold similar values, and those with minority views tend to grow frustrated.
-
Two days ago someone started a thread on Great Courses You Don't Like, and it has already reached 3 pages. Fun discussion, and I don't think people are being Shunned...
That said, of course there's Group Think here. I doubt that a lot of original thinkers spend time on a blog like this. It's custom made for people who tend to hold similar values, and those with minority views tend to grow frustrated.
Charlie,
but group think prevails on that thread.
"I don't like X course, but it's still great."
That's the poster child for what I'm speaking of.
Makes no sense to me.
-
I've been here for what seems like ten years now. Group think is diminishing at an alarming rate. I know why and saw it coming years ago. #HFRO
-
I've been here for what seems like ten years now. Group think is diminishing at an alarming rate. I know why and saw it coming years ago. #HFRO
Is it because no one's actually doing any thinking?
-
It has more to do with the fact that we are all becoming equal in terms of access. The more we become the same the easier it is to form your own opinion.
-
Jeff,
I think it is because it is so much easier to use one of the group think favorites when your profess your favorite course to be one that has only been played in one's imagination with imaginary friends ;D
-
The more we become the same the easier it is to form your own opinion.
Never read it put that way before. Very nice.
Actually, I have read it put that way, but only once before:
BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS: I'm not.
FOLLOWERS: Shh.
BRIAN: You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
BRIAN: Exactly!
FOLLOWERS: Tell us more!
-
The contributors on this forum form in my opinion, some of the most well traveled and educated opinions in golf today.
That said, most every time I see a respected poster list his favorite courses (Sean Arble, my hero, excepted), it's always NGLA, Pine Valley, Cypress,Seminole, Sand Hills. Royal Melbourne, Bandon courses.
I get it , they're all great, but isn't there room for someone to throw out a Brora, a Creek, a Pennard, a Sleepy Hollow, a Portsalon, a Cullen or a Dunaverty, or even a freaking Goat Hill?
I don't mean as a cult GCA favorite, but as an actual favorite.
I find it very hard to believe anyone would pick Seminole over Pennard, Narin and Portnoo, or Portsalon,or a large selection of English courses UNLESS they were worried about future access or GCA brownie points .
Let the crusifiction begin.........
Here we go:
* Favorite State for Golf: Maine - Low priced, drivable, pretty much everything is accessible by just being considerate. The recent trip to Bar Harbor with the Maine Guides confirmed this opinion. I have been fortunate to play many of the Top 25 USA courses, but at this stage of life, or at least this month, Maine is my favorite state for golf. Cape Arundel is #1, but Northeast Harbor made a big push.
Still waiting for Jaka to play a golf course East of the Mississippi, or whatever big river is east of him....
* I like Florida Golf: Mountain Lake, World Woods and a dozen "sandy" courses around Orlando make Florida better than advertised. I think Streamsong is a good addition, but how many days am I going to drop $450 for a round of golf for my son and me?
* Favorite Course in Westchester County: Sleepy Hollow, a MacRaynor course, so it does not exactly make me a radical :)
* Favorite Course on Long Island: NGLA, sorry but it is a fun course to play.
* Favorite Course in New Jersey: Pine Valley, see above.
* Favorite Course in California: Cypress Point, see above.
* Favorite Course in Ireland: Enniscrone, I am a member.
* Favorite Course in Afghanistan: Kabul Golf Club, I am a member.
* Bandon: I have no doubt it has great golf courses, but Ireland, Scotland and England are more interesting to me. Oz and New Zealand too, but my travel is limited.
In general, my life now is full of Jews, Afghans, Surfers, Italians, Russians, Autistics and women from developing countries. If all of them can't feel comfortable with my club/golf course, my interest is less and less these days in the "politics" of golf.
Yale pretty much accepts all the misfits of life including me, so I am a lucky guy as it is a great course too.
-
I don't play east of Cleveland.
-
Jeff Sherman (think forced march) Warne aka The General - the man needs a pipe
I don't think folks are really worried about appearances for access. Some of the courses which people list make up the canon of golf's special places - no? For me there is a clear distinction between great and favourite and what helps make a course a favourite is when a shirt is more than the green fee :D - sadly that is rare these days.
Honestly, great is over-rated.
Ciao
-
Jeff, I don't know how many of these guys have met you (hopefully many) but I can affirm that the two tours I took over the Women's Open week at Sebonack with you (The Bridge) and Gene Greco (Southampton GC) were my GCA highlights of 2013. Going around two such unique courses with guys knee-deep in restorations and updates are unique opportunities that should be sought out feverishly. I have resisted starting a Bridge thread because I need total focus/concentration to recall each shot (that I never actually hit!) and select each photo.
From my perspective, folks tend to pick "favorites" not based on number of times played. Some notch their bedposts, others realize that they will never go that way again in this lifetime, while others are unfortunate sheep. I haven't notched a bedpost with a Pine Valley or an Augusta, and my time over many courses is limited to hitting shots with a lens. I prefer to think of favorite tours or favorite moments, rather than courses.
We typically see a great course once, usually in one weather circumstance. I've played courses in good weather that I would prefer to play in rain/wind. I've played others in poor weather that I would like to see under gentler circumstances. Walking NGLA for three days this Fall allowed me to see so many angles, elements and facets that I can speak better of it from tee to green, yet I can't say anything about how it plays/how I would play it.
If I'm so fortunate to ever play any of the wondrous courses I saw on the east end of Long Island, I'll arrive with a posteriori knowledge that I anticipate will contribute to a more thorough and enjoyable round. The same goes for a round at Sleepy or any other place I've shot. Will it guarantee a "favoriting" of the course? Who knows. In my case, though, having seen more talented players (Walker Cup, US Open, PGA) maneuver their way around a course gives me insight into the proper way to play a course, and makes enjoyment and memorabie-nes more likely.
The more I can associate with a course, the more memorable and favorable it remains to me. I enjoyed Kinloch, Pete Dye, Ballyhack, Pinehust #2 and other ranked courses. Not having any other experience to connect to them leaves little chance for them to be considered my favorite, if push comes to shove.
-
Always up for a contrary opinion but the reason why PV, CPC, TOC etc... are always at the top of the rankings is genuinely because they are the best.
There was the architects list, Golf Week (large sample size), Golf Monthly (smaller, "expert" sample size) but however the courses are "measured" or rated the same names come out on top because they really are that good - there is no conspiracy...!
Ask the members on here, access aside, would you rather play Brora or CPC, Cruden Bay or PV and one of two exceptions aside you'll get the same answer. CPC and PV really are better than Brora and Crudent Bay...!
-
Always up for a contrary opinion but the reason why PV, CPC, TOC etc... are always at the top of the rankings is genuinely because they are the best.
There was the architects list, Golf Week (large sample size), Golf Monthly (smaller, "expert" sample size) but however the courses are "measured" or rated the same names come out on top because they really are that good - there is no conspiracy...!
Ask the members on here, access aside, would you rather play Brora or CPC, Cruden Bay or PV and one of two exceptions aside you'll get the same answer. CPC and PV really are better than Brora and Crudent Bay...!
So I'm not so sure....
And I'm not so sure I agree with Sean saying there's a clear difference between "great" and "favourite" either...
You see, I'm not sure there is better golf than playing certain seaside links in GB&I. Granted I haven't see PV (yet) or Cypress Point (maybe never). But I'm willing to bet that the type of shots you play on them don't replicate exactly the type of shots you play on the links. And I think that those are the "best" variety of shots...
So whilst I agree that the architecture at PV and CPC is probably a good few steps more sophisticated than Brora and Cruden Bay (i.e. "better"), I'm not so sure that makes the course better. If I'd prefer to play Brora every day than Pine Valley every day, then doesn't that make it a better course for me?
Now averaged over 1,000 opinions Pine Valley will come out top (and that's why it does)... But I like Jeff's premise... It's too easy just to copy what everyone else thinks.
-
Ronald
I think you have something there. Favourites will often change depending on how well we know a course and one's time in life. Kington gradually grew on me to where I now consider it my favourite place to tee it up. I could easily see that changing with age simply because Kington is rugged golf often played in rugged conditions.
Greg
Having favourites and choosing where to play are not synonymous. I envy the guys who get to play one of their very top favourites as a member, but they likely cherish the opportunity to forgo a home game for something different - especially a game on an iconic course such as...
Ally - speaking only for myself - sure, there is a difference between favourite and great. The two will often happily mingle in the same circles, but favourite resonates for me as more personal approach to looking at a course. When I think of a great course I try to take into account the ideas of others. That doesn't mean I can't discount those ideas ;), but I try to see things from different PsoV. For instance, if I am thinking about great courses I think covering the gap between the 24 capper and the +2 (or even tour pro - ideally) is important. For my favourites, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me and in fact I look for courses which definitely lean toward the 24 capper rather than the +2. I don't think I include a single proper championship course among my Whip it Out list or one which is considered to be very difficult.
Ciao
-
Greg T,
I agree.
A lot comes down, too, to the difference between "best" and "favourite".
I know Sean puts great stock in the latter, but both are fun discussions to have.
There's a small group of courses that would top both lists - they're the really special ones.
-
Jeff,
While the truth is that I've only played a tiny sample of courses that make it on the "great" list, I have played twenty-odd courses in Scotland. If I HAD to pick my favorites from that list Brora and Elie would most likely be at the top. I played TOC twice in 2006 while playing very poorly so it's hard for me to get over my total inability to execute--but it has to be a good candidate. By comparison I've played Jubilee twice also and have virtually no interest in doing it again.
As far as the greats go, I've played Royal Dornoch and Prairie Dunes a couple of times each and they are both SO difficult for a short, inaccurate driver that I'd not look forward to playing a medal competition on them. But I truly see the fun in playing a match. Would I want to play them every day? Not under the GHIN system where I have to post every score.
However, I really hope to get a few more chances to play them, because in my heart of hearts I think I can figure them out... Maybe that's a better measure of their quality. When I played Dornoch this year with a GCAer who's played it hundreds of times I see that it's going to take some time.
Which raises another question . Howinhell do raters get the rating right on a course they only see once?
K
-
It has more to do with the fact that we are all becoming equal in terms of access. The more we become the same the easier it is to form your own opinion.
Nonsense. You don't see me posting about Pine Valley, Seminole, Friar's Head, Oakmont, Merion, Augusta National, etc. and it ain't because I don't want to play there. You are just an elite who projects your privileged lifestyle on others.
As Mr. Holder said about race, the reason that there is not much diversity of opinion is because we are a DG "of cowards". Or maybe those who have opposing tastes acknowledge that it is mostly a matter of preference and little of consequence is gained by trying to shove those down somebody else's throat.
-
Which raises another question . Howinhell do raters get the rating right on a course they only see once?
K
Ken,
your answer lies in the title of the thread.
Groupthink has its own momentum.
Where was NGLA in the ratings in 1985?
Did it materially change?
No tastes did (of course I'd like to think for the better ;))
-
As a person of somewhat scientific and navel-gazing tendencies, I always feel obliged to point out that "Best" implicitly means "Best to such and such purpose". As I experience various great, near-great and not-so-great golf courses it seems to me that the "Best" course for hosting a major championship does not necessarily have to be the "Best" course for playing 150 rounds a year as a member. Or the "Best" resort course for holiday visitors may not seen the "Best" course for a bunch of low-handicap bombers.
I fear that the most commonly in mind type of "Best" in discussions here is a highly inbred, self-justifying "Best exemplar of the shared prejudices among the long-time, most opinionated GCA participants, especially course raters and most especially course raters who are part of one certain rater pool". So no surprise that the same old, same old highly rated courses get named when "Best" is invoked. The normative response on this group is not based on major championship, member play, resort golf or any other real-world implication. It is based on magazine rating criteria.
-
It's a rather simple thought process. The great courses come from architects with design principles that form the basis for this site. TOC is the template and it's progeny are the courses loved on this site.
-
I would choose any seaside links in the UK to play almost every time over virtually any American course. For me there is something about the wind and ground there that is the epitome of golf. I have played Pine Valley and absolutely loved it. I would immediately accept another invite back without even asking my wife. It is without a doubt the best golf course I have ever played. But, if I had to choose a single course to play forever without setting foot on another course it would be one of the seaside links in Scotland.
-
I would choose any seaside links in the UK to play almost every time over virtually any American course. For me there is something about the wind and ground there that is the epitome of golf. I have played Pine Valley and absolutely loved it. I would immediately accept another invite back without even asking my wife. It is without a doubt the best golf course I have ever played. But, if I had to choose a single course to play forever without setting foot on another course it would be one of the seaside links in Scotland.
+1,
I really enjoyed PV. It looked stunning but first it is a course that would destroy/demoralise me if I played it every day and (I expect to be torn apart here) I felt it was a little one dimensional in the shot requirement. If I had to play one course from now on then it would be Kilspindie as it is a really fun course belonging to a great private club.
Jon
-
To all of those people who want to play links courses in the GB&I, well, all I'm saying is have you really played them in the wind...?
They are very serious tests of golf once the wind is above 25 mph...!
Granted match play is different, but links can be de-moralising.
-
To all of those people who want to play links courses in the GB&I, well, all I'm saying is have you really played them in the wind...?
They are very serious tests of golf once the wind is above 25 mph...!
Greg,
that is when they become really interesting ;D
Jon
-
...
That said, of course there's Group Think here. I doubt that a lot of original thinkers spend time on a blog like this. It's custom made for people who tend to hold similar values, and those with minority views tend to grow frustrated.
That's Bull!
You think there are arguments here because we have Group Think?!?!
-
Where was NGLA in the ratings in 1985?
Did it materially change?
I think it did change. Didn't they pull down a bunch of trees? That itself would have opened up wind flow and allowed better circulation for better grass health.
-
It has more to do with the fact that we are all becoming equal in terms of access. The more we become the same the easier it is to form your own opinion.
Nonsense. You don't see me posting about Pine Valley, Seminole, Friar's Head, Oakmont, Merion, Augusta National, etc. and it ain't because I don't want to play there. You are just an elite who projects your privileged lifestyle on others.
As Mr. Holder said about race, the reason that there is not much diversity of opinion is because we are a DG "of cowards". Or maybe those who have opposing tastes acknowledge that it is mostly a matter of preference and little of consequence is gained by trying to shove those down somebody else's throat.
I also think if discussion turns to "Best" courses, those of us that haven't had the fortune of playing many (or any) elites, simply don't opine. While I've played around 300 courses, I've only played a dozen or so Doak 7's, let alone Elites, and I just have a hard time suggesting any rate amount the "best" in the world (or at least I hope they don't because I'd always like to hope to play courses that I enjoy more in the future.).
-
Groupthink is very normal group behavior, so not surprising it exists on this site.
-
Groupthink is very normal group behavior, so not surprising it exists on this site.
Not to mention, some of it has likely developed out of years of discussion on architecture and hundreds of opinions considered. It is perfectly reasonable that there is going to be some level of influence over time that will become most prevalent, because once all alternatives are considered, it makes the most sense to a majority.
This could happen over time with tree clearing, minimalism or many other trends. In some cases, it could simply be that when opposing views are considered over time, pictures are shown with differences, and people play different styles, they come to a fuller understanding of what they enjoy. Not all groupthink is a negative, or rejection of true beliefs. It is just as likely an evolution of positions on some items due to an openness to all viewpoints.
-
Group Think or overthinking... Either way the idea that Brora is "better" than Pine Valley is just nonsense.
There are sufficient rankings with different methods and sample sizes to agree a that there is top echelon of courses, that whilst we may not agree on the absolute rank, are the most highly ranked courses in the world... they are Pine Valley, CPC etc... it is not Brora, Cruden Bay etc...
Now you may like Brora more than Cypress Point, but that's merely down to personal preferences/taste.
And in the full interests of full disclosure I love Cruden Bay BTW.
-
Which raises another question . Howinhell do raters get the rating right on a course they only see once?
K
Ken,
your answer lies in the title of the thread.
Groupthink has its own momentum.
Where was NGLA in the ratings in 1985?
That may have been attributable to access and the minimum number of ballots rather than evaluative criteria.
Did it materially change?
There have been changes, mostly tees, but # 11 and # 13 were changed at the green end, as was # 1.
No tastes did (of course I'd like to think for the better ;))
I'd agree that tastes do change.
Fads run in and out of favor, but, there are certain absolutes that tend to remain static.
-
Which raises another question . How in hell do raters get the rating right on a course they only see once?
K
Ken,
your answer lies in the title of the thread.
Groupthink has its own momentum.
Where was NGLA in the ratings in 1985?
Did it materially change?
No tastes did (of course I'd like to think for the better ;))
It's clear to me the answer to this thought is the emergence of Tom Doak as the world's foremost authority on evaluating golf courses. Tom writes The Confidential Guide, says NGLA and Crystal Downs are perfect 10s, and within twenty years both courses go from nowhere to be found to top 15 in the country.
Opinions change because people like Tom made good, logical arguments why some golf courses are superior to others. If there is group think here, it's because many of us are devotees of The Confidential Guide. Other authors, like Geoff Shackelford, have made the same type of arguments. I do not anticipate "tastes" to change much in the next twenty years. Better is better.
-
Great thread and it is interesting to see the responses.
I love when Ran posts an article that runs counter to the crowd, for example his glowing reviews of the Tom Fazio designed Forest Creek courses, and of course Southern Pines, which despite being a Donald Ross design is largely unheralded outside of GCA.
While we do exhibit group-think like tendencies, there are many people posting about unranked courses that they like or just played and thought were interesting. What upsets me is when GCAers are downright mean to people who have opinions that differ from their own. We all have different likes, dislikes and levels of experience with different types of Golf architecture.
Personally, I would love to see a compilation of worthwhile courses that are not highly rated, good courses and good clean fun. You can sort of cobble this together by searching and adding golfclubatlas.com. This is a little more than just hidden gems.
So, on my recent trip to Scotland I did play TOC, North Berwick, Cruden Bay and Royal Dornoch. But I also purposely made time for BRORA, Golspie and Crail Balcomie and enjoyed them all. Told of my plans, several golfers could not believe that I went to the East Coast and did not Carnoustie, but would go out of my way for Brora and Golspie. I really wanted to see some true and perhaps less corrupted links courses. Brora was great, Golspie was fun, beautiful and worth playing. Loved North Berwick with some cool quirk – a par 4 green next to a wall that you have to hit your approach shot over.
Royal Dornoch was simply spectacular and is now in my top five.
Wm Flynnfan
-
If better is better, why is ANGC held in such high esteem here?
Actually, come to think of it ANGC demonstrates the lack of group think here, because there is a lot of disagreement on this website on how good it is.
-
If better is better, why is ANGC held in such high esteem here?
Actually, come to think of it ANGC demonstrates the lack of group think here, because there is a lot of disagreement on this website on how good it is.
Maybe that is because it is the one course most will never play?
-
Brian,
Artificially created ponds are the "real deal"?
-
Brian,
Are you going to go all Mucci on me? Whether or not I have been to Augusta does not change whether or not RTJ came in and created artificial ponds.
-
I find it very hard to believe anyone would pick Seminole over Pennard
Howdy, Jeff.
My Whip Out (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.msg1323103.html#msg1323103)
7. Pennard
37. Seminole
Respectfully,
Guy with 2 Jacks in his top 4 :-X ;D
-
If better is better, why is ANGC held in such high esteem here?
Actually, come to think of it ANGC demonstrates the lack of group think here, because there is a lot of disagreement on this website on how good it is.
Disagreement from whom ? People who have NEVER played it.
I've played it and it's a spectacular golf course.
As to the ponds, they're merely dammed creeks and runoffs
-
Brian,
I gave you a reasoned argument. You reject it for an unreasonable reason.
I have seen Bandon Trails. I have seen "the property, the routing, the amazing greens, the width, the movement of the land etc etc etc" at Bandon Trails. I love these things at Bandon Trails just as I believe I would love them at ANGC.
However, my golf course rating criteria has artificial ponds as one of the rating criteria. Therefore, my rating of Bandon Trails falls below my rating of Chambers Bay which has no such bodies of water in play. Similarly I logically conclude ANGC will fall behind like courses with no artificial ponds in my rating. That is a reasoned, logical argument.
Now stop going all subjective on me. If you think my subjective side would get the better of me if I went to ANGC, they you don't understand my logical nature.
And I haven't even brought up the visual and artistic discord that the white bath tubs evoke at ANGC. Kinda looks like a child's attempt at landscape painting. ;D
-
This nudged me into redoing my Whip It Out list, 3.5 years after my last attempt. I was as objective as I could be about what is on the ground. Nothing about price, access or any of that other BS.
I make no apologies for it probably being labelled group think....they're kick ass courses. However, I will say that without question, my Top 25 most fun courses or best experience list would be much more interesting. And I think for me that is what this thread is all about.
-
It's a rather simple thought process. The great courses come from architects with design principles that form the basis for this site. TOC is the template and it's progeny are the courses loved on this site.
This is really the answer and the reason I've been coming to this website since basically day one.
"While golf course architecture is a subjective art form, several key tenets have stood the test of time. These are explored in an effort to understand why some courses are more fascinating than others, and to understand why such courses continually beckon for a return game." - Ran Morrissett.
-
I can honestly say that if I had only one day more to live, and the magic genie granted me a last wish to play one last round of golf, RCD, TOC, Royal Melbourne, Walton Heath, Sunningdale, and several others would be in my thoughts. ANGC would be well down the list. It's a course that really doesn't excite me and that's perhaps because its presentation isn't that far removed from the K Clubs and Bro Hofs of this worlds. The courses that made a big impression on me when I first took an interest in architecture more than 30 years ago were the Walton Heaths, Sunningdales and Hoylakes. ANGC is at the other end of the spectrum in my opinion. If I ever did get the opportunity to play the course, I would certainly play it, as I would if invited to play TPC Sawgrass or Celtic Manor or any of the several hundred interesting courses out there.
I don't wish to take an opposing opinion; I'm just happy to play any course I can, especially the lesser known courses, as I strongly believe that a pleasant surprise is never too far away. My ideal golf trip would be to spend a couple of weeks along the west coast of Scotland playing little known 9 and 18 hole courses. My family holidayed just outside Oban many years ago, and my father and my two elder brothers played Glencruttin GC. I was too young to play it, but I had a look at the club's website many years later. Take a look at the website: http://www.obangolf.com/
The course looks crazy and is a must play!
I know I'm not alone when I saying that Birkdale is a bit dull. I don't know where it would be placed in my top 25 courses, but if it did manage to make it, that just indicates that I have not played enough very good or great courses. I prefer Silloth to both Birkdale and Lytham.
I have always thought that there may be some hesitancy to slay golf's sacred cows. Take Crystal Downs for example. During Mark Saltzman's excellent photo tour on CD, I deliberately avoided making any comments as I didn't pass the "Mucci Test" (i.e. I haven't played the course). I was itching to join in the discussion, but I held back. I felt that CD was given a free pass on several fronts.
Firstly, the green speeds. It was mentioned several times that hitting above the hole on some greens would result in a certain putt off the front of the green. I realize that conditioning shouldn't have a huge bearing on one's opinion, but green speeds are inextricably linked with the architecture. Would the cognoscenti of the DG be so accepting if this occurred at Torrey Pines.
Secondly, the 5th hole with the double fairway cannot seriously be considered an "All World" hole, when - if you believe the driver carry distance claims - 99.99% of the members of this DG would reach the right hand fairway with a 5 iron. Tom Doak wrote during that photo tour that the carry was about 160-170 yds.
Thirdly, the 7th hole with the discontinuous fairway and boomerang shaped green: According to TD, years of top dressing have altered the slopes, to the extent that there is now no guarantee that a putt from the back will swing around, making use of the slopes as the Dr has envisaged.
And what about the 17th?
The most bewildering evidence of group think or a herd mentality that I have witnessed is the astronomical amount of cash that members of this DG have handed over for a copy of the Confidential Guide. I just don't understand why. Even TD must think that forking out $300-$500 for the CG is totally bonkers!
-
Brian,
I gave you a reasoned argument. You reject it for an unreasonable reason.
I have seen Bandon Trails. I have seen "the property, the routing, the amazing greens, the width, the movement of the land etc etc etc" at Bandon Trails. I love these things at Bandon Trails just as I believe I would love them at ANGC.
However, my golf course rating criteria has artificial ponds as one of the rating criteria. Therefore, my rating of Bandon Trails falls below my rating of Chambers Bay which has no such bodies of water in play. Similarly I logically conclude ANGC will fall behind like courses with no artificial ponds in my rating. That is a reasoned, logical argument.
Now stop going all subjective on me. If you think my subjective side would get the better of me if I went to ANGC, they you don't understand my logical nature.
And I haven't even brought up the visual and artistic discord that the white bath tubs evoke at ANGC. Kinda looks like a child's attempt at landscape painting. ;D
Is there any way in your rating criteria for an artificial pond not to be a negative or to allow for degrees? Is there any distinction between an artificial pond that looks and feels artificial versus one that looks and feels more in tune with the rest of the course?
With the examples that you give - Are Bandon Trails and Chambers Bay equal outside of the presence of artificial ponds? Or does the existence of an artificial pond at BT overcome any other architecture/design features?
As a hypothetical, what is the biggest rating change caused by artificial ponds in your system? Can lack of artificial ponds make a good course great or a great course excellent? Can their presence work the other way, making an otherwise excellent course simply great or good?
-
Dwight,
It's not letting me quote right now so I'll see if I can remember to cover all your questions.
An artificial pond is a demerit. Lack of an artificial pond is not a plus. Bandon Trails would rate higher for me than Chambers Bay if it were not for the artificial pond.
The ponds at ANGC look quite artificial to me. The demerits therefore go up. The demerits really go up big time when my ball has to run uphill to get into an artificial pond. ;)
Off hand, I can't think of any artificial ponds that look natural. Perhaps the one at Bandon Trails is one that I can think of right now that looks the most natural.
-
I find it very hard to believe anyone would pick Seminole over Pennard
Howdy, Jeff.
My Whip Out (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.msg1323103.html#msg1323103)
7. Pennard
37. Seminole
Respectfully,
Guy with 2 Jacks in his top 4 :-X ;D
ballsy list ;D ;), and a great one.
Take out Mach Dunes(sub in Narin and Portnoo), Pinehurst 2 (sub in ANGC), and Turnberry (sub Royal County Down)
throw in Myopia, Portsalon , an Eastward Ho,Narin and Portnoo, a Kennebunk, a Brora, Apawamis, The Creek, and Goat Hill and (I haven't played a few of yours so I have room)
and we'd have my list ;D
The problem with these 25 "Top" courses played is everyone is working off a different set of courses played, so we don't know if they don't rank ANGC or Merion in their top 25, or if the simply haven't played them.
I've played Pinehurst , Mach Dunes,and Turnberry, they just aren't in my top 25
-
If better is better, why is ANGC held in such high esteem here?
Actually, come to think of it ANGC demonstrates the lack of group think here, because there is a lot of disagreement on this website on how good it is.
Disagreement from whom ? People who have NEVER played it.
I've played it and it's a spectacular golf course.
As to the ponds, they're merely dammed creeks and runoffs
Pat,
Agree 100%. I remain cynical of so many critics who say they have played a course and really have never been near it. Sort of like my buddy that played Merion everytime he was in Pittsburg ;D ;D. ( I'm not sayin the majority are this way..but it exist) ANGC is not my favorite by a longshot but so much commentary goes on regarding it when the people discussing it have not played it and often never seen it.
-
Donal,
Regarding the Confidential Guide, if it will make you feel better, I have actually given away two copies: one to Arthur Spring for spending a day showing me the Inch Peninsula and the other to Kevin Frost, my best friend in Ballybunion.
But, given the current prices I do have a rule never to lend out my one remaining copy!
Jeff:
You want anti group think. Ok, I'll say it. I love Dooks and think it is one of the very most pleasant places to play golf in the world. Beats many top 100 just for the happiness I have felt playing there!
-
Donal,
Regarding the Confidential Guide, if it will make you feel better, I have actually given away two copies: one to Arthur Spring for spending a day showing me the Inch Peninsula and the other to Kevin Frost, my best friend in Ballybunion.
But, given the current prices I do have a rule never to lend out my one remaining copy!
Jeff:
You want anti group think. Ok, I'll say it. I love Dooks and think it is one of the very most pleasant places to play golf in the world. Beats many top 100 just for the happiness I have felt playing there!
Tim,
loved Dooks.
a bit of a weak finish though.
I don't think you'll get much arguement here about Dooks, just won't see many pick it over Seminole or Pine Valley;)
Clearly I need to get back to Pine Valley as it's been 20 years. Perhaps it could work into my Top 25 if they treated me well ;) ;) ;D
-
I appreciated Ran not using group think in his willingness to visit and review Fraserburgh. There are other big name courses in the area that could have been selected. I went to Fraserburgh last week based on his review and it's every bit as interesting as he describes it.
-
To all of those people who want to play links courses in the GB&I, well, all I'm saying is have you really played them in the wind...?
They are very serious tests of golf once the wind is above 25 mph...!
Granted match play is different, but links can be de-moralising.
Well, in August and early Sept. my wife and I played several of them in "Scottish" weather. Brora, St Andrews Jubilee and Eden in pretty steady 20 mph. Cullen and Fraserburgh in intermittent rain showers with gusts strong enough to make standing upright difficult. Dunbar and North Berwick in winds that were measured by the anemometer on the NB starter's hut at steady 25 and gusting to over 40.
Dunbar was in a mixed foursomes medal comp.
The only one of those that was close to unplayable for me was Jubilee. It was playing REALLY fast and with those narrow fairways surrounded by lost-ball territory in a stiff crosswind, it was no fun.
But the rest of those courses don't pretend to be Carnoustie, and even a hack like me can negotiate them without being demoralized.
IMHO, that's as it should be.
K
-
However, my golf course rating criteria has artificial ponds as one of the rating criteria.
Garland, most every course has artificial features. e.g. Chambers Bay is a heavily manufactured golf course, where they moved over 1.5 million cubic of earth. I'm pretty sure the earth-moving figures at ANGC are a small fraction of that.
So my question is why you single out ponds, when there are so many other artificial features at plenty of courses?
As someone who has never played ANGC, I think those ponds play a big strategic role, in one of the most dramatic, fascinating nine holes of all golf.
Did Mackenzie design the course with white sand in mind?
btw, I just read that the sand at ANGC is so white due to its high, pure quartz content, and that "The same stuff in those Augusta National bunkers is now used for silicon chips."
-
Jim,
I've never been able to hit a recovery shot from the bottom of a pond. Yet I have been able to hit recovery shots from artificial dunes at Chambers Bay.
(http://i786.photobucket.com/albums/yy145/argraydmd/dscn1169.jpg?t=1250082520)
But, I guess I am just following the site's group think, because Tom Doak avoids putting artificial ponds in play on his courses when possible.
;)
-
Garland,
It's obvious that you never played Sebonack, in particular the 8th or 13th holes.
Take a look at them on "Google earth" and let us know if you see anything that looks like an "artificial pond" ;D
-
Garland,
It's obvious that you never played Sebonack, in particular the 8th or 13th holes.
Take a look at them on "Google earth" and let us know if you see anything that looks like an "artificial pond" ;D
-
Garland,
It's obvious that you never played Sebonack, in particular the 8th or 13th holes.
Take a look at them on "Google earth" and let us know if you see anything that looks like an "artificial pond" ;D
-
Garland,
I just knew that you had to be a lefty ;D
-
Patrick,
If you ever paid attention to this website, you would know that Sebonack was build by Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus. You can credit the Jack with the water works. Tom has expressed his displeasure, but must take one for the team.
-
Jeff,
I appreciate and enjoy the spirit of this question; yours is a necessary detail question that contributes to the TOTAL discussion (whatever that is...perhaps, the ever-accruing body of knowledge about GCA)...
Yet I want to take a different tack and make an argument for what is not often stated...that some of the repetitive, "can't-diss-or-not include-PV, NGLA, Shinne, TOC-" favorable group-think (you posit) surveys and reviews that issue here are because those places are worthy of their high praise and there is a line (somewhere) between the ugly, pejorative "group-think" and engaged (or expert) consensus.
Scant access to some of these group-think sacred cows is indeed an issue, (for certainly some account must be given that a player who achieves sparing access is likely to treasure the acquisition of the prize beyond what the golf course may be). Yet my view in those sacred cows I have experienced is that, amazingly, they tend to exceed expectations.
This is true for me with NGLA (3 playings) Shinnecock (2 playings), Yale (12+ playings), Fishers (5-7 playings), Fairfield (5 playings, many loops), Riviera (1 playing), Merion (1 playing).
In all these cases specifically, and to a lesser degree at other places, when I went there to play, I found myself delighted by every vista, apparent strategy, new game question and golf exercise they commanded, somestimes equal to, but mostly in excess of any course/hole I had played previously.
I remember distinctly my first play at National; it was like when Luke sees Yoda command the ship out of the swamp in Empire Strikes Back...that first tee and my glimpses of the course on the way in built a desire to play golf shots liek I never have before. I drove the ball like an absolute animal, hit 13/15 of fairways and shot a fucking 89. But every hole committed itself to memory within me, and I understood the sequential commands of CBM's "amalgamated" design: a draw called for here; permission to hook there; a lofted precision shot that side, a bold blind drive on the other. Skippers, runners, bouncers, roll-outs, dead punches out of the wind, sand sometimes presented as a "change of surface" hazard, not a "hazard of impediment or equivalent penalty;" National, like Yale, like Fishers, just keeps blowing you away with how they present and what they command
And my god, I've never played AGNC, PV, or Pebble but I've been on those courses as a spectator and they look every bit as fun and amazing as those multiple reports, listings, surveys, favorites, and historically laudatory remarks have made them to be.
My point is: Perhaps they are WORTHY to be so-oft repeated and re-listed, because if this player-reporter is actually going to tell you what my favorite courses are--and you really want my honest opinion--those sacred cows would have to comprise my list. I like playing other courses than these a great deal, but if I'm going to try to make rational sense of out of irrational "like" of something, I have to evaluate that my experiences at those on the "list" were/are more fulfillign than rounds at other fine courses.
I'm too biased about the WF courses and Siwanoy (200+ playings, 1000 loops) to not include them in any list...
...its not just group-think is what I'm saying. sometimes a consensus is reached because as good as an under-the-radar/2nd-rated tier course might be, the experiences at many of the sacred cow list are...wonder of wonders...pretty damn awesome.
cheers
vk
-
Dwight,
It's not letting me quote right now so I'll see if I can remember to cover all your questions.
An artificial pond is a demerit. Lack of an artificial pond is not a plus. Bandon Trails would rate higher for me than Chambers Bay if it were not for the artificial pond.
The ponds at ANGC look quite artificial to me. The demerits therefore go up. The demerits really go up big time when my ball has to run uphill to get into an artificial pond. ;)
Off hand, I can't think of any artificial ponds that look natural. Perhaps the one at Bandon Trails is one that I can think of right now that looks the most natural.
I can see where you're coming from, GJ. And I do agree that the ponds at ANGC do tend to look quite artificial. However, I would also argue that is, at least in part, considered a feature by the 'branding' decision makers of the club. I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe. The grass is too green. The sand is too white. The azaleas are preternaturally colorful. And yes, the ponds are artificial. All this adds up to a course that holds itself more perfect than Nature. I don't say any of this to say I dislike ANGC, merely that it seems like the visibly artificial ponds play into this too-perfect brand.
-
Patrick,
If you ever paid attention to this website, you would know that Sebonack was build by Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus.
Really ?
And all this time I thought it was Tom Doak who routed the golf course.
Silly me.
I guess you'd have to be a moron to think otherwise.
You can credit the Jack with the water works.
Really ?
Silly me.
And where were they going to put the retention pond if not fronting the 8th green ?
How about the pond on # 13 ?
Tom has expressed his displeasure,
Displeasure at what ?
but must take one for the team.
-
VK,
Great post.
Dwight,
Is your analysis based on what the cameras have exposed you to, from their unique, almost one dimensional perspective, or on site observations ?
The cameras can deceive.
They can show you what they want to show you to the exclusion of everything else.
Specifically, what ponds look artificial, and what creates that artificial look ?
-
Though a truely great course, the raters have propelled Maidstone way beyond a reasonable ranking! those who rank it so highly must have missed out on many great courses in the British Iles. No way is Maidstone a greater course than Rye, Deal, Nairne, Baltray, or Ross' Point! From many years of observation on this site, there have been innumerable threads raving about the majesty of Maidstone, however, even in its wondefully restored state, it must be judged against other links courses since that is why it seems to score so well with raters. Having gone to a few parties there nearly 20 years ago, I am convinced that the lunch overlooking the beach has given it many plus points. No doubt, 7 -10 are all-world. And ofcourse it is at Maidstone where the famous cheating incident occurred--a dropped ball by a very socially prominent player with the discovery of the original ball being a hole in one--this certainly makes the 8th a little greater!
-
Jeff,
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I can answer for myself.
Brora and Dornoch are both aesthetically pleasing in similar and different ways. Brora defines "fun" (unless there's "a wee Scottish mist" going on).
From a golf architecture perspective, I cannot put Brora in the same league as RDGC.
I could play Maidstone every day for the rest of my life. It is truly a glorious place. For my money, both National and Shinnecock demonstrate more superb golf architecture over the full 18 holes, though.
You were right in your opening post - all the usual suspects are, indeed, in a class by themselves. Most of them combine great architecture with a wonderful setting (e.g. NGLA, Cypress), but even the great parkland courses that are surrounded by houses (e.g. Merion or Winged Foot) are truly memorable in terms of the quality, and quantity, of the holes.
-
6. Artificial Ponds
I had the chance to look at someone else’s Master Plan for a new golf course built on flat land a few years back and was taken aback by the approach. It was the typical approach where every time the architect was faced with limited natural features he simply dug a pond to create a pond at the green in the perceived notion that this would add interest. I counted water directly in play on nine green sites including most of the threes and fives. The architect had four holes with water in play from the tee all the way to green and two of those were par fives that doglegged around a large pond all the way to green. If I lived there, I would play Tennis.
The reliance on water as a primary hazard probably began with Robert Trent Jones but it quickly became a staple of modern design. That was the era where “Championship” courses became the vogue and the use of the water hazard was seen as key defence in order to protect par. Since most sites did not offer natural bodies of water, the architects simply added ponds where required at the green sites to add the challenge. Photographers were drawn to the water and the popularity of the holes soared.
The problem came when the “average” player was facing the same level of challenge on an increasing basis. They are far more fearful and intimidated by water since they lack the control to continually avoid hazards. A ball in the water represents two lost shots, whereas a bunker may represent no lost shots if a great recovery is made. Water’s judgment of the shot is absolute and final and in many cases the player is forced to repeat the shot until they succeed or pick up.
I’m not total against the inclusion of water or even completely against “a” pond. In fact I do like the incorporation of streams, burns, rivers and lakes into a design. But I abhor the continuous use of ponds to bring water in play throughout the round as lazy and dull. I particularly question the need to constantly bring water hard up against the green when the hazard can be varied like the placement of bunkers. Water certainly has its place, but the architect who continually places water in play simply frustrates me and the average player who plays their courses.
Ian: No wonder we get along. You were ten for ten in your list from my perspective.
-
Garland,
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
You also need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.
Please reread the text below, which you quoted.
I've highlighted some key words/phrases that you apparently missed.
I’m not total against the inclusion of water or even completely against “a” pond.
In fact I do like the incorporation of streams, burns, rivers and lakes into a design.
But I abhor the continuous use of ponds to bring water in play throughout the round as lazy and dull.
I particularly question the need to constantly bring water hard up against the green when the hazard can be varied like the placement of bunkers.
Water certainly has its place, but the architect who continually places water in play simply frustrates me and the average player who plays their courses.
Perhaps repeated rereading will eventually bring you to an understanding of what was actually stated and NOT what you interpreted it to say.
Have you ever been to Sebonack and observed or played the 8th and 13th holes ?
-
. . . btw, I just read that the sand at ANGC is so white due to its high, pure quartz content, and that "The same stuff in those Augusta National bunkers is now used for silicon chips."
Jim, I've heard, but cannot confirm first hand, that the "sand" used at Augusta is man-ground quartz made at a quartz mine in Mitchell County, NC.
-
Patrick,
I really wonder what makes you blather on so.
And, stating what you think are my interpretations of quotes I posted without any commentary on my part as if you know what I was thinking is the mark of a real bore.
At Apache the pond is hidden in the desert just above the seventh green; you can see it only from the ridge on #14 and #15 tee. [At Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle, it is similarly hidden away from the golf course.]
Generally, though, it is hard to convince clients who have to pay for an irrigation pond NOT to have it in play on the golf course. Sebonack will have two small ponds, one on the par-3 eighth and one on the par-5 13th, in addition to Peconic Bay being in play a few times.
-
Patrick,
I really wonder what makes you blather on so.
Your gross inaccuracies for one
And, stating what you think are my interpretations of quotes I posted without any commentary on my part as if you know what I was thinking is the mark of a real bore.
At Apache the pond is hidden in the desert just above the seventh green; you can see it only from the ridge on #14 and #15 tee. [At Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle, it is similarly hidden away from the golf course.]
Those courses are totally irrelevant.
I specifically cited Sebonack and the two holes at Sebonack with HIGH visibility ponds fronting the greens
Generally, though, it is hard to convince clients who have to pay for an irrigation pond NOT to have it in play on the golf course.
Sebonack will have two small ponds, one on the par-3 eighth and one on the par-5 13th, in addition to Peconic Bay being in play a few times.
If you knew, at the outset, which you didn't, then you never would have stated that Tom Doak doesn't employ ponds in his designs, since he obviously did at Sebonack.
Either you misrepresented Tom Doak's work, OR you were oblivious to his incorporation of ponds at Sebonack.
Irrespective of which it is, you're a phony
-
Garland,
I just thought that I'd remind you of your statement regarding Tom Doak and ponds, especially since he incorporated not one, but two ponds in front of greens.
But, I guess I am just following the site's group think, because Tom Doak avoids putting artificial ponds in play on his courses when possible.;)
-
Hi Patrick:
I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part. I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.
Sebonack is the outlier, and it is so because we were required by the permits to build two artificial ponds -- one for the main irrigation system and a separate one for the greens irrigation system. Most of the flattest areas on the course were wetlands or wetland buffer areas that were off limits to construction, so these two ponds had to be on the golf course. And the client Mr. Pascucci had specifically mentioned in our first conversation that he would like to have a par-3 with a nasty water hazard in front of the green, like the 12th at Augusta.
I did site the two ponds and helped to design the two holes around them. We did not build any other ponds. Also, you might note that the pond on #8, being pretty large, would have most easily been brought into play on the second shot to the 7th hole, as well, but I went out of my way to screen it from view, instead.
-
When groupthink is a result of uncertainty it can cause distortions in perception This is common in the stock market. But when there is a clear standard of excellence such as in the best golf courses then groupthink is not as much of a perception problem Many courses like North Berwick and Pennard may get more recognition as the value of quirk increases . However, if they were truly the best they would have contended for that honor many years ago .
There are arguments about the best courses and some say that places like TOC don't deserve their lofty status but I can't recall too many quality arguments made that some very good course is in fact deserving of great status
I think rating groups like Golfweek want their applicants to have played some of the acknowledged great courses. Is this education or brain washing? I think it is art education
-
I think rating groups like Golfweek want their applicants to have played some of the acknowledged great courses. Is this education or brain washing? I think it is art education
Mayday-I concur with your hypothesis. There is nothing bad about providing a frame of reference as it should not inhibit the hopefully evolving skills of the panelists.
-
Hi Patrick:
I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part. I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.
For discussion purposes, I don't consider a dammed creek/stream as an artificial pond
Sebonack is the outlier, and it is so because we were required by the permits to build two artificial ponds -- one for the main irrigation system and a separate one for the greens irrigation system. Most of the flattest areas on the course were wetlands or wetland buffer areas that were off limits to construction, so these two ponds had to be on the golf course. And the client Mr. Pascucci had specifically mentioned in our first conversation that he would like to have a par-3 with a nasty water hazard in front of the green, like the 12th at Augusta.
I did site the two ponds and helped to design the two holes around them. We did not build any other ponds. Also, you might note that the pond on #8, being pretty large, would have most easily been brought into play on the second shot to the 7th hole, as well, but I went out of my way to screen it from view, instead.
Tom,
The screening, from # 7 is quite effective.
The pond on the 13th hole, to a great degree, makes the hole.
Without it, the second shot would be on the benign side, with the decisions on the golfers part greatly reduced.
With the pond, the challenge and decision making process is enhanced to a great degree, so I don't see the need to be apologetic.
As to # 8, the pond presents a threatening carry to a green that's situated and contoured to present an enhanced challenge to the golfer as they stand on the tee.
When you can kill two birds with one stone, why not combine an irrigation pond with a hazard on the golf course.
I don't see the need to apologize for introducing either of those ponds, although I know you've taken some flak for the one on # 8.
Adjacent to Sebonack is a course with ponds/water hazards on about 6 holes and I can't recall any substantive criticism of those ponds.
And, adjacent to that course is another with a significant pond on the 6th hole.
And, adjacent to that course is another course with ponds that come into play, and none of those courses, nor their architect, have come under fire for incorporating ponds in their design.
Garland stated that the ponds at ANGC looked artificial, as did Dwight, so I asked them, if their opinion was based upon on-site inspection, or strictly from the limited views they've seen on TV. And, I've asked them which ponds ? And, how they look artificial.
I'll be intriqued by their answers relative to holes # 11 and # 12, especially in light of the creeks and runoffs that are on the property that feed into those ponds.
-
. . . btw, I just read that the sand at ANGC is so white due to its high, pure quartz content, and that "The same stuff in those Augusta National bunkers is now used for silicon chips."
Jim, I've heard, but cannot confirm first hand, that the "sand" used at Augusta is man-ground quartz made at a quartz mine in Mitchell County, NC.
I think you are right. The article in Golf Mag says, "Augusta National sand is actually a waste product of the feldspar mining process, according to Drew Coleman, professor of geological sciences at the University of North Carolina."
and...
"The Spruce Pine Mining District in northwestern North Carolina is famous for its feldspar and quartz, and since the 1700s feldspar has been mined there. When they mine the feldspar for aluminum, they just discard the quartz. That's the stuff Augusta National uses for its bunkers."
-
VK,
Great post.
Dwight,
Is your analysis based on what the cameras have exposed you to, from their unique, almost one dimensional perspective, or on site observations ?
The cameras can deceive.
They can show you what they want to show you to the exclusion of everything else.
Specifically, what ponds look artificial, and what creates that artificial look ?
Absolutely based on cameras and not personal experience.
The most notably artificial pond (and view) is on 16, and it hits me most when we get the camera view of the spectators on the hillside to the left of the hole and the nice, clean, straight edge of the pond. But, while that's artificial to my eye, the perfect alley with spectators left and the green situated just behind/right of the pond that is created makes for a striking hole. I don't necessarily think that artificial automatically equals bad and Augusta, as it presents itself on television for the Masters, would be an example for me of using artificial means to create a sense of perfection that, while not wholly natural, is wholly engaging and enjoyable.
-
Dwight,
Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.
The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle
-
Hi Patrick:
I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part. I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.
What about pond you have put in as a diagonal hazard for the tee shot on 6 at RMW?
-
Hi Patrick:
I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part. I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.
What about pond you have put in as a diagonal hazard for the tee shot on 6 at RMW?
I hope you're kidding. Richard showed me the area where they were going to do some water storage, and I expressed concern over whether it would be in view on #3 or #6. But I haven't seen what they've done, and I didn't know they'd actually done anything.
-
95% kidding. They are not "in play" on 6 but I did hit my tee shot in one.
I am sure once the vegetation has grown they will be less visible and less in play off the tee on 3 and 6 to the extent that they will be rarely noticed.
-
Dwight,
Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.
The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle
Patrick,
I'm aware of the stream and old green site, but, neither, in my opinion, prevent the current iteration from being classified as artificial. I'm also quite sure that the view for a player can be very different from that presented on TV, but just won't prevent me from offering my opinion, otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd never be posting here at all.
-
Eastward Ho!, Oak Hill, Royal Montreal are some of my favs that some might take issue with (maybe not Eastward), and I don't care what anyone says. Three different courses, three awesome courses. Then again, don't care for group think.
My tastes are diverse, but all this minimalism is becoming too much for me to handle.
-
I for one would love to play the Reverse Jans....
SAVE SHIVAS.......
-
Dwight,
Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.
The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle
Patrick,
I'm aware of the stream and old green site, but, neither, in my opinion, prevent the current iteration from being classified as artificial. I'm also quite sure that the view for a player can be very different from that presented on TV, but just won't prevent me from offering my opinion, otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd never be posting here at all.
Dwight,
Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.
In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.
Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.
I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.
-
Dwight,
Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.
In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.
Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.
I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.
I really don't want to be too snarky in my response here, but I can only conclude that you did not actually read the entirety of my previous posts. In this thread, I've posted 3 comments that address ANGC. The first 2 of those comments include the qualification you're looking for and the 3rd is the comment you just replied to:
I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe.
Absolutely based on cameras and not personal experience.
To be honest, I am less worried about 'criticism by being accused of misrepresentation' and am far more worried that criticism directed towards me will be based on an incomplete reading of my comment(s).
-
Dwight,
Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.
In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.
Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.
I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.
I really don't want to be too snarky in my response here, but I can only conclude that you did not actually read the entirety of my previous posts.
I read them in detail.
#'s 54,70, 87, 92 and 96
In this thread, I've posted 3 comments that address ANGC.
The first 2 of those comments include the qualification you're looking for and the 3rd is the comment you just replied to:
That's not true, perhaps you should reread what you type.
In your first response, reply # 54, you make NO mention of ANGC.
I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe.
The excerpt you posted above isn't the entirety of what you wrote.
In the interest of complete disclosure, here's what you wrote.
[/size]
I can see where you're coming from, GJ.
And I do agree that the ponds at ANGC do tend to look quite artificial.
However, I would also argue that is, at least in part, considered a feature by the 'branding' decision makers of the club.
I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe. The grass is too green. The sand is too white. The azaleas are preternaturally colorful. And yes, the ponds are artificial. All this adds up to a course that holds itself more perfect than Nature. I don't say any of this to say I dislike ANGC, merely that it seems like the visibly artificial ponds play into this too-perfect brand.
You will note that you don't state whether or not you've ever played or walked ANGC.
You do reference how you "felt about ANGC as presented via TV", but never informed the reader that your sole exposure to ANGC was via TV
As to your response below, that was only AFTER I asked you if your opinion was based exclusively on what you had seen on TV
Your previous responses, without the qualifier, could have led the reader to believe that you had actually been on site and examined these features.
Absolutely based on cameras and not personal experience.
To be honest, I am less worried about 'criticism by being accused of misrepresentation' and am far more worried that criticism directed towards me will be based on an incomplete reading of my comment(s).
I'd be more worried about adequate or complete disclosure when offering an opinion on a golf course that you've never set foot on, especially since my reading comprehension skills remain rather astute.
-
Patrick,
I feel like we've gone far off track here. I agree that complete disclosure in this area in needed. I felt I had provided this disclosure in my 'Masters via TV' comment, but am sure I provided it when I responded directly to your question. After that happened, you sent the following comment:
Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.
The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle
To which I replied:
I'm aware of the stream and old green site, but, neither, in my opinion, prevent the current iteration from being classified as artificial. I'm also quite sure that the view for a player can be very different from that presented on TV, but just won't prevent me from offering my opinion, otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd never be posting here at all.
Again, remember that at this point I've provided full disclosure on whether I've played ANGC. Your next response:
Dwight,
Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.
In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.
Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.
I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.
Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this? 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done? The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled. Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'. Go figure.
-
"Dwight's post gave me the impression he had played ANGC," said no one ever.
I've got your groupthink right here:
The Dunes Course at The Prairie Club is my second favorite course ever. I have it ahead of Pinehurst No. 2, Crystal Downs, Kingsley, Lawsonia, and plenty of other GCA faves.
Erin Hills is the best public course in Wisconsin.
The Harvester in Iowa is better than Wild Horse in Nebraska. It's close, but clear.
Dormie Club is the worst good course I've ever played. I can't argue that it has a handful of good holes that keep it from being a total loss, but my gut reaction when I think of it is to start drinking.
The Irish course at Whistling Straits is not horrible.
-
Give it up Dwight. You are arguing with someone who reserves the right to consider a previously non-existent pond created artificially by damming a stream as not artificial. Neither the dictionary, nor logic shall he follow. He just gets boring.
-
Give it up Dwight. You are arguing with someone who reserves the right to consider a previously non-existent pond created artificially by damming a stream as not artificial. Neither the dictionary, nor logic shall he follow. He just gets boring.
Garland,
So when a beaver dams a stream, you label the resulting pond as artificial ? ? ?
-
Come on Pat. You know beavers weren't allowed at ANGC when those ponds were built.
-
Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this?
No you didn't.
You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC.
'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done?
The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled.
Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on facts
You offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations.
Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.
When in fact, you never set foot on the property. Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.
I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression.
Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'. Go figure.
Actually, it's easy to figure.
It's called intellectual honesty.
It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.
Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this?
No you didn't.
You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC.
'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done?
The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled.
Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on facts
You offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations.
Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.
When in fact, you never set foot on the property. Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.
I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression.
Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'. Go figure.
Actually, it's easy to figure.
It's called intellectual honesty.
It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.
Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts
You know what, Patrick, you're exactly right. I was trying to mislead people into thinking I played the course when I talked about how it came off on TV. I was really hoping that someone would read my opinion and, in so doing, would fall into my trap of getting them to think I'd played ANGC. Lord knows, whether or not you've played the course is extremely relevant to a comment about how it comes off on TV.
And then I had the temerity to clarify that I had not played it more than 24 LONG hours later. This 24 hour window is key, because it allowed me to properly hoodwink those 'target readers' that I'm desperately hoping now believe I've played ANGC.
Thank you for reminding me, a day after I'd made my clarification, that I should clarify this issue. That was necessary. You saw through my plan to create a 2nd 24 hour 'target reader' window to engage in intellectual dishonesty on those readers that saw my original comment but missed my previous clarification.
I'm now beginning to fully understand how to post here - I should prepare my post, then send it to you, Patrick, to insure that any possible intellectually dishonest inferences that I've slipped in can be weeded out by an objective party. I sincerely apologize for thinking that I could engage in this discussion without meeting your requirements, on your schedule.
In the future, please feel free to make it clear to all that any post of mine not pre-cleared by you is entirely invalid. Thank you for all your assistance, now and in the future.
-
Hecukva post, Dwight. :)
-----
Maybe everyone has the same favorites because they're actually really special courses and places. And maybe not everyone has had the opportunity to find the little gem in the corner of some overseas destination. Not everything is groupthink, regardless of how much everyone loves to throw around the word, on here and elsewhere.
Heck, my two favorite courses in the world are places I haven't even played yet. I know I will someday, and I know they will be special to me, if only because of the individuals and processes involved. They happen to be highly regarded on here - does that make it groupthink? Not bloody likely (said in the worst Jerry Seinfeld/George Costanza impersonating English accents possible)...
-
Dwight,
Did you stay onsite when you played ANGC?
-
Dwight,
Did you stay onsite when you played ANGC?
I lived in the Butler Cabin for all of 2011 and played a pick-up soccer match on the driving range. True story.
-
Dwight,
Welcome to GCA. More particularly, welcome to Pat Mucci's world. It looks from your last posts that you're going to get on just fine....
-
Dwight,
Did you stay onsite when you played ANGC?
I lived in the Butler Cabin for all of 2011 and played a pick-up soccer match on the driving range. True story.
I remember that, but nobody believes me when I say you have one hell of a bicycle kick.
-
Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this?
No you didn't.
You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC.
'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done?
The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled.
Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on facts
You offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations.
Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.
When in fact, you never set foot on the property. Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.
I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression.
Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'. Go figure.
Actually, it's easy to figure.
It's called intellectual honesty.
It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.
Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts
You know what, Patrick, you're exactly right. I was trying to mislead people into thinking I played the course when I talked about how it came off on TV. I was really hoping that someone would read my opinion and, in so doing, would fall into my trap of getting them to think I'd played ANGC. Lord knows, whether or not you've played the course is extremely relevant to a comment about how it comes off on TV.
And then I had the temerity to clarify that I had not played it more than 24 LONG hours later. This 24 hour window is key, because it allowed me to properly hoodwink those 'target readers' that I'm desperately hoping now believe I've played ANGC.
Thank you for reminding me, a day after I'd made my clarification, that I should clarify this issue. That was necessary. You saw through my plan to create a 2nd 24 hour 'target reader' window to engage in intellectual dishonesty on those readers that saw my original comment but missed my previous clarification.
I'm now beginning to fully understand how to post here - I should prepare my post, then send it to you, Patrick, to insure that any possible intellectually dishonest inferences that I've slipped in can be weeded out by an objective party. I sincerely apologize for thinking that I could engage in this discussion without meeting your requirements, on your schedule.
In the future, please feel free to make it clear to all that any post of mine not pre-cleared by you is entirely invalid. Thank you for all your assistance, now and in the future.
Dwight-Nice welcome huh? Pat also demands to the see the birth certificates of 3 three year old's at their birthday party before handing over the present. You can't get em started early enough on the road to intellectual honesty. ;) ;D :o ::)
-
You know what, Patrick, you're exactly right.
I was trying to mislead people into thinking I played the course when I talked about how it came off on TV.
I can't speak to your motives, I can only speak to what you typed.
If you'd reread what you typed, you'll see that you FIRST rendered your opinion and SUBSEQUENTLY went on to talk about how it came off on TV. You never stated that you had never set foot on the property, thus leading people, intentionally or unintentionally, to believe that your opinion might have been based on on-site observations.
I was really hoping that someone would read my opinion and, in so doing, would fall into my trap of getting them to think I'd played ANGC.
Without qualifying your opinion, I'm sure that some felt that you had been on site.
It was ONLY after I asked you, directly, if you had ever been on site, that you qualified your opinion by stating that you had not.
I for one, until you qualified your opinion, didn't know whether or not you had been on site.
Lord knows, whether or not you've played the course is extremely relevant to a comment about how it comes off on TV.
That wasn't the question.
The question wasn't whether or not the ponds looked artificial on TV.
The question was whether or not the ponds looked artificial.
And then I had the temerity to clarify that I had not played it more than 24 LONG hours later.
That's only because I challenged you to qualify your opinion.
You NEVER volunteered that you had never been on site and only informed us of that fact AFTER I asked you directly.
So, let's not pretend that you were candid with your opinion.
This 24 hour window is key, because it allowed me to properly hoodwink those 'target readers' that I'm desperately hoping now believe I've played ANGC.
The 24 hour window has nothing to do with chronology, rather, my response to your opinion which you failed to qualify
Thank you for reminding me, a day after I'd made my clarification, that I should clarify this issue.
I shouldn't have had to remind you.
You, in the interest of intellectual honesty, should have volunteered that information when you rendered your opinion.
That was necessary.
We agree
You saw through my plan to create a 2nd 24 hour 'target reader' window to engage in intellectual dishonesty on those readers that saw my original comment but missed my previous clarification.
Me thinks that "Brutus doth protest too much"
And, there was NO previous clarification.
You never stated, prior to rendering your opinion, that you had never been on site, so don't try to cover up your failure to disclose a material fact.
I'm now beginning to fully understand how to post here - I should prepare my post, then send it to you, Patrick, to insure that any possible intellectually dishonest inferences that I've slipped in can be weeded out by an objective party.
The above sentence would indicate that you don't like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
It would indicate that despite your typed words that you're trying to weasel out of admitting that you should have clarified your opinion by stating that you had never set foot on ANGC and that your opinion was based solely on what you're seen on TV.
Credibility is fact based and the more facts available, the greater one's credibility.
Watching on TV and rendering an opinion, based upon select and limited camera angles is no substitute for on-site inspection.
And, rendering an opinion, without qualifying that you've never been onsite, is misleading at best.
\
I sincerely apologize for thinking that I could engage in this discussion without meeting your requirements, on your schedule.
Since when is honesty and disclosure my requirement ?
I thought it was an inherent responsibility on all who post.
In the future, please feel free to make it clear to all that any post of mine not pre-cleared by you is entirely invalid.
Thank you for all your assistance, now and in the future.
As I stated previously, it would seem that "Brutus doth protest too much"
I asked you to "QUALIFY" your opinion since you failed to do so when you rendered it.
Certainly you wouldn't want to mislead the readers by posturing that you had played and/or walked a golf course when in fact you never set foot on it.
Since you've objected so strenuously to being asked to qualify your opinion, in the future, I will view your posts with a high degree of enlightened suspicion.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" from Hamlet
"Et tu, Brutus?" - Julius Caesar
Both are Shakespeare.
"Brutus doth protest too much." - pure Mucci.
-
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" from Hamlet.
III ii 242
"Et tu, Brutus?" - Julius Caesar
Ib. 82
Both are Shakespeare.
True and cited above
"Brutus doth protest too much." - pure Mucci.
True ;D
And, as usual, Garland offers his typical imput