Coach Naccarato
I'm from Texas and we're generally a friendly, courteous and straight speaking folk. But,I have not appreciated the personal insults thrown my way because of tiny comments about details that I'd change at Friar's Head. It's a game and a piece of dirt for god's sake!
I thought golf was a gentlemanly sport, but this has not been.
(By the way--you have a connection to Friar's Head?
)
As for the straight speaking part, I must admit that your views of what constitutes good golf architecture and mine are widely divergent. To each his own, and I'll keep mine!
Here's why! Your insulting advice to learn something about Golf Architecture from a book, your vitriol for Golf Digest raters (Hundreds of good players), your criticism of reknowned golf architects, and of course, of me, have left me , and I'm sure many others, laughing!
And thanks for lumping me into such expert and esteemed company during your neotenic rant- I'm honored.
Concerning your suggested reading exercise,I contend that anyone might learn about the history of Golf Architecture from a book, but nobody can become an expert (and certainly not knowledgeable enough to pretend to be an expert) in what constitutes a good golf course unless you are (1) a pretty good player, or (2) have practiced Golf Architecture successfully.
So let's examine those qualifying points!
Of course, we can eliminate #2, the successful architect part, for you, immediately.
As far as #1, playing ability goes, lets have a little test:
(1) Are you a scratch, or at least, a low handicap player? Have you ever been?
(2) Can you consistently carry your tee shots, say, 270 yds? even 260 yds?
(3) Can you carry your 5 iron, say, 200 yds? even 190 yds?
(4) Can you move the ball left, right, up and down at will?
(5) Can you spin your irons and wedges and play soft low spinning shots at will?
Do you qualify?
Well, I can do all of the above and I learn about design by playing rather well at times. We know that you are not a successful architect, nor can you play a lick, so, you cannot possibly have a complete appreciation for good playable design. To pretend otherwise would be akin to believing that a 5 ft guy could write a book about center play strategy in the NBA. If you think otherwise, please write a book and try to get it published--a hacker's treatise on Golf Course Architecture.
Also, I can guarantee you that I never enjoyed "having my ass kicked" by a golf course in my life.(Yet another tip off about your game I'm afraid--as is advice to "shoot at every pin"!)
I'm being as polite as I can when I say that you are extremely presumptuous to insult Golf Digest panelists, Golf Architects or me about what is or isn't good, playable design. You have no valid point of reference to qualify as an expert. (I'm sorry for the paradigm shift concerning your self assured knowledge but remember, I said plain speaking).
We all known that architects hit a lot of practice shots during course construction. They often enlist professionals to do the same as a test of the design's playability. But, of course, you are aware of this with your vast golf history expertise. When is the last time a good architect tested playability of a course based solely on practice shots and opinions of a hacker?
Expressing opinions openly is what the forum should be about, but, as far as insults are concerned, save them for your hacker buddies because IMHO you don't have a clue.
Lastly, and sadly, I'm not a Golf Digest rater, but I do aspire to qualify one day. I must apologise to them for being the catalyst responsible for the childish insults hurled their way with no basis in fact or knowledge.