[David Wigler]

Tom,

I wish I could compare the course of twenty years ago to today but Sunday was the first time I played it.  Gib has told me that they have done significant tree reductions to eliminate the canopy.  You really need to get out there again.  I can understand how a canopy would have made it unplayable.  Today it is really special.

With a wife, two kids, and a demanding job, twice a week is the maximum I can play golf.  Any course three times a week would be a dream but it isn't realistic at this point in my life.

Ran,

I found all sorts of collection areas.  The majority of holes went downhill from the tee and then had slight rises to the green.  My high fade approaches kept coming up short and left.  As a good sand player and a mediocre chipper (Especially in February) I was wishing there was more sand.

[THuckaby2]

Tom,

With a wife, two kids, and a demanding job, twice a week is the maximum I can play golf.  Any course three times a week would be a dream but it isn't realistic at this point in my life.

Twice a week with all that?  You are MY HERO, David Wigler!

TH

[Joel_Stewart]

Scott:
Its a novel idea, one that I haven't ever considered.  I like the green complex, that green can get really fast.

For the open its a tough driving hole, the fairway is hard and fast and with the slope, they make the pros hit a high draw to hold it on the fairway.    

[Kevin_Reilly]

Scott:
Its a novel idea, one that I haven't ever considered.  I like the green complex, that green can get really fast.  

Scott = Kevin?

[Joel_Stewart]

Kevin:
Sorry, I apoligize...   I had an email from another member today and he said he liked your idea.  It doesn't mean anything but it is a good idea.

Nobody responded about the similarities between 13 and 15. Whats your thought?

[TJSturges]

What an interesting discussion.  I am late getting into this thread, but I find it very interesting.  Obviously, it is difficult to be unbiased when evaluating one's "home" course.  I have not been to Olympic since 1998,  and after reading Gib's praise/criticism section of the course, I feel  certain I
would benefit from a return visit.  I would definitely like to see it  again. Thank you Gib for sharing your views on what is great about the course as well as what you feel the course lacks. I thought it was very insightful.  

I must admit that when I first read the post from Joel Stewart that  said it was laughable to put Olympic in the 20-30 range (rankings of US courses  I assume), I thought he was saying that it should be placed lower (I was  not aware he was a member, and 20-30 would seem a bit high to me).  I liked
Olympic a great deal, and I grade the course with an "8" on the Doak  scale (I don't like to rank 1-100), which would place the course in the  company of courses in the lower half of the top 50 in the US.  I know it is  unpopular
on this site to point out a course one feels is "overrated" (especially  with that club's members).  This is understandable.  I was nearly tarred and feathered for similar comments I made last summer about Turnberry.  The
Turnberry debate was interesting to me because I got lots of comments  on how great the course was (and how wrong I was), but I got very little in the  way of specific architectural praise of the course to support everyone's high
ranking of Turnberry (other than the fact that there is a really cool lighthouse there, and a 5 star hotel at the top of the hill).  But this  site is all about debating - discussing - and learning.  Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.  All us idiots are entitled to our own opinion.  

To Joel Stewart:

1.  Don't lose your sense of humor man!  This site is supposed to be  fun! (Being a GD Panelist, you've GOT to have a sense of humor!)

2.  I'd like to get you to expound upon your earlier comments that  comparing US Open Championship venues to courses like NGLA and Fishers Island is like comparing apples to oranges.  What do you mean by this?  I have to  agree
with Golf's Most Loved Figure on a key point used in comparing courses.  At the end of the day, WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER PLAY?  For me, choosing between
playing a round at Fishers Island and playing a round at the very fine Olympic Club would not be a tough decision (I would choose Fishers....and it wouldn't make a difference to me what Hogan, Fleck, Stewart or Simpson shot in their final round at either course).  

3.  I remember comments you made last year where you expressed some dislike for Lost Dunes.  I also give lost Dunes a Doak "8" (I'm also a member there).  For me, this would put both Olympic and Lost Dunes in the  company
of courses that occupy the home of the 40-60th ranked courses in the  US. Obviously the courses are completely different.  In comparing them, I would have to go back to the "where would you rather play" axiom.  I would  lean
toward Lost Dunes in that assessment, but I would be very close for me. How would you compare those two courses?  Besides the fact that one course
has hosted major championships, what about the course's architectural features would cause you to rate one above the other?   It sounds like both  courses share one thing in common and that is the fact that both play too soft
much of the time (your view of LD might be higher if the course is playing  firm and fast).  

Your thoughts?

TS

[Ran Morrissett]

I like 13th a lot more than the 15th (but I do think it's a shame they come so close together in the round).

The 13th's threatening front bunker with its high lip, the fact that you can't miss the ball right, the fact that a ball missed left could bounce well away from the green - all in all, it makes for a very exacting target.

I don't consider the 13th strategic (I would always aim for the middle of the green) but it does a very fine job of identifying who is striking the ball well.

[Kevin_Reilly]

13th and 15th....

I never thought of them as twins.  Before the Weiskopf changes to 15 I used to think of 8 and 15 as too similar.  I used the same club on both, both had an imposing front bunker, both greens were blind.  Both tee shots were "framed" by trees. The only difference was the fact that there was a slight prevailing breeze from the right on the 15th, while on the 8th it was sheltered, but if anything the breeze was in your face. And of course the 8th is uphill.

Now with the changes to 15, it plays a bit longer than 8 so you don't often hit the same club.  With the trees around the green uprooted, the 15th green doesn't look anything like 8.  I won't go into the contours on 15 that are unlike anything on the entire property.  Well maybe the 2nd hole on the Cliffs.

13 for me has always been one club at least longer than 15, so that isn't a point of similarity.  The green on 13 is very long, much longer than 15.  The front bunker is similar, but it was always shallower than the front bunker on 15 especially back in the 80s when the bunker on 15 got steeper and steeper. It was flattened some time in the 90s.

On an earlier thread I listed my "so so" holes on the Lake, and unfortunately 8, 13 and 15 are all included. Kind of unusual that 75% of the par 3s on the course make the list.

8 has a nice green, but it is such a big green that it is really hard to miss with a short iron in your hand.  As Gib points out the back bunker is merely ornamental.  The hole to me is actually easier now that the right side bunkers are in play (because the trees were cut back).  It used to be that if you went right your shot was knocked back, often into the front bunker.  Now you end up in a relatively benign bunker.

13 is a little too "narrow" up at the green to my eyes.  Shots to the right end up in the easy right bunker (knocked down by the grove of trees), while shots to the left which should end up in the drink get knocked down by the trees.  

15, is charitably   a work in progress. Maybe it would be more interesting if the green were shallower, and not as bunkered.  A small target to aim at, with more of the target in sight, and poor shots left with tricky recovery shots.  The front bunker is challenging, but the others less so.

Anyway the above comments are just nits and nats.  My real passion is the 17th.

[Larry Beisel]

Ted - I'm sure belonging to any club which could arguably be a "top 100" or 8+ tends to cloud one's view on that particular course, just as an initial assessment can be clouded by a bad round or inflated by a good round. I'm like you - Reputation may lead me to want to play a great course (An Open is obviously someone's endorsement for the merits of a course ) but at the end of the day it's where you enjoy the game to me.
Joel - I hope you're wrong about the "top 10". I fail to see how who wins a tournament at a given venue reflects on its merits as a golf course.

[Gib_Papazian]

Larry,

Between the two threads, this is a subject with far more legs than I anticipated.

Your doubt that the winner of a tournament effects the overall visceral impression of raters and the general public sounds like a well reasoned statement if the analysis is done in a weightless vacuum.

But that ain't always the way it goes.

One of the criticisms I have read and heard over the years by those who wish to disparage the Winged O - and this even includes our resident genius - focuses on the winners of the various events over the years as "proof" that the golf course does not identify the best player, and is therefore less-than.

Jack Fleck, Billy Casper (as if he wasn't one of the greatest of all time), Nate Crosby, Scott Simpson, Jim Gallagher, Mark Whazhisname and that boring quiet guy who won at Baltusrol . . . . . .

"The Lake course rewards plodders not players . . . . blah blah blah, if it was a great course it would produce great champions . . . . yadda yadda yadda."

Feces. But that nonsense get spewed more often than not by people who have played it once and just don't get it. It effects their impression of the course because it lacks that feeling of walking through the footsteps of history and more like a hike through the rubble of a horrible train wreck where the hero dies in the end and the maiden runs off with the villain.

That part is true, and the membership knows it. If you want to pick out who wins a tournament out there (okay, the 1959 Am was a fluke), just poll the crowd who they are rooting for and bet the farm on the underdog.

I don't think Scott Simpson even got an interview after the third round in 1987.

Nobody - not even the Armenian - is perfectly objective. Movies with happy endings are more popular amongst the masses, and that includes raters. Ordinary People was one of the 5 best movies I ever saw, but you never hear about it anymore do you? And it won Best Picture. Why? Because it wasn't a feel-good movie.

Olympic killed Arnold Palmer. And Tom Watson. Norman got it through self-inflicted wounds on 16 and 18. Mark McCumber stuck it to Fuzzy with a 50 foot putt . . . . when it went down you could hear a pin drop. Payne Stewart's march to victory was interrupted again by his nemesis - at least he came back at Pinehurst. What a horrible story. Even Nate Crosby, a nice guy who I played high school golf with, is looked upon as a curiosity and fluke. The field in 1981 was astoundingly strong.

But all the winners had one thing in common: PATIENCE.

With the exception of Stewart - and maybe Hogan - everyone else went down because they attacked instead of playing thoughtfully. Nate Crosby was not even the best player in our high school league, but he got every single drop out of his talent and won that championship because of brains and poise. Arnie lost because of arrogance.

So maybe Olympic does not identify the best ball striker or putter, but I guarantee you it rewards the clearest thinker - and that makes it unique.

However, the cumulative effect of all those popular stars finishing 2nd takes it toll on the perception of a golf course as a venue - and hence its perceived worthyness as a golf course when compared to other sites of majors.

Tell me I am wrong.

[Gib_Papazian]

P.S.: It has come to my attention that the aforementioned "Resident Genius" appeared to be a reference to Brains Goodale.

Mea Culpa!

It was intended to gently needle the gentleman responsible for a certain well received new golf course on the Oregon Coast.

[TJSturges]

Gib,

Tiger is clearly the best player of our time.  He won one of the most exciting tournaments ever at a golf course in Kentucky.  Does your argument suggest that Valhalla is a "great" golf course because it produced the "right" champion?

[Gib_Papazian]

Ted,

Huh?

No, I am suggesting that the entire theory about adjudging the quality of a golf course by the major champions it produces is not relevant at all! Maybe I am losing my abiliy to commmunicate.

All those stars who finished 2nd at Olympic did so because they failed to grasp that the Lake's biggest defense against great players is its apparent simplicity. It looks like you can attack it . . . . . . therein lies the genius of the golf course.

Most of those guys went down in flames because swashbuckling bravado only works out there for a short time.

Eventually, you make a little mistake. . . . . and then press a bit because the next hole looks vulnerable . . . . . . next thing you know, there is a string of bogeys on the card and it is awfully hard to stop the bleeding on that course because it is unrelenting. You can right your ship with a string of pars, but the minute you press for birdie instead of patiently picking away at the course, you are dead.

Somehow, the greatest players in the world could not see that and the gravestones are everywhere.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Gib
Why can't you compare Olympic to Fishers Island or the NGLA architecturally? Isn't that what Golf Digest, Golf and GolfWeek does with every ranking?

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,

Is there anywhere on this thread I stated that you cannot compare them? All I wrote is that it makes my Top 10 - in the same way that Doak's 31 Flavors tries to include a few different styles.

I do not want to start the wheel going again on ratings because it is a circular discussion with no end.

Yes, I rate courses 1-10, but have to agree that in many respects, comparing Olympic to Fishers Island is like trying to Bette Davis and Ginger Rodgers. They both were in movies but making a definitive comparison is a fool's quest. We try, but the entire process is still theoretical.

Yes, we must rate, but assigning a number to a golf course is one thing as long as they are similar (Oliver vs. Sound of Music for instance), but how can you REALLY compare Bridge on the River Kwai to Annie Hall? Mozart to the Rolling Stones?

I do it . . . . . we all do - AND IT MAKES FOR GREAT FUN. But in the back of my mind I know it is only opinion and not fact. When I say a few changes on the Lake course may put it back in the Top 10 Classic list, it is only that I believe fixing the flaws so it is presented as the best it can be would elevate it.

Maybe, because golf courses come in so many shapes and sizes, we tend to rate their flaws more than their strengths. Does Fishers Island - in its particular genre - have more or less flaws than Riviera in its?

Interesting, at least to me. Maybe the winners are those which express their genre or style better than the rest.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Gib
When Ran asked you to compare the relative qualities of Garden City, Fishers Island,Yale, Kapalua and Pacific Dunes to Olympic, and why you felt Olympic was superior (in your top 10, with others rated behind it) you seemed to avoid any direct comparison by explaining that of 'your ten favorite eateries and the list had seven Chinese restaurants on it, I would have no doubt what your favorite kind of food is, but your taste would seem a bit narrow.' And that you have more room in my tent for all sorts of golf courses and do not feel wedded to one particular style. 'When I assemble my personal top ten, I feel like there needs to be diversity....NGLA, Piping Rock, Creek and Fishers Island all serve different recipes of Sweet and Sour Redan or Moo Shoo Biarritz, but my list of fav’s has to also include a steakhouse, sushi bar, California Cuisine and Pacific Rim fusion restaurant.....The point is that your subjective comparisons are silly. Nobody is seriously going to state that Olympic Lake is one of the best ten courses in America because as a total package, there are at least ten I can think of with more content.'

'But for purity of challenge with strategies nearly unique to the Lake, it makes my list in the same way that the Grateful Dead occupy a revered spot on my music selections. Yes, the Beatles and Stones are better by an absolute measuring stick of popular opinion, but to my taste, “Sugar Magnolia” speaks to me more than “I Wanna Hold Your Hand.” '

His question was pretty simple, why do you place Olympic in the top 10 and the others behind it. Your beautifully written and colorful response did not address his question. I assumed because you avoided the comparison - perhaps incorrectly - that you felt it was impossible to compare those five courses to Olympic and you pretty much said that when you said 'subjective comparisons are silly.' If they are silly why do it at all, why even give a course a numeric rating? If you can not compare Bette Davis to Ginger Rogers, Motzart to the Rolling Stones, Kwai to Annie Hall - why do you make an exception for golf courses?

Of course your evaluation is an opinion, but I take it an opinion based on some personal logic/reasoning and is in fact a comparison to other golf courses. No one is claiming your opinion, or anyone's opinion is fact, Ran was simply ask you to explain your opinion/logic in elevating Olympic above Garden City, Fishers Island, Yale, Kapalua and Pacific Dunes.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Since Olympic is currently being discussed, and Tom MacWood's question never got answered, I thought this thread should resurface.

[JakaB]

Charles Bukowski could best answer Macwood's ridiculous quandry through these thoughts...

we are always asked
to understand the other person's
viewpoint
no matter how
out-dated foolish or
obnoxious.  

one is asked
to view
their total error
their life-waste
with
kindliness,
especially if they are
aged.  

but age is the total of
our doing.
they have aged
badly
because the have
lived
out of focus,
they have refused to
see.  

not their fault?  

whose fault?
mine?  
I am asked to hide
my viewpoint
from them
for fear of their
fear.  

age is no crime

but the shame
of a deliberately
wasted
life

among so many
deliberately
wasted
lives

is.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Well, I guess that answers the question.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()