Defend or deny the following proposition:

[mehendren]

Perhaps the definitive reply to George's question is derived from the lyrics of Jimmy Buffett's Manana:  "Don't try to describe a Kiss concert if you've never seen it.  Don't ever forget that you just might wind up being wrong."  

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh, that's so much poppycock!

I would venture to say that very few people on here have ever seen or played Augusta National, so are the pictures we see via televison discounted in any of us forming and voicing an opinion of the course?

Do I have to drive the ball into the new trees lining the 15th to think that they take away the entire strategy of the hole?

Am I unable to say that the new tees that lengthen 17 to a hole that is inconsistent with its green design have made the hole now just another boring uphill par four?  

Perhaps it would take me hitting a 5-iron approach off an uphill lie to a smallish green on 17 at ANGC for my opinion to have any merit whatsoever!

Puhlease!  I'm not saying that it wouldn't be preferable to have played every course we discuss, but I think anyone should feel free to offer an opinion or impression based on what they SEE, in pictures, on TV, or in person.  

[JP Morgan]

Photos pertaining to a course never played should give the viewer an idea of what to expect, but more importantly serve to raise questions in one's mind that should only be answered with authority once viewed on site.

[mehendren]

Mike

I was preparing a rebuttal by citing the stretch of holes three through five at Augusta National.  When was the last time we saw those on the tube?  Also, I suspect any photo of the third hole would paint it as a relatively benign two-shotter.  These three holes have outstanding green complexes which neither a photo nor sketch would do justice. Then I realized that I was forming that rebuttal without having the benefit of ever played the course, though I have walked it.  I fear I have indicted myself.  Check-mate!  

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I hear you and like the others you make some good points.  But regarding Augusta National, you have to visit that golf course before you can "properly" rate it.  TV does it little justice.  You can't believe some of the elevation changes until you see them in person.  For example, you know the hill on #8 at Lehigh, well triple that climb and you have #18 at Augusta.  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

I would never assume enough knowledge to "rate" a course that I hadn't played.  All along I've said that it is preferable to play a course before offering an opinion, much less some type of offical rating.

However, I also think that people's opinions on course pictures, televison viewing, routing maps, and spectating at tournaments should not be discouraged, but instead add considerably to the discussion here.

By the way, the 18th at Augusta must be one steeply uphill hole!    

mehendren;

I think I'm familiar enough with the front nine as well, as much more "early" play has been shown in recent years, particularly during the first two rounds.  How you would still feel uncertain to offer an opinion after walking the course I don't understand.  Still, I understand your position, but simply disagree.  

[APBernstein]

Mike - I think it adds nothing to the discussion.  How can someone take part in a discussion with a person who has played the course after only seeing a few pictures?  How in the world can anyone justify a debate under those circumstances?

For example, I have only seen pictures of Fishers Island  Am I now permitted to say that the course looks dull and that the scenery is the only thing that keeps this course going?  How is that opinion valid?  It's not...

Andrew

PS: I don't think Fishers Island is dull by any means - I will wait till I play it first  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Like most of us, I have viewed the Masters for many, many years, and have seen Augusta so often that I formed fairly concrete opinions of each hole, and the golf course.

Those opinions changed dramatically after I had played the course a number of times.  
I would have to admit that my previous opinions were based on a limited data base, despite the number of times I viewed the course, as presented by the television cameras.

I was shocked by the elevation changes, the lack of a flat stance, the uncomfortable set up on some tee shots, and the pitch of almost every green.

Some holes that I had perceived as easy, turned out to be harder for me, and some holes I had perceived as hard were easier.

In summary, it was an eye opening experience, and lesson, that you need to see a course first hand to have a more accurate and qualified opinion.

[Mark_Fine]

Patrick,
How about you and I take Mike down to play Augusta so he can see for himself?  You get the tee time and I'll book the plane tickets.  Any date you pick will work for me!!
Mark

[jim_lewis]

Mark and Patrick:

Your comments about AGNC (especially #18) are right on. I will add that #8,9, and 10 are three other holes where you can not posibly appreciate the elevation changes by watching tv. But, to my thinking the most dramatic difference between the tv view and playing(or walking) the course is the huge false front on the 14th green. There are very few greens in golf which have such a severe slope.

I have been quite critical of some posts which critique courses from photos. I have now softened my position somewhat. It is clear that folks will form opinions on courses they have never seen. I doubt that this DG would suffer if they didn't bother to post those opinions. However, all I ask is that the poster acknowledge the limitations of such posts.

It seems to me that it is over the line to judge an architect's complete body of work from photos or other very limited exposure.

Having said that, I will admit to jumping on the Donald Steel bandwagon after playing only one of his courses, Cherokee Plantation.
There is no telling what he could do with an excellent piece of property such as we have here in Pinehurst.

[T_MacWood]

My views on this subject are well known, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to pile on Mike Cerba.

I completely agree with Andrew when he lectures Mike that he has no business involving himself in discussions regarding courses he has not played. Andrew you are wise beyond your years, who cares that Mike is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and reasoned individuals on this site or that he has experiences that include playing between 500 to 600 golf courses -- more than I'll ever play in my life time. He has no business interjecting his perspectives, based on anything other direct personal involvement. I have read extensively about WWII and Adolph Hitler, but who am I to criticize his actions, I never met the man. Likewise I've seen Rev.Farrakhan many times on TV, would I dare come to any conclusions on his person -- for all I know he is a wonderful man. I suggest Mike keep his thoughts in a lockbox.

And Mark Fine brings up a very interesting point, we all need to be very very careful when 'rating' golf courses. We sometimes lose focus that this entire group is made up of official golf course raters ( present company excluded ) and we have certain responsibility to not deviate from our official capacity. And Mark uncovers another new fact, TV flattens out the landscape -- fascinating.

I have had the great pleasure to play many well documented courses after viewing them extensively on TV, Pebble Beach, Harbour Town, Muirfield Village, Westchester, Winged Foot, Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Southern Hills, Cherry Hills, Olympic, Congressional, Shinnecock, Inverness, Firestone and several others -- but I was able to cleanse my mind completely of any preconcieved thoughts as to their nature -- much to my surprise Pebble Beach bordered the ocean. Heaven forbid that Mike take similar experiences and draw well reasoned conclusions.

Finally, I have a confession to make. I was influenced by photographs to do something I'm not very proud of -- render an opinion of golf course before playing it. It was a few years back and was reading Doak's Confidential Guide, the version I had did not have any photos, but his profile and description of a soon to be completed Sand Hills got me truely excited. I don't know what I was thinking and I am now shamed of my imprudent actions. Soon afterward I stumbled upon an article written in Golf World by Ron Whitten in which he also described the soon to be completed course and there were photos! -- I know I am weak but I looked at them. From there things completely unraveled, I had convinced myself that Sand Hills was the greatest course built during my lifetime and I had to see it -- I even shamelessly shared these thoughts with others. I called the club and spoke with the professional, asking if I could play his course, he told me I better wait until it was completed. Foolishly I ignored his suggestion and my better judgement, I found myself in the middle of Nebraska standing on the 1st tee at Sand Hills one week prior to its official opening -- please forgive my weakness and it will never happen again.

Hello. Hello. Is that you Byron?

[George Pazin]

It is interesting to me to again see the same arguments developing on both sides: the defenders of the statement seem to be saying that is okay to add to the discussion of courses through use of pics while those denying the statement seem to say that it is impossible to comment on a course without playing it.

I fail to see how adding to discussion through use of pics harms anyone. No one is saying you can "judge" a course in the sense of rating it through pics, they are simply saying that it provides an opportunity to hopefully add something useful to a discussion. In my own case, I tend to use pics to ask questions, because for me this site is very much a learning experience, not a teaching one. Even in all the (sometimes angry) discussions in the various Rees Jones threads and Austin GC threads, when someone makes an outlandish statement based on pics and is refuted by someone who played the course, I think this adds to the discussion group.

Andrew -

I don't mean to nitpick, but I recall a thread over the summer where you rated the most influential or most important courses since WWII and admitted that you hadn't played all the courses. You were taken to task by many, but I think it was good for you to add to the discussion. How does this differ from discussing a course based on pics?

[APBernstein]

George - You're right, I did do that - And since then I have changed my mind on this subject.  I once thought that you could post a list of most influential courses without having played all of them, however, I see that posting that list is almost counter-productive...

Andrew

[Tom_Doak]

George:  Thank you for noting my approach in The Confidential Guide.  When I had only walked part of the course, I usually did not give it a rating, even if I had a fairly strong opinion of what I'd seen. [If it looked really good, I would have kept walking.] And "gossip" from others was relegated to its own heading.

Since I don't really do my work from plans, I never think about a hole in plan view when we are working on it, and it amazes me to go back and draw it after the fact and see how "plain" some of the best holes look on paper.  Shows how much contour has to do with it.

Somewhere up above someone asked how architects can comment on courses they have in design and the same situation applies:  you just have to consider the source.  I'm amazed at some of the things I read on here about courses which haven't been finished or even started yet.  Everyone is going to build great holes in their dreams!, but the question is to see whether they manage to do it.

I have the same problem in selling myself to clients.  On one job Rees Jones promised the client he could build the best course in New York State; I have too much respect for National and Shinnecock to say that with a straight face!

I was also amazed to see the reaction to the photos posted of Pacific Dunes -- remember, that wasn't me who posted them.  Only a few people in here have walked any of the course; even in construction, though, a lot of the framework of the holes was natural, so they could get some idea.

For the rest of you, there is a good chance that Pacific Dunes isn't as good as it looks in the pictures.  However ... there is also a chance that it's even better.

[George Pazin]

Andrew -

I really respect you for being able to change your opinion - most people are too hard headed to allow for a change - and especially for your desire to remain consistent in your logic.

I guess maybe what I'm trying to say is that I believe there is a distinct difference between "discussing" a course and "judging" or "rating" a course. I would further say that I don't see a problem with discussing a course from photos, but I do agree that it is improper to judge or rate the course from photos. You may or may not have noticed that I rarely if ever post anything regarding ratings or the various top 10s, because my frame of reference is pitifully small - something I hope to correct in the next few years.

Pat -

I understand your point exactly through your description of your experience at Augusta and I would certainly say that your opinions & views would carry more weight with me than a stranger's opinions derived from watching the Masters every year. However, I still think it's okay to discuss Augusta based on TV and/or the vast array of literature.

Tom Doak -

I know what you mean about making bold statements to clients. Most of my friends & workers cringe at how honest I try to be with clients - I just figure it's the best way to ensure everyone is happy with the outcome. Like the rest of the DG, I look forward to playing Pacific Dunes someday - regardless of whether I had seen those photos or not!

[APBernstein]

George - That's a good point and I would like to try to take it a bit farther...

From my experience on this board, when a picture of a course is posted, the comments are very definitive.  Posts that range from "the course looks manufactured" or "those bunkers look silly" are something we may hear (obviously these are just paraphrases from lots of comments).  However, what I would like to see as a compromise would be questions rather than statements.  "Does the course feel manufactured?  Are the bunkers a good fit to the course and do they play as hazards?"   Things of that nature.

I think if there were more questions from the peanut gallery instead of saying a course looks "dull and uninspired" we would be a lot better off as a DISCUSSION group...

Andrew

[Mike_Cirba]

Someday, I hope to be as wise as Tom Paul, who presciently saw the storm clouds gathering, and had the discretion to avoid this thread.

Until then, and since I seem to be waist-deep in this thing, I would only add that I heartily concur with George Pazin's last couple of summary posts here, and I'll leave it at that.  By the way, George, thanks bunches for starting this thread!  

Tom MacWood....thanks for the very kind words.  I do appreciate them.

Finally, let's get back to having fun and comradeship around here.  There has been way too much of a judicial inquiry tone in the country and on this board as of late.  My apologies to all for any contribution I may have made to this situation.  

[Rich Skyzinski]

It is very easy. I have been writing the great golf hole feature for the past 6 years in the Golf Journal without visiting a single one. Hey I do not even play golf, and I am not joking.

[George Pazin]

Excellent points one & all, especially the last couple by Andrew & Mike.

You may now put down your pencils and resume discussing actual golf courses!

[George Pazin]

Matt Ward -

Just wanted to show that we've had the photo debate before...