TOC 18th--defenseless

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,
I am sure my answer to your question will be dismissed as unfair bashing by a minimalist (whatever that is.)   So be it.  

But first, lets put to rest this fantasy you've created about your true motivations for making the change . . .   You claim to care not about high scores, but rather with strategy.  Strategy?   I almost laughed out-loud every time I read this.  In reality you are playing your usual role-- pencil pusher in disguise.  While you may not care about the total score, if any given hole cant produce a big number then you dont like it, not one bit.
 
Let's review your first explanation for wanting to add the pot bunker . . .

. . . But as it is right now, even if the player completely butchers the Valley of Sin, he still walks away with par.
Did ANYBODY bogey the hole this weekend?  Anybody?
What the hell kind of golf hole is that if nobody ever bogeys it?  
Wait, stop reverse that....I know what kind of hole that is....
...
...
Moriarity's kind of hole!!
(Ijust checked the numbers -- 5 bogeys on Th and Fri; 4 on Sat and Sun.   Oooooh, I'm petrified.....)
C'mon, how can anybody defend a hole like this as a legitimate end to the Open Championship.  Yes, eagles and birdies are possible......but by that standard, you could hold the Open Championship at the Jans National!
Actually, now that I think about it, #18 at the Jans National would make for a more interesting finisher than #18 at TOC for purposes of an Open Championship.  It's about 240, par 4 with a tiny raised green.  YOu'd probably see more eagles and bogeys pn #18 at The Jans than on Old Tom Morris.

There we have it.  Set aside your rhetorical fluctuations, and your logic boils down to this:   If they dont bogey a lot, you must build a pot.

You got one thing right.   I havent played it, but it does seem like my kind of hole.   Of course Riviera No. 10 doesnt really produce many bogeys (or eagles either), and that too seems like my kind of hole.  I guess we should change it as well.
_____________________________

Now, as to your question, it has already been answered, many times, by Brian G. and others.  But you dismiss every answer or alter the question.  NOTE TO OTHERS:  When Shivas calls your response a non-answer, it means it is a good answer he'd rather not take on.

But lets set this aside the larger issue of the hole's greatness and focus on solely strategy.
........................................

My response in Shivasland:   Putting in a pot bunker to make the hole strategic would be absolutely futile, this concept of strategy in golf is a fabrication created by people who want to be able to hit it anywhere and still be in the hole.  Golf is about execution, not strategy.
..........................................

My response in the real world:  You state that what makes TOC great is the "strategic line picking," but claim that their is no line picking on TOC 18.  

From the looks of it on t.v., three features combine to make this hole strategic, with line picking galore.  The three features (viewed together) are:  1) the out of bounds left and long; 2) the shape and contours of the green; and 3) the contouring around the green.  

The green is wide and shallow, except at the far right, where it is at its deepest.   This far right portion also has more uniform contours, creating the smoothest approach on the second shot or drive.  But to get the ball here one must flirt with the out of bounds right.  

Now, you do try to summarily dismiss the out of bounds right with your flippant comment:  

It's the lack of strategic choices on the hole.

...unless, of course every hole with OB right is "strategic" because there is a play away from the OB and a play toward it.

Well Shivas, I've got news for you.  Sometimes an out of bounds/hazard line can go a long ways toward creating strategic options on the hole, so long as there are consequences from playing away from the out of bounds.

There are consequences of going left here.  The valley of sin, the acute angle into the green, the extremely difficult up and down/ two putt, etc.  

Like it or not, that is strategy at its most basic.  Take the safe route on the tee, and be faced with a more difficult next shot.  

The contours short and left make it a tough putt or chip, and the OB right and long pushes the timid golfer toward those contours.

Now, these points have been raised before, and you've dismissed them.  Let's look at how. . .

First, you apparently dont consider a shot hit with a putter a rreal golf shot.  If the safe route leaves you with a difficult putt, rather than a difficult approach, then it doesnt count as strategy to you.  How convenient.  

Second, we are back your score-card mentality.   Never mind that a par pales in comparison to an eagle, if bogey isnt in play then it just doesnt count as strategy to you.      

If most the golfers end up with putts for either eagle or birdie after their drive, then to you it is not strategic.  You need bogeys.  Bogeys, Bogeys, Bogeys. BOGEYS.  You just wont consider that some eagle and birdie putts are much easier or harder than others.  

Consider your comments above, about how there just arent enough bogeys on this hole.  

Plus consider these comments . . .

The bunker would cause top players to actually aim at the green.  For all we know, the bunker would cause MORE eagles and birdies, not fewer.  But it would also add the possibility of bogey or worse to the hole. . . .

or how about this one . . .

Is the defense of the strategic merit of the hole the fact that no matter who you are or what you do or how you play it, you're possibly, maybe, kinda, sorta, if everything goes wrong, in danger of maybe possibly making a ..... 4?

Gimme a break.  Frankly, your honor, the prosecution rests based on the exact same words.... I think they speak for themselves.  The 18th is a a strategic test only if your definition of strategic test a hole where no matter what you do, no matter how badly you butcher it, you're never in danger of making 5, and no matter what you do, you are still likely to have a putt for 3.  

Great litmus test for strategic merit.  I can't wait to whip this out at some point in the future to remind everybody of ...

Leaving aside the bit about "now matter who you are" (crappy players bring all sorts of numbers into play) the answer is YES:   This hole is strategic because if you hit it on too safe a line, then there is a good chance you end up making a par; while those that those that hit it on a better line have a good chance of making birdie or even eagle.  

Until you can come to grips with the fact that four is worse than two (even three) even on a par four, then you wont understand the strategy of this hole or many other great holes.  Riviera No. 10 for instance.  

[George Pazin]

Pretty solid arguments from DaveM. Only minor quibble from me is that plenty of tour pros bogey the 10th at Riviera. Some do even worse.

Other than that, solid.

[DMoriarty]

Pretty solid arguments from DaveM. Only minor quibble from me is that plenty of tour pros bogey the 10th at Riviera. Some do even worse.

Other than that, solid.

Not that it matters for this discussion, but . . .

In 2004 (the last real tournament) at Riviera, over 90% (399/442) parred or birdied No 10.  Less than 8.5% bogeyed No. 10 (37/442.)   Less than 0.7 % eagled, the same amount doubled or worse (3/442.)

Eagles:    3  (0.68 %)
Birdies: 134  (30.32 %)
Pars:    265  (59.95 %)
Bogeys:  37  (8.37 %)
Doubles:  2  (0.45 %)
Others:    1  (0.23 %)

[Rick Shefchik]

David -- Let me ask you, or anyone else who cares to weigh in, this question:

If #18 always had a pot bunker where Shivas proposes one, would you advocate removing it? Would it make #18 a better hole? Or would you leave the bunker where it is, because this is The Old Course, and whatever is there should stay there, and whatever isn't there should never be added?

[George Pazin]

No fair introducing facts.

[Brent Hutto]

If #18 always had a pot bunker where Shivas proposes one, would you advocate removing it? Would it make #18 a better hole? Or would you leave the bunker where it is, because this is The Old Course, and whatever is there should stay there, and whatever isn't there should never be added?

I'll take a shot at this one. If the eighteenth at TOC had a pot bunker down the left side somewhere I would not advocate removing it. I'd leave it as is because this is the old course but I would not say "should never be added" because I'm not quite an aboslutists on these sorts of questions.

It's not clear to me whether eighteeen with the Shivas bunker would be a better hole than the actual eighteenth or not. Probably each version would make a fine finishing hole and would certainly be preferable to the finishing holes at some other major championship venues.

What is clear to me is that the current eighteenth and Shivas's version are very different holes. Given the unique historical position of the Old Course, it's completely preposterous to do something that totally changes a hole unless the new version is clearly better across the board, hands down, no question. Not surprisingly, there aren't many clearly superior changes you can make to TOC...that's a high standard that we wouldn't expect to be met very often.

[DMoriarty]

David -- Let me ask you, or anyone else who cares to weigh in, this question:

If #18 always had a pot bunker where Shivas proposes one, would you advocate removing it? Would it make #18 a better hole? Or would you leave the bunker where it is, because this is The Old Course, and whatever is there should stay there, and whatever isn't there should never be added

You load up my possible answers to where I really cant answer within the constraints you set . . . For example, I wouldnt go so far as to say that ". . . because this is The Old Course, [] whatever is there should stay there, and whatever isn't there should never be added?"

That being said, I would view it as an extreme act of arrogance to ignore hundreds of years of history, tradition, and success to start trying to tweak TOC to make it fit into what one generation thinks might be a little better.  So I would have a strong inclination to leave it be, absent an overwhelming reason to alter it, even if I thought it would be better (and fit in better with the rest of the course) without the bunker.  Shivas has not offered anything near an overwhelming reason to alter the current.

Let me put it this way, if someone asked for my advice (not likely) on how to build a great short par four along the edge of an O.B,  I'd be much more likely to encourage a hole which resembles the current TOC 18, rather than the modified-by-Shivas version.    I believe it is probably a better hole without the shivas-bunker.    I prefer holes where the options and dangers aren't quite spelled out for the golfer.  Subtlety over obviousness.   I also prefer ground movement as a feature over bunkers.

[DMoriarty]

Once again, Shivas tries to outright dismiss an answer without really addressing it.   Because he cant convincingly answer.  Because he is wrong.

Wrong, George, these are BS arguments premised on (false) name calling and nonsensical drivel.  They don't address the major issue in the thread:  would the hole be better with a pot bunker than without?

Yet another new question.  First it was the hole was not a great or even a good hole.  Then it was that it didnt produce enough bogeys.  Then it was it wasnt strategic enough.  Now it may be strategic but the crux is that his hole better, despite the merits of the current.

The existing hole is better because it is more subtle, more natural, more in line with the course in its entirety, more consistent with history and tradition,  elegant in its simplicity.   Beautifully ironic in that it is able to dupe the modern golfer into thinking that it is a nothing hole rather than one which requires both thought and perfect execution.  And a little luck.

The don't address the fact that 2 players who chose totally different lines all day chose (just like virtually every player before them) the exact same line.

First, the last group did not play the same line all day before No. 18.  Even if they had, the fact that they ended up in the same spot on one hole proves absolutely nothing.  They might have made the same choice on the last (remember one of tigers usual strategies (pounding it long) was not available here) or one might have missed.   Surely you are not trying to change the 18th at TOC because two balls ended next to each other?  

Second, whatever they did I watched carefully and I saw golfers trying lots of different lines, with varying degrees of success.    Of course certain pins narrow the realm of options these guys might try, but so it goes on a strategic hole with a huge green.  

They rely on nonsense like "scorecard mentality", when in fact, I rarely if ever even keep score, which makes the pencil pusher really funny, since I rarely use one.  They go into goofytalk like " if any given hole cant produce a big number then you dont like it, not one bit". ...

You are the guy who repeatedly dismisses the hole outright because it doesnt produce enough bogeys.  Pencil in hand or not, sounds like a guy overly concerned with score to me.  

and this comes from the guy who fought me for about 3 days about how the tee shot on #13 at ANGC was strategic primarily because of the risk of big numbers!!

A total mischaracterization-- another Shivas trick when he has no real argument.   ANGC 13 is strategic because the golfer has choices (one example: cut the corner left off the tee, or lay out right) and these choices have real consequences on the next shot (better angle and stance, or more difficult shot angle and stance)

(It couldn't have been the number of LOW numbers, because as we all remember, DaveM went to great lengths to prove how few eagles there actually have been on #13 in recent years.)

There you go with scorecard mentality again!  It isnt the numbers, high or low, but the options.  The hole changed-- tougher angle so tougher to carry left, so harder second shots for most the field-- so golfers had less of an option to set up an easier second.  

This is, in essence, the exact same argument.  If there are so many damn lines to be picked, why does everybody pick the exact same one?  What's so strategic about that?

It is not the same argument.  In the ANGC argument, you tried to use Augusta 13 to prove strategy was a fiction.  Now you want to build bunkers in the name of the aforesaid "fictional" strategy.

But even if it was the same argument, you are still wrong.  Golfers at Augusta No. 13 did have choices off the tee, and golfers did choose various lines of play.   They said it, the writers said it, the designers said it, those that have played there said it.  You are the only one with the fantasy that everyone always plays the same line and shot.  

Same goes here.  They did not all play the same line or shot, not even close.   Sure not many tried to hit right of any pin, but many did try to hit at it.  Other went varying degrees of short and left.  

The question wasn't answered with respect to #13 at ANGC and it wasn't answered with respect to #18 at TOC.

It's been answered, you just dont like admitting you are wrong.

[PThomas]

sorry to report Shiv, but my wife, who is also a golfer, says no bunker either

[George Pazin]

That's a clever quip, but really, subtlety versus obviousness is an ongoing battle on this site.

Consider the following positions on the 18th fairway:


B                                     A
                               P
                  C                       D
                                  E


                                       L
A = ball on green
B = left bailout
C,D = short left bailout, short straight bailout
P = proposed pot bunker
L = layup

Now, those of us who favor subtlety and no bunker would (probably) argue that there is a continuum of sorts of possible outcomes, where generally closer shots will yield generally better chances for birdie. But maybe, with the ground contours the way they are, E would yield an easier putt for eagle/birdie than B or C. Without the bunker, it's admittedly tough to discern this spot, so the player who chooses not to think might simply blast it over to B.

Adding the bunker would likely cause the hole to play more "fair" as defined by Tour pros. It would push outcomes to a greater certainty. Much more likely to bogey out of the bunker, much more likely to play to specific areas that yield specific results. In short, rather than seeing a wide dispersion of shots and a more narrow range of scoring, centered around birdie or par, with the occasional eagle and the rare bogey, you're more likely to see tighter groupings of shots, certainly more pars and bogeys and higher, due to having a pot bunker and possibly being in it or directly behind it.

Better hole? Maybe, depends on what you like. I like seeing those different putts from all over the place. I like seeing a lot of guys go for the green. So I would probably prefer the current setup. You might prefer seeing more guys struggle with a tough bunker shot and have to look at bogey or even worse. I'd submit to you that we would see a lot more dictated play at the end of the tournament, depending on people's scores. A lot more forced  layups by guys who need to take bogey out of the equation.

So I'd say it's debatable at best whether or not it's a better hole. I prefer subtlety and seeing the skill involved with a 50 yard putt, others might prefer something else. More importantly, it is in fact The Old Course, the most natural course on the planet, and I would like to see it remain largely intact and unchanged. I don't want the next Captain to say, gee, we tried out a bunker on 18, why not plop one to the left of 1 to tighten up that approach a little? Or short left of the wee burn to tighten up that drive?

[DMoriarty]

More drivel.

I"m wrong because Dave M says I'm wrong and thus, now that I'm wrong because DaveM says I'm wrong, I just don't like it.

Huh?

No . . . you are wrong for the many reasons discussed above.  And Yes, you dont like being wrong, and you especially dont like when I point this out.

Dave, you're the one espousing fiction.  You're the one who is making up multiple lines of play on #13.  We all watched the tournament.  We saw what we saw.  Everybody hit driver (long guys hit 3 wood) and to a man, they all tried to bend it around the corner.  By the way, Dave, I never said 13 at ANGC is not strategic -- I said the tee shot is not strategic. The rest of the hole is highly strategic.  On that we can agree.

We've covered this before.   Everyone:  players, designers, announcers, commentators, MacKenzie, Bobby Jones, spectators, those who have played the course, all agree that there were options off that tee.  Except you. You dismiss every ball right as a miss, and it just aint so.   But this is a distraction.  

And just like 13 at ANGC, at TOC, everybody except Vijay played to the left edge of the 18th green.  Dems da facts.  THey are indisputable.  All these supposed possible theoretical lines of play that exist mean absolutely nothing if nobody ever plays them.  Nothing.  

With the exception of a bit I havent got to yet, I watched the entire televised tournament.  And I disagree.   The different lines are subtle, but they exist.  They exist more the further the pin is to the right. Even you acknowledge earlier that those that are happy with par bail out.  

I wasn't the one who whipped out the scoring stats on the hole - it was YOU.  If anybody is concerned with scoring, it's you.

I did not whip out scoring stats with this hole.  I have no idea what they are.  Those stats are for Riviera, a response to a completely tangential post.  

Where exactly do I say the hole is not great and not even good?  You'll also notice that I referred to options in this very first post.

Your starting to get positively TEPaulian in your posts-- you post so much even you cant remember what you said.  From your post where you threw down you big challenge my bolds:  

"Pitch me.  Tell me what's so great about the existing hole.  Tell me how the 18th is the result of the brilliance of a master architect and how fiddling with it would be folly -- not just folly because it's a change to what exists and that all change is bad, per se, but folly because it would make what exists actually worse.  

Look, I respect leaving things alone.  I respect the notion of not fiddling with things for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the Pandora's box effect.

But there are times when "what exists" just sucks.  . . . "

So, you said it sucks.  And suggested we change it, which speaks for itself.

You did mention options in your first post, but you explained why you think the hole "sucks" in your next substantive post, where explain why the bunker is necessary  (your bolds):

"But as it is right now, even if the player completely butchers the Valley of Sin, he still walks away with par. . .
 Did ANYBODY bogey the hole this weekend?  Anybody?
 
What the hell kind of golf hole is that if nobody ever bogeys it? "[//i]

Who is concerned with score?

Well guess what -- everybody played left, and they tore the hole a new asshole from there.  

I thought the hole was supposed to be tougher from there.  

I dont have the stats, but i think Brad Klein said the first round average was just above 3.5.   Considering the entire field could drive the green, and (according to you) bogey was nearly impossible, this isnt exactly tearing it up.  

Shivas, you call all the drives "left" and I agree that they all went at or left of the pin.  But it is a matter of degree.   It is also a matter of degree whether they tried to hit it pin high or short of the pin.   And yes, a few foot difference in line can make a world of difference in where the ball actually ends up.   It's called subtlety, but then you think subtlety is just giving people room to miss.  Thank goodness you are not in charge of the TOC.

______________________________

As to your most recent post. . .

--  It is subtle enough to fool you into thinking all the players are mindlessly doing the same thing.  I saw plenty of quizzical looks on second shots, after they thought they hit a perfect drive, but they still couldnt get within 12 ft. for birdey.

--  I didnt say natural, I said more natural than you adding a phony bunker in the midde of the hole.   Nonetheless, I am not so sure the Valley of Sin is not natural.  Can you support your claim, or did you just make it up so you could tell a boobie joke?  

-- It is more in line with the strategy of the rest of the course.  Take 17, which in some ways could not be more different.   The further left of the ideal line the golfer plays the more difficult the angle of the approach becomes.  The golfer isnt "forced" into anything, as you propose, but rather chooses based in part on what he will willing to face for the next shot.  

--  I dont think the hole is exactly flat.  It's not really the plain of sin, is it?  It is traditional in that it relies in large part on ground contours to set up the strategy.  

--  I saw very few golfers "crucify" the hole.  I saw quite a few drive it pretty close, putt once, then putt again from 10 to 30 feet.   Hardly crucifying the hole.  Unless of course, you need BOGIES to make you happy.

As usual, you fail to understand golf beyond big risks and big penalties.  

[Paul Richards]

Cool.

This thread is starting to line up to be the 'new' "Scarlet" thread.

Tom MacWood vs. Tom Paul

becomes

Shivas vs  everyone else?

 

[Bill_McBride]

To me the real reason to leave #18 (and #1) as is, is the nature of that immense swath of flat lawn, much more like a cricket pitch than a golf course.   Visit the Old Course on a sunny Sunday and there might be a hundred residents walking about, kicking a football, enjoying that giant lawn.

Napoleon called the Piazza San Marco "Europe's Drawing Room."  The first and eighteenth fairways at St. Andrews serve the same function for the Old Grey Town.  Leave 'em alone, I say.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas said:

Dave, I hate to say this, but I understand more about the game of golf than you do.

The above may well be the case, but whatever else your statement may be, a cogent and convincing argument it is not.

You asked for us to tell you what was good about this hole, and what was strategic about this hole.   I answered your challenge, as did many others (more convincingly than me, I might add.)   You want to discount and dismiss everything we say, so be it.  Just know that repeatedly putting down and and misrepresenting my so-called "version of golf" isnt the same as addressing what I am actually saying.  

Plus, you give me way too much credit.   It isnt my "version of golf" at all, but rather a version repeatedly discussed and described by many of the greatest minds in golf design, past and present.   If you disagree with them, there is certainly nothing I can say to change your mind.   After all, they know more about golf than I do.   And, apparently, so do you.  

[Mike Hendren]

Hmmmm.  Maybe Bill and Ben agree with Shivas?



Nah!

[PThomas]

Bogey -- is that at Talking Stick, a par 5, maybe #2?

[DMoriarty]

Dave, although after reading that, I empathize, it doesn't change my belief that -- for reasons only known to you -- you've taken some very fine principles of the game of golf and warped them into a view of the game as game of mental acuity coupled with a lot of luck.  

Sadly, that was not the way the original practitioners of the game viewed it.  Neither was it the way the classic architects viewed it.  Sure, they wrote of it.  And they incorporated much of it into their works.  But Dave, what you're missing and continue to miss is that all this mental stuff is icing on a cake.

Shivas you continue to minimalize, belittle and misrepresent my position.  Easier than looking critically at your own, I guess.   I do think there is and should be a mental side to golf, but it is no more complicated than choosing a line off the tee, trying to execute the shot, then choosing the next line, etc . . .    If that is warped, then I am happy to be so.

Even you acknowledge that the strategy at TOC is about choosing lines of play.  Even on the hole in question, you claim that most the field aims short/left of a reachable green which has no obstacles between tee and pin.  Assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, and that they all aimed left of the green:   Why would they aim left if all there was to golf was execution??   Why not just hit it at the pin, far and sure?

[DMoriarty]

Two things:

1.  The Valley of Sin is man-made.  It's the result of building up the rest of the 18th green.

So what?

2. More importantly, contrary to the assertions of DaveM in contrast to the oft-repeated truisms and beliefs here, Old Tom Morris wanted the course to be a BITCH!

Shivas,  show me where I asserted to the contrary?   Show me where I have ever speculated about what Old Tom Morris wanted?  

We could have a much more productive conversation if you would quit making things up.

This is very interesting.  Here we are on GCA, day after day.  Virtually every day, somebody here trots out the now-chiched position that "golf is supposed to be fun, not an examination and not overly penal" or some version of that ... bla, bla, bla, yada, yada, yada.

Well, Old Tom himself wanted a test.  He got pissed when a guy wasn't PENALIZED.  He built the hazards to be HARD.  What does that say about some of the basic tenets espoused here virtually every day in the name of the way "the game was intended to be"?

Shivas, you are proof of the old adage that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.   A severe feature is very often the centerpiece a strategic golf hole.  For example, in your quote above, Whitten notes that if one did not want to challenge the Hell bunker, one could play left, around it.  The road hole bunker is also good example of a severe strategic feature, as is the Pacific Ocean at CPC 16, the creek on the left side of ANGC 13, and the out of bounds right and long on TOC 18.  

But I've never said severe features should never be used in strategic architecture.  That would be foolish.  Rather, the question before is whether TOC 18 would be a better hole with the feature you suggested.  Most think not.

Further, just who is it around here who is holding Old Tom Morris as the end-all-be-all authority on golf course design?  Certainly not me.  I've never seen a single of his courses except on t.v., never read a word he has written, and dont think I have ever discussed his designs (if one can call them that.)  Further, I seem to recall that at least some on here (who you would likely lump with me) dont think much of at least some of his work.   Don't some around here view him as one of the designers of the "Dark Ages?"

But here is a question: If you consider Old Tom a big proponent of what you erroniously call a more "penal" school of design, then why do you insist that TOC 18 has to be tricked up with a pot bunker?  If it was good enough and hard enough for Penal Old Tom, then why isnt it good enough for you.  

Shivas said:

Golf architecture is primarily utilitarian, not intellectual.  It's about providing a playing ground that enables golfers to play golf.  It is not art per se.  It has a function, with an artistic element layered on top, just like icing on a cake.

I saved this for last and added color because I think it is the most profound statement you've ever made on this site.   Your statement is as true now as it was in the late Victorian Era.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

Did you even bother to read what I wrote before your long post above??   All your talk about "mental acuity" is pure hogwash.  A distraction.   Something that is your creation in its entirety, not mine.   Choosing a line doesnt take a 180 I.Q., but choosing a line is about all there is to strategy.  Providing various lines is about all there is to strategic golf design.  

Guys who are wilder aim more left; guys who think they're arrow-straight aim closer to the pin.

THANK YOU!  You have just conceded my point, in its entirely.  Some aim more left; some aim more at the pin.  That is choosing a line.  That is strategy.   As for why they choose a line, I dont give a hoot.  

But then you confuse yourself yet again, saying:

 It's about EXECUTION, not strategy.

You've just conceded that isnt only about execution.  It is about execution AFTER THEY CHOOSE A LINE.   That's STRATEGY, Shivas, simple as that.   As for TOC 18, it is strategic because it gives them multiple lines to choose. Simple as that.

As for the rest of your post, You are arguing with your own hobgoblin, not with me.

Then why on God's green earth are you so hell bent on preserving his work if you think it's from the dark ages and yuo are now BACKTRACKING big time from him?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....  

Jeez Shivas, you've really taken this Whitten article to heart.  More proof about the dangers of a little knowledge.  

First, I dont think of Old Tom as the architect of TOC.  

Second,  I never said I thought he was from the dark ages, nor did I backtrack from him big time.  In fact, to be honest, I dont really think if him much at all.  

You still havent shown me where I said the things you attributed to me.  Because I didnt say them.  I cant possibly backtrack from positions I have never taken, and statements I never made.  

Look Shivas, you are the one who is holding up Old Tom as some sort of beacon of truth.  I am not even sure as to what you think his relevance is to your questions about TOC 18.   Is it that he moved/built the green in the mid-to-late 1900's?  So the hole has less than a century and one-half of history on its side, rather than multiple centuries.  I stand corrected if I stated otherwise.  

[DMoriarty]

Face it Shivas,  Your done.  You've conceded my position.   Trying to fall back on this Old Tom stuff is just plain desperate.  

But for fun, I'll refute your points, except for this first one which I dont understand so I cant even try to refute it:


You make fun of the Victorian ethos of Old Tom.  I don't think there is a historian on the planet who can argue that he lived in any other era or in any other place.

Made fun of him?   I dont get it?  I made fun of you, not him.

And you are clearly a lover of the Golden Age, the enlightened age of GCA.

Yet Old Tom, by your own words, was not the "be-all-end-all on golf course design"...

First, I didn't say that at all.  I asked you who said he was the end all and be all, and told you I have no opinion of him one way or another.    You are acting like someone thinks or should think Old Tom is an authority, but I dont think anyone thinks this at all.  I dont know one way or another.  Once again, you just pretend that I (or someone else) is taking positions that we arent.

Second, this doesnt even make sense.  Are you calling Old Tom a golden age designer?   Are you saying I am calling him this?  I'm lost.

So why the hell are knee-jerking yourself into the emergency room fighting against the notion that the 18th (Old Tom's hole) needs improvement?

I am not knee-jerking myself into anywhere.  You arrogantly, insultingly, and humorously threw down a challenge.  After watching you sing and dance around everyone else's fine answers for a  few pages, I thought I might enter the fray.  I answered your questions in one post, to my satisfaction.  The rest of this is just your scrambling because you dont like my answer.  

Keep in mind where the burden should lie here Shivas.  You are the one proposing the change.  You havent convinced many that your change would be better.  Probably because it wouldnt be.  Whatever type of architect Old Tom was, if he was one, TOC 18 has withstood the test of time.   It is a good golf hole for all the reasons given in this thread.

You said yourself that he ain't the be all and end all.

No.  You acted as if I said he was the end all be all, and I just told you that I have never taken that position.  I'd have no basis to one way or another.

And you even called me Victorian, which BTW, includes Old Tom.

Again, you've lost me.  I made fun of your statement on golf architecture, which sounds Victorian.   Victorian includes Old Tom?  So you must be one of those who have espoused your view.  

What makes Old Tom Victorian?
How does his Victorianism manefest itself in his designs?
Which are his designs?  And how are they Victorian?  

Finally, a chance to learn something!

So how in the world can I be so I be so wrong, despite being lock step in my Victorianism with Old Tom, yet you're so right that the 18th can't be changed....

Shivas, you are now taking solely about things you know nothing about.  I dont know much about them either, but I never claimed to.   In fact I claimed the opposite.   If you'd like to do some research on whether Old Tom was a Victorian architect, I'd be glad to read it.

So I guess you are correct.  I cant possibly refute positions I have never taken and dont even understand.

 Dave, that makes no sense at all.....if the Golden Age is soooooo special after the dark ages of Old Tom and his era, why in the hell are you defending what you yourself called the dark ages?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
 

Shivas, I defended TOC 18 primarily because I think it looks like a good golf hole.  This is true regardless of when it was built, and regardless of who built it, regardless of whether the Valley of Sin is natural.  

I also defend it because its got over a century of history that also found it to be a good golf hole.  This is true no matter the era the green was moved and built, or by whom.

I also defended it for a host of other reasons I listed above.  None of them had anything to do with what you call my love for Golden Age Architecture, or what you think is my hatred for the Dark Ages.  

Face it Shivas, you've got no more ammo in your rhetorical gun, except for the made-up and tangential kind.  

[Paul_Turner]

TOC 18th:  Sometimes it's great to have a hole where the tee shot is mostly about just getting your arse into it.  Even the great 18th at Pine Valley is one of these.

A hole where long hitters can show how far, and consequently how wildly, they can hit it.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,  You are right about on thing.  I havent really been saying anything worth reading for a while now.  I think that it because I'm spending all this space correcting your misrepresentations and bastardizations of my position.  You apparently have no interest in taking my words for what they say rather than what you want them to say.  So let me strip away the garbage and get back to the basic.  I'll offer a little summary of my core position, absent the distractions and your misrepresentations:

Your Challenge:  You suggested adding a pot bunker to 18, because the hole wasnt producing enough bogeys for your liking; not enough chance of a big score.  If a bad score is par, it isnt a good hole in your mind.  You said TOC 18 "just sucks," and was not at all strategic.  You believe that your modified version with the Shivas bunker would be better.  So, you challenged us to tell you 'what was so great about the hole' as is.  

My Response:  

While I havent played the hole, it appears on television to present strategic options at their most basic.  Pick a safer line further left, and face a more difficult approach/chip/pitch/putt.  (You eventually conceded this point, noting that drivers who think they are straight go more at the pin, drivers who think they are wild go more left.)  

Your suggested hole with bunker might be a fine hole, but whether or not it was TOC, I would prefer the hole without the bunker.  I prefer holes where the options and dangers aren't quite spelled out for the golfer.  Subtlety over obviousness.  I also prefer ground movement as a feature over bunkers.  I prefer holes that are ironic in that they are able to dupe the modern golfer into thinking the face a nothing hole rather than one which requires both thought and execution.    But even setting aside my personal preferences, I still think the existing hole is better.  

TOC 18 has over a century of history on its side, so I have a strong inclination to leave it be.   So even if I thought your version might be slightly better (which I dont) I'd still argue for leaving it alone absent an overwhelming reason to alter it.   It would be an extreme act of arrogance to ignore over a hundred years of history, tradition, and success to start trying to tweak TOC to make it fit into what one person or one generation thinks might be a little better.  You havent come anywhere near offering an an overwhelming reason to alter the current.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: