[Andy Hughes]

I have to say, I've always enjoyed Matt's 'travelogues'. He has made me aware of courses I would never have heard of.  I have also found back-and-forth disagreements with him to be enjoyable (though his inability to see all that is good with Poconos golf makes me wonder about him ).

But Matt, quotes like these:

Like I said before -- the desire sometimes mirrors the same MO demonstrated by the mullahs over in Iraq & Iran. These folks see their understanding of golf course design as the "one true way" -- all others need to open their eyes to how they see things.

strike me as both silly and a bit reprehensible.  The 'MO' of posters here and the 'MO' of mullahs 'over there' in reality have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  I would hope the reasons would be obvious. This is no different than the old tactic of comparing someone or their actions to the Nazis.
Sorry to get OT, but I find it bothesome, especially from a poster whose comments I invariably look forward to and enjoy.

Of course, I could be wrong/over-sensitive...

[Lou_Duran]

Wayne,

You missed my point entirely.  I would never say that volume in most things is the key to understanding or knowledge.  We all collect and process information differently, and no doubt that some are more perceptive than others.

My comments were in response to Jeff Fortson who apparently believes that Nicklaus's and Fazio's work is repetitive and undifferentiated from one project to another.  I disagree with his characterizations (including the one about playing different courses), and simply noted that a knowledgeable person who possess vast experience with an architect's body of work and the best courses in the nation has more weight with me than one who doesn't.

I have no doubt that Tom Paul is more knowledgeable than Matt in regard to Merion.  In a way though, aren't you making my point (depth is important)?  Tom is not a good example anyways because he's played the best, many of them numerous times, and he delves in gca at least mentally more than many architects.

Use Jeff Fortson instead of Tom Paul.  Jeff too is a very accomplished player.  Probably due to age and circumstances, he hasn't had the wide exposure to the best courses.  He has a strong preference for the classics, and has on numerous ocassions suggested that he is not terribly impressed with Nicklaus and Fazio.  If I was a gambler, I would wager that Jeff is not a big fan of modern architecture.

I have no idea how many Nicklaus and Fazio courses Jeff has played, nor how many of the top 100.  I know that Matt has played many of both architects' courses, as well as a substantial number of the top  100.  Both guys understand golf, play the game inordinately well, and are smart.  I value Matt's opinion on the architecture of Nicklaus and Fazio much more than Jeff's because I think he is much more familiar with it and that he is open-minded.  Ditto for the exercise of ranking courses, one I know you seem to find none too useful.

By the way, you can substitute anyone with a similar profile to Matt's in my argument.  Jeff no doubt has better insights on Riviera, its history, and how to play it.  I don't know how that qualifies him to rank it against the many courses he has not played, or just played one time.

Your comment, "The point I'd like to make  is that in and of itself, seeing numerous courses is meaningless", is perplexing.  It may have a tad of relevance if you believe that playing 300 courses as you attribute to Tom Paul is a low number.  Personally, I think that Tom and Matt both lie way outside the relevant range.  I am talking specifically of those who opine without disclaimer based on a very narrow range of experience in comparison to those who may make equally strong arguments but who have the basis to do so.  

       

 

[RJ_Daley]

I hope this will be my last comment on this thread, but I feel compelled to make it.

A fellow named Alister Mackenzie had probably seen fewer than 50 courses (since there simply weren't many others) when he started to do his best work.  As to the ability to play,  I'd certainly take Matt Ward in a match against the good Dr. with 9 strokes a side given to Mac.  They say that Mackenzie only got down to about a 16 once he lived on Pasatiempo and could go out and practice his short game on and around the green outside his patio, in his pajamas.

Yet, Mac used to go watch great tournaments and matches of his day.  He was an expert in another landscape discipline of sorts, camofauge.  He made that extra bit of knowledge go a long way it seems.  

Even modern designers and architects haven't seen as many courses as many of our esteemed posters here.  Many of those designers can't play a lick and can't hit the long balls to garden spots that they themselves design.  How is it that many of them turn out some very fine golf course designs?

How many courses did Fownes, Crump, Wilson play before their untrained in previous golf course construction and design efforts commenced?  Do you mean to tell me that they not only didn't have enough experience nor had not seen enough golf courses to know excellence in the few by comparison golf courses they actually saw, and were then not able to translate what was good to their own projects?

I have greatly enjoyed Matt Ward's write-ups.  I sometime don't agree with all or part of them.  Ironically, I do agree with most of them.  Yet, because I and some others I might feel affinity towards in their tastes and preferences for design/construction features, get bagged with the notion that minimalists, or populists (whatever term you like) are authoritarian, dictatorial, and somehow not sensitive or even knowledgeable of other methods.  That is pure crap.  

Hell, speaking for my own part, I have taken seminars in design/construction/restoration techniques from guys like Hurdzan and Cornish and Graves.  I have taken seminars in turf related issues.  I have read a fair number of modern and classic books and commentaries on design, styles, and history of design, just as so many others on GCA.com have.  I don’t feel in any way ‘more’ capable than others to have an opinion on these matters.  But, doesn't that at least count for something comparable to playing several hundred courses and being able to hit the ball skillfully sooooo far and sure?

I really think reading, studying and just watching good players play various courses (in person) is as valuable as the mere fact that one must play 1000s of them, and with some higher degree of skill, to be able to understand the design style, features, and merits of construction work.  And, if you get to play those 1000s at comp'ed fees and rates, or have lots of ping yourself, all the more power to you, but does that buy credibility in and of itself?

Pretty much anyone can study and understand GCA and related issues from a wheelchair if they so desire and have a right to form preferences and tastes as to style and merits that they can defend in a discussion

[Jeff Fortson]

Wayne,

You missed my point entirely.  I would never say that volume in most things is the key to understanding or knowledge.  We all collect and process information differently, and no doubt that some are more perceptive than others.

My comments were in response to Jeff Fortson who apparently believes that Nicklaus's and Fazio's work is repetitive and undifferentiated from one project to another.  I disagree with his characterizations (including the one about playing different courses), and simply noted that a knowledgeable person who possess vast experience with an architect's body of work and the best courses in the nation has more weight with me than one who doesn't.

I have no doubt that Tom Paul is more knowledgeable than Matt in regard to Merion.  In a way though, aren't you making my point (depth is important)?  Tom is not a good example anyways because he's played the best, many of them numerous times, and he delves in gca at least mentally more than many architects.

Use Jeff Fortson instead of Tom Paul.  Jeff too is a very accomplished player.  Probably due to age and circumstances, he hasn't had the wide exposure to the best courses.  He has a strong preference for the classics, and has on numerous ocassions suggested that he is not terribly impressed with Nicklaus and Fazio.  If I was a gambler, I would wager that Jeff is not a big fan of modern architecture.

I have no idea how many Nicklaus and Fazio courses Jeff has played, nor how many of the top 100.  I know that Matt has played many of both architects' courses, as well as a substantial number of the top  100.  Both guys understand golf, play the game inordinately well, and are smart.  I value Matt's opinion on the architecture of Nicklaus and Fazio much more than Jeff's because I think he is much more familiar with it and that he is open-minded.  Ditto for the exercise of ranking courses, one I know you seem to find none too useful.

By the way, you can substitute anyone with a similar profile to Matt's in my argument.  Jeff no doubt has better insights on Riviera, its history, and how to play it.  I don't know how that qualifies him to rank it against the many courses he has not played, or just played one time.

Your comment, "The point I'd like to make  is that in and of itself, seeing numerous courses is meaningless", is perplexing.  It may have a tad of relevance if you believe that playing 300 courses as you attribute to Tom Paul is a low number.  Personally, I think that Tom and Matt both lie way outside the relevant range.  I am talking specifically of those who opine without disclaimer based on a very narrow range of experience in comparison to those who may make equally strong arguments but who have the basis to do so.  

       

 

Since I have been used as an example of incompetence and shown to be a person who lacks credibility in the above post I feel a need to chime in.


Lou wrote,

My comments were in response to Jeff Fortson who apparently believes that Nicklaus's and Fazio's work is repetitive and undifferentiated from one project to another.  I disagree with his characterizations (including the one about playing different courses), and simply noted that a knowledgeable person who possess vast experience with an architect's body of work and the best courses in the nation has more weight with me than one who doesn't.

Lou, how do you know what my experience is with "the best courses in the world" or whether or not I fit the "knowledgable person who possesses vast experience with an architect's body of work" bill?  

I have played well over 50+ of both Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio designs.  I would venture that I am nearing the 100 mark on Nicklaus and probably 70 of Fazio.  If that is too small of a sampling to make qualified comments on an architect's body of work than what is the number necessary to gain your approval to make qualified judgements?  Like I said before I have liked and disliked designs of both.  I don't need you venturing guesses as to what my postion is on their bodies of work.


Lou wrote,

I have no idea how many Nicklaus and Fazio courses Jeff has played, nor how many of the top 100.  I know that Matt has played many of both architects' courses, as well as a substantial number of the top  100.  Both guys understand golf, play the game inordinately well, and are smart.  I value Matt's opinion on the architecture of Nicklaus and Fazio much more than Jeff's because I think he is much more familiar with it and that he is open-minded.  Ditto for the exercise of ranking courses, one I know you seem to find none too useful.

I have played close to half of the Top 100 and most of the ones I haven't played are the ones that rotate in and out.  Which Top 100 list are you talking about?  That too might change my number.

You are free to value Matt's opinion more than mine.  To be honest, I could care less who you would take opinions from.  However, if you think Matt Ward is open-minded when it comes to GCA then good for you.  I will keep my mouth shut on how I feel about that one because this isn't about Matt Ward to me.

If you think I couldn't do a good job rating courses then I ask you to explain why?  Do I lack the skill, intelligence or ass-kissing ability to do the job right?  

Let me explain my position on Fazio and Nicklaus.  I feel that while the site may change and some fine details may change that overall I have a good idea of what the bunkering is going to look like and the stategies seem similar in many cases.  This isn't to say that there are no differences in the designs.  This isn't to say that I dislike the designs.  What I am saying is that if you can't see similarities in each of their designs, enough so that you have a good idea of what you are to most likely encounter when playing a new one, then you are completely blind and haven't been observing the courses that you have played of theirs.


Lou wrote,

I am talking specifically of those who opine without disclaimer based on a very narrow range of experience in comparison to those who may make equally strong arguments but who have the basis to do so.

If this is directed at me then you truly don't know me at all.  I have played enough courses to make strong arguments on most architects.  Aren't you the one opining what I think without even discussing it with me.  Do you have the "basis" to make such assumptions?


Look, the only reason I am responding to this is because I feel you have completely misrepresented my opinions and my experience.  Whether you care to listen to me or Matt Ward or Mickey Mouse means nothing to me.  I just won't sit by and let you discredit me and take me apart like that in a public forum.

Good day.


Jeff F.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Fortson,

I agree with your comments about the "smokescreen": people who can't write very well so they retreat to "I've played more courses....therefore I know more".

Very well said.


P.S. I truly wish I could write better.....it's a gift not many people here have, but the site could sorely use.

[T_MacWood]

If I were a golf architect I don't believe I would want to be stereotyped as a minimalist. If you have a fairly unremarkable site and you build a minimalistic design...isn't the result an unremarkable golf course?

What is the opposite of minimalism?

[wsmorrison]

"Use Jeff Fortson instead of Tom Paul. "

I'd be glad to, Lou.  Rather than Matt Ward.  You stumbled into a position that is hard to defend.  You and I didn't know how many Nicklaus and Fazio courses Jeff has played.  But you presumed to know that it was not nearly as many as Matt Ward and made assumptions based on that.  Why?  Because Jeff does not shove it in our faces that he's seen X number of courses so he must be Y times smarter than us?  That basic underpinning of Matt Ward's self-deception and belittlement of others is flawed.

Now you commented upon my mentioning the number of times Tom Paul has played Merion East.  This is an example of depth of experience of a golf course, its archives, history and membership.  This is vastly different than a breadth of experience in overall number of courses played.  The first enables an individual to better know a course's architecture, strategies and playabilty under all conditions.  The later is a shallower understanding under a narrower range of conditions.  Which is of more value to the understanding of that golf course?

My own interest is a depth of understanding rather than a breadth of experience.  Kind of like white matter and grey matter when you think of it.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

I think all of us would consider the original Boca Raton South site as rather unremarkable.  It had 10 feet or so of elevation change, treeless and without features.  

It did have wind and sandy soil.  

Out of that Flynn created a minimalist design with undulating sandy waste areas, bunkers and greens in a design that challenged all classes of golfers.  The moundings were man-made but made to look natural as were the bunkers and greens that were tied into the surrounds.  

This example is minimalism to me as it used the natural features of sand and wind and made to look like it was completely natural.

[cary lichtenstein]

It's not about how many, it is about how smart and perceptive an individual is.

Given 2 equally smart and perceptive individuals, the larger and more diverse the sampling, the more likely the better and more informed opinion.

[Tim_Weiman]

Cary,

I don't think it is about how smart or perceptive one is.....or even how well informed one is.

Those things don't really help if the person can't write well.

Jeff is right on or should I say "write on".

The man who claims "I've seen more...therefore I know more" probably isn't a very good writer.

[T_MacWood]

"The moundings were man-made but made to look natural as were the bunkers and greens that were tied into the surrounds. "

Wayne
The same could be said for Lido, Banff, Ponte Vedra and Timber Point...are they examples of minimalism?

[Michael Dugger]

To be fair and try and bring this thread back from a bash Matt Ward fest, I think he is a very good writer and too enjoy his travelogues.

Hey, face it, the guy is making a living based on this stuff.

The man is doing everything it takes to win.

he's traveling well
he's golfing well

he's doing everything it takes to win the argument

now you know what to tell him?  don't order fried chicken for dinner, or fois gras, or whatever the hell it is that they eat in New Jersey!!
 

[Jeff Fortson]

To be fair and try and bring this thread back from a bash Matt Ward fest, I think he is a very good writer and too enjoy his travelogues.

Hey, face it, the guy is making a living based on this stuff.

The man is doing everything it takes to win.

he's traveling well
he's golfing well

he's doing everything it takes to win the argument

now you know what to tell him?  don't order fried chicken for dinner, or fois gras, or whatever the hell it is that they eat in New Jersey!!
 

At what point did this become a competition?  How does one "win"?

Are you implying that Matt Ward makes a living off of GCA?


Jeff F.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
The same could be said for Lido, Banff, Ponte Vedra and Timber Point...are they examples of minimalism?"

It is possible, by my definition though I don't know these courses well enough to say.  

From what I do know of Lido (I have seen an excellent aerial photograph of the intact course) I doubt Lido would be considered minimalist as I haven't seen a Macdonald or Raynor that looks that way to me.  NGLA comes closest but the green ends make even that impossible to say.  Indian Creek would not be for the green ends as well.

Ponte Vedra?  I am not familiar with either the Ocean or the Lagoon courses.  Why might the one you cite be considered minimalist by my definition?

Timber Point?  All I've seen are the pictures posted previously.

Banff?  Is that natural looking?  I've only seen photographs and not enough to make a worthwhile decision.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Maybe I don't understand the definition of minimalism. I'd always thought it was the utilization of natural features with minimal man-made interference...with the emphasis on minimal man-made interference. Sand Hills being a prime example.

If Boca Raton, Lido or Ponte Vedra are examples of widescale creation of naturalistic features on a unremarkable site...I wouldn't call that minimalism.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

Now that you have had a few swings at me it's my turn at the plate.

Have to say when you are right -- you are right. I could frankly give two sh*ts if architect X farted before he designed a bunker in 1913 and all the other esoteric BS that you, and others, seem to treasure.

By all means -- knock yourself out with all the arcane minutia -- if that floats your golf boat then by all means enjoy yourself. It's easier to focus on the past than to get off the couch and hit the field to see where modern design is going -and in a number of ways in the right direction I might add with a number of talented architects who get so little attention on this site.

Appreciate all the barking and personal putdowns but all I said was that an open mind is a blessing. If you want to adore and embrace simply the courses from yesteryear by all means continue to eat the same meal over and over and over again. I like my golf to be about diversity -- about being more than just the same thing.

I also laugh at loud when all these self-proclaimed defenders of the past make it a point to brand anyone who doesn't fall in 100% lockstep as being outside the mainstream of what is PC to say within this site. Nothing like elitiism and snob appeal.

Wayne -- I consider playing courses to be a big part in understanding what's out there -- you may have heard the adage that personal experiences count for something. I never said -- repeat after me -- never said -- that simply totaling up numbers is the be-all end-all. One has to provide some sort of cogent analysis and then be able to cross compare / contrast the different courses that exist to spot trends, ups and downs, etc, etc.

If you care less about ratings -- so be it. Just enough of the brow beatings for those who enjoy the exercise in cross comparsions and overall course standing. Stay in your world and you'll be a happy camper.

Don't waste your breath with another long treatise on this and that. We are miles apart ...

Tim W:

Please try to understand what people have written -- I never stated that seeing / playing more courses means one knows more. I simply said that having played a vast number of courses allows me to tap into a range of experiences in which I can then use as examples that highlight aspects of a design -- whether it be good, bad or middle of the road. Others can play far less and still have insightful comments -- however -- their total range / experiences are limited because of their sampling size and with that I believe their overall statements have to be kept with that in mind.

I learn a good deal from people who have played an area of the USA or globe that I have not. Their detailing of their experiences gives me some insights on whether a visit to that course(s) is worthwhile for me. End of story.
 

[T_MacWood]

"Have to say when you are right -- you are right. I could frankly give two sh*ts if architect X farted before he designed a bunker in 1913 and all the other esoteric BS that you, and others, seem to treasure."

Matt
I have to say, for a moment there, I thought I was reading Bernard Darwin.

Its ashame you don't treasure the history of the game and the history of golf architecture. One of the reasons your idle Charles Price was so interesting to read was his knowledge of history. That is true with most all the great critics and essayists, gents like Price, Darwin, Wind, Dobereiner and Ward-Thomas, they had a deep appreciation for the esoteric BS. If your gig is rating or evaluating courses, IMO the esoteric BS can give one insight and help in evaluating both modern and older courses.

[mike_malone]

  Amazing!--Five pages of talking past each other without an agreed definition of "minimialism".

    Whereas the thread that asked for a definition  of the word died an early death. It seems much easier to go on rants when no real discussion is taking place.

    I actually wouldn't mind a discussion of the topic.

[DMoriarty]

I've got to tell you, I've read this thread and, while there may be some truth to some of the things being said, there is quite a bit sounds like grade school whining to me . . .

"Why is Everybody Picking On Me?"   We are supposed to be a participants in discussion group about golf course architecture.  More specifically, an exploration of "key tenets" of gca which "have stood the test of time," in an attempt to understand "why some courses are more fascinating than others, and [] why such courses continually beckon for a return game."   Lofty goals, and impossible to approach even if we feel free to view each others words critically, and to test and challenge each others'  ideas, opinions, and observations.  

Yet more and more participants chafe at the first sign of criticism.  Take this thread for example.  Cary says he is disgusted with the bashing and negativity and is apparently contemplating whether his participation is welcome, or even worth his effort.  The hideous thread that put him over the top?    The  Black Rock Photos thread.   I read this thread, and frankly I am baffled that this thread could put anyone over the top.  Take a look . . .

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=19037

This is the terrible thread that is driving these people away?   Where's the bashing?  Where's the mean spiritedness?  Who was personally attacked?   A few attempts at humor yes, but bashing?  Give me a break.  

I've a feeling that the thread which really put Cary over the top wasnt this thread, but the other Jim Engh thread.  That was the thread where Cary, calling himself "Bold," listed two Jim Engh courses (Lakota and Black Rock) on a short list of the very best courses in the world.   Surprise, surprise . . . people disagreed.  Some moreso than others.   Now Cary is upset that his views are unaccepted and unappreciated, and thinks our disagreement must be a result of our narrowmindedness.   But what did Cary expect?  When one makes the sort of Bold statement Cary made, shouldn't be expect-- even welcome-- some pretty strong questions and criticism?   Isn't the only reason he would call his own statement "bold" is that even he knew what he was saying was controversial and was bound to stir up controversy?    

That kind of conversation is good for this site, not bad for it.   At least it could be good for it if Cary was actually willing to defend his opinions without a persecution complex.

"Nah, Nah, Na, Boo, Boo, I Know More Than You Do."  You all know what I am talking about . . . "listen pardnerr, its soooooo easy for you to armchair quarterback like a fat lazy mullah whose rubber has never hit the road . . . "

The fact is, experience is great, but discussions are much more about analysis than merely observations.  Yet Matt and others think that their knowledge base trumps everyone.  While I commend Matt for seeing what he has seen, I wish he understood that this does not automatically make him correct.  And it is not just Matt.   Just the other day I was told by a well respected poster that he knew more about golf than I do, as if that somehow made him right and me wrong.  I am tired of hearing people tell me how much they know.  Rather than repeatedly blowing their own horn, I wish they put that knowledge to use by making cogent, well-supported, and pertinent points.

"If You Like Him So Much, Why Don't You Marry Him?"   Miminimalism (or whatever you want to call it) is popular around her, but there is at least one other school of thought that is almost as popular, and again it is straight from the playgroud.  We are treated to an almost daily whining about how the other kids like Billy and Tommy best . . . It's not fairrrrrrr . . .  Lately, this juvenile wail has become almost deafening . . .  They are "Doak's Butt Boys,"  They "worship the Ground C&C walk on," the popular kids get all the breaks.

The problem with this never-ending whimpering is, again, it completely lacks substantive value, at least if substance is measured by advancing the topic at hand, whatever it may be.   It is just another way to avoid taking a real position, supported by the real world.  Don't like what someone says about a course you like?  Dont bother addressing the points and backing up your argument with relevant factual support.   Instead just call that someone biased.  Call him a butt boy.  Dismiss his points outright as biased.  Whatever you do, dont actually take on the opinion as is.  Don't believe me?  We hardly have to leave this thread to see it:

--Photos were recently posted of an unfinished Doak course.  Cary is apparently estatic, so excited about tattle-telling on our pro-Doak bias that he cant even wait until we have seen the actual course . . .

"If you examine the photos of Stone Eagle, it appears there is containment and waterfalls, 2 no no's that because Doak is now doing them have just become brilliant."

In fact, no one has called the waterfalls or the supposed containment at Stone Eagle "brilliant."  Hardly anyone has even the course, and no one has seen the course anywhere near finished.   Yet Cary just knows that we are already biased.  

Ironically, the only comments I remember on these water features were when Doak first brought up the possibility, and people were quite negative.   Doak called them narrow-minded for judging them before seeing them.  Apparently we are biased if we do like them, biased if we dont.
 
Moreover, these blanket claims of bias are absolutely all Cary has to offer here.   I challenged him to find the man-made containment in the photos.   I asked him to compare the supposed containment in the photos with that at Black Rock.   He thought I picked on him in the Engh thread by challenging his placement of Black Rock among the best in the world, so he didnt want to play with me anymore.   My theory is that he never wanted to seriously discuss Stone Eagle, but rather just wanted to throw some more unfounded claims of bias around.

Of Course Matt Ward repeatedly does the same thing.  Above on this thread, for example  . . .

"The discussion that's taken place regarding Jim Engh is a good example. You have people weighing in on the totality of what the man is capable in doing either from photos or from limited personal sampling of his actual courses. The "talent" that it takes to do such a keen anaylsis is beyond words."

Who are all these unnamed lazybones' drawing these generalizations?   There must be a lot of them, based on how much Matt brings it up!    Where is this "weighing in on the totality" of his capabilities?  Where is all this talking out of school?  In fact, in the recent Jim Engh discussions, most have been very specific about what they have played and what they havent.  It has become a sort of "Wardian Disclaimer" that better be in every post, or Matt will lecture you for a half page.

More importantly, Matt's now-cliched accusation adds absolutely nothing to any any substantive discussion of golf course architecture.   To the contrary, if you disagree with Matt, he summarily dismisses you as biased, and refuses to talk to you anymore.   I know because he has done it to me and others repeatedly.   For example in the Engh thread he mentions, I repeatedly asked Matt whether certain features prevalent at Black Rock also existed at other of Engh's courses. He refused to answer.  I asked him repeatedly how these features figured into his analysis of Black Rock.   He refused to answer.   I've explored similar avenues with Matt in the past, and always, he refuses to answer.  

But these are legitimate questions, aimed at understand Engh and his courses.  Apparently, Matt would rather call me and others biased, than actually discuss what we've seen and what he has seen.  

Matt and Cary are not alone.  How often do we hear about Fazio Bashing on this site?   How often do we hear that Fazio is not given a fair shake in these discussions?   But whenever anyone tries to start a conversation about Fazio that contains even a hint of negativity, the merits are set aside for a long drawn out session about Fazio bashing.   In fact, not even Fazio can discuss Fazio without being called a Fazio basher!   A while back, I repeatedly tried to discuss some of the design principles discussed in his book, and my comments were repeatedly dismissed as stereotypical and biased!   I tried to engage those who support the man in a detailed discussion of his writings and got zero takers.  None.  None of those claiming bias were even willing to discuss his own book!   Imagine me claiming that everyone is biased against MacKenzie, but then refusing to discuss Spirit of Saint Andrews.  Outrageous.  

The problem with these constant claims of bias?   They are cop outs.  They fail to advance the discussion.  They are merely distractions and smoke screens.  

Dont get me wrong.  I am not saying that people are always open-minded.  I know I am not.   But when my narrow-mindedness leads me to an incorrect conclusion, it ought to be easy enough to correct me based on the merits, rather than constantly running to the teacher claiming I like Billy more than Tommy.  

I'm just getting started, but my hands are tired and I am sure anyone who has disagreed me has already dismissed me without seriously considering a word I have written.  For those still following along, watch what happens now.  Watch Matt tell us how great he is.  Watch Cary tell me how mean I am.

[Lou_Duran]

Tim Weiman,

RE: Matt's last piece- not a bad piece of writing, is it?  As to your P.S., BS.

IMO, writing ability is much less of a problem on this site than shortcomings in reading comprehension, open-mindedness, and outright stubborness.

Jeff Fortson,

Any suggestion of you being used as an example of incompetence did not come from me.  Perhaps less experienced (breadth and depth) than someone like Matt Ward, but this is not a personal attack as you seem to have taken it.  BTW, have you heard of the expression "defensively hostile"?
 
As to the number of Nickalus and Fazio courses you've played, I am astounded by the number.  We've talked about this before and I was under the impression that you didn't care for their work and had not played many of their courses.  My mistake, sorry, but you were not the object of the point I was trying to make.

As to being blind if I can't see the requisite strategies in Nickalus and Fazio courses, I guess that I am guilty.  Perhaps it is one of the advantages a playing professional such as you has over a bad amateur like me.  Nope, I can't claim to understand the type of shot required at The Hills CC's #7 having played Muirfield Village #12.  It is a wonder that Tour Players even bother playing practice rounds, particularly over courses they've played many times before.  Perhaps some of them are perceptually challenged as I am.

Wayne Morrison,

Cary L posted the following recently:

"It's not about how many, it is about how smart and perceptive an individual is.

Given 2 equally smart and perceptive individuals, the larger and more diverse the sampling, the more likely the better and more informed opinion."

That is really the crux of the matter, and what I was trying to state.  I unfortunately tried to use Jeff and Matt as examples, carefully qualifying my knowledge of Jeff's playing experience, but apparently not sufficiently to avoid the subsequent fireworks.

I would be curious to know what indefensible position I've stumbled into.  I know of Matt's playing experience because we've played together and have communicated on several ocassions.  I have also played with Jeff Fortson- and let me tell you that he is much nicer to me in person than he is on this forum- and thought that I knew the breadth of his experience in a rough magnitude sort of way only.

Apparently my qualified impressions were wrong regarding the young pro's resume, but this is neither about Matt nor Jeff.  It is about having competence in the subject, and that hands-on experience is critical to this endeavor.

As to Tom Paul's depth of experience, please reread that part in my posting.  I correctly identify it and place it into context.  If I had one major criticism of ratings, it would be that for many people, understanding and evaluating a course from a single playing are daunting tasks.

On the other hand, Tom can go on and on about Merion, but if he can't put it into the context of other courses (and I know that TEP has great breadth as well), it has little value for his readers/listeners.  Talk to your average golfer about Sand Hills or Wolf Run.  His eyes will glaze over.  But talk to him about his favorite course and maybe compare Sand Hills to it, then you will spark some interest.

I will repeat myself and acknowledge that both breadth and depth are crucial in gaining competency and credibility.  Depending on the subject of discussion, one may be more important that the other.  Personally, playing the top 100 courses 10 times each would probably be more beneficial than the top 1000 once each.

[T_MacWood]

Lou
I know its all subjective, but I don't put a lot of weight in the opinion of someone who is one of this planets biggest Rees Jones apologists or someone who is constantly infatuated with the newest overcooked big sky design.

For several years you have said Ohio State (and Muirfield V. & Scioto) is superior to The Golf Club...is it wrong for me, or anyone, to take your views on what is good and what isn't with a grain of salt?

[Lou_Duran]

TMac,

Here I was beginning to feel a bit sorry for you due to the pounding you're getting from Paul and Mucci.  But after reading your post, it does take some balls for you to accuse people of misrepresenting your positions!

I am no apologist for Rees Jones.  His record speaks for itself.  I like a couple of his original courses (Briar's Creek, Cascata; I am not all that well acquainted with his work), though I questioned the work he did at Torrey Pines- South.  It does annoy me when people on this site berate him so savagely.  Then we wonder why many people in the industry don't actively participate.

I am unaware that I've ever said that Scarlet was superior to TGC.  My earlier opinions of TGC were qualified by the disclaimer that I had only played it once, in 1978, and from the third set of tees at around 6,500 yards (where the member wanted to play from).  Having played it recently at around 7,000 yards and with a good golfer, my opinion of the course has changed considerably.  I still prefer MVGC, but Scioto then Scarlet would trail by quite a bit.

As to whether you or anyone else should take my views of gca seriously, well, I'll sleep okay tonight knowing how you feel.  Judging by the number of inquiries I get about different courses, I think that I do have some credibility.  Like most everyone else, I too have an ego and prefer thinking that my views are sound, defensible, and appreciated by some.  At the same time, I've also been around long enough to know that you can't please all people all of the time.

And Tom, I bet I have more fun than you when it comes to golf.  My tastes are certainly more diverse, much less subjective, and more physically oriented.  I actually get out there 100 times or so each year, see some 40 to 50 courses all over the country, and meet a bunch of very nice, interesting people in the process.

BTW, I also liked Double Eagle alot.  My revised Columbus list would go MV, TGC, DE, probably the revised Scarlet, and Scioto.  Even if my opinion is not worth a grain of salt, I've sure enjoyed playing these outstanding courses.  I hope that you are having some fun also.

So, since Seminole is mostly flat, should I not bother playing it?  BTW, I would never call TGC flat, but I don't recall tremendous elevation changes either.      

[T_MacWood]

Lou
I was referring to Matt Ward in the first part of my post....not you. This is what you said about The Golf Club: "Tom M:Has the Golf Club been altered since the late 70s?  I played it in 1978 and prefered Muirfield Village, Scioto, and Scarlet (in that order).  How would you rate Double Eagle within this group?"

"And Tom, I bet I have more fun than you when it comes to golf.  My tastes are certainly more diverse, much less subjective, and more physically oriented.  I actually get out there 100 times or so each year, see some 40 to 50 courses all over the country, and meet a bunch of very nice, interesting people in the process."

Here we go again. I proud of you...keep up the good work. Its hard to say who has more fun, since you have not played with me and I have not played with you. Comparing your tastes to my tastes is rather subjective as well. More physically oriented? What does that mean....that you prefer rugged walks or longer courses than I do? The Golf Club is pretty long.

I'm not crazy about Double Eagle. The super thick fescue is overly penal. The double fairway holes are contrived IMO. The par-4 around the lake is out of character in my view. There is something artificial about the 18th that just doesn't sit well with me as well. My favorite holes are those on the front that utilize the ravines. Its a good course, but not in the same league as The Golf Club or Camargo or Inverness or some others in Ohio IMO.

[TEPaul]

"TMac,
Here I was beginning to feel a bit sorry for you due to the pounding you're getting from Paul and Mucci.  But after reading your post, it does take some balls for you to accuse people of misrepresenting your positions!"

Lou:

We're not pounding Tom MacWood---at least I'm not anymore. We're just pounding some of the things he says on here. If anyone, including Tom MacWood, gets as detailed in his criticisms of some courses, or if one gets as contradictory towards what some who really do know some courses, say about those courses it's only commonsensical that he know those courses first hand if he's going to try to get as detailed about them as he has.

Courses that I've never even laid eyes on I pretty much refrain from commenting on, at least when it comes to some of the details of them. I think the reasons for that are obvious and I would recommend the same for anyone.

An excellent example of that is when someone tries to tell me he's identified the type and style of bunkering on a hole (#3 Aronimink from #1 tee) from an on-ground photo that you  can't see well from the position that photo was taken from. Anyone who's ever been to Aronimink and stood on the 1st tee can tell that. Of course, he might say otherwise but that kind of thing is what's frustrating to people who really do know courses when they discuss things with people who've never been there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In any case, let's just say Sweeney has me right - after the debate about #4 Sand Hills and the created build-up of that green, damn right my take was "who cares - it's a gorgeous hole requiring a damn good shot to find the green."


Tom Huckaby,

Here's where I'd disagree with you.

The 4th green complex is nothing more than the 15th green complex on steroids.  It's excessive and out of kilter with risk-reward on the approach and recovery.

In addition, don't you see a slight variation of the approach on the previous hole with the high dune left and the green sitting below and to the right ?

From the Double Diamonds the green is very difficult to reach, let alone hold, but, the real problem is the difficulty of the recovery to that artificially constructed, elevated green.

I would rather have seen the original configuration with the deep left hand bunker wrapping around the front of the green with the green well below its current elevation.

That configuration would seem to present a better golf hole to almost every level of golfer, including you and me.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()