[TEPaul]

Lou Duran:

You're post #227 is excellent! I'm definitely not saying I personally agree with you on many of the things you said but that post is a great example of a well thought through response on a subject that's surely not black or white.

We need more posts of that kind of dynamic on this website--they really do create a mature and interesting and dynamic discussion.

I can't wait to look over your post again and offer some responses on it and I absolutely guarantee there'll be no weissenheimerisms in anything I say!

Sincerely,

Your Pal Tom

[George Pazin]

Pretty interesting side discussion between Lou & Michael.

I think you could probably find many examples to support both sides with respect to golf - Ross & CBM were excellent players, Mackenzie & Raynor were not, etc. There is likely a prediliction for better players, simply because how likely is it you're going to pursue a career in golf if you're not good enough to enjoy the game?

My dad loves classical music & greatly regrets never learning to play an instrument. As such, he had me take violin lessons for 10 years. I can play Vivaldi - scratch that - could play Vivaldi at a pretty decent level - maybe the equivalent of a lower single digit handicap golfer. I can probably appreciate the technical skills that the Itzhak Perlmans of the world possess better than my dad, but his passion for the music (I prefer power pop myself ) means he appreciates and understands classical music better than me.

There's tour players that don't seem to evince much appreciation for architecture & there's high handcappers that do. But I think the higher handicapper would probably appreciate architecture more if he got a little better at the game.

Who knows, maybe the bomber would better appreciate architecture if he played with wooden clubs & lousy balls & had to use his head a bit more?

[Steve Lang]

 

When I took Music Theory II & III  in college I had a greater appreciation for music that I couldn't roughly play by ear on guitar or disassemble on piano.. than that which I could easily, like Country or Western   or Folk & Rock etc..

Studying/charting Bach Chorals was really something.. seeing the internal tensions and resolutions unfold from first chord to last, which BTW were the same, taught a valuable lesson for playing and appreciation.  

There's some stuff that you need an awful lot of talent and understanding to execute well and other stuff that just happens by accident.  So play it by ear or by sheet, there's a big world of music out there, and no right way to judge it.

[Lou_Duran]

GP,

So you are taking sides, huh?

BTW, MacKenzie became a decent golfer and he was always surrounded by excellent players.   According to reports, the 16th at CPC would not have been created had Marion Hollins not "evinced" (and I thought it was a misspell) that the carry could be achieved.  Numerous pros and scratch amateurs also hit balls to the Good Doctor for placement of tees, hazards, and grreens.

Everyone always brings up Raynor as the quintessential non-golfer who became an architect.  Perhaps Mr. Bahto can weigh in with better knowledge on this, but Raynor was the Kincaid of his time.  For the most part, he was a brilliant engineer under the gca tutelage of a very good player who was also well-off financially, smart, politically savvy, and as importantly, well-connected.  It is my understanding that Raynor rode MacDonald's coattails, and that his "genius" was not truly recognized by the aficionados until the last 10 - 15 years.  I will grant you that if you have great technical skills and sufficient budgets, you can imitate well.  It might even seem like original or creative work is the canvas is highly varied.

Again, I have to wonder if Raynor was building today, whether he could make a good living.  There are plenty of technically reliable people in the business, but what seems to be missing is the creativity, "something new and fresh" that so many people seek.  Would a 50 year-old Raynor today come under the same attack as Nicklaus and Fazio for being so formulaic?

BTW, I too had some experience with the violin though for only a couple of years when my school went from an orchestra to a marching band.  I do think that I have a better understanding of what Perlman is doing than those who have no experience with this most difficult instrument.  Holding everything else equal, I also think that I would have better luck building a violin or appreciating its music than someone else who has little exposure to it.

I heard that Tom Clancy upset a lot of people in Dallas when he told a large audience something to the effect that those who can do, and those who can't teach.  I would never suggest this in that manner, but being able to do something has to count for something.  Can you at least agree with that?    

[George Pazin]

Actually, Lou, I didn't think I was taking sides at all.

I definitely think passion and clear thinking can make up for a lot in terms of lacking skill, but I also think that greater skill can teach a lot to the lesser golfer about design. I know that I certainly have to think a lot more about course like Black Mesa and Wolf Creek, which are pretty far beyond my skill set, to determine how I feel about them. But, just as Matt says he observes lesser golfers he plays with to give a read on how the course works for them, I'm think I'm capable of observing better golfers and extrapolating from there.

I have no idea what kind of golfer Fownes was, but Egan was certainly pretty good. I guess I'd say greater skill can help you or hurt you, it probably depends on the individual.

I definitely think that being able to do something counts for something - I agree with you on that.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave M:

I can't help you don't understand or agree with what I originally said -- it seems other do -- you don't. The silliness is your continual parsing of any word that fits your inane perspective. Hey Dave -- you win. How's that sound?

To answer you about NGLA's redan hole -- I believe Shivas covered that quite well and it's something I agree with.

Dave -- for closure sake -- you view golf in a "unique" way -- knock yourself out and play those "random" courses of your choosing. Adios amigo ...  

[Lou_Duran]

George,

I don't mind at all if you take Michael's side.  Not that I look for arguments or want to be different, but agreeing just to be agreeable is not in my make-up.  I also believe that you can disagree without being disagreeable, though, admitedly, sometimes you have to bite your toungue hard.

I will agree with you that passion means a lot, and that there may not be a close correlation between love for the game and performance.  Some of the biggest golf nuts I know are indifferent players, and I truly enjoy playing with them.

If you could share with me your thoughts on the holes you liked at Paa-Ko Ridge by IM or E-Mail it might be enlighting for me.  This is not a test.  Unlike Mr. Ward, I don't often pay close attention to how the other players in my group approach a new course (for me).  I can attest that Matt has a near photographic memory and he can see and remember the smallest details without the aid of notes, course guides, etc.  I can understand how observing other people playing a course could be instructive, though I have a hard enough time minding my own play.

BTW, I was impressed with the way you handled the difficult conditions at TTU, and that you were able to enjoy the course.  Think about this a bit if you will, does your familiarity with the architect and how your trusted colleagues perceive the course have much of a bearing on your evaluation?  If so, how much?

[Matt_Ward]

George / Lou:

Be most interested in how you would assess the following holes both of played while in New Mexico using your own defintion of fair / unfair ...

*The par-3 4th at Paa-Ko Ridge.

*The dog-leg 8th at Paa-Ko Ridge.

*The 1st at Black Mesa.

*The uphill par-5 16th at Black Mesa.

One last question -- how much has pre-course hype influenced your assessment of any course? Be curious as to your pre-course feelings prior to playing the aforementioned courses in NM and when you both played The Rawls Course. Has pre-course hype proved to be a plus, a downer or really not much of an influencer. Thanks!

[Lou_Duran]

Randomness and chance can also be achieved through maintenance.  For example, one day you can flood the entry to a redan; the next week you can make it hard as a rock.  You can hand water the carry side of the green on ocassion and fool the players the next time.

One can also cut greens at different heights, encourage grain, vary the depths of the sand, and my personal favorite, partially bury a bunch of rocks.

Perhaps the classic designers didn't SEEM to worry so much about fairness was not because they weren't, but because sites, equipment, budgets and methods did not allow them that luxury.  Just a thought.

BTW, I would be curious to know why Jeff Brauer doesn't incorporate the "Valley of Sin" into his new designs anymore, and why his course in Grand Prairie, TangleRidge, took theirs out (on *16).

[Michael Whitaker]

Lou - I think you understood my primary point about John Wooden. Yes, he was a successful player. But, he recognized his true talent was in coaching and became much more successful as a coach than he ever did as a player. Maybe I should have picked another of a myriad of coaches from just about any sport who's coaching success has far exceeded their performance success. I'm sure you can identify hundreds.

As for music...  as we discussed in NM, my wife is a nationally recognized performing arts teacher and my son is a talented musician who recently graduated from Berklee College of Music in Boston. I can assure you this topic of performance talent versus creative talent has been discussed around my dinner table for years. You can review example after example and the bottom line is that great performers do not usually excel on the creative side of their profession. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule. In music, Mozart is a perfect example. He was a great performer and a great composer. But, for every Mozart there are a thousand accomplished performers who don't have a creative bone in their bodies. Likewise, most creative geniuses are not recognized as accomplished performers. The two skills are unrelated. One is physical the other is mental. They reside in different parts of the brain.

Bringing this back to golf...

When you asked me about North Berwick I thought you were using it as a metaphor for the style of golf played in Scotland. My point is that we play a different game here than they do there... and, as a result, we have a different attitude about our course designs and how we expect to be "rewarded" by our courses during a game. Granted, most Americans prefer a smooth, green, "fair" course on which to propel their ball. They want a course that will reward their well struck shots in a reliable manner. They like pretty, well maintained courses with waterfalls, and flower beds, and ribbon fairways with direct routes to the hole. And, I agree, a lot of these same Americans who have been to Scotland consider the courses there "goat tracks." I have several friends who fall into that category. I feel sorry for them... whereas, I can enjoy their pretty green courses, they can't enjoy my crumpled brown ones. But, the fact of the matter is they felt the need to go "home" to see where it all started.

I stand by my statement that the old "classic" courses are the most revered ones in this country. If my math is correct, the Golf Digest ratings show 41 of the top 50 courses were built on or before 1937. 8 of the top 20 were built before 1920! These are the courses that GD's panelists have chosen as the best in America and most, if not all, of these courses have a direct link to the original game in Scotland.

As for the concept that the highly skilled golf performer does not necessarily possess a high level of skill on the creative side of golf, let me clarify my position by adding that it doesn't necessarily preclude him from possessing it either. It's just that, as I stated before, they're different talents that are not dependent on each other. Just because someone can perform the act of playing golf better than the average person it doesn't mean he can design or identify courses that will excite and entertain the majority of golfers. He can probably design or identify courses that reward his skills, but that is not the same thing. Again, I qoute Alister MacKenzie, "...first class players only too frequently [are] subconsciously influenced by their own particular type of play and only too prone to disregard that of others." In refering to your skilled and not-so-skilled golfer friends you comment, "no matter how much reading the latter has done, his intuitions, insights, and evaluations lack the substance and clarity of the former." That statement simply reinforces Dr. MacKenzie's contention.

[George Pazin]

*The par-3 4th at Paa-Ko Ridge.

*The dog-leg 8th at Paa-Ko Ridge.

*The 1st at Black Mesa.

*The uphill par-5 16th at Black Mesa.

First of all, I don't really subscribe to a notion of unfair except with things like the 18th at Olympic's setup, and even that instance, my objection to the fairness of the setup would mostly be confined to the fact that it was a tournament situation. Putting a hole in a location where it is literally impossible to stop the ball around the hole from almost every location is not unfair, it's silly, and I think even the USGA would agree with that. The golfers playing early had a sizeable advantage over the later players. Getting the advantage of smoother greens playing early is one thing, literally not being able to stop the ball later because the green has baked out and the hole's in a silly position is another thing entirely.

Now, as for my thoughts on the holes in question:

#4 PKR - I can't say that I really liked this hole, but I can't imagine anyone thinking it's unfair. It's a tremendously long/deep green with several tiers. You hit the wrong tier and you pay the price. What could possibly be unfair about that? How does that differ from defending a hole with a sand or water hazard. It kind of reminded me of the 3rd hole at Tobacco Road. If pressed to give a thumbs up or down on this hole (PKR #4), I'd go thumbs up - how often do you have the opportunity for a putt like that. Of course, you'd really have to misclub to be more than one tier off.

#8 PKR - One of the holes I really liked. Seemed like a 90 degree dogleg, I really liked the green complex, it was very open and yet not easy. Defended by pitch and contour rather than brutal hazards. Again, can't imagine someone calling it unfair. Quirky, maybe, but certainly not unfair.

#1 BM - Weird, definitely intimidating, especially given the horrendous state of my game and the fact that I was playing in front of and with many people I respect and did not wish to embarass myself in front of. If I were playing there not in the GCA outing, I would have gone way up to the proper tee for me, where it would have been a mid iron poke over the hill, and the view from there is much less intimidating. This hole scared me while playing it, but upon later reflection, I think it's a pretty cool hole. Kind of out of Mackenzie's written words, in that it looks much tougher than it is.

#16 BM - If I were to subscribe to the fair/unfair concept  , this is a hole that definitely borders on unfair. It seemed like everyone I played with and saw had a hard time just keeping the ball in play on this hole. Shots slightly left ended up in the hazard, shots slightly right ended up in the desert canyon surrounds. Second shot layups that hit the right side of the  fairway ended up in the left rough. The putt from the top tier to a front hole location was virtually impossible to keep on the green. We tried it for maybe 15 minutes and I'm not a terrible putter. My closest effort barely stayed on the front where the hole was, maybe 15 feet left of the hole (looking back down the fairway). This is not a hole I would want to play in a tournament. To me it seemed like an awkward solution of the problem of how to get from 15 to 17. But many others loved it, so maybe the fact that I'm lousy prevented me from being able to appreciate it.

Lou -

I wasn't trying to back out of disagreeing with you, I just think that for some people, the ability to play well may be a tremendous asset and for other people it might not matter that much. If there were a significant correlation, I'd think player designers/consultants would have a better track record than they do. How good a golfer is Fazio? He manages to impress the hell out of 99% of all golfers. I think if I were a significantly better player myself, it might change how I look at things, but I don't think it would change my preferences that much.

Regarding my thoughts on PKR, I have posted twice on the holes that I liked and found fun/interesting. I'll try to flesh out some background thoughts on these holes & the ones I didn't care for as much and send them to you.

Regarding TT, that was the most conflicted I've ever been on a golf course. As much as I was enjoying the course, it was absolutely killing me inside how poorly I was playing. Not even so much that I was embarassed as that it's just flat out depressing to be playing that bad on a course you really looked forward to playing, with two companions whose company you really enjoy. I wasn't always this bad, I definitely have picked up a few bad habits that have destroyed my game and my confidence. I'm sure my knowledge of Tom D's books, reputation, reading his posts on here, etc., all contributed at least a little to my enjoyment there - to say otherwise certainly wouldn't be honest - but it really was fun for me to play. I found myself hitting more unusual shots there than any other course in recent memory. I really like being 20 yards from a green and trying to figure out how the heck I'm going to get a ball to get anywhere near the hole. Most of the courses I've played, if I'm 20 yards from the green in any direction, I'm just grabbing a sand wedge and trying to pop it in the general vicinity of the hole. If I were 20 feet right of where I was, I'd be hitting the same shot, just from a different angle. I don't think that's true with TT. I don't think that true at Black Mesa, either, but I do think it's true to a lesser degree at Paa Ko.

Matt -

I did think of two situations that I think were "unfair" on a golf course, both cases involving trees at Tobacco Road. I played there with my wife, it was literally her first time on a golf course (how gutsy is she?) and I played the first 4 holes from the forward most tees with her. On the 3rd hole, a short par 3, from the way up tees and playing to a front hole location, the shot was maybe 60-70 yards. I hit a lob wedge that sailed nice and high, right into the tree canopy overhanging the waste area between the tee and greens. Silly. On the 4th tee, from the forward most tees, there was a tree right in front of the tee, directly in line with the fairway. I mentioned this one a few months ago and someone from the course said that tee had been moved subsequently because of that tree. I can't even begin to imagine how it was even built, it was cruel and unusual punishment to the golfer who was playing from that tee. I moved back two sets after that hole.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,  contrary to your fearlessness on the course, your avoidance of straightforward questions about one of the most notable design concepts in the world is quite pigeon-hearted.  By the way, Shivas has rightfully moved well away from your position.  For example, Shivas has even rejected your main premise-- that some holes are unfair.  But if you want to hide behind Shivas, then so be it.  

Dave -- for closure sake -- you view golf in a "unique" way -- knock yourself out and play those "random" courses of your choosing. Adios amigo ...  

Matt, you are on to something here!  From here on, you stick to the courses which attempt to minimize uncertainty of result, and I will stick to courses which incorporate uncertainty of result into their designs!  

While I have only played a small fraction of the courses you've played, I am certain that under this division I will more than make up for a lack of quantity with quality.  

[THuckaby2]

George:

Hell yes #16 at Black Mesa is unfair - right on, brother - you tell them!  If it weren't, I would have been able to play it twice in a total of 6 shots, instead of the 7 that I achieved.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Dave M:

The reality of my original definition still holds -- most notably for the 4th at NGLA. Also, Shivas stated very correctly that "bad breaks" like the one he experienced at the 4th can happen. It's the  high L-I-K-E-L-I-H-O-O-D or probability that is really the issue and something that flies completely over your head.

Great holes provide different ways to play them and there is a high degree of probability -- never certainty -- that if you play the shot called for you will likely receive some sort of positive feedback. I said this several times -- great holes and courses have a high degree of clarity when playing them. You favor courses with little clarity and depend upon randomeness, luck, and God knows what else.

Dave said, "From here on, you stick to the courses which attempt to minimize uncertainty of result, and I will stick to courses which incorporate uncertainty of result into their designs! "

What a crock!!!!!!

I have stated a bazillion times -- never to your divine satisfaction -- that I favor the elements of uncertainty when playing -- I just don't believe they should be the dominant characteristic and from the great golf courses I have played that factor is always a supporting role -- NEVER a primary one.

Dave -- enjoy the game -- my suggestion? Go to the local park and simply hit balls in any direction and estimate the total number of different bounces you get. I'm sure you will be enthralled.


 

[George Pazin]

Matt -

I'm starting to feel a little neglected here. You've asked me to post about Paa Ko and I did that. You've asked me to comment on 2 holes at PKR and BM and I did. At least do me the courtesy of telling me I'm full of shit.

[Lou_Duran]

MW,

Go back to your or your family's deep well of musical knowledge.  Identify the top 5 - 10 composers that come to mind.  If you don't already know, research their ability to play an instrunment.  I think that you will find that while they are not the equivalent of a Tiger Woods in the performance arts, they are far better than say, a 19 handicapper in golf.

I can't prove that there is a cause and effect relationship between abilities to play and design.  I am not suggesting that there is a directly proportional relationship.   But, again, looking at a wide list of successful architects, the two seem to exist together widely.  Intuititively, it makes sense to me that the two are intertwined.  Of course, like any other generalizations, there are exceptions, sometimes many, to the rule.

In terms of the classics being the most revered, I tend to agree with you though perhaps not for the same reasons.  It is somewhat ironic that you use the GD rankings to support your point not so long after you trashed the product, process, panelists, and much everything else involved with it.  (In TEP's world, you are indeed blessed with a prodigious mind!  )

Lastly, MacKenzie's quote about the expert player designing for his own game needs to be put in context.  Through much of his life, the doctor lived pretty large without the requisite cash flow or accumulated wealth to ensure financial security.  From the literature, he appears to be very competitive and prolific in forming associations to leverage his name.  Since professionals and low-handicap amateurs were his competition in the design business, do you think that perhaps he over-emphasized that point?  He certainly used professionals and scratch amateurs to help him in his work, which is more inidicative of what I've been trying to say.  The creation of CPC #16 is but one bit of evidence.


 

[Matt_Ward]

George --

Sorry -- partner! There are "others" on GCA who are full of poop but not you.

I read your post and here goes in no particular order ...

The 8th at Paa-Ko could stand a bit more definition from the manner by which the hole turns a-b-r-u-p-t-l-y in the driving zone. It's very possible for players to hit through the fairway and then have the ball rest sooooo high it feels like your swinging a baseball bat. If you attempt to turn the ball a bit more quickly you face an uncertain fate with the carry. I generally like to see holes turn a bit more softly to accomodate the ball flight necessaary to reasonably play them.

The 4th at Paa-Ko is simply overkill IMHO. The green is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay toooooooooooooo big for what it is. I mean 98 yards in length? It simply is a FORCED element for a course that doesn't need such a "talking point."

The 1st at Black Mesa, I believe, is a clever opening hole. It makes you really wonder about the "mountain" that cuts in from the right. I like a little f-e-a-r because too many times the opening holes are nothing more than a pass-thru moment of little consequence. I agree with you take that many people will simply ruuuuuuuuuuuuuun up to the next tee box to preserve their dignity and whatever else that applies.

The 16th at Black Mesa is indeed a conversation piece. I really believe it's a superb transition by architect Baxter Spann to leave one oart of the property and get back to the finishing holes of #17 and #18. The problem?

The drive zone needs to be widened just a tad to tempt / lure the better / longer player to proceed with driver from the tee. Right now -- the space between the canyon on the left and the deep fairway bunker on the right is no more than 10-12 paces. Clearly, that type of situation ONLY MAKES the choice more clear -- club down and go from there.

Regarding your take on the lay-up options I will say there are landing zones you can do that but you have to be very p-r-e-c-i-s-e with the manner in which you hit the shot. If you happen to have toooooooooo much pace it's possible the ball will careen into some interesting positions.

The green, no doubt, is extremely demanding -- but if you have ever played a Charles Banks green it's no more so IMHO. I liked the green because the hole will not SURRENDER even if you have hit the green in two blows and it does put pressure on players who have decided to simply play their third shot with a wedge or other short club. In other words -- you have to pay attention with what you're doing. Plenty of holes at 535 yards are simply yawns because they miss out in keeping the player's attention -- the 16th at BM doesn't read any night time go-to-sleep stories EVER.

George -- keep in mind this -- the difference between someone calling a hole / course "poorly designed" and calling it "unfair" is nothing more than semantics.

In your last example (high-fives to your wife for her efforts!) I can name plenty of courses where the trees simply envelope the line of play. Rich Harvest Links in Sugar Grove, IL has a few of those "unique" situations. Like I said before -- poorly designed holes likely are unfair ones as well. The distinction when people use those words is really interchangeable in my mind.

[Lou_Duran]

Matt,

I'll get back to you on those four holes when I get sometime to do the subject justice.  

Of the top of my head:

PR#3 I liked it because of the unusually deep, tiered green, its level of difficulty, and place in the round.

PR#8 (long par 4 sharp DLL with creek/ravine/woods on the inside of the DL?) I was unable to get by the corner so it was a killer for me.  Plenty room right, which made it much longer.  Reminded me of a hole in the back side at Crooked Stick which played very long for the average hitter, and short for guys like you (JD flew the corner at the PGA and had a mere wedge to the green).

BM#1- an interesting hole for much later in the round.  It reveals the nature of the course too early, and might put the player too much in the defensive.

BM#16-  quirky, but fun.  I liked it.  High risk with potentially high rewards.  It can be played safe for a not so easy five.  Green is kind of over the top, but that is my opinion of many of the greens at BM.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the reply, Matt. I really liked PK #8, it was probably my favorite hole on the course. I don't have a probably with a strong enough dogleg that someone might run through the fairway and I don't have a probably with giving them a tough stance if they do.

You make an interesting point regarding the difference between "unfair" and "poorly designed" being primarily semantic. To a large degree, I agree with this. What concerns me is that when one labels things as "fair" and "unfair", I think it leads to things like overly smoothed out fairways (we can't have two guys who drove it 5 yards apart with different stances) and boring greens (if you were good enough to hit the green, of course it wouldn't be fair to not be able to 2 putt). To me, a quest for fairness leads to boring golf. Hopefully those pursuing the holy grail of fairness will lead things in other directions.

[A_Clay_Man]

Guys, unless I'm mistaken, the hole with the dogleg is #7 and the long par 3 is #8.

[George Pazin]

My bad, I flipped 7 & 8 and confused everyone else.

I liked the real 8, the long par 3, a lot too, though I suppose the shot is kind of like the approach to 7. I guess I liked it enough to withstand the repetition. My recollection is that the 7th green had more left to right pitch, which I like. I'll have to check up on that.

[Brad Swanson]

Adam,
   8 is THE(?) long par 3, how about 8 being the FIRST of 3 par 3s over 250 yds (from the tips!).  My only gripe about Paa ko was the brutality of the last 3 par 3s.  Don't ever recall hitting 2iron/3wood/2iron into the final par 3s of any course, EVER!

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[A_Clay_Man]

Brad- At close to 7k ft/sea level that is a nothing for a man of your ability. I don't recall seeing your answer to the postulate of this thread. I for one would be interested in your summation of "unfair".  I hope your silence on the subject speaks volumes.


As for the first par 3. The green is the only green on that course with it's own "real" distinctive chartacter. I like it for it's uniquness, especially in this country, and it's variety. I don't think I have seen a rise like that on a green, save for Fazio's 3rd at the preserve. I didn't like that one because the green size beyond is too small, and the swale that preceeds it, is too radical. On Paa Ko's fourth, the rise is elegant and not as ridiculous a one. imho

[Steve Lang]

 

I don't care that the 4th green is 100 yds loooooong as MW complains..  My only regret on the 4th at PKR was that the pin wasn't all the way back and we could have tried to run one up there.. I seem to remember being one tier short, on the right edge, having to flip it up the edge to freak it left towards the hole after slowing down on the first cut..

ON #8, et al. I'll take that 250 yds at elevation any time over a 230 yds at less than 1kft.

Since we play by the rules together, there isn't anything unfair that the course can impose on the game.

[DMoriarty]

The reality of my original definition still holds -- most notably for the 4th at NGLA. Also, Shivas stated very correctly that "bad breaks" like the one he experienced at the 4th can happen. It's the  high L-I-K-E-L-I-H-O-O-D or probability that is really the issue and something that flies completely over your head.

On the C-O-N-T-R-A-R-Y, it is the D-E-G-R-E-E of L-I-K-E-L-I-H-O-O-D, probability, and uncertainty that I am trying to explore.  If it I-N-D-E-E-D does fly over my H-E-A-D, please do explain.  

For example, with regard to the Redan, do you agree that the degree of uncertainty in result is much greater than at most par 3's?   If you were to list all of the par 3's you have ever played from low degree of uncertainty of result to high degree of uncertainty of result where, generally, would the Redan fall?

Great holes provide different ways to play them and there is a high degree of probability -- never certainty -- that if you play the shot called for you will likely receive some sort of positive feedback. I said this several times -- great holes and courses have a high degree of clarity when playing them.

Matt, as I keep saying we disagree about the degree of certainty and clarity.  Let's talk about some great holes and see where they come out on our ordering of golf holes bases on their uncertainty of result.  Where would you place the following golf holes in our list,

The punchbowl at NGLA.
The Alps at NGLA
NGLA Nos. 1,2,6, 7.
The Road Hole at St. Andrews.
Augusta 12.
Augusta 11 (approach).
Augusta 13.
Yale's Bairitz.
Riviera No. 10 (Agressive option)
The 3/4 blind oceanside par 3 at Maidstone.

You favor courses with little clarity and depend upon randomeness, luck, and God knows what else.

Thank you for telling me what I favor.  It is very helpful.

I have stated a bazillion times -- never to your divine satisfaction -- that I favor the elements of uncertainty when playing -- I just don't believe they should be the dominant characteristic and from the great golf courses I have played that factor is always a supporting role -- NEVER a primary one.

Matt, I said you stick to courses which minimize uncertainty. I didnt say you should stick to courses which eliminate uncertainty.    But, lets use your language to avoid bickering.

You stick to courses which provide for a high degree of clarity and I will stick to courses which incorporate a lesser degree of clarity, maybe even a little opacity, of result into their architectural scheme.  

No doubt I am still playing the vastly superior courses and you are stuck with a bunch of schlock courses.  

Dave -- enjoy the game -- my suggestion? Go to the local park and simply hit balls in any direction and estimate the total number of different bounces you get. I'm sure you will be enthralled.

Great idea!  Show me a park with an interesting landscape and some holes in the ground, and I am sure I will be entrhalled as well!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()