Doak and Strantz in Myrtle Beach (MattW is wrong!)

« **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2005, 10:01:48 PM »

Matt,
Your contention is that the courses that are valued by either Golf Digest or Golfweek are valued because of advertising dollars and not GCA, and that you know of great courses elsewhere in the country that are NOT rated highly because of a lack of dollars. You are certainly entitled to those opinions, though evidence is hard to come by, I suspect.

You concede only the Dunes as a Top 100 public course, and list Tidewater, Caledonia, and True Blue as maybes at best, for reasons you don't make clear. You dismiss the two Barefoot courses out of hand, again for reasons you don't make clear, and haven't played Tiger's Eye or River's Edge.

The rest of your criticism of the 20 other quality designs that I listed mentions ONLY Long Bay, a wretched course that I never mentioned anywhere, and the fact that the courses aren't firm and fast. I know that you understand that a Humid Subtropical climate such as that of the SE U.S. doesn't create or allow those conditions; that's been covered on this website many times. IT ALSO HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF THE GCA IN THE AREA. NOTHING...

You then assert once more the value of unnamed courses in other areas that only you know the quality of, mentioning one or two when I've listed 28; they have completely escaped detection by virtually all other sources. Your final argument is the "batting average" red herring, which is not only completely fictional and contrived by you, but is miscalculated and has utterly nothing to do with the quality of the 28 courses I listed. What is the total batting average across the country? Who the hell knows or cares?

Finally, though, you get to your real problem with Myrtle Beach golf in the last paragraph; again it's Joe Sixpack from Pittsburgh or Detroit, who doesn't know any better or can't afford any better, or can't dump the wife. He eats fast food, shops at Walmart, and plays golf at Myrtle Beach, and you think very, very little of him. So, it ain't about the GCA at all for you, it's about the clientele; it is in virtually every post that you have ever written about golf on the Strand, in this thread and previous ones as well. Go back and check if you don't believe me.

« **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:55:48 PM »

AG - I have tried to give Matt the benefit of the doubt over the last few months because I have enjoyed some of his reviews... especially on the New Mexico courses. But, his last post is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever seen. Pleasssse (Matt Ward "Please") do not encourage this egotistical SOB any longer.

Have you seen his "magazine?" He sent me a copy last year. It is a tabloid newspaper with more misspellings and grammatical errors than your average 5th grader's theme paper. It's pitiful. Ask him for a copy... you won't believe it. I guess we in SC are partly to blame since he graduated (I guess he graduated... he's never said) from our state university. Matt is the most blatant example I have seen on this site of someone using their "media credentials" for personal gain. How he talks his way onto all those courses is a mystery to me... they must not ask to see a copy of his publication before approving his request. He is truly a legend in his own mind.

« **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2005, 09:36:47 AM »

Quote from: paul cowley on August 23, 2005, 06:54:05 PM

...Love course at Barefoot #38 public....somethings funny, I'm with Matt.....must be those G.D. raters again....

The Love course is also rated 10th in SC by Golfweek.
Paul, I think the 16th hole at the Love course is one of the coolest par 4's I've ever seen. I played my tee shot down the left, hit a blind 7 iron in and made par, and wanted to right back to the tee and fire down the right side over the marsh and see what that gave me. Just a great hole.

« **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2005, 03:03:31 PM »

A.G.

Get real -- the market that the Grand Strand markets to is the audience I described. I didn't create the consumer reality that exists there. Maybe you're the one who really needs to see the area for what it is. The sheer overwhelming bulk of Grand Strand golf is to provide more and more courses -- the ones that are clearly architecturally compelling are indeed few and far in between.

A.G. -- I grew up in a blue collar household and have made the trek to the Grand Strand area numerous times -- I can see the profile of the person who plays there. Nothing wrong with folks seeking to play golf on a quantity basis. If you are upset with the fact then the issue rests more with you than with me.

You asked me to provide a location of other areas of the country where quality public golf, along with affordability, can be accessed within a given mileage amount (60 miles or thereabouts) and to state the names of courses equal or beyond the ones you listed for the Grand Strand area -- an area mind you that has 120+ courses and counting.

I said The Dunes would still be the best area course that I have played. I would also see it as a top 100 public layout in the USA. I gave the benefit of the doubt to Caledonia and True Blue and while I like Tidewater I don't see the arhitectural elements (maybe you can articulate them in greater detail to me) that would make it be worthy of national acclaim. Just because a course is the best of the Grand Strand doesn't make it an automatic pick to be the best in the USA. I would think you would know that.

Let me respond to your points -- the fact that the SE has hot and humid conditions doesn't give the area a free pass because firm and fast conditions cannot be attained -- when courses are continually overly wet and slow. When such conditions take place it clearly works against the inherent elements created by the architect originally. It also doesn't mean that the other areas of the USA I did mention (e.g. Albuqreque, Denver & Reno) should be held back because the they don't have the marketing and advertiising dollars that an area like the Grand Strand can put forward through its considerable efforts with Myrtle Beach Golf Holiday.

You seem to place a good deal of stock in the Digest ratings. I don't. Let me also mention the fact that I don't see how two Jim Engh courses -- Redlands Mesa and Hawktree -- both made the 2nd ten listing among those chosen by Digest as America's top public courses and are both from Colorado. I have enjoyed many Engh courses and I do like the two aforementioned courses -- but they are not thaaaaat good to be placed that high. I see my take on such assessment as not being pro one state or region.

A.G. -- you listed 28 courses. How many of them are worthy of national acclaim? Do you actually believe they are all that good? I mentioned the batting average element because when a place has 120+ courses and only a select few are truly worthy of a visit by someone outside of 500+ miles it speaks to the nature of what is really there.

It's mass volume -- the buffet golf line. And guess what -- for Pete from Pittsburgh and Dennis from Detroit that's fine with them. They get plenty of golf options and they can visit a wide number of courses in a quick manner.

Let me point out that the top five from the Albuquerque / Santa Fe area would beat out the top five -- any combination -- from the Grand Strand area IMHO.

Black Mesa
Paa-Ko Ridge
*Since you place a value on the opiinion of Digest -- both of the above were winners of the Best New Affordable Course Award recently.
UNM / Championship (superb Red Lawrence design) *Once rated by Digest in their overall top 100 listings and site of past NCAA Championships including the one won by Tiger, if memory serves me right.
Twin Warriors (site of the PGA Club Pro Championship)
Last pick either Cochiti, Isleta or even Marty Sanchez

For the Denver area -- strecthing from Castle Rock to the northern suburbs I can easily say the following would be more than capable in matching and supassing the courses you mentioned ...

Bear Dance (Larkspur)
Dunes Course at Riverdale (Brighton)
Vista Ridge
Murphy's Creek (Aurora)
The Ridge at Castle Pines North
Red Hawk Ridge or Buffalo Run or Highland Meadows in Windsor or Saddle Rock in Aurora

A.G. -- I believe the Grand Strand serves a clear purpose -- but if you are trying to position the area as some sort of home for the most compelling of golf sites available to the public then you and I see things completely differently. I never said there weren't quality golf options -- but what's best in the Grand Strand doesn't automatically convey national status IMHO. Frankly, you either don't know or casually dismiss the nature of what else is happening elsewhere in the USA. The out of sight -- out of mind argument -- is an easy one to make but clearly you need to get a Rand McNally map out and visit the places I mentioned and then tell me after you have played them if what I said is not accurate.

Michael Whitaker:

When all else fails it's so convenient to take the personal attack mode. How classy indeed.

If you don't like the magazine that was forwarded to in good faith you are entitled to your opinion. If there ar errors or omissions in the magazine we are more than happy to provide corrections / clarifications as needed. Other publications make errors and we are no different. When we are made aware of them we are more than happy to provide corrections in our pages.

One other thing -- the magazine is not a tabloid -- it is a quarterly publication in a glossy magazine style. You need to understand the terminology before you bark on and on.

The magazine has been successful -- 16 years and running --when others simply are nothing more than advertorial products -- to provide a clear voice on the golf issues that take place in the Garden State. Please forward me to any publication you are actively involved with. I would love to learn from those who are even more successful.

Let me also point out that my media credentials are validated through contributions made to an array of different publications with an interest in golf over a number of years. I am also a full member of the Golf Writer's Ass'n of America and the Met Golf Writer's Ass'n as well as having served for 17 years as a national course rating panelist for Golf Digest. You character assasination speaks volumes to you as a person -- a blowhard in the wilderness.

If you believe your credentials or course assessments are superior to mine please take the higher road and deal with the issues on this thread and we can debate as needed. However, if you want to sink to the low level of a Lee Atwater style personal attack -- I'm sure you remember
him -- then your actions will be seen simply for what they are.

P.S. One last thing I graduated with honors in 1983 with a Masters in Public Administration from USC in Columbia.

« **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2005, 04:07:48 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on August 24, 2005, 03:03:31 PM

... an area mind you that has 120+ courses and counting.

A.G. -- you listed 28 courses. How many of them are worthy of national acclaim? Do you actually believe they are all that good? I mentioned the batting average element because when a place has 120+ courses and only a select few are truly worthy of a visit by someone outside of 500+ miles it speaks to the nature of what is really there.

It's mass volume -- the buffet golf line. And guess what -- for Pete from Pittsburgh and Dennis from Detroit that's fine with them. They get plenty of golf options and they can visit a wide number of courses in a quick manner.

Let me point out that the top five from the Albuquerque / Santa Fe area would beat out the top five -- any combination -- from the Grand Strand area IMHO.

Black Mesa
Paa-Ko Ridge
*Since you place a value on the opiinion of Digest -- both of the above were winners of the Best New Affordable Course Award recently.
UNM / Championship (superb Red Lawrence design) *Once rated by Digest in their overall top 100 listings and site of past NCAA Championships including the one won by Tiger, if memory serves me right.
Twin Warriors (site of the PGA Club Pro Championship)
Last pick either Cochiti, Isleta or even Marty Sanchez

For the Denver area -- strecthing from Castle Rock to the northern suburbs I can easily say the following would be more than capable in matching and supassing the courses you mentioned ...

Bear Dance (Larkspur)
Dunes Course at Riverdale (Brighton)
Vista Ridge
Murphy's Creek (Aurora)
The Ridge at Castle Pines North
Red Hawk Ridge or Buffalo Run or Highland Meadows in Windsor or Saddle Rock in Aurora

A.G. -- I believe the Grand Strand serves a clear purpose -- but if you are trying to position the area as some sort of home for the most compelling of golf sites available to the public then you and I see things completely differently. I never said there weren't quality golf options -- but what's best in the Grand Strand doesn't automatically convey national status IMHO. Frankly, you either don't know or casually dismiss the nature of what else is happening elsewhere in the USA. The out of sight -- out of mind argument -- is an easy one to make but clearly you need to get a Rand McNally map out and visit the places I mentioned and then tell me after you have played them if what I said is not accurate.

1. 120+ is an exaggeration of over 30% for the total number of courses. To exceed 90 courses on the Strand, you have to go all the way to Bald Head Island and Southport, and then you end at about 93.

2. The "batting average" that you cling to so lovingly, even if you were doing the math correctly, is a bizarre way to evaluate courses. Is ANGC devalued because of low-quality munis in the Augusta area? How about TOC? How about Pebble Beach? I don't get that concept at all, but you seem really insistent on it. I've never seen this methodology applied by anybody else to any other group of courses. Even if every other course in MB was a dog, how would that detract from the GCA of the top ones?

3. I am happy to see you list some courses, finally. When I get a minute, I'll try to look at them on the Web and see what I am missing. I truly believe that they are of high quality, because I have at least heard of most of them, if not read about them. A question, though: Are they devalued in any way by lesser courses around THEM? If not, why not?

4. Most people that enjoy Tidewater and rate it highly consider it to be, for lack of a better word, an excellent "neoclassical" effort. It is a very traditional, straightforward layout in what used to be (before massive housing) a beautiful setting, and with very interesting greens and a number of compelling holes, especially the par threes.

5. Of the 28 courses that I listed, many have received national acclaim by others, not me. I simply said that I knew these 28 to be excellent, and that others agree. The Golf Digest rankings, along with Golfweek, are what they are, but the overlap between the two magazines on the top 8 courses is significant, especially if you look at the state-by-state rankings from Golfweek and the Public Course list from GD. I stand by my statement that these 28 courses are all good GCA; the first group of 8 are excellent, along with some others that haven't gotten as much national attention.

6. Maybe you could go course by course through just the ones on the GD Public Course list, and enlighten me as to what is wrong with them is specific language. Start with the Love course at Barefoot, which both magazines like, and which really like, and tell me why you dismiss it out of hand. When you played it, what was wrong with the GCA?

« **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2005, 07:16:08 PM »

A.G.

Many thanks for your thoughtful reply -- for the sake of discussion I'll drop the batting average argument but my point is still a valid one -- the bulk of what constitutes the Grand Strand is simply filler golf -- yes -- there are quality alternatives and the Grand Strand has had its own renaissance (shall I dare use the word) with some of the more recent openings. But the renaissance comes from having had the bar soooooo low for too long.

Do yourself a favor and read Doak's comments in Confidential Guide regarding the Grand Strand courses. Tell me how he is off base with the following comments on Tidewater ...

..."Overall, I think the course has been overrated by the golf magazines -- though it was nice to see them applaud something different, just once -- and because of the inevitable power of Myrtle Beach mass publicity; but it certainly is a refreshing alternative to Dan Maples' or Tom Jackson's ninth course in Myrtle Beach."

A.G. -- let me point out for you that land / terrain for me is no less than 60% of the equation when I evaluate courses. Much of the land in the Grand Strand area is typically flat and usually bull-dozed to death to provide some sort of unnatural "movement." You rarely have any bunkering scheme that is beyond 7th grade design level and the putting surfaces are usually big enough to handle the traffic but few have any real puzzles to overcome.

I don't know how much you personally travel -- but other areas of the country -- a few I have mentioned -- have come a good long ways in what they provide. I salute the PR / Mktg types within the Grand Strand area. They have shown what you can do with a steady message to the golfing masses. Like I said --without being mean spirited -- popularity with the golfing masses is one thing -- providing compelling architectural designs that are among the finest in the USA is quite another matter.

I stick to what I said -- the top five in the Albuquerque / Santa Fe quadrant and the ones in the immediate Denver suburbs can more than handle the elites from the Grand Strand.

I look forward to your reply.

« **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2005, 09:03:30 PM »

Matt,
I have the Confidential Guide, and have read Doak's comments on Tidewater several times. It is worth noting that a 5 or higher has his "seal of approval", for whatever that is worth to any individual, and Tidewater gets a 6. The Dunes is a 7. His own course, Heathlands at the Legends complex is a 6. As a basis of comparison, the Ocean Course at Kiawah is also a 7. Caledonia was under construction at the time of the book's writing, True Blue didn't exist, Tiger's Eye didn't exist, River's Edge didn't exist, the Barefoot courses didn't exist.

In fact, in the Confidential Guide Gazateer section, under the heading "Best Courses You Can Play-USA and Canada", there are:
10--one course, Pinehurst #2
9--2 courses
8--5 courses
7--13 courses
6--24 courses

In other words, there are only 21 public access courses that Doak rates as better than Tidewater. These include, in addition to Pinehurst, Pebble Beach, Yale, Harbour Town, Sawgrass, Bethpage Black, Blackwolf Run, Pasatiempo, Spyglass, The Ocean Course, Spanish Bay, and PGA West. I don't mean this as a knock on Mr. Doak, but given the tone of the commentary in the Confidential Guide and the strictness of the rating scale, Tidewater comes out of THAT rating smelling like a rose as well.

As to the terrain at Myrtle, it is like the coast most places. It's flat, or pretty much so. That hasn't held back Shinnecock, or TOC, or The Ocean Course, or lots of others around the world. I'm not sure what to do with the criticism here; Pete Dye typically moves a lot of earth, doesn't he? Does that detract from his golf courses in your rating/evaluation of them? In N. Mexico, if a lot of earth has to be moved to make a course flat enough to play, is that unnatural and does it detract from the final product? Do you look at a finished course and say "Wow, that's too bad! It would have been good, but it looks like they moved a lot of dirt to create a good course." I don't get the point.

Finally, as to your comments on bunkering and the "puzzles" in the greens. While the fact that we are talking ONLY about public access courses means that there has to be some degree of playability in the bunkers and greens, I think that the 8 courses that are highly rated on the Strand are NOT dull in terms of the bunkering or green contours. Of course, there are public courses there and everywhere else that DO have dull bunkering, but that is another version of the batting average argument, Matt. You are damning the top end by association. Same question as before: is ANGC a lesser course because somewhere in the greater Augusta area we find several courses with 7th grade bunkers and non-puzzling greens? I would think that most of the golf world would consider such a conclusion absurd, and rightly so. Why is another area any different. I don't get it.

Again, since you dismissed the Love course out of hand as unworthy of its ranking, use it as an example. I liked the bunkering, LOVED the greens. What is wrong with the bunkering there? What is wrong with the greens there? What was wrong with that course when you played it? Don't talk about MB golf in generalities or averages; just take the 8 courses that are highly thought of by others besides you and me, starting with the Love course, and deal with the top end. That is what you are doing in Albuquerque, after all.

« **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2005, 09:21:07 PM »

Matt Ward,

I support the general thrust of your comments about Myrtle Beach and would be surprised if many people here really disagreed with your perspective on this issue.

Myrtle Beach is hardly a place I would recommend for people wanting to study golf architecture. Yes, it is a okay place for folks from Cleveland or Detroit or Chicago to go in February, but I can't think of many courses I'd rate that highly.

Tidewater, for example? Well, its okay - as I recall - but I never had a burning desire to return. Ditto for most of the other courses cited in this thread.

« **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2005, 09:33:08 PM »

Great to hear from you, Tim. Perhaps you to can comment on the other 7 Myrtle Beach courses besides Tidewater that Golf Digest ranks in the top 100 public courses in the country, OR the 7 that Golfweek lists in the 20 best in North and South Carolina combined?

Oh, wait...

Since you aren't from Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc., you might not have played ANY of those courses besides Tidewater or the Dunes. Hey, that's o.k.; just bust on the whole area and sound authoritative while you do it. Experience optional.

By the way, I don't value the rankings all that much, though they are fun. I just value them above the opinions of various individuals who shall remain nameless.

« **Reply #34 on:** August 25, 2005, 12:25:56 AM »

A.G. Crockett:

Actually, I am from Cleveland and have lived and worked in both Chicago and Pittsburgh, though not Detroit. With winters in those locales in mind, I can certainly appreciate a group of guys going off to play golf in Myrtle Beach in February.

Moreover, I have played several of the top rated Myrtle courses, including Tidewater, True Blue, Caledonia, Dunes, etc.

But, these courses never produced a burning desire to return.

That's in contrast to my recent experience at Notre Dame where I enjoyed playing the course and would also recommend it for the study of golf architecture.

« **Reply #35 on:** August 25, 2005, 08:36:18 AM »

Tim,
If you go back and read all the stuff in this thread, you'll see pretty quickly that I NEVER recommended to anyone that they go to Myrtle Beach to study golf course architecture. I think its great that you like the course at Notre Dame better than Caledonia and True Blue.

What I DID contend, and stand by, is that the Myrtle Beach area is unjustly bashed here. If you look at the top tier of public access courses on the 60 mile length of the Strand, there are 10 or so courses that are very, very highly regarded by the raters at Golf Digest and Golfweek. That's not to lionize those rankings, but it is, in some small measure, a validation of the quality and depth of the public access golf there. I personally know of another 20 or so courses that are very good, and I named them.

(By the way, leaving out Jeff Brauer's Avocet course at Wild Wing Plantation was a serious omission from my personal list; my apologies, and I have amended my original list.)

The courses that I listed were designed by, among others, RTJ, Strantz, Doak, Rees Jones, Pete Dye, Brauer, DL III, as well as more regional guys like Maples and Tim Cate. That is not a bad list for a 60 mile area of public courses.

Matt Ward disagrees with me, of course. However, it is important to note that the ONLY specific criticism of a specific course on the Strand that he has offered during this entire conversation is to quote Doak's comments about Tidewater from the Confidential Guide. I have responded to that, and will let my comments about the overall thrust of the Confidential Guide's coverage of Tidewater speak for themselves.

Other than that, Matt has declined to discuss a single specific course in the listings I provided, most especially the Love Course at Barefoot Landing. In Reply #22, Matt wrote "Both Barefoot courses are quality layouts -- but are they worthy of top 100 status -- pardon me but Fuuuugitaboutit !!"

I've asked him several times now to elevate the discussion from the "batting average" or "Joe Sixpack" generalities to the merits of a highly-regarded specific course that he dismissed without comment (#38 in the country in the Golf Digest Public Course Rankings, and #10 in SC in the Golfweek state rankings) but have gotten no response. Maybe today.

If you'd like to start a thread on the Notre Dame course, knock yourself out. I haven't played it, and have only seen a few pictures, and would love to know more. But analyzing Myrtle Beach golf by saying that you would rather go back to the one course at Notre Dame than any course at MB is pretty much beside the point, don't you think? I'd rather play AGNC, Pebble, TOC, or several others

around the world that go to Myrtle myself, but that's not what we are talking about.

What we ARE talking about is a relatively small area, say 60 miles, that has a LOT of highly regarded public courses packed into it. I contend that the Strand has such courses in an AMOUNT that would be hard to match anywhere else in the country. Why don't you either shorten my list with specific criticisms, OR offer your own 8-30 public course list from some other area? Then we'll have something to talk about.

« **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2005, 11:29:59 AM »

A.G.

Time doesn't permit me to respond in great detail but to sort of piggyback on what Tim Weiman said ... if the weather is equal throughout the United States do you personally believe the Grand Strand area is the primary must "go to" location in the United States.

Please don't play dodger play or tap dance around the queston.

Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice for now.

A.G. -- do yourself a huge favor -- rent-a-car and get a Rand McNally map because plenty of places in the USA -- those with golf within a 60 mile vicinity -- have surpassed the Grand Strand area -- I salute your dogged loyalty to the region -- frankly Myrtle Beach Golf Holiday should comp you on your next visits to the places -- but you are being a bit stubborn in defending a location that is more of an after-thought than a "go to" place for serious golf.

Just because you may not have played other layouts that I and others have mentioned it doesn't mean they don't exist. Places like Black Mesa and Paa-Ko Ridge blow away what you see at the Grand Strand. Not even close. There are others in New Mexico that are also worthy of attention but get so little. Ditto Colorado and other states too. And one other thing -- I'm talking about a confined geographical area and one where the prices are more than reasonable.

One other thing about Barefoot and other layouts you mentioned -- the terrain / land for these places is the same situation over and over. I told you that in my book the terrain is no less than 60% of the equation. In many ways the Grand Strand area mimicks what you see with so many locations in Florida and even in my home state of New Jersey -- especially near the Atlantic City area and southward. Houses on one side -- with OB and H20 being used to extremes because the terrain is so predictable and pedestrian. Yes, the architects can make that up with better routing and shot values -- and I do like both of the Barefoot layouts -- but to escalate them into a top 100 in THE UNITED STATES -- is a major league jump. I don't know what else I can tell you because you are clearly determined to keep your position no matter what I say. So be it.

Keep this in mind -- IN THE PORTFOLIO OF COURSES THAT A.G. CROCKETT HAS PLAYED THEY MAY BE TOP 100 BUT NOT IN MY BOOK. You see A.G. just because I don't rate Barefoot in the top 100 doesn't mean it's not a good golf course -- it's just that there are better golf courses I have played and likely you have not played. Maybe you need to value the opinions of others who likely have played a greater depth of courses from a much more wider range of terrain in the USA than you have.

A.G. -- Tom Doak gave Tidewater a number that was more than generous. Since that time the profusion of public golf courses -- those with serious architectural offerings -- has grown considerably. I have happend to have had the good fortune to have played many of these courses throughout the United States.

Tom gave The Ocean Course a 7 and frankly it's a bit better than that. Tidewater is a good layout -- Ken Tomlinson deserves plenty of credit but candidly -- what are the holes from Tidewater that would even remotely make a best public course listing for America? In my mind -- the 13th at The Dunes is still worthy of attention.

Tom also gave Bethpage Black a 7 when he rated it. Again, here is a course that has improved itself a good bit since that time.

I'll provide more comments but A.G. -- you are an earnest poster on this topic but you need to play more of the public courses that have opened because the bar has risen dramatically and frankly the best of the Grand Strand is not at that same level minus the very few we have both agreed upon.

« **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2005, 11:52:15 AM »

No, I don't believe that Myrtle Beach is THE must go golf destination in the U.S. Never alleged it, never wrote it, never thought it. Clear enough? Not "dodger" or "tap dancer" enough?

Time doesn't permit a detailed response to my question about the Love course, but you then have time to write 10 more paragraphs in the post! Wow! You must have a LOT to say about the course! When you get a moment, just respond to that one question.

BTW, I stipulate for all time that you have played more courses across the US than I have, or ever will. Congratulations on that. Of course, that wasn't what the thread is about, but if it makes you feel better, go for it. For the time being, though, if you could just stick to this:

1. Make my list of 30 quality courses in a 60 mile area shorter by specific comments

or,

2. Offer your own list in detail of a similar number of quality public access courses by widely respected group of architects that have received a reasonable amount of critical acclaim in a single 60 mile area.

All this other stuff about my needing to travel more is just you using an escape hatch that you use a lot. Just talk about the subject of the thread, starting with your specific problems with the Love course. Go hole by hole if you can.

« **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2005, 07:57:38 PM »

Oh, Matt...

Let's see, since you said you didn't have time to respond concerning the Love Course, you have written extensively on how I need to get out of the house more, and, as I write this, a couple of other threads show you as writing the most recent post.

Does this mean that you are NEVER going to tell me and the rest of the golf world

why it is that the Love Course is not worthy of the acclaim that is has gotten from various sources other than me? Not about what's good in Denver or Albuquerque, or why I should travel more and generally try to be more like you, but answering the only question that I've been asking for two days now.

Forget Doak's review of Tidewater.
Forget generalities about batting averages, 7th grade bunkering, and Joe Sixpack.
Forget even the rest of the list.

Just be even general about what the Love Course ("Both Barefoot courses are quality layouts -- but are they worthy of top 100 status -- pardon me but Fuuuugitaboutit !!" Remember?) lacks to make it worthy of the attention that it has gotten.

C'mon, Matt. You review golf courses, for crying out loud. Your public is waiting.

« **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2005, 08:02:14 PM »

A.G.

Here are some inconvenient facts for you to consider -- yes --I have actually played a fairly reasonable number of courses througout the USA and believe I have the background and wherewithal to make some sort of grand comparison. Too many people -- you may be one of them -- take the position that the best courses they have played must therefore then be the best courses in the nation. That's a wonderful premise but frankly I don't buy it.

Just stay with me on this --

I never said the top courses you mentioned in the Grand Strand region are dogfood or anything close to that. I did acknowledge -- several times in fact -- the merits of the courses you stated. I even gave the benefit of the doubt to layouts such as True Blue and Caledonia -- you seem to take that as a given -- I don't but I still went ahead with them just the same.

Look A.G. -- without being pompous -- I have a large database of courses played in the USA and it's likely you have not played the courses I have mentioned in this thread. Given that fact -- I don't see how you are in a position to question my statements on what I believe is better. Something can be the best in a given area or even a state -- going to the national level is a big time leap and frankly many courses are no where near that level. For eight (

courses in the Grand Strand area to make Digest's top 100 listing is frankly wrong. When you don't even have Black Mesa listed that tells me where the Digest is going -- too many panelists are swayed by the advertising blitz that Myrtle Beach Golf Holiday does better than just about anyone else.

I don't doubt you are earnest in your defense of the area but until you play the actual courses I have stated how do you know for sure that I am so way off base? The answer is a simple one -- you can't.

I'm sorry that's an inconvenient fact but it is what it is. I liked the Love Course -- ditto the Fazio one. But there are plenty of other courses that are a good bit beyond -- in some cases far beyond in the nation as a whole.

You raised the issue of Digest's Top 100 Public Listing and attempted to validate the standing of the Grand Strand through this listing. I have already pointed out to the flaw in such a desire. You don't want to listen to anything but your own comments. Fair enough -- ignorance is bliss.

The simple facts are the Grand Strand does have some noteworthy courses -- are they especially meaningful and compelling from the architectural meter? Well, if one were to simply compare the courses you listed to the ones that already exist in the Grand Strand the answer would be yes. When you take the argument to a level of national interest the answer is a resounding no.

A.G. -- you make the silly statement that the 30 courses you pronounced in the Grand Strand area are so noteworthy -- I don't see it and frankly if so many others were defenders of the area I'm sure they would jump on this thread with their own support comments.

You say critical acclaim -- by who? Digest? Is that what you are basing your comments upon? Please A.G. I have respect for your loyalty to the top elite courses you mentioned -- say the top 8-10 but if you think that the rolodex of above average courses is worthy of visits by people from around the country you are truly pushing the envelope too hard.

Visiting courses across the nation is not an escape hatch argument -- it's a dodge ball maneuver by you.

« **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2005, 09:03:08 PM »

(Imagine the voice-over narration of the CLASSIC "Dukes of Hazzard")

Don't y'all wish they would discuss politics? I mean......

Joe

« **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2005, 09:15:46 PM »

Matt,

Never said that the MB courses were the best I ever played; they aren't. Just said the there were few, if any, places in the country that had 8 or more public access courses that are as highly ranked as the Strand, and that is still true.

You didn't really give the benefit of the doubt to Caledonia and True Blue; you said it would make an interesting 19th hole discussion as to whether they were top 100 courses. Besides, the concept of those two golf courses needing the "benefit of the doubt" from you calls into question anything else that you write.

Never questioned your statements that there are better courses than the ones at MB, just as I never claimed they were the best in the country, or the best I've ever played. I DO question your statements about the MB courses themselves, because you won't back them up with specifics. Again.

Of course there are golf courses in the nation better than the MB courses, including the Barefoot courses. That was never my contention and you know it. I was speaking ONLY about the volume of quality public access courses, as judged by others, in a 60 mile area, and you know it! Period. Your attempt to remake the argument in your own image is transparent, to say the least.

You wrote:
"You raised the issue of Digest's Top 100 Public Listing and attempted to validate the standing of the Grand Strand through this listing. I have already pointed out to the flaw in such a desire. You don't want to listen to anything but your own comments. Fair enough -- ignorance is bliss. The simple facts are the Grand Strand does have some noteworthy courses -- are they especially meaningful and compelling from the architectural meter? Well, if one were to simply compare the courses you listed to the ones that already exist in the Grand Strand the answer would be yes. When you take the argument to a level of national interest the answer is a resounding no."

I don't even know what this means. You say the magazine listings, and they are NATIONAL magazine listings, not regional ones, are flawed. I accept that. But they DO have national circulation and national interest. Even you can't deny that. Plus, you are indirectly back to the batting average concept, which you KNOW isn't the argument. Conveniently, you also focus on my use of the GD rankings and choose to ignore the references to Golfweek, which rank 7 MB courses among the 20 best public access course in NC/SC combined. Why is that?

What I have said about the 30 courses is that they are good golf courses in the estimation of others, and that I agree, that it is a LOT of good golf in a very small area, and that I don't know of another place in the country that duplicates that combination. I've said it over and over and over, and you only argue other things. You dismiss the statements I make, but have not yet even once explained why a specific course I've listed is not "noteworthy" (your word, not mine) EXCEPT to quote Tom Doak's book, in which he actually rates the course you are critical of highly on balance nationally.

Let's try not to worry too much about others joining the thread; this forum is not real big on discussions about courses in the SE in general. I'm used to that. Threads about courses in this part of the country generally go nowhere anyway. I'll just settle for YOUR input.

I've asked you at least 4 times now to explain why the Love Course is not worthy of the acclaim that it has gotten from others besides me. Finally in the this last post, you claim to have liked the Love course (as well as the Fazio course), which is the first I'd heard of that from you, but still decline to say specifically WHY it is less than its rankings.

So again I ask you:
In what specific ways do specific features of the Love course fall short of the opinions of the raters from two national publications? Don't tell me in general terms about other better courses, don't tell me to travel more, don't bash raters, don't talk about your credentials and "database"; just answer that one very, very simple and straightforward question.

Frankly, this is getting kind of suspicious...

« **Reply #42 on:** August 25, 2005, 09:27:01 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on August 25, 2005, 09:03:08 PM

(Imagine the voice-over narration of the CLASSIC "Dukes of Hazzard")

Don't y'all wish they would discuss politics? I mean......

Joe

Joe,
Just get him to answer one pretty simple question, and I promise I'll stop.
Best,

Cooter Crockett

(and yes, Davy WAS a cousin; heck, we're damn near ALL cousins down here...)

« **Reply #43 on:** August 25, 2005, 09:33:40 PM »

AG,

(in my best "Roscoe" impersonation):

Good news, Good news.......

Joe

p.s I don't mind this, really. I used to live in Southport, NC, so this is strangely nostalgic....in a weird kind of way. It does remind me why the southerners don't like yankees.....

« **Reply #44 on:** August 25, 2005, 09:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on August 25, 2005, 09:33:40 PM

AG,

(in my best "Roscoe" impersonation):

Good news, Good news.......

Joe

p.s I don't mind this, really. I used to live in Southport, NC, so this is strangely nostalgic....in a weird kind of way. It does remind me why the southerners don't like yankees.....

Shoot, Matt probably means well; he just doesn't know any better.

(Notice that I stayed away from the Texas saying "Big hat, no cattle.")

« **Reply #45 on:** August 26, 2005, 01:25:44 PM »

A.G.

I provided specifics -- you just don't want to admit that what constitutes "quality golf" in the Grand Strand area is not really worthy of national acclaim. I conceded The Dunes and gave the benefit of the doubt to True Blue and Caledonia. You, on the other hand, have conceded nothing and on top of that belittle the amount of courses I have seen in order to make the national comparisons / contrasts that I have.

A.G. -- the Golf Digest system is a flawed one. You're the guy who embraces it as some sort of "Bible" on the standing of golf courses. I don't. I listed for you a number of flaws in their assessment and they included the placement of two (2) Jim Engh courses in the nation's top 20 -- a person who has done excellent work with the likes of Lakota Canyon Ranch -- and the absolute ignorance in not having Black Mesa listed at all.

The Digest system has raters who are unduly influenced by the amount of advertising / marketing hype that takes place. I can see it in their embracing of all things that are Tom Fazio. I like a certain number of his designs but if you look at the Digest top 100 overall listing you will find plenty of layouts that are not even borderline good -- they get there because of location and ad dollars tied to their promotion. The due diligence that Digest should demonstrate in its course reviews / ratings is clearly lacking and I disgard it for the lack of information it provides me.

The Love Course really doesn;t begin until you get to the long par-4 5th hole at 450+ if memory serves. The holes before it are nothing more than adequate. The 8th hole -- the par-5 that is cut-off by wetlands -- especially onfronting the player who wants a go at the green with the second shot -- is also well done. The back side is the better but you also have holes that are far from truly detailed. Take the split green at the par-3 11th -- it's a nice touch to have a split green but is either really that different from the other? The strength of the course comes with the 12th hole and continues through to the 18th. Yes, this part of the course has a number of exciting holes but the issue of boring terrain is still prevalent for the bulk of the layout. I value terrain and land as the first among equals in terms of my course visits -- the Love Course uses what it has in fine fashion but it doesn't move the meter for me to be worthy of national (top 100 public in the USA) position.

Another point -- the bunkering is quite pedestrian in its overall appearance and placement. In many cases -- it's an added feature without real meaning in a number of holes.

Let me point out that you need to play a new course in Orlando at Reunion called the Independence Course by Tom Watson. It is beyond the likes of the Love Course and candidly I am not the biggest fan of Florida for all the reasons I have previously mentioned. I don't see how the Love Courses occupies a top 50 public rating for the USA when others -- to wit -- Black Mesa and Greg Norman's Red Sky Ranch, to name just two.

Try to remember this AGAIN -- I never said the course was dogfood -- did you read that A.G. -- never said it -- I did say that based on my experiences it's not at the level worthy of where it's rated now by Digest.

A.G. -- allow me to clue you in -- the Digest listing even has Great River -- the fraud of a layout in CT -- also listed int he top 100. You have this idea that if Digest lists a course then all is well with the world. Sorry to bust your bubble but your dead wrong.

A.G. You are enamored with the amount of golf that's in the Grand Strand area. Have you ever heard of the Scottsdale area -- the Palm Springs area -- the upper area of Michigan --Cape Cod? These place have an equal or superior range of courses. Just keep this in mind my southern gentleman -- the style of the bulk of Grand Strand golf is on par with Walmart --you give people lower prices and they flock like birds. Let me also point out that the Grand Strand has indeed created a "second" wave of newer courses that are a good bit beyond the Burger King / Taco Bell stuff that masquerades as quality golf architecture. The courses you mentioned -- the first 8 -- can classify in the manner of superior additions -- but that is when they are COMPARED to what came before them. The others you mentioned are good additions but nothing that would make me and others who want to play compelling design decide to get in a car and make the trek there.

Candidly, the Grand Strand area -- for the bulk of what is there -- is built around playing quanity golf -- with ample food and drink and who knows how many gentlemen's clubs. Guess what A.G. -- maybe you should assess the quality of the striip clubs because frankly I am tired of trying to convince people of things they are clearly unaware of and show no respect for those who have already done the heavy lifting.

I'll say this again -- visit the places I have mentioned in this thread and when you do -- if you ever do -- then begin to talk to me about what I am missing in terms of overall course analysis. Until then knock yourself out with all the wonderful golf that exists in the Grand Strand area.

Take care partner ...

« **Reply #46 on:** August 26, 2005, 02:52:29 PM »

Matt, how would you say Doak's Heathland Course and Strantz's True Blue or the Dunes compare to the courses you have mentioned in "the Scottsdale area -- the Palm Springs area -- the upper area of Michigan --Cape Cod".
Are they comparable to the best public access courses in those areas, better, a notch below, well below?

« **Reply #47 on:** August 26, 2005, 04:07:31 PM »

Matt,
Wow! Finally! Thanks for the evaluation of what you didn't like about the Love course, even though it is sandwiched in between 10 more paragraphs of rantings about stuff you imagine that I said. You've now managed to offer specific comments on TWO courses of the 8 ranked ones and 30 that I mentioned, though one set of comments was Doak's writing. At this rate, we'll never finish.

As to the Love course, I'd differ with you on these points:

Holes 1-3 are a great way to start a golf course; very open and playable; 2 provides good recovery possibilities for missing the green, 3 does not. I thought #4 was a very good hole; driveable, though the ruins come into play if you miss. You can bail right off the tee, but are left with a somewhat difficult wedge to a green that is elevated from that angle. All in all, a very good sequence of holes to start a course. The back is very, very good; #16 is one of the best par 4's I have ever played, in part because of a landform that represents one of the many fairly significant terrain changes that I don't think you give enough credit to on the Barefoot property.

I also liked the bunkering, possibly because I had played the Moorlands the day before, where some of P.B. Dye's bunkers border on unplayable, at least in terms of recovery. Several holes, like #7, have fairway bunkers that are well-placed. I would agree that it is NOT a course that one walks off of thinking about the cool bunkers, but I haven't played a Love course yet where I did feel that way, and I have liked them all.

You didn't mention the greens in this post, though you called them "pedestrian" in an earlier post. I would disagree strongly with that characterization. I thought the variety of sizes and contours was excellent, and I think the sq. footages and topo maps would bear that out.

The question all along was why you say the course wasn't worthy of the rankings it has gotten, and you finally did at least a little of that. I was beginning to think you were talking about a course you hadn't really seen, but I'm sure that's impossible.

No need to go point by point through the rest of your stuff, but I will mention a few things (again):

1. I've never embraced any rankings as a bible. I DID say, as a factual matter, that there are a large number of Strand courses ranked, and that is still true. The rankings are what they are; I just commented on them. You know that.

2. I never belittled you portfolio of courses visited. I DID urge you to just list another place with as many public courses that were highly regarded BY OTHERS besides you and me. Which, by the way, you still haven't done. I've played golf in Scottsdale, and loved it, and you could argue the quality of the relative rankings with justification, but, again, that wasn't the point. You know that, too.

3. I never claimed that ALL of the courses at MB were great, or even good. You and I both know that isn't true. I DID say that there are 30 or so very good public courses done by top-shelf GCA's in a 60 mile area, and that is a lot relative to other places in the country. Still true, and you know that as well.

4. Of course the Strand is built around quantity! Everybody knows that. The issue here was the depth of the top end; that's all I've ever tried to get you to be specific about. Geez...

5. I DO eat fast food and shop at Walmart, two habits that seem to be obsessions with you. I DON"T do strip clubs, so others will have to evaluate those for you if you need the reviews.

Good luck with the "heavy lifting". Speaking only for me, I appreciate the effort, and hope you don't get a hernia from carrying all that knowledge around. It's got to be a burden for you...

« **Reply #48 on:** August 26, 2005, 05:30:39 PM »

A.G.

My burden is wasting time talking to someone who doesn't know just HOW MUCH BETTER the other courses I spoke about are in regards to the courses you listed from the Grand Strand. The Digest ratings were used by you as some sort of justification for the ones that were selected for the top 100 public. I mentioned to you that using the Digest as some sort of reference really didn't jive with the reality that Digest and its esteemed panel missed the boat in so many ways with their results.

Frankly, I don't really care that there are plenty of "good" courses in the area of the Grand Strand. Great -- knock yourself playing them. I try to schedule my time to play the courses of high distinction -- my last trek was to the UP of Michigan to play Greywalls and it's a course that is light years beyond the ones you constantly talk about in the Grand Strand area.

Yes, we can agree that the Grand Strand has its fair share of good courses -- are there courses of compelling architectural merit? Well -- The Dunes certainly qualifies as one. The others are good courses and I salute you for your earnest defense -- but candidly A.G. you can't tell me I'm so wrong when you have not played the other courses I have mentioned that are indeed better.

The Love Course at Barefoot is clearly a good step or two beyond the pedestrian stuff that attempts to call itself golf in the Grand Strand area. I'm happy to see that the bar is starting to rise. However, when I see Digest list The Heritage as one of the best 100 public courses in America I have to sit down and have a good laugh (read Doak's comments on that layout when you have the time).

A.G. -- hopefully if you ever trek west you will see what I am saying. When you have places like Red Rock in Rapid City not rated ... ditto the Norman Course at Red Sky Ranch in Colorado and most of all -- Black Mesa just outside of Santa Fe, I can say without hesitation that something is clearly amiss.

I said before and you might want to play it if you make your way to Orlando -- try the new Independence Course by Watson at Reunion just outside of Orlando. I really hate much of Florida golf but there are some worthy of a look. That one works quite well. Ditto Ocean Hammock -- the Nicklaus Course in Palm Coast -- fortunately Digest did rate that one.

A.G. -- it's likely that over a cold brew we would agree more than we disagree. But, I don't take kindly to people who short side the time and effort I put into the many visits I make. That doesn't make my opinions being 100% on target but when I see people with far less homework throwing verbal darts I have to question them seriously as they seek to belittle the database I routinely use for comparisons and contrasts of courses here in the States.

P.S. On my next visit to SC -- which will be during football season with the Gamecocks I plan on returning to the Grand Strand area and playing the other two courses that Digest rated for their top 100. I'll let you know what I think after I play them.

« **Reply #49 on:** August 26, 2005, 06:29:16 PM »

Matt,
I hope you enjoy Tiger's Eye and River's Edge. It's a pretty good drive from Columbia to Shallotte/Sunset, so I hope traffic isn't bad and the weather is good. I'll look forward to hearing what you have to say about them.

At no point during this thread have I "shortsided" your work. I have simply asked you to stay on task; compare the VOLUME of courses that OTHERS consider good at MB to the VOLUME of courses that OTHERS consider good in a similarly sized area. That's all. Nothing more.

You don't like the OTHERS that I have quoted (and that's all I done; quoted them) and that's your right. You are unquestionably right that there are far better individual courses on the UP of Michigan and in Orlando and in any number of other places, but that was never what this was about. You've insisted on talking about either:
1. the mediocre courses on the Strand as a mitigating factor
2. the better individual courses that you have seen elsewhere

All I ever asked you to do was tell me WHY specific courses on the Strand that I listed weren't as good as evaluated. Trashing me, Southerners, other courses, fast food, Walmart, and blue-collar workers, which you have done throughout, was your idea, and mighty entertaining! It just took us an unnecessarily long, long time to get your thoughts on even two of the courses, given the level of experience and knowledge that you possess. But you're young; you'll learn.

If anybody else reads this drivel, PLEASE don't take my word, Matt's word, or a magazine's word for it; go play the Love Course at Barefoot, along with Heathlands, Tiger's Eye, River's Edge, The Dunes, Caledonia, True Blue, and Tidewater, and see what you think. (I left out the Fazio course at Barefoot on purpose) I bet you consider it to be one of the better golf trips you've ever been on.

Oh, yeah...
Before you leave, be sure to get some good recommendations for strip clubs. I don't know any, but there's this guy in New Jersey...

News:

A.G._Crockett

Michael Whitaker

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett

Tim_Weiman

A.G._Crockett

Tim_Weiman

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

Joe Hancock

A.G._Crockett

A.G._Crockett

Joe Hancock

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

Andy Hughes

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett