What are WE missing?

« **Reply #25 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:04:43 PM »

Jim:

"The Rock" is probably Piping Rock, the golf course where I was weaned.

« **Reply #26 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:14:38 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 15, 2006, 01:04:43 PM

Jim:

"The Rock" is probably Piping Rock, the golf course where I was weaned.

Weaned from what???

« **Reply #27 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:30:26 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 15, 2006, 11:06:05 AM

I saw Rees come up to Ran once, stick out his hand and say:

"Hi Ran, I'm Rees Jones."

Ran didn't seem to notice Rees's outstretched hand---he just observed him very calmly and deliberately for a while and finally said;

"Yes, exactly, of course you are."

I've started a couple of responses to the above, but I've deleted them. It's all too deep.

Are you sure you aren't channelling Franz Kafka?

Bob

« **Reply #28 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:41:18 PM »

Quote from: Jim Franklin on May 15, 2006, 09:54:04 AM

I spoke to a good friend of mine over the weekend and good golfer (1 handicap) and he told me he liked The Bridge way better than Friars Head. I played Friars Head with him and we both agreed it was terrific. He just played The Bridge and says it was even better.
[size=4x]
I have not played The Bridge, [/size]but it was one of the two courses Rees Jones told me were underrated of his. I don't know, but are we missing something? I thought Friars Head was a Doak 10.

Jim,

What's missing is your lack of a data base with respect to the Bridge.

Your friend has played both Friar's Head and The Bridge and has drawn a conclusion. He's taken a position having played both courses, relative to both courses.

You've played but one course, Friar's Head, yet, you've drawn a conclusion absent a critical component, the analysis of The Bridge based on your personal experience.

Why don't you play The Bridge, make your analysis and then engage him in discussions with respect to the relative merits and demerits of both courses.

It may be that you and he have different views, different values with respect to what you look for in a golf course.

Maybe you'll enlighten each other, maybe you'll continue to disagree. But, don't make a comaritive analysis of a golf course you've never played.

Mike Cirba,

You're incorrect about criticism of C&C.

I posed a question that could be viewed as a criticism relating to The Warren Course and was pounced upon by an anonymous source and others.

« **Reply #29 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:45:22 PM »

Quote from: Matt MacIver on May 15, 2006, 10:27:46 AM

I think on another thread Mr. Doak inferred a 9 for Friar's Head...

And what else do we need to know.

« **Reply #30 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:50:17 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 15, 2006, 01:41:18 PM

Mike Cirba,

You're incorrect about criticism of C&C.

I posed a question that could be viewed as a criticism relating to The Warren Course and was pounced upon by an anonymous source and others.

Patrick,

Your post about what you experienced just proved my point exactly.

Criticism of C&C here risks the fiery wrath of the Purity Police. Next thing you know they'll be whipping our ankles in the public market.

Lord, around these parts Kapalua Plantation is well-known as a delightful stroll.

Tom Paul,

Easthampton is quite an easy target, given the routing C&C inherited.

Try another please.

« **Reply #31 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:51:52 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 15, 2006, 01:41:18 PM

You've played but one course, Friar's Head, yet, you've drawn a conclusion absent a critical component, the analysis of The Bridge based on your personal experience.

Where did Jim Franklin draw a conclusion about The Bridge? I must have missed that.

« **Reply #32 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:07:19 PM »

Mike,
I am on record as having said there were holes at Bandon Trails that I didn't think that much of. I wasn't crucified, but maybe its just that I don't pay that much attention to the screeching and gnashing of teeth.

The way I look at it is that I am expressing an opinion and anyone is free to challenge me on it and I will try to provide reasons for my opinion. In the end though I really don't care if someone disagrees with me, or rants and raves at me, I have much more important things, like my kids, to worry about.

« **Reply #33 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:31:52 PM »

Quote from: ed_getka on May 15, 2006, 02:07:19 PM

Mike,
I am on record as having said there were holes at Bandon Trails that I didn't think that much of. I wasn't crucified, but maybe its just that I don't pay that much attention to the screeching and gnashing of teeth.

Ed,

I'm not sure if you noticed but that was NOT a hobby horse at the bottom of your bed!

« **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:51:21 PM »

Last time I saw Ran he said that a Rees Jones course profile was imminent. What happened? Changed his mind after playing it?

Did those mounds at The Bridge get removed?

« **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2006, 03:45:23 PM »

Mike, I'm a little surprised that you, someone who has oft been unfairly labelled a basher in the past, would resort to generalizing about criticism of certain firms.

Some of the criticism of C&C has been well thought out, but even more of the defense of C&C has been well thought out. There have been far more people who have tried to "explain" features or holes, if you will, than there have been people who have simply trotted out the bashing defense, which is always the first thing trotted out anytime Rees or Fazio is the topic.

I think it's great if you're willing to share criticism of C&C, as you have in the past. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or accept that you are right.

I think we all have certain things that don't seem to make sense (if that makes sense

). I can't understand how Tom Doak could give Oakmont anything other than a 10, but, then again, I haven't played any of the other 10s, so what the heck do I know? I can say that if PV, Shinnecock, Cypress Point, Melbourne, etc., are better than Oakmont, well, then they are currently better than I am capable of imagining. I only hope I can find out for myself someday.

« **Reply #36 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:03:39 PM »

Pat -

The TITLE of THIS thread is "What are WE missing?". It seems everyone on this site has nothing but raves for Friars Head (me included), but unilaterally bashes The Bridge (I never have played so I did not comment). The point of this thread was to find out why the general public prefers golf one way while we (for the most part) prefer golf another. I look forward to playing The Bridge and discussing the merits of the course with my friend to determine where he is mistaken

, but this thread was not directed toward one persons opinion. It was directed to the golfing public in general.

« **Reply #37 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:08:40 PM »

Mike,
You generally have some of the more insightful things to say when you weigh in and I for one really appreciate your contributions. I hope the negative responses you get at times are not what is keeping you from being more active on the site.
I work in a hospital, a little blood doesn't bother me in the least.

« **Reply #38 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:12:33 PM »

George,

Perhaps that's just me being overly sensitive to a few things that have happened "behind the scenes" here when I offered opinions on some courses by C&C, or when I was blasphemous enough to laud courses by some of the pariahs of this site.

The funny thing is, I'm really not a big proponent of the "big tent" theory, or "Great big world" theory, or whatever my friend Tom Paul named it because I see it as simply a relativist view of golf courses without any application of objective criteria to what constitutes "good" or "sound" or "interesting", or "fun" design. I know I'm oversimplifying things and don't mean to disparage this theory but I've always tried to be honest and tell people what I feel about any given course irrespective of designer.

I was one of the first here to write-up Rees Jones's Olde Kinderhook as a superb course years ago, as well as Tom Fazio's Trump National (horror of horrors) and while I'm not looking to trumpet my own horn, I am simply hoping that any criticisms or praise for any course will be met with some honest dialogue and discussion.

« **Reply #39 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:21:32 PM »

Jim,
To answer your question, WE are not missing anything. We just generally like and appreciate things that the general golfing public could care less about. Unfortunately it is the general golfing public that determines to a great extent the direction golf will take.
I listed a couple of examples recently. A golfer I met went to Sand Hills and Coeur d'Alene on one trip and preferred Coeur d'Alene because of the flower beds. Nothing wrong with that but that is not what most people on this site are into.
Last summer when I was at Bandon, we were told repeatedly that Bandon Dunes is the course that is overwhelmingly preferred by the golfers who come through. Pac Dunes is judged to be too difficult. BD is certainly not a bad course, actually its quite good, but most here prefer PD.
I think a lot of what WE are into here just doesn't register on the radar of the average golfer who is much more concerned with how low their score is and how far they hit their driver. Strategy, short game options, complex greens, etc... just require more thought and effort. And we live in the land of lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator.
Just a couple of thoughts.

« **Reply #40 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:23:24 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on May 15, 2006, 04:12:33 PM

I was one of the first here to write-up Rees Jones's Olde Kinderhook as a superb course years ago, as well as Tom Fazio's Trump National (horror of horrors) and while I'm not looking to trumpet my own horn, I am simply hoping that any criticisms or praise for any course will be met with some honest dialogue and discussion.

I certainly remember these quite well, which is why I generally place a lot of value in your opinion.

I'm sorry to hear there has been behind the scenes repercussions to some of your other posts. Even when I haven't agreed, I always thought that the specific nature of your criticisms led to very interesting discussion.

I think I understand what you're getting at, with regard to Tom P's theory. I don't think he means it as being relativist in nature, simply that we accept that others have different standards, and that we don't need to shout them down or squeeze them out. Let them do their own thing, while we can study and learn from the people we choose to favor.

BTW, the only common criticism I have of Tom D & C&C is that neither has built a course in western PA. Other than that, they are perfect in my eyes....

« **Reply #41 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:23:57 PM »

This forum has led me to some great out of the way courses I have truly enjoyed.
Additionally, it glorifies many of the courses I already had had the good fortune to have discovered and loved ,be a member at, or had worked at.

That said there is a bit of a group think around here- I've mainly found that helpful though as the group has tended to steer me to older,quirkier courses I have really enjoyed.

However, I do think those who return to The Bridge will be pleasantly surprised.

now that they might be allowed to come out of the closet and admit they like The Bridge

« **Reply #42 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:36:13 PM »

I agree with a lot of what Ed Getka said above. I would also add that when many (particularly but not exclusively American) players think of what a golf course should look like, they think of a parkland course. I remember playing Riverdale Dunes (a links-style course that I regard as the best public course in the Denver area) with a friend. After the round, I asked him what he thought of the course and his response was: "not enough trees." I think that's fairly typical of many casual golfers.

To many people, any course--no matter if it's Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills or Friar's Head--that is not parkland will ultimately fall short of their ideal. They want tree-lined fairways, green grass and smooth, receptive greens. As it happens, Rees Jones and Tom Fazio design a lot of these types of courses.

So, what are "we" missing? Not that much.

« **Reply #43 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:44:13 PM »

Quote from: Tim Pitner on May 15, 2006, 04:36:13 PM

I remember playing Riverdale Dunes (a links-style course that I regard as the best public course in the Denver area) with a friend. After the round, I asked him what he thought of the course and his response was: "not enough trees." I think that's fairly typical of many casual golfers.

Years ago I was standing with Tommy Naccarato at Rustic Canyon before it had officially opened. As we were talking a car drove up with four people and one of the guys in the car poked his head out and said, "Nice course. When are they installing the trees?"

I think I might have said something like not until after the lake arrives.

Unfortunately they have since begun to actually install trees so the joke is on me.

« **Reply #44 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:57:30 PM »

Quote from: David Kelly on May 15, 2006, 04:44:13 PM

Years ago I was standing with Tommy Naccarato at Rustic Canyon before it had officially opened. As we were talking a car drove up with four people and one of the guys in the car poked his head out and said, "Nice course. When are they installing the trees?"

I think I might have said something like not until after the lake arrives.

Unfortunately they have since begun to actually install trees so the joke is on me.

"installing" trees...well, gotta give them credit for a unique choice of verb

« **Reply #45 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:08:34 PM »

Quote from: Paul T on May 15, 2006, 04:57:30 PM

"installing" trees...well, gotta give them credit for a unique choice of verb

That is actually what they have been doing in the last year or so although their presence won't be felt for a number of years.

« **Reply #46 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:46:34 PM »

Quote from: Jim Franklin on May 15, 2006, 04:03:39 PM

Pat -

The TITLE of THIS thread is "What are WE missing?". It seems everyone on this site has nothing but raves for Friars Head (me included), but unilaterally bashes The Bridge (I never have played so I did not comment). The point of this thread was to find out why the general public prefers golf one way while we (for the most part) prefer golf another. I look forward to playing The Bridge and discussing the merits of the course with my friend to determine where he is mistaken , but this thread was not directed toward one persons opinion. It was directed to the golfing public in general.

Jim,

Both courses are strictly private so I think we can reasonably exclude the general public.

I would venture to say that more contributors to this site have played Friar's Head then have played The Bridge, but, I don't think you can draw any conclusions based on that data.

Friar's Head is spectacular, in many ways, including the golfing culture that they're trying to create.
The site, the golf course, the wind, the golf facilities and even the logo are all terrific.

I think pedigrees or "MFN" enter into the equation.

When a poster states that he doesn't like Rees Jones courses because they don't make you think, and others lap up that drivel without challenging it, you could conclude that the review has been made before the critic has attended the performance.

I think that's been the way of things re: FH vs TB.

I've played Friar's Head on a few occassions, and it's one of those courses that you want to play again, as soon as you walk off the 18th green.

I haven't played The Bridge, but will attempt to do so in the not too distant future.

It's interesting, but, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton are adjacent to one another, but, I never heard Southampton being bashed because of its oustanding neighbors. Yet, that seems to be the case with The Bridge and Friar's Head, even though they're not close to each other.

« **Reply #47 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:26:19 AM »

Ed -

I think you nailed it. I do know that the majority of the people I play with could care less about strategy, variety, etc... Most like eye candy over substance. This is what makes the world go round I guess.

« **Reply #48 on:** May 16, 2006, 10:27:47 AM »

"It's interesting, but, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton are adjacent to one another, but, I never heard Southampton being bashed because of its oustanding neighbors. Yet, that seems to be the case with The Bridge and Friar's Head, even though they're not close to each other."

There built at the same time, in the same general area, on equally great sites with no budget limitations. They make perfect points of comparison.

« **Reply #49 on:** May 16, 2006, 01:54:57 PM »

Quote from: Ian Andrew on May 16, 2006, 10:27:47 AM

"It's interesting, but, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton are adjacent to one another, but, I never heard Southampton being bashed because of its oustanding neighbors. Yet, that seems to be the case with The Bridge and Friar's Head, even though they're not close to each other."

There built at the same time, in the same general area, on equally great sites with no budget limitations. They make perfect points of comparison.

Ian,

Which courses are you referencing ?

It's an extremely rare occassion when Southampton is mentioned, let alone compared as an inferior stepchild to NGLA and Shinnecock.

News:

TEPaul

Dan Kelly

BCrosby

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

Mike_Cirba

Dan Kelly

ed_getka

Mike_Cirba

Paul_Turner

George Pazin

Jim Franklin

ed_getka

Mike_Cirba

ed_getka

George Pazin

jeffwarne

Tim Pitner

David Kelly

PThomas

David Kelly

Patrick_Mucci

Jim Franklin

Ian Andrew

Patrick_Mucci