Kevin -

Anytime you want to exchange reading comprehension scores, I am MORE than willing.

My dad - a true scientist - taught me decades ago how to analyse a situation, and more importantly, objectively test and analyse the results.

Another true scientist, such as Brent Hutto or Paul Turner, could explain this better, but let me help you out with some points:

- Disagreeing with someone does not show him to be biased, nor does it show you to be biased;

- In this case, you criticising Tom does not show a bias against him, nor does my defending his post show a bias in favor of him; you could be right, I could be right, but it might have nothing to do with biases;

- To properly test someone's biases, you need a lot more data than anyone has shown on here, you or me included;

- To accuse someone of bias while showing ZERO true evidence exhibits nothing more than weak thinking, in my opinion. You have offered nothing more than weak arrows slung at people who have proven their worth to the site huindreds of time over. That's your opinion, nothing more.

If you don't understand all of this, it's your reading comprehension that is in question, not mine.

You might not care to read Tom's questioning of Tiger, but I do. So here is some more free advice: ignore it, don't whine about it.

To cry about hoping I receive an invite for my "suck up" efforts, when you have no idea whatsoever of my motivations, intentions, etc., is nothing short of pathetic.

I'm here to read and learn, whereas you seem to be here to whine about others. The one prevailing comment from site members over the years is that we wish there was more involvement from industry people. Comments like yours do nothing but discourage such participation.

If this were a title fight, any self-respecting referee would have stopped the contest many posts ago.  Kevin wins on points--vs. Doak, Clayman and/or Pazin.

Let's get back to discussing Michelle Wie, which doesn't require so much heavy lifting.......

Can I take the I am over 50 and can not remember if I said that or not excuse? lol I do think the tone of my comments to Adam were more around the overall site not being as good as Sand Hills rather than any comment about a hole or holes much less pictures of holes.

John Kirk

This is the statement from Mr Bernhardt himself that led me to conclude that Mr Clayman passed on his comments to Doak who then initiated this advertisement for Ballyneal.  I don't believe I am wrong in this conclusion unless Tiger himself takes this back or interprets his words differently.

Kevin,

I understand why you thought this was a series of private conversations.  You do notice this quote has the "lol" (laughing out loud) acronym, so he's probably taking it the right way.

I would say that Adam Clayman, Larry Keltto and I advertise Ballyneal more than Tom does.  We're all trying to stay cool, and not overwhelm the board by talking too much about it.  It's one of our favroite new courses, but it's not the only game in town.  The course opens for play this year; everybody's excited.  This year, the grass is young, and greens will probably be a little soft and slow, so playing conditions won't be ideal until perhaps next summer.  Once more people get the chance to play it, then there will lots to talk about.  Thanks.

John - Thanks for that post. I always think of lol as "Lots of luck" as in lots of luck anyone believing that quote of mine.

I would welcome true information, pictures and site specific discussion of architecture at Ballyneal as it seems like one of the more exciting projects to come around in quite a while. This thread is not that.  I wish Mr Doak had just given us an update if he wished to disclose any details of the project.  Instead, the information disclosed was that Tiger Bernhardt is wrong. Tom Doak has pictures but he won't post them because we might not see the greatness in this project as the   implied.  Heaven forbid the hype or lack thereof puts it at a disadvantage relative to Sand Hills. I welcome something better then Sand Hills being built but I won't hold my breath.  Every architect building a course today better try their best but realize how slim the odds are of actually pulling it off.

Kevin:

I've been working most of the day today so I did not have a chance to respond to your posts until now.

You've made about three wrong assumptions in your post:

1.  That Adam Clayman told me about Tiger's post.  Someone else did, but since I had not seen the post originally, I was trying to find out exactly what he had said.  (I was successful there.)

2.  That I'm trying to promote the place.  In fact, I held back from posting pictures or detailed descriptions of the holes because I thought that would be too self-promotional ... and because I'm still on the road and don't know how to post the photos I took.  I'll get around to it someday; I just wanted to point out that I'd played the course and I thought Tiger was wrong.

3.  I've never said Ballyneal was better than Sand Hills.  I have enormous respect for Sand Hills and I do wish it wasn't the only course Ballyneal will be compared to, because there is absolutely no chance Ballyneal will be considered a better course because Sand Hills is the original.  Even if Ballyneal WAS a better course, it wouldn't get that recognition, because they are too similar in setting even though the contours are very different.

4.  You're welcome to criticize my work anytime you want -- but to stick to your own standard, you should criticize my work and not what you find lacking in my posts.


If you want, I'll post what I found fun about Ballyneal, although the pictures will have to wait.  AFTER dinner, though.

Tom-

What you wrote initially was "Well, if he did, he's wrong" What you say above is "I just wanted to point out that I'd played the course and I thought (emphasis mine)  Tiger was wrong. It's all one man's opinion vs another yet you were not that kind initially.

Still...
- none of us had any idea what Tiger said.  Why then did you feel the need to correct what we did not know?

"I have enormous respect for Sand Hills and I do wish it wasn't the only course Ballyneal will be compared to, because there is absolutely no chance Ballyneal will be considered a better course because Sand Hills is the original.  Even if Ballyneal WAS a better course, it wouldn't get that recognition, because they are too similar in setting even though the contours are very different."

Tom - if the contours are different and distinguishable from Sand Hills and if Ballyneal IS a better course I would like to think that it WOULD get the recognition it deserves. Have you thrown in the towel for the #1 spot or will your #1 candidate come from a totally different type of site? Will the new #1 be like pornography- "we'll know it when we see it"?  Pac Dunes is very different and a great course on a level playing field with Friars Head but not Sand Hills. Can a #1 in the world course come from a site so different from Pine Valley, Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, Sand Hills or Shinnecock Hills and if not is the world forever doomed to obtain a new #1?

I think a real discussion about fun at Ballyneal deserves a new thread that is not tainted by all of the unrelated banter this one initiated.  I would welcome anything of substance about the project you wish to share with us.

Kevin, there is no clearer evidence that I'm not sucking up than I have no idea who you are. You might be the pro at a private course I'd love to play, or you might be a close friend of someone on the site whom I would not wish to offend.

But you have stumbled upon one of my biggest pet peeves on the site: using loose logic to discourage others from sharing their thoughts. You might not want to read Tom's or Tiger's posts, but others do. Feel free to ignore them if you are so lacking in self esteem as to be offended by them.

And, judging by your number of posts, you probably don't know Rich Goodale all that well, so I'll simply say that there is no better feeling for me than when he judges an argument against me.

 

P.S. If you really want to learn more about Ballyneal, try digging through the archives. There is plenty posted, if your goal is to learn about the course, rather than to slight valued contributors to the site.

In my view it's absolutely impossible for most people to rank Sand Hills above Pine Valley, or Pebble Beach, or Oakmont, or Augusta National, or Pacific Dunes for that matter.  What the hell difference does it make, and why all the clattering of keys and waste of time on the posts that are ultimately self-defeating?  I for one would give a body part to play the top 25 or top 50 courses that I haven't played, but ranking one above the other on a list is not worth the time it takes to argue about it.

Just my humble opinion, I could be wrong.  

More invective, thanks. I am not trying to discourage you from posting at all, I am trying to stop you from substituting your delusions as to everyone's motivations for actual information.

For someone who professes the desire to learn more about Ballyneal, you certainly feel free to fantasize about Tom's motives, both in posting and in building, and my motives, primarily in posting.

If you want to use the search function, you simply click on the search button above, then click on the advanced search option. Then fill in the various parameters, keeping in mind that it helps greatly to use specific posters' names (which generally means you need to insert a _ between their first and last name) and time frames. You're going to have to learn it the hard way like everyone else, as I'm not inclined to offer much more assistance.

As for the science comments, I guess your reading comprehension is not quite as sharp as you imply. I was referring to your tossing around terms like biased and brainwashed, not the information discussed in this thread. But then, you obviously knew that, didn't you?

As to the access question, I have never called a private pro shop, nor have I solicited a single person in the 6 years I have been on the site, though I have received quite a few generous offers, from people who apparently don't think I am quite as lacking as you seem to think.

Kevin:

I can only tell you that Sand Hills did not get to be #1 in many people's minds because Bill and Ben were trying to make it the #1 course in the world.  They were just trying to get the most out of a great site, as I do.

I get a lot of clients and potential clients now who talk about the "potential" of their course for rankings and I try to discourage them.  You can't really compare Pacific Dunes to Barnbougle or Cape Kidnappers in terms of their sites, they're just very different and people will have different favors.

I do think if there's a new #1 someday it will have to be on a site that feels different from Sand Hills or Pine Valley or any links.  Who knows, maybe it'll be in Montana.  But I am sure there will be plenty of people who come out and try to find something not to like about it, and that's what I hate about all the rankings and raters there are these days, most of them think in the negative instead of appreciating each course and each site for what has been accomplished.

Tom,

 I agree with your ideas of Course Rankings, and I think you could expand that negitive view to GCA.com often.
 Alot of people around here will dismiss a golf course far too quickly for no other reason than Tom Fazio's name is on it. I believe that every golf course, no matter how different it may be from a personal ideal, is a work of art and can teach you something.
 
Mr. Doak, I find it hard pressed to find a reason why I wouldn't want a leader in the field of GCA posting his ideas and teaching us amatuers a thing or two on this site is a bad thing. (Sorry, Kevin may think i'm brown nosing now )