Newport much more architecturally interesting than Winged Foot West. PD next!

« **Reply #25 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:51:36 PM »

But Mike, The problem with it is that you've got nothing to base that opinion on other what your looking at from T.V. and frankly, there is a lot of stuff which to base an opinion on by simple research. I don't see you doing any of that. Your just forming a blind opinion, and a lousy one at that.

This is what Crack use does to a person! Especially From Charlie Logan's stash!

« **Reply #26 on:** July 03, 2006, 10:04:42 PM »

Mike,
Sitting here thinking about it, instead of trying to prove a point that doesn't exist, why don't you take that time and pick-up the The Course Beautiful and read the chapters on Several Paths to the Green, The Cart Before the Horse, Contouring the Green and The Gateway to the Green.

Those chapters will better help you to a foundation at what to look for at Winged Foot, and allow you to see the genius behind it.

That's it for me here. I can' t go on any further.

« **Reply #27 on:** July 03, 2006, 10:43:30 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 03, 2006, 08:35:44 PM

Garland,

I can understand your wanting to deflect the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
It must be embarrassing to you.
You've never seen either course in person, yet, like Mayday, you're ready to offer your expert opinion, or counter those of someone with extensive experience with both golf courses.
That's reckless idiocy.

You have no context in which to evaluate the discussion, so rather than admit you don't know the first thing about either course, you attempt to deflect the core issues relevant to the discussion in order to hide your ignorance.
...

Apparently you have missed my point, or you are incapable of insightful analysis. My point is that we are tired of you giving the same old "have you played the course line." We are waiting for that insightful analysis that will show us that you have gained by playing the courses. Until then it is just
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

« **Reply #28 on:** July 03, 2006, 11:22:26 PM »

Quote from: Tommy Naccarato on July 03, 2006, 08:41:02 PM

Quote from: mayday_malone on July 03, 2006, 07:07:49 PM

Mike,
to make a thoughtful analysis, you have to play the course. There is just no other way around it. especially a course like Winged Foot, where the complexities are part of the strategy. POINT IN EXAMPLE: Can you tell me how the green breaks on any of the holes and how that relates to the strategy from the fairway at Winged Foot?

There is no way on God's Green Earth you will be able to answer it. You can appreciate both of these courses for their history, their uniqueness, even their clubhouses but unless you play them or walk them and study them, a thoughtful analysis is futile.

Tommy,

If it is true that one HAS to play the course to make a comment about it, what the f**k is all this crap about walking the course without playing it that we hear so much about on GCA?

Bob

« **Reply #29 on:** July 03, 2006, 11:27:48 PM »

Count me among those as also choosing to play Newport first, based on the 2 viewings,

BUT

how much of that was due to the way the women play versus the men?

On a wet course, virtually any wet course in the world, one would think the men would simply be throwing darts left and right, and it would appear boring as heck. The women rarely seem to rise to that level.

Please don't take this as a preference to watching the men's game, I think it's rather boring these days watching the guys throw darts on every course other than a major or an oldie like the Riv or Westchester - or Kapalua. It just seems as though the style of golf the women play is more suited to interesting architecture.

Kind of like the men's game might be if they rolled back equipment a little....

« **Reply #30 on:** July 03, 2006, 11:45:23 PM »

Sir Robert,
Please read my statement all the way:

Quote

but unless you play them or walk them and study them, a thoughtful analysis is futile.

That's what I wrote and I'm sticking to it!

« **Reply #31 on:** July 03, 2006, 11:52:19 PM »

Georgie,
There is nothing wrong with wanting to play Newport over Winged Foot. They are two different designs, with only nine holes of one of them by the desinger of Winged Foot. Frankly, I would rather play them both!

I do hope to see Newport someday. I really do. It looks like a perfect course for me. One you could go around all day and have a great time, whereas Winged Foot is a course that strives to kick you in the head. It's a scrapper of a golf course, meaning it's not going down without a fight. I haven't heard that of Newport before. At least not by reputation of it being a ball-buster.

But the point here is making an assessment out of a course that he claims to have only seen on TV. At least that's the way I'm reading it.

« **Reply #32 on:** July 04, 2006, 12:15:32 AM »

Quote from: George Pazin on July 03, 2006, 11:27:48 PM

...
On a wet course, virtually any wet course in the world, one would think the men would simply be throwing darts left and right, and it would appear boring as heck. The women rarely seem to rise to that level.
...

Is it because the women can't throw darts left and right, or is it because the wind was in the range of 25mph during the telecasts? MW certainly throws darts left and right, but she wasn't throwing them last weekend. The conclusion I came to was, it must have been the wind.

« **Reply #33 on:** July 04, 2006, 04:35:20 AM »

I have the unique benefit of never having played either course, nor ever having even seen them on TV!

From this perspective, I think that Mayday and Garland are being inquisitive and constructive and Pat and Tommy are being defensive and close-minded. I always thought this DG was supposed to be all about learning and not lecturing. I also believe that when the true believers become apoplectic rather than sympathetic to what others honestly say, it is a sure sign that a seriously sacred cow is in our midst.

But, of course, I could be wrong........

« **Reply #34 on:** July 04, 2006, 05:10:50 AM »

From the camp of those who haven't played either course, but watched avidly on TV, it seems to me that this all goes back to the narrowing of fairways. WF just didn't look like much fun to play, while Newport did, and it had little or nothing to do with the greens, did it?

On the telecast of the women's Open, one had the sense that it mattered which side of the fairway the player laid up on, and the a variety of shots could be played into the greens. Strategy seemed to make a difference! That feeling was largely absent at WF, and that's a shame.

I would imagine that this is much more a matter of the philosophy of those conducting the tournaments than those who designed the golf courses. A pity...

« **Reply #35 on:** July 04, 2006, 07:56:01 AM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on July 03, 2006, 10:43:30 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 03, 2006, 08:35:44 PM

Apparently you have missed my point, or you are incapable of insightful analysis. My point is that we are tired of you giving the same old "have you played the course line." We are waiting for that insightful analysis that will show us that you have gained by playing the courses. Until then it is just
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I didn't miss your point.

It's not my responsibility to provide insightful analysis with respect to every subject raised on every thread on every golf course or architectural feature.

Mayday made another of his uninformed and reckless pronouncments.

If you were capable of carefully examining my questions to him, you might just find the foundation for the insightful analysis you seek.

How can Mayday Malone provide insightful analysis without ever having seen or played the golf course ?
Anyone who says they can is a fraud.

Rich Goodale,

I wasn't being defensive at all.

Mayday Malone has a habit of making wild unfounded pronouncements and holding them out as The Gospel.

In some instances his analysis has been made without the benefit of ever having seen or played the golf course.

When one's premise is flawed, how valid can their conclusions be ?

Had Mayday stated that the fairways at WFW were narrower than those at NCC for the respective U.S. Opens and that that promoted target golf on the tee shot at WFW, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

But, to call WFW dull and uninteresting is absurd.

It also indicates a lack of familiarity with the golf course and an inability to see through the lines of rough established to host a U.S. Open.

And, WFW's green complexes are amongst the most interesting in the world, something that Mayday evidently didn't or couldn't see by looking at his U.S. Open program.[/color]

« **Reply #36 on:** July 04, 2006, 09:07:06 AM »

Mayday

I think you make some very good points. I can't comment on WFW vs. Newport but I think your general observation regarding WFW is accurate. There is not a lot of variety. As usual your argument is picked apart on this site by 'technical' points. I think focusing on the technical aspects misses the big picture which is that the course has gotten overrated. It is still a world class golf course, no doubt, but not nearly as interesting as the two courses closes to it - WFE and Quaker Ridge. I support your comments despite the naysayers - it is a bit dull and uninteresting.

Joe

« **Reply #37 on:** July 04, 2006, 09:22:54 AM »

Joe,

Dull and uniteresting are not the terms I would use to describe WFW. There is a fair amount of repetition as regards the deep flanking bunkers at the openings of many greensites. But the greens themselves are so superb that I think that is somewhat ameliorated. Yes, the land is relatively flat, but I don't know how you'd be bored playing WFW. It is more of a constant demand, albeit rather narrowly defined. I like WFE better than WFW. They are both great courses but not the most well-rounded tests of golf.

The look and daily playability of Newport is more interesting to me as well. I think Mike Malone has initiated an interesting dialogue but haphazardly. He has never been to Newport and has been to Winged Foot once. Even if he is right, he cannot defend in a debate because he is mostly guessing, albeit correctly in some ways. Some of us that criticize, well at least me, are criticizing his methods and unsupported generalizations rather than the conclusion. Is that nitpicking? Maybe so, but it is not a method of debate that should be systematically carried out as is Mike's wont.

« **Reply #38 on:** July 04, 2006, 10:13:19 AM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on July 04, 2006, 04:35:20 AM

But, of course, I could be wrong........

Rich,
Well you got that right. Your wrong AGAIN!

If anyone could be accused of lecturing it is you that hasn't added anything to the thread, but yet just wants to put forth an opinion of what is right or wrong about it.

From the looks of it, that's your way of putting forth some solid architectural analysis. Why am I not surprised! AGAIN!

« **Reply #39 on:** July 04, 2006, 10:25:47 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 04, 2006, 07:56:01 AM

...
It's not my responsibility to provide insightful analysis with respect to every subject raised on every thread on every golf course or architectural feature.
...

You have made it quite clear that you feel your responsibility is to use words like idiot and lunacy on this website. Look at yourself in the mirror Patrick. Is that the face you want to expose to the world?

It is a discussion group! If it was a bragging rights group, I would not have joined. If it was a "hook yourself up with invites to clubs group", I would not have joined.

« **Reply #40 on:** July 04, 2006, 10:57:35 AM »

Quote from: Tommy Naccarato on July 04, 2006, 10:13:19 AM

Quote from: Rich Goodale on July 04, 2006, 04:35:20 AM

But, of course, I could be wrong........

Rich,
Well you got that right. Your wrong AGAIN!

If anyone could be accused of lecturing it is you that hasn't added anything to the thread, but yet just wants to put forth an opinion of what is right or wrong about it.

From the looks of it, that's your way of putting forth some solid architectural analysis. Why am I not surprised! AGAIN!

Tommy

Your pettiness and childishness is getting boring. Take a couple of Taco del Mars and call Dr. Katz in the morning.

Rich

« **Reply #41 on:** July 04, 2006, 11:09:39 AM »

Rich,
Pettiness?

What knowledge are you bringing to this discussion other then an opinion that has no base or foundation other then the people that are participating on it?

Ask yourself, whose really being petty?

« **Reply #42 on:** July 04, 2006, 11:45:18 AM »

Put the men on Newport and stretch it out to 7200 yards and I don't think it would play as interestingly as the women at 6600 yards. The women are improving but technology has yet to make the women's game so one dimensional. The few long par 4's at Newport really played like long par 4's - drive and a mid-to-long iron. A long par 4 for the men is now 500 plus yards.

Tournament organisors have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend par against the men. All those trees at Augusta and all that rough (with almost no fairway) at WFW.

Someone made the point on this thread that we can relate to the way the women play whereas most of us can't relate to the men anymore. I think I could break 80 on the Newport as set up for the women but would have a hard time breaking 100 at WFW as set up for the men.

« **Reply #43 on:** July 04, 2006, 12:02:29 PM »

Tommy,
Why do feel the need to personally attack any person who holds a view you don't agree with? Mike stated some opinions that could certainly be challenged, but why don't you just stick to pointing out why you disagree with him(which you did at times), rather than trying to belittle him?
Also, Mike pointed out that he has played WFW once, so he is not guessing when he is stating his opinion. I am sure he didn't pick up on all the nuances of WFW, as few/any of us could. That is one reason the great courses are great.
Mike doesn't care for WFW and there is nothing wrong with that. My list of favorite courses would rarely match up to that of a low handicap player, and that wouldn't prove that one of us was right or wrong. It is just personal preference. My bias is towards fun, quirk, and really interesting greens. We all have a bias towards what we like that will affect how we evaluate a course. So stick to pointing out why you like what you like, and Mike can try to do the same. More will be learned and a lot less aggravation will result.

« **Reply #44 on:** July 04, 2006, 12:03:48 PM »

Ed

Amen

Rich

« **Reply #45 on:** July 04, 2006, 12:27:38 PM »

Rich, Ed could probably address that post to you and me as well.

I'll try to be nicer in the future.

Have a great Fourth.

George

« **Reply #46 on:** July 04, 2006, 12:38:33 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on July 04, 2006, 12:27:38 PM

Rich, Ed could probably address that post to you and me as well.

I'll try to be nicer in the future.

Have a great Fourth.

George

George

You are nice enough as it is, even though you are usually wrong.

Even though I am usually right, I try to be nice (although I often fail) but Tommy has a niceness and a rightness management problem that we all hope he is working on. Let's all give him a nice big cyber hug!

Rich

« **Reply #47 on:** July 04, 2006, 01:22:21 PM »

I've never played WFW, but I have played Newport, and based on a slightly odd rating scale, I'd prefer Newport, though I have no objection to all of the raves about WFW. I believe the NBC graphics I saw as regarding the greens. But, since I am not a great putter, I guess that great, more subtle greens (Newport) are just as wonderful to me as great, severe greens (WFW). But I digress as to why I'd prefer Newport.

I played Newport this past April, for the first seven holes in the most miserable golfing conditions I've ever experienced. It was a round of a match play tournament. It was about 40 degrees, hard rain, and wind howling. They called the tournament for the day after 7 holes. The last 11 holes were finished the next day (I lost 1 up on the regular 18th, Womens' Open 9th); it drizzled and was less windy.

Bottom line, If given the same conditions and the choice of those two courses, I'd choose Newport, because the openness of the place, while maximizing discomfort, necessitated creativity that WFW may not have allowed, given its apparent propensity for an aerial attack of the greens (I could be wrong about that, but that's just the way it looked on TV).

Another advantage Newport has over WFW is the aesthetics of the place. WFW, if you'll pardon the generalization, looks like "just another" US Open/PGA course. Narrow, long rough, tree troubles, just like Bethpage Black, Medinah, Olympia Fields, Pinehurst #2, Baltusrol, Hazeltine. Newport has a different feel altogether, more akin to Shinnecock, Whistling Straits, and all the Open Championship courses. To me personally, that is more interesting.

I'd love to see Newport host another major, but I think the USGA would be hesitant to give them a US Open, due to the weather concerns. An August date would give a much better chance for proper conditions, yes? That would leave either the US Am or a PGA. A PGA would be perfect for Newport, because they don't seem to be so heavily obsessed with defending par. They wouldn't need to do a whole lot to the place to make it a great PGA venue.

« **Reply #48 on:** July 04, 2006, 04:23:16 PM »

Ed Getka,

There's nothing wrong with stating that you don't like a particular golf course. Taste is a personal issue.

It's quite another matter to declare that a golf course is dull and uninteresting.

Mayday appears to be incapable of viewing and seperating the architecture from its relationship to maintainance practices established to prepare for a U.S. Open.

The greens and green complexes are simply brilliant.
And, that's not just my opinion.
WFW has been described as a world class golf course by many, many individuals over a long, long period of time.

Perhaps Mayday doesn't have an architectural eye, perhaps he's incapable of seeing the golf course through the rough.

Garland Bayley,

You chose your bed.
You threw in with Mayday and his conclusions despite his almost non-existant knowledge relating to both golf courses.

A discussion group mandates challenging flawed premises and certainly..... flawed conclusions.

If you felt that despite my extensive knowledge relating to both courses, that I should have accepted Mayday's flawed premise and conclusions, how would that benefit a discussion group ?

How would that have furthered learning more about golf courses and golf course architecture ?

Have you noticed that Mayday has failed to answer questions that would reveal more about WFW ?

You want insightful analysis.
If Mayday feels that WFW is both dull and uniteresting, let him address the questions I posed, relating to the features at WFW, and then, hopefully, we'll start getting some insightful analysis through intelligent, well informed dialogue.

Why would you support wild irresponsible statements absent supporting data ?

« **Reply #49 on:** July 04, 2006, 04:32:04 PM »

Patrick,
As I pointed out, Mike expressed an opinion which could certainly be challenged, and both you and Tommy did just that. I just find no reason to take the discussion in the direction of a personal attack. You asked some good questions and even if no one responds to them, they are certainly provoking thoughtful and hopefully insightful consideration that we learn from. I know they do for me. Happy 4th.

News:

Tommy_Naccarato

Tommy_Naccarato

Garland Bayley

Bob_Huntley

George Pazin

Tommy_Naccarato

Tommy_Naccarato

Garland Bayley

ForkaB

A.G._Crockett

Patrick_Mucci

John Sabino

wsmorrison

Tommy_Naccarato

Garland Bayley

ForkaB

Tommy_Naccarato

Phil Benedict

ed_getka

ForkaB

George Pazin

ForkaB

Tim Gavrich

Patrick_Mucci

ed_getka