News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Ed Getka,

There's nothing wrong with healthy, passionate debate.

And, questioning someone with respect to their opinions is a part of that process.

Have a happy and healthy 4th of July

Tommy_Naccarato

Ed,
Quite obviously you don't understand that this is my joking nature with my friend Mike Malone. I have joked with Mike before in this manner--and it's good natured ribbing in relation to his  movie work in, A Gentleman's Game.

I'm sorry that flew over your head, but I'm not surprised, which is further backed-up by Rich's reputable Contrarian opinion. (God knows how many times we've been gifted with his insight and delicate research!)

Pat and I feel much the same about the two courses, and I agree whole-heartedly with Wayne that while Winged Foot suffers from memorability, I think it's because you have 36 holes there where the nines are between one another. It's easy to forget a lot in that kind of a situation, unless you really get to know the course intimately--and that is by playing it more then once. I can attest to this because I have so much more to learn from Winged Foot after being there twice.

While it's easy to make broad-based assumptions about the architecture of what one sees on TV, I will remind you that the two courses have little in common in relation to set-up and their respective environments, other then similar vertical challenges. in that light Ed, can you find any of Mike's statements to be off-base? I mean after all Ed, your setting yourself up as the voice of reason here. You better be able to handle it!

After all, I know what you think of my opinion. I'm just want to see how you handle others when they are wrong.

Tommy_Naccarato

And Ed, Happy 4th of July! :)

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Happy 4th to you Tommy. I appreciate your passion and knowledge of architecture, but I take issue with the foaming at the mouth attacks on people. You may play it off as kidding and maybe it is, but that is not my read.
    I made no comparisons of the 2 courses at all, and I won't as I have seen 9 holes of one of WF and nothing of Newport.

Patrick,
   You are absolutely right about healthy debate. I have no issue with that. However, where do the words lunatic and idiot enter into healthy debate? ???
« Last Edit: July 04, 2006, 05:42:39 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

wsmorrison

I often use the words idiot and lunatic when speaking of Mike Malone even with Mike Malone.  He's a nice idiot and lunatic and if I'm going to have an idiot and a lunatic as a friend or Friend, I'm glad it is Mike Malone.  As idiots and lunatics go, Mikey is the best  ;D

Tommy_Naccarato

Wayne,
I too agree with you in regards to Mike Malone. He maybe a lunatic and an idiot, but he's our lunatic and idiot. He's the Newtie Gingrich of Golf Club Atlas!  ;D

That being, I can hardly wait for the next time A Gentleman's Game is on. I'm addicted to the movie. It's spellbinding and leaves me in a trance. I still can't figure out which beach that was where the kid and Gary Sinise shot their scenes at. My guess is that it's probably in Ventura. In one of the end scenes, where the jet plane is taking off, well thats at the end of LAX, right between the airport and the end of the water, where there is this huge sand dune.

That Rolling Hills is one wild club though! ;)

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Wow!  I've been off playing golf and partying and missed this.


   I never take anything personal on this board. So, I don't worry what people say. But, when they say things about me or others I just assume they can't address the issue effectively.


   My intent was to compare the two courses as to their architectural interest. I saw Newport as " much more" interesting and WFE "dull" by COMPARISON.  And I expect most will find Prairie Dunes more interesting as well.

  Everytime Pat defends the architecture of WFW he talks about the great green complexes.Alright! Already! They are great, but the interest leading up to them is not great. You must twist yourself around to believe that. I think the "tradition" thing gets to people. If Bobby Jones made a putt then it has to be a great course.

   I went back to WFW to tour it during the Open week and brought a friend of mine who is no avowed archie nut. I had to constantly wake him up.


   I never said I didn't like WFW or Merion. But, to use Pat's rule I wasn't in a hurry to go back to #1. I wanted to play WFE.


      I hope you guys realize that this is all just for fun. Isn't it?


    It is true that Tommy and I have our inside joke about the movie filmed at Rolling Green.

   The only way to settle this to get Tommy and Pat to play Rolling Green (who wants to round out the foursome?) and they can see where my standards come from.


   
AKA Mayday

Patrick_Mucci

Mayday Malone,

If you admit that the green complexes at WFW are superior, world class, then you have to work your way backwards to see where you have to position yourself in order to best approach those greens.

One of WFW's traits are the shoulders in the foot pad of the greens.

Coming at those shoulders from the WRONG angle invites disaster.  Coming at those shoulders from the RIGHT angle invites reward.

So, based upon hole locations, relative to the shoulders, slopes and undulations, dictates from where you have to approach the green, which in turn dictates where you have to hit your drive.

That's strategy or tactics, and provides for highly interesting golf.

Just take # 6, that dinky little par 4 that was drivable.

A hole location cut into the extended leftside tongue of that green creates an entirely different strategy from a hole cut into the right center of the green behind the bunker and in front of the creek.

Some still prefer to play their approaches into the tongue, leaving themselves a daunting putt.   Others will fly it to that narrow plateau, taking their chances.   Some will try to drive as close to the green as possible, others will lay back, favoring one side of the fairway over the other, and then decide how best to approach the green.

In summary, it's anything BUT dull and uninteresting.

You have to look beyond U.S. Open preparations.
You have to view the golf course as the members have played it for the last 50 or more years, not the way it was prepared and played for four days in June, once in a decade.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pat,

   Billy Casper's Open strategy of laying up every day on a par three is the greatest statement about the architecture at WFW.Great architecture tempts you to take the chance that you can execute the difficult shot. When you decide it is not worth the risk then the play becomes dull.For me it is just dull enough to fall into the very good golf course category.

  Now I don't need to go there or study it to tell you this makes me suspicious that something is awry.
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Mike,

How can you relate how one man plays a national championship 40 years ago to the architectural interest of a golf course?  He was trying to win a national championship so he was devising this strategy with that one thought in mind on this one hoe yet you decry how boring the entire course is.  Do you think TOC is a dull course because Bob Jones chose to avoid going for the Road Hole green each time?  These are the best players of their era playing a hole in a non-GIR strategy.  This means there are alternatives not that a single strategy exists.  What's wrong with that?  Honestly, I don't have a problem with you not regarding WFW as highly as others, I feel somewhat that way as well.  It is your analysis that makes such little sense.

Temptation is a part of great architecture.  It is one of my favorite features and one that Flynn used very well including your home course.  But just because someone chooses a different strategy does not mean the hole is dull.  Maybe Casper was a better chipper than long putter.  How do you know his decision on this one hole is related to boring architecture?  How does the hole play today with today's technology?  My guess it is improved.  Until you find out why Casper did what he did (and remember the majority of players did not do this--only Casper as far as I know) then you are not supporting your argument at all.  Your premise may have some validity but your supporting statements fail to argue your conclusion.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
 Wayne,

   I found it interesting that I did not know about the Casper strategy until after I played the course. I felt the same way myself. On several occasions I chose to layup short of the greens from shots out of the rough rather than to try for the greens.

     When I play a hole like #3 at Frankford Torresdale which has a wonderfully protected uphill green I feel it can be attacked even with a severe green because the green seems big enough and separated enough from the bunkers on the hill so that it can be done. I hate it when I miss the fairway left and need to punch out of the trees for a wedge to the green.

    In Torresdale's case the architecture is fine, but the added trees are hiding the architecture.

   For WFW it might be a maintenance thing. With deep rough and hard and fast greens with bunkers pushed right up the sides of many holes the message to me is "don't try it!"

    Maybe WFW needs to change its maintenance practices but it sure isn't for me to say. But the effect was lessened choices along with limited variety.

    All this does for me is to make it questionable as one of the top ten courses in the country. It ain't a dogtrack for sure.


      If one were to say that NGLA was a great course I wouldn't even hesitate to agree with them. If someone wanted to argue that Yale was better architecture than WFW I wouln't make a fuss.

    But, when Merion and WFW are placed on the very top I have issues.

     It seems clear from your posts on this thread that you think Newport is more interesting from an architectural perspective than WFW. I bet you will feel the same way about PD. Even if you only get this feeling from watching it on TV!


  BTW I understand that Bobby Locke ( I think it was him) intentionally missed "Calamity" #14 at Royal Portrush all four days of the Open Championship there. Interestingly, he did not win.I have played it several times since I was told this and never thought it brought the architecture into question. The hill and grass to the right are just too severe for stroke play. So, this is similar to your Casper point which makes sense to me. But , at WFW it happens too often.

  BTW Rolling Green's previous pro recommended playing #14 at RG "short". This hole reminds me alot of "Calamity". But the potential penalties have never deterred me from going for it.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2006, 10:52:44 AM by mayday_malone »
AKA Mayday

Geoffrey Childs

Mayday

No less then Ben Hogan said that if he was ever to hit the 11th green at Augusta National in two rather then safely right of the green then he had pulled the shot.

Is Augusta National in the same boring strategic category as WFW?  If so then they are both in good shape in my opinion.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
 Geoff,

   What is your opinion about what this says about the architecture of #11 ANGC?   It would make me see it in a lessened light as opposed to #13 where from the fairway I imagine he went for it.
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Mike,

There are so many holes where if you miss the fairway it is better to lay up than to go for the green.  Just because you are penalized for being in the rough by not having a highly reliable shot to a green doesn't mean it is a bad hole.  You are taking Flynn's recovery philosophy too far, in general and specifically at WFW.  The fairways were surely narrowed when you got there and you were likely playing the same narrow corridors with dense (though not as long) rough that the pros played.  Of course you were stymied at times.

Tell me Mike, if you're in a tournament and in the left rough on the 2nd at Rolling Green, would you rather lay up short of the green and have an open uphill chip or challenge the left greenside bunker and bring left rear rough into play resulting in a slick downhill recovery?  If you're in the right rough in the first fairway on 7, don't you have to lay up?  If you're in the right or left rough on 13, don't you sometimes have to layup to the end of the fairway rather than going for the green?  If the pin is back right on 14 would you rather aim for the front of the green and be short or take the direct line to the flag?  I can think of more cases than not where the decision making errs on the side of caution rather than a right to attack greens on championship courses.  

Again, your defense is feeble.  Why don't you just say that there are numerous greens with deep flanking bunkers at the openings and you don't like the systematic design nor the punishment it inflicts in terms of GIR?  To say the course is dull and boring is plain WRONG.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
   Why don't you just say that there are numerous greens with deep flanking bunkers at the openings and you don't like the systematic design nor the punishment it inflicts in terms of GIR?  


     Wayne,

      If I were as smart as you I would have said this!

   I'm not going to get onto my game at RG. That would be x-rated.
AKA Mayday

Patrick_Mucci


Geoff,

What is your opinion about what this says about the architecture of #11 ANGC?  
[size=4x]
It would make me see it in a lessened light as opposed to #13 where from the fairway I imagine he went for it.[/size]


Are you stating that:
the more the options, the lesser the architecture ?

One view of # 11, up close and personal reveals the wisdom of Hogan's statement for many a golfer.

To say it lessens the architecture is to not understand the concept of risk/reward and the decisions associated with varying degrees of risk/reward.
[/color]

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
 Pat,

   I would say that the architecure of #13 at ANGC is "more interesting" if it gets you to take the chance for the green than #11 if you feel that avoiding the green is a better option.

    That is my bias. Good architecture gets you to make decisions that are more fun and challenge your skills.
AKA Mayday

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Succombing to the temptation is very player specific. I don't think one persons decision necissarily determines the quality of the hole. I played in a scramble at my club yesterday celebrating the 75th aniversary of the official opening of the course on July 4th, 1931. The 8 handicapper in our foursome hit a drive on a par 5 that left a 155 yd shot over trees nearby and a stream in front of the green from a downhill lie. The rules were that if we took his shot, he could not hit the second. Everyone else in the group had a handicap at least double his, so the question came down to do you guys think you can get us in position for eagle, or do we go back and lay up from one of the other drives. The highest handicapper refused to take the shot. The best shot was a fade from a left-hander, from a downhill lie. Being left-handed, I said I could make the shot. The other member said he could make the shot. I managed to hit a draw onto the green about 30 feet to the right of the pin. The right hander hit a draw that may have run right across the hole to 15 feet behind the pin. (How we both hit draws from a downhill lie is beyond me.) The third person still refused to hit the shot.

We got birdie. In practicing the putt afterwards, I found that nearing the cup from the left center, the ball went left, nearing the cup from the right center the ball went right. Therefore, to make the putt, we had to strike it firmly enough to ride up the rise infront of the cup without breaking away. On a downhill putt, none of us could fight our instincts enough to hit it that firm.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Patrick_Mucci

Pat,

I would say that the architecure of #13 at ANGC is "more interesting" if it gets you to take the chance for the green than #11 if you feel that avoiding the green is a better option.

Then, by your definition, # 13 must have been a less interesting hole when Crenshaw chose to lay up rather than go for the green when he won the Masters.
[/color]

That is my bias. Good architecture gets you to make decisions that are more fun and challenge your skills.


When golfers are playing for millions of dollars and a place in golfing history, they're not looking for fun.

Casper chose one method, Hogan another, but, these decisions have nothing to do with architecture, they have everything to do with scoring, winning, making money and winning championships.
[/color]



Adam_Messix

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mayday--

Wow...I never thought I would see a thread comparing Winged Foot West with Torresdale-Frankford.  Don't get me wrong, I really like T-F (particularly their bunkers, as Wayne M will attest.)  

I think you need to take a step back and take a look at the property that Tilly had to work with at WF West and I think you'll have a much greater appreciation of what he did there.  The land that the majority of the West course sits on (exception 10 and 11) is pretty dull stuff, particularly when compared to some of Tilly's other work (SFGC, Five Farms, and most notably, Quaker Ridge), or other courses of WF West's caliber (Merion, Oakmont, NGLA; etc.)  Frankly, there is some real genius in WF West and I'm surprised that more people have not tried to pull something like that off.  

The other thing I don't understand is why is it that having deep bunkers  and a severe green that make players think of laying short bad architecture.  The Billy Casper story from 1959 is a great one, but he had to make four great up and downs for it to work and it shows the genius of his short game and the overall difficulty of the hole and the brilliance of his mental game in that he played to his strengths.  

BTW, I hope you're having a good summer and not swimming yet with all of that rain.  

Tommy_Naccarato

Thank God. A voice or reason!

Great stuff Adam, but I'm afraid Mayday is going to let it fall on deaf ears! ;)

Mayday, You have got to get your mind out of that par-minded gutter!

Jim Nugent

Pat,

   I would say that the architecure of #13 at ANGC is "more interesting" if it gets you to take the chance for the green than #11 if you feel that avoiding the green is a better option.

    That is my bias. Good architecture gets you to make decisions that are more fun and challenge your skills.

Mike -- more players go for the green at 11, I'm pretty sure.  You can see this in the scoring.

Both holes are about the same length.  (505 for 11 this year vs 510 for 13.)  Yet average scores are way less at 11: 4.475 this year while 13 averaged 4.755.  Historical averages over all Masters are 4.28 at 11 and 4.80 at 13.  A huge difference.

This suggests to me that a lot more players go for the green at 11 than 13.  Even though both holes are the same length, and even with the new changes that make 11 so much harder.  

wsmorrison

Jim,

Please don't confuse Mike Malone with facts.  His mind can only accept internal sources of data, however misguided and wrong.  It goes into overload when confronted with external information like on-site visits, empirical evidence, statistics, historical and archival materials.  Now we're going to have to send over the men in white coats to catch Malone as he tries to consider facts that upset his warped view of the world.  They'll give him a nice padded room and a purple crayon so he can calm down and possibly make his Quaker and Rotary Club meetings later in the week   ;)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2006, 07:16:00 AM by Wayne Morrison »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
 Newport is much more interesting architecturally than WFW.
AKA Mayday

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,

I wonder if your thoughts would be identicle had the USGA chosen Newport for this year's Men's Open and WFW for the Women. Do you think course setup (and your experience with it) has anything to do with your opinions of the architecture of each course?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back