Opportunity missed...The land of 10 and 11 at Pacific Dunes...

« **Reply #75 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:13:02 AM »

Quote from: Ryan Farrow on March 31, 2006, 11:41:51 PM

And I feel that never playing the course doesn’t make my opinion any less relevant.

Then you'll be interested and surprised to know that both Tom Doak and Charles Blair MacDonald disagree with you.

How can an opinion, formed WITHOUT firsthand knowledge and/or the FACTS, be equally relevant to opinions formed WITH firsthand knowledge, and the FACTS ?

Think before you type. [/color]

« **Reply #76 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:22:32 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 12:02:11 AM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on March 31, 2006, 11:34:25 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 11:23:52 PM
Jordan Wall,

If he's NEVER seen the land, how can he intelligently analyze and comment on the viability of the routing ?

Pat, do you honestly think that Tom would have wasted that land and routed the course poorly?? Me thinks no. Ryan is smart enough to know Tom would have done the correct thing.[/color]

I see, so it's not relevant to see the land, the golf course and the individual holes. One only needs to have blind faith in the architect, especially one who enjoys MFN status, in order to analyze, evaluate and comment on a golf course.

And, it's not a question of whether he routed the golf course poorly, it's a matter of whether another routing could be an improvement, especially when the back nine contains 4 par 3's, 3 par 5's and only 2 par 4's.

Are you familiar with Flynn and Ross's routing of York ?
Two talented architects.
Two totallly different routings.
What does that tell you ?

Please, read the next to last paragraph on page 295 of Charles Blair MacDonald's book, "Scotland's Gift"[/color]

Ok Pat. You are right. Ryan is obviously wrong stating that PD has a great routing. First you say stick with my own opinion, and if I like Sandpines or whatever that is OK. So then I back up Ryan, whom I agree with, and I get bashed again, and I did what you told me and followed what I thought was right for real.Blind faith is not a bad thing at all anyways. If you had never played PD, its not like you would drive to the course with no opinion on it. You would have high expectations. Is that not blind faith??[/color]

How does he know that the best course was routed on that land if he's totally unfamiliar with the land and each of the component holes ?

Lets just say that that he is smart enough to trust Doak. [/color]

That's a dumb comment.
This isn't a website that caters to blind faith, or people commenting on golf courses that they've never seen, although Ryan has some company on that one.

Is every one of Tom Doak's routings THE perfect routing for the land ?

In what context could you prepare an answer to that question if you've never seen the land that his courses reside on ?[/color]

He thinks its fine to have four par threes, three par fives, and two par fours. That has nothing to do with blind faith. It is simply an opinion that he shares about what a fun and decent par for nine holes may or may not be. Blind faith?? I think not...[/color]

There has got to be a reason PD is #8 in the world....[/color]

That's an assessment that I don't agree with.[/color]

Whether you do or do not agree with that, so be it. It is what it is and if a magazine wants to say it is the #8 course in the world then there is nothing we can do about it. Just wondering, where is PD in your personal favorite courses (no joke, I would honestly like to know0...you dont seem to hate the course...[/color]

Im trusting its not getting 'downgraded' because of the routing. If anything, its getting praised. Its much better to be original then have a copycat routing. [/color]

How do you copycat routing on land that's unique ?[/color]

You dont. The routing is unique. That is what is good. That is what Ryan has been trying to say this whole time[/color]

Ryan has every right to say what he feels without getting bashed for it. [/color]

Ah, I see. You feel that anyone can say whatever they want without being held accountable for their words.
That's called being irresponsible.

When you say something, you have to be able to support it with facts and/or intelligent reasoning.

And, for someone to comment on a golf course that they've never seen is assinine, only exceeded in stupidity by someone trying to defend that position.[/color]

Ok, if he thinks that 4 par threes, 3 par fives, and 2 par fours are fine and you dont, lets just criticize your opinion.[/color]

If he decides to trust Doak, then more power to him.[/color]

I don't equate power with blind faith.[/color]

There is a difference between blind faith and trust

Please tell me where he critiqued the course in any way??
[/color]
He defended the routing and the component holes without ever having seen the land, the golf course or the individual holes.

I'd say that qualifies his opinion as decidedly unqualified.[/color]

He didnt critique the course. He critiqued the courses routing and par on the back nine. Please tell me when he said the course was good or bad...?[/color]

« **Reply #77 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:23:41 AM »

"I simply can not accept that what may soon be called the finest course built in my lifetime has four par threes on the back nine."

"Unique can only go so far..I think we agree that 9 out of 9 par threes is wrong..8 out of 9...7, 6 and 5...Four par threes on the back nine is too unique for me...sorry. I may be being selfish but I just love the thrill of hitting driver and don't want to give it up because it is suddenly fashionable to build multiple par threes..I see a slipperly slope when allowing this model to be called the greatest ever..Kinda like praising cart ball.."

And just because he played the course his opinion is greater then mine even if his argument is I don’t like 4 par 3's on a 9 because I’m not used to it? Because it’s not what I usually play? So I have no right saying what I said as a general design statement? Because that’s what I did. I made a generalized statement about the process and prioritizing of building a golf course.

« **Reply #78 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:43:01 AM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 01, 2006, 12:22:32 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 12:02:11 AM
Quote from: Jordan Wall on March 31, 2006, 11:34:25 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 11:23:52 PM
Jordan Wall,

If he's NEVER seen the land, how can he intelligently analyze and comment on the viability of the routing ?

Pat, do you honestly think that Tom would have wasted that land and routed the course poorly?? Me thinks no. Ryan is smart enough to know Tom would have done the correct thing.[/color]

I see, so it's not relevant to see the land, the golf course and the individual holes. One only needs to have blind faith in the architect, especially one who enjoys MFN status, in order to analyze, evaluate and comment on a golf course.

And, it's not a question of whether he routed the golf course poorly, it's a matter of whether another routing could be an improvement, especially when the back nine contains 4 par 3's, 3 par 5's and only 2 par 4's.

Are you familiar with Flynn and Ross's routing of York ?
Two talented architects.
Two totallly different routings.
What does that tell you ?

Please, read the next to last paragraph on page 295 of Charles Blair MacDonald's book, "Scotland's Gift"[/color]

Ok Pat. You are right.

Ryan is obviously wrong stating that PD has a great routing. First you say stick with my own opinion, and if I like Sandpines or whatever that is OK. So then I back up Ryan, whom I agree with, and I get bashed again, and I did what you told me and followed what I thought was right for real.Blind faith is not a bad thing at all anyways. If you had never played PD, its not like you would drive to the course with no opinion on it. You would have high expectations. Is that not blind faith??[/color]

Did you read about sex before you had it ?

Was it different from what you read ?

I"ve played Sandpines.
I examined it with an eye toward the criticisms that had been directed toward it. Ryan has NEVER seen PD.
Tell me you understand the difference ![/color]

How does he know that the best course was routed on that land if he's totally unfamiliar with the land and each of the component holes ?

Lets just say that that he is smart enough to trust Doak. [/color]

That's a dumb comment.
This isn't a website that caters to blind faith, or people commenting on golf courses that they've never seen, although Ryan has some company on that one.

Is every one of Tom Doak's routings THE perfect routing for the land ?

In what context could you prepare an answer to that question if you've never seen the land that his courses reside on ?[/color]

He thinks its fine to have four par threes, three par fives, and two par fours. That has nothing to do with blind faith. It is simply an opinion that he shares about what a fun and decent par for nine holes may or may not be. Blind faith?? I think not...[/color]

How does he know that if he's never seen the land that the holes are on.

How does he evaluate the land, the routing, and the holes if he's never seen them ? Answer: HE CAN'T.
He doesn't know the first thing about PD
He doesn't know the first thing about the land and the routing.
He has no data base, no frame of reference, no concept of the land and the holes on the land.
He's like Ray Charles judging the Miss Universe contest.
He doesn't have a clue.[/color]

There has got to be a reason PD is #8 in the world....[/color]

That's an assessment that I don't agree with.[/color]

Whether you do or do not agree with that, so be it. It is what it is and if a magazine wants to say it is the #8 course in the world then there is nothing we can do about it. Just wondering, where is PD in your personal favorite courses (no joke, I would honestly like to know0...you dont seem to hate the course...[/color]

I like the course.
# 8 in the world is a little lofty for me.
If a magazine says it's so, you accept that, I don't.[/color]

Im trusting its not getting 'downgraded' because of the routing. If anything, its getting praised. Its much better to be original then have a copycat routing. [/color]

How do you copycat routing on land that's unique ?[/color]

You dont. The routing is unique. That is what is good. That is what Ryan has been trying to say this whole time[/color]

No, that's not what Ryan said.

And, Ryan has no frame of reference, no data that would allow him to make an intelligent evaluation with respect to the merits of the routing. He has no fact based context upon which he can make definitive conclusions.[/color]

Ryan has every right to say what he feels without getting bashed for it. [/color]

Ah, I see. You feel that anyone can say whatever they want without being held accountable for their words.
That's called being irresponsible.

When you say something, you have to be able to support it with facts and/or intelligent reasoning.

And, for someone to comment on a golf course that they've never seen is assinine, only exceeded in stupidity by someone trying to defend that position.[/color]

Ok, if he thinks that 4 par threes, 3 par fives, and 2 par fours are fine and you dont, lets just criticize your opinion.[/color]

Sadly, you don't get it.
I've seen PD, Ryan hasn't.
So how does he know that the 14th and 15 holes are the best holes that could be built on that stretch of land, rather then .... let's say, two par 4's ?[/color]

If he decides to trust Doak, then more power to him.[/color]

I don't equate power with blind faith.[/color]

There is a difference between blind faith and trust[/color]

What's the difference ?[/color]

Please tell me where he critiqued the course in any way??
[/b][/color]
He defended the routing and the component holes without ever having seen the land, the golf course or the individual holes.

I'd say that qualifies his opinion as decidedly unqualified.[/color]

He didnt critique the course. He critiqued the courses routing and par on the back nine. Please tell me when he said the course was good or bad...?[/color]

Had you read my post more carefully, you would have seen that I said that.[/color]

« **Reply #79 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:54:23 AM »

Quote from: Ryan Farrow on April 01, 2006, 12:23:41 AM

"I simply can not accept that what may soon be called the finest course built in my lifetime has four par threes on the back nine."

"Unique can only go so far..I think we agree that 9 out of 9 par threes is wrong..8 out of 9...7, 6 and 5...Four par threes on the back nine is too unique for me...sorry. I may be being selfish but I just love the thrill of hitting driver and don't want to give it up because it is suddenly fashionable to build multiple par threes..I see a slipperly slope when allowing this model to be called the greatest ever..Kinda like praising cart ball.."

And just because he played the course his opinion is greater then mine

YES, his is a more credible opinion.

You have absolutely NO facts that you can personally attest to, to support your position. He does.

He's seen the land, you haven't, so you have no concept, no idea what it looks like, or what could be there.

Do you think that two very good par 4's could have been built where holes # 14 and 15 reside ?

You can't even begin to address, let alone answer that question.

Please, stop wasting our time telling us about a golf course and its routing when you've never seen it.

even if his argument is I don’t like 4 par 3's on a 9 because I’m not used to it? Because it’s not what I usually play? So I have no right saying what I said as a general design statement?

Because that’s what I did. I made a generalized statement about the process and prioritizing of building a golf course.

But you have no idea as to whether better holes could have been built on the land, holes for example, that could replace # 14 and # 15.

To be polite, but frank, you don't know what you're talking about because you've never seen PD. And since we're talking about PD, and he's played it, and you've never seen it, credence is on his side.

« **Reply #80 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:56:32 AM »

Pat I will give you one thing. I don’t have any right commenting on a course I have never played. And if u read carefully I did not mention Pacific dunes at all. With that said we have gotten very far off topic (pink shirts, blind faith, and insulting my intelligence) and I will leave it at that.

« **Reply #81 on:** April 01, 2006, 01:18:42 AM »

Ryan,

I'm trying to help you, although I don't think you saw the lesson.

You can't defend a particular routing and the individual holes if you've never seen them, and the land they reside on.
To do so makes you look foolish.

I asked, could two very good par 4's have replaced holes
# 14 and # 15, a par 3 and a par 5.

You have absolutely NO frame of reference or personal experience by which you can answer that question.
Perhaps Tom Doak could have designed two superior par 4's.
That would have eliminated one of the par 3's and one of the par 5's which is what some people object to.

On the other hand, perhaps the two existing holes are the best that the land would yield, but, without ever having seen the property, how can you take either side ?

And, you can't apply generalizations to a particular situation with a high degree of certainty that your generalizations are applicable.

« **Reply #82 on:** April 01, 2006, 01:55:14 AM »

Patrick,
You've just routed the 13th, which is a virtually natural all-world coastline hole to the extreme north end of your property, and you need to head back towards the clubhouse on the south end. What next. You have about 150 yards of wild dune sand which can be sculpted any way you want. After that is about 60 rumpled yards which is hidden by the earlier dunes. After that is 500 yards of flat nothingness.
If we build a par four or a par 5, the 200+ best yards of the hole is traversed and negated by a tee shot. The land dictates a par 3.
While two good par fours instead of a 3 and a 5 may make sense in many situations, and bring a course into better balance, the land in question only yields one best answer and somehow Doak found it. Fourteen is no pushover, especially in an ill-wind.

« **Reply #83 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:00:11 AM »

I asked Doak himself if he found the "infallible routing"...He dodged the question for obvious reasons..

« **Reply #84 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:38:51 AM »

John:

I didn't think I had dodged the question.

The routing for Pacific Dunes is the best I could have done. I'm sure of it.

That doesn't mean everyone will agree. I'm sure there's someone out there who would think it better if #14 had played eastward into the flats so it could play a different compass direction in the wind, and then #15 had been 100 yards longer. I'm sure others would agree with Pat Mucci that 14-15 would have been "better" as two par fours. Their "ideals" don't take into account that there was no compelling site for a green for the 14th in either location -- they just assume we could have made up something as good on their spot, which is a poor assumption.

I had never for a moment thought of the possibility of combining 10 and 11 into a short par-4 until you raised it, but I don't think your one hole would be better than either of the two we built, and then you've got to find another hole that good. And we've got some pretty good short par-4's out there already, it's not like we really needed a hole of that length for variety.

All of these arguments in favor of other scenarios are based on the same premise -- that there is an "ideal makeup" of a golf course which we should strive to find on every site. I just don't believe that at all. I have seen too many great courses which don't conform to those ideals, and it's my responsibility to sort through all the potential solutions for each of my courses.

I do agree with you that there would be some combinations of holes that would be deemed "too odd" by the consumer (or by myself), and that we were close enough to the consumer's line at Pacific Dunes that I did spend considerable time pondering ways to overcome that; but ultimately we decided that the routing as is was the best solution, and it seems to have been pretty successful for all involved. We'll never get 100%, because different people have different preconceptions.

« **Reply #85 on:** April 01, 2006, 09:04:23 AM »

Quote from: Peter Pittock on April 01, 2006, 01:55:14 AM

You've just routed the 13th, which is a virtually natural all-world coastline hole to the extreme north end of your property, and you need to head back towards the clubhouse on the south end.

What next. You have about 150 yards of wild dune sand which can be sculpted any way you want. After that is about 60 rumpled yards which is hidden by the earlier dunes. After that is 500 yards of flat nothingness.

If we build a par four or a par 5, the 200+ best yards of the hole is traversed and negated by a tee shot. The land dictates a par 3.

I don't think that's an absolute.

While two good par fours instead of a 3 and a 5 may make sense in many situations, and bring a course into better balance, the land in question only yields one best answer and somehow Doak found it. Fourteen is no pushover, especially in an ill-wind.

Peter Pittock,

You've also missed the point.

The point is that Ryan is unqualified to evaluate the routing in the context of the land because he's never seen the land, the routing or the individual holes.

I cited # 14 and # 15 to demonstrate that it's impossible for Ryan to intelligently answer the question because he has no data base and no frame of reference.

If I've never seen Rustic Canyon, nor the land it sits on, how can I evaluate the merits of the routing in a global context and in the context of the component holes ?

I don't care how much Tommy Naccarato and David Moriarty rave about the golf course, absent examining the land, routing and individual holes, I'm totally unqualified to make any assessments and definitive statements about it.

And, to state, as Jordan did, that he has absolute faith in the architect, and therefore it must be near perfect, is absurd.
I have great faith in Gil Hanse and Tom Doak, but, I'd rather see for myself rather then take other's words for it.

The problem with JakaB's combining of # 10 and # 11 into a questionable hole is that you're now left with only 17 holes.

Where does he propose inserting the missing hole ?[/color]

« **Reply #86 on:** April 01, 2006, 09:24:08 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 09:04:23 AM

Quote from: Peter Pittock on April 01, 2006, 01:55:14 AM

And, to state, as Jordan did, that he has absolute faith in the architect, and therefore it must be near perfect, is absurd. I have great faith in Gil Hanse and Tom Doak, but, I'd rather see for myself rather then take other's words for it.[/color]

Pat, Ryan never said, nor did I, that PD is perfect or anywhere near it. Not once. Neither of us commented on how good a hole hole was, how the land could have been used, or anything like that. Instead, Ryan just put the point out there that maybe a unique routing with all the par threes and par fives might be fine. Ask yourself this question. If you were the designer of PD, do you think you could have done a better job?[/color]

« **Reply #87 on:** April 01, 2006, 09:38:33 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 12:43:01 AM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 01, 2006, 12:22:32 AM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 12:02:11 AM
Quote from: Jordan Wall on March 31, 2006, 11:34:25 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 11:23:52 PM
Jordan Wall,

If he's NEVER seen the land, how can he intelligently analyze and comment on the viability of the routing ?

Pat, do you honestly think that Tom would have wasted that land and routed the course poorly?? Me thinks no. Ryan is smart enough to know Tom would have done the correct thing.[/color]

I see, so it's not relevant to see the land, the golf course and the individual holes. One only needs to have blind faith in the architect, especially one who enjoys MFN status, in order to analyze, evaluate and comment on a golf course.

And, it's not a question of whether he routed the golf course poorly, it's a matter of whether another routing could be an improvement, especially when the back nine contains 4 par 3's, 3 par 5's and only 2 par 4's.

Are you familiar with Flynn and Ross's routing of York ?
Two talented architects.
Two totallly different routings.
What does that tell you ?

Please, read the next to last paragraph on page 295 of Charles Blair MacDonald's book, "Scotland's Gift"[/color]

Ok Pat. You are right.

Ryan is obviously wrong stating that PD has a great routing. First you say stick with my own opinion, and if I like Sandpines or whatever that is OK. So then I back up Ryan, whom I agree with, and I get bashed again, and I did what you told me and followed what I thought was right for real.Blind faith is not a bad thing at all anyways. If you had never played PD, its not like you would drive to the course with no opinion on it. You would have high expectations. Is that not blind faith??[/color]

Did you read about sex before you had it ?
Never had sex.
Was it different from what you read ?
Dont know.[/color]
I"ve played Sandpines.So have I[/color]
I examined it with an eye toward the criticisms that had been directed toward it. Ryan has NEVER seen PD.
Tell me you understand the difference ![/color]Of course I do but whether he has or hasnt seen it doesnt make his opinion on the par of holes on the back nine any less relevant.[/color]

How does he know that the best course was routed on that land if he's totally unfamiliar with the land and each of the component holes ?

Lets just say that that he is smart enough to trust Doak. [/color]

That's a dumb comment.
This isn't a website that caters to blind faith, or people commenting on golf courses that they've never seen, although Ryan has some company on that one.

Is every one of Tom Doak's routings THE perfect routing for the land ?

In what context could you prepare an answer to that question if you've never seen the land that his courses reside on ?[/color]

He thinks its fine to have four par threes, three par fives, and two par fours. That has nothing to do with blind faith. It is simply an opinion that he shares about what a fun and decent par for nine holes may or may not be. Blind faith?? I think not...[/color]

How does he know that if he's never seen the land that the holes are on.
ummm, he may think a unique blend of pars is fine. Does that say anything bad or good about the course?
How does he evaluate the land, the routing, and the holes if he's never seen them ? Answer: HE CAN'T. But what is wrong about stating whether or not he thinks the unique blend of pars if OK??[/color]
He doesn't know the first thing about PD
He doesn't know the first thing about the land and the routing.
He has no data base, no frame of reference, no concept of the land and the holes on the land.
He's like Ray Charles judging the Miss Universe contest.
He doesn't have a clue.[/color]

Tell me how you can have high expecations of a course when you have never played it, or hype. If you have, even once in your life, had high expectations of a course you have never played, you are commting the same thing as you say Ryan is doing. Is this not blind faith as well??[/color]

There has got to be a reason PD is #8 in the world....[/color]

That's an assessment that I don't agree with.[/color]

Whether you do or do not agree with that, so be it. It is what it is and if a magazine wants to say it is the #8 course in the world then there is nothing we can do about it. Just wondering, where is PD in your personal favorite courses (no joke, I would honestly like to know0...you dont seem to hate the course...[/color]

I like the course.
# 8 in the world is a little lofty for me.
If a magazine says it's so, you accept that, I don't.[/color]
I didnt say I accept it. I said there was nothing we could do about the magazines rating. Big difference.[/color]

Im trusting its not getting 'downgraded' because of the routing. If anything, its getting praised. Its much better to be original then have a copycat routing. [/color]

How do you copycat routing on land that's unique ?[/color]

You dont. The routing is unique. That is what is good. That is what Ryan has been trying to say this whole time[/color]

No, that's not what Ryan said.

And, Ryan has no frame of reference, no data that would allow him to make an intelligent evaluation with respect to the merits of the routing. He has no fact based context upon which he can make definitive conclusions.[/color]
Maybe so, but his opinion on the pars of holes are perfectly fine, It isnt judging the course, its sharing his opinion on a unique routing. Also, what did Ryan say then?? Maybe it was a misinterpertation...[/color]

Ryan has every right to say what he feels without getting bashed for it. [/color]

Ah, I see. You feel that anyone can say whatever they want without being held accountable for their words.
That's called being irresponsible.

When you say something, you have to be able to support it with facts and/or intelligent reasoning.

And, for someone to comment on a golf course that they've never seen is assinine, only exceeded in stupidity by someone trying to defend that position.[/color]

Ok, if he thinks that 4 par threes, 3 par fives, and 2 par fours are fine and you dont, lets just criticize your opinion.[/color]

Sadly, you don't get it.
I've seen PD, Ryan hasn't.
So how does he know that the 14th and 15 holes are the best holes that could be built on that stretch of land, rather then .... let's say, two par 4's ?[/color]
I get it. I just dont agree.[/color]

If he decides to trust Doak, then more power to him.[/color]

I don't equate power with blind faith.[/color]

There is a difference between blind faith and trust[/color]

What's the difference ?[/color]

Please tell me where he critiqued the course in any way??
[/b][/color]
He defended the routing and the component holes without ever having seen the land, the golf course or the individual holes.

I'd say that qualifies his opinion as decidedly unqualified.[/color]

He didnt critique the course. He critiqued the courses routing and par on the back nine. Please tell me when he said the course was good or bad...?[/color]

Had you read my post more carefully, you would have seen that I said that.[/color]
Everybody is way too analytical about peoples opinions. All Ryan was trying to do was throw in a little something that maybe Doak did the correct thing, and that maybe a blend of pars is a good thing. Then it all blows up and Ryan has no right to do this or that... Maybe you should actually listen to what Ryan has to say, because if he likes a blend of pars it relates to this discussion, whether he has played PD or not. If he says, I have always enjoyed a blend of pars and maybe it is OK at PD because it is unique, he has done nothing wrong at all. It is all how you perceive it.[/color]

« **Reply #88 on:** April 01, 2006, 09:54:10 AM »

"Unique can only go so far..I think we agree that 9 out of 9 par threes is wrong..8 out of 9...7, 6 and 5...Four par threes on the back nine is too unique for me...sorry. I may be being selfish but I just love the thrill of hitting driver and don't want to give it up because it is suddenly fashionable to build multiple par threes..I see a slipperly slope when allowing this model to be called the greatest ever..Kinda like praising cart ball.."

I still don't understand the validity of this comment; I don't care if the author has played the course or not. It has to do with one person's opinion of hitting the driver. Even if you like hitting driver, then you only hit it one less time over the entire round. You hit it two fewer times than normal on the back nine and one more time than normal on the front nine. Play the lower tee on #10 or #17 into a strong wind and you can hit it there too. I don't think the back nine should be viewed in isolation. I would bet that an extremely small % of golfers playing PD play only nine holes. It's not like this is an executive length golf course.

« **Reply #89 on:** April 01, 2006, 11:35:25 AM »

Patrick,
I didn't miss the point. You're making an assumption. I don't comment on Pine Valley, Merion, or NGLA, but would like to

.
This is a democracy, and no one is right or wrong. Just because a person has seen a property that doesn't make them right. I would weigh their opinion, perhaps more than a person of equal intelligence who hasn't seen the property.
But if I get an erudite opinion of someone whom I've trusted before, who hasn't seen the property, I might value that higher than the on-site flake.
Nothing in this above commentary is intended to represent anyone living or dead.

Is someone who walked the land, looking at it as a potential golf course before anything was built, better qualified to comment than a person who has merely looked at the finished product, knowing that the land has been altered, perhaps significantly?

I did not realize that Tom Doak had the option of heading east with the 14th.

« **Reply #90 on:** April 01, 2006, 03:53:01 PM »

Quote from: Peter Pittock on April 01, 2006, 11:35:25 AM

This is a democracy, and no one is right or wrong.
That's absurd, the form of government or administration has no bearing on the merits or validity of an opinion.

Immunity for falacious opinions isn't dispensed in blanket form.

Just because a person has seen a property that doesn't make them right.

Right about what ?
There ability to recall the property ?
I'd say they're far more reliable then someone who's NEVER seen the property.
But, what has that got to do with someone who's NEVER seen the property ?[/color]

I would weigh their opinion, perhaps more than a person of equal intelligence who hasn't seen the property.

"Perhaps" ?
You must be kidding.
What opinion on the property can a person who's never seen the property have ? ? ?
That's just absurd.[/color]

But if I get an erudite opinion of someone whom I've trusted before, who hasn't seen the property, I might value that higher than the on-site flake.

That's a crock of B.S.
You've qualified and biased your premise in order to arrive at your predetermined conclusion.
Let's not discuss hypotheticals, let's discuss the issue at hand, Pacific Dunes and Tim Ryan's opinion of the routing.

Did Tim Ryan offer an erudite opinion ?
Do you know him ? Do you trust him ? Have you trusted his opinions before ? Who is the flake who's visited the site ?
Do you know him ?

Is there any substance to your position, or is it based on weighted hypotheticals with a predetermined outcome ?[/color]

Nothing in this above commentary is intended to represent anyone living or dead.

Let's leave TEPaul out of this.[/color]

Is someone who walked the land, looking at it as a potential golf course before anything was built, better qualified to comment than a person who has merely looked at the finished product, knowing that the land has been altered, perhaps significantly?

That's a seperate issue, but, add one more participant to the question. Is someone who's NEVER seen the land better qualified to comment on the routing then the two individuals you've mentioned above ?[/color]

I did not realize that Tom Doak had the option of heading east with the 14th.

Tom Doak will have to comment on that.
Certainly Tom Doak had the option of heading south or southeast and creating two par 4's instead of a par 3 and a par 5, OR, he could have created a par 5 then a par 3.
Instead he chose to create a par 3 then a par 5.

But absent a visit to the site, you'd have no frame of reference with respect to what he could or couldn't do.[/color]

« **Reply #91 on:** April 01, 2006, 04:33:21 PM »

[quote author =Jordan wall
link=board=1;threadid=22740;start=75#msg416315 date=1143902313]

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 12:43:01 AM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 01, 2006, 12:22:32 AM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 12:02:11 AM
Quote from: Jordan Wall on March 31, 2006, 11:34:25 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 31, 2006, 11:23:52 PM

Please, read the next to last paragraph on page 295 of Charles Blair MacDonald's book, "Scotland's Gift"[/color]

Ok Pat. You are right.

Ryan is obviously wrong stating that PD has a great routing.

First you say stick with my own opinion, and if I like Sandpines or whatever that is OK. So then I back up Ryan, whom I agree with, and I get bashed again,

I"ve played Sandpines.So have I

I examined it with an eye toward the criticisms that had been directed toward it. Ryan has NEVER seen PD.
Tell me you understand the difference ![/color]

Of course I do but whether he has or hasnt seen it doesnt make his opinion on the par of holes on the back nine any less relevant.[/color]

Sure it does, in the context of evaluating the routing and the order of the holes.

How does he know that the best course was routed on that land if he's totally unfamiliar with the land and each of the component holes ?

Lets just say that that he is smart enough to trust Doak. [/color]

That's a dumb comment.
This isn't a website that caters to blind faith, or people commenting on golf courses that they've never seen, although Ryan has some company on that one.

Is every one of Tom Doak's routings THE perfect routing for the land ?

In what context could you prepare an answer to that question if you've never seen the land that his courses reside on ?[/color]

He thinks its fine to have four par threes, three par fives, and two par fours. That has nothing to do with blind faith. It is simply an opinion that he shares about what a fun and decent par for nine holes may or may not be. Blind faith?? I think not...[/color]

How does he know that if he's never seen the land that the holes are on.[/color]

ummm, he may think a unique blend of pars is fine. Does that say anything bad or good about the course?[/color]

How would he know if the unique blend is good, bad or indifferent unless he's actually seen the holes and the land they sit on ?

How does he evaluate the land, the routing, and the holes if he's never seen them ? Answer: HE CAN'T.

But what is wrong about stating whether or not he thinks the unique blend of pars if OK??[/color]

Because we're specifically discussing PD and he has no frame of reference.
He's never seen the land so he can't definitively declare that the routing is sound, excellent, poor or mediocre.

He doesn't know the first thing about PD
He doesn't know the first thing about the land and the routing.
He has no data base, no frame of reference, no concept of the land and the holes on the land.
He's like Ray Charles judging the Miss Universe contest.
He doesn't have a clue.[/color]

Tell me how you can have high expecations of a course when you have never played it, or hype. If you have, even once in your life, had high expectations of a course you have never played, you are commting the same thing as you say Ryan is doing.

Then this may come as a surprise to you.
I don't predispose myself. I don't have high expectations irrespective of the hype.
I didn't when I played Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Sandpines or anywhere else.
I don't commit the same error that you and Ryan commit.
I prefer to make up my own mind rather then rely upon the opinions of others.

Call me an independent thinker

Is this not blind faith as well??

NO, it's not, because I don't indulge in that practice.

There has got to be a reason PD is #8 in the world....[/color]

That's an assessment that I don't agree with.[/color]

Whether you do or do not agree with that, so be it. It is what it is and if a magazine wants to say it is the #8 course in the world then there is nothing we can do about it. Just wondering, where is PD in your personal favorite courses (no joke, I would honestly like to know0...you dont seem to hate the course...[/color]

I like the course.
# 8 in the world is a little lofty for me.
If a magazine says it's so, you accept that, I don't.[/color]

I didnt say I accept it. I said there was nothing we could do about the magazines rating. Big difference.[/color]

No, you offered the rating up as supporting evidence with respect to validating Tom Doak's routing of the golf course.

Im trusting its not getting 'downgraded' because of the routing. If anything, its getting praised. Its much better to be original then have a copycat routing. [/color]

How do you copycat routing on land that's unique ?[/color]

You dont. The routing is unique. That is what is good. That is what Ryan has been trying to say this whole time[/color]

No, that's not what Ryan said.

And, Ryan has no frame of reference, no data that would allow him to make an intelligent evaluation with respect to the merits of the routing. He has no fact based context upon which he can make definitive conclusions.[/color]

Maybe so, but his opinion on the pars of holes are perfectly fine, It isnt judging the course, its sharing his opinion on a unique routing. [/color]

No it's not.
We're discussing Pacific Dunes, and he doesn't even know what the routing is at Pacific Dunes, let alone the hole configuration. If he's never seen the land and the golf course how can he pass judgement on the merits or demerits of the routing and individual holes ?

Also, what did Ryan say then?? Maybe it was a misinterpertation...[/color]

OK ?

Ryan has every right to say what he feels without getting bashed for it. [/color]

Ah, I see. You feel that anyone can say whatever they want without being held accountable for their words.
That's called being irresponsible.

When you say something, you have to be able to support it with facts and/or intelligent reasoning.

And, for someone to comment on a golf course that they've never seen is assinine, only exceeded in stupidity by someone trying to defend that position.[/color]

Ok, if he thinks that 4 par threes, 3 par fives, and 2 par fours are fine and you dont, lets just criticize your opinion.[/color]

Sadly, you don't get it.
I've seen PD, Ryan hasn't.
So how does he know that the 14th and 15 holes are the best holes that could be built on that stretch of land, rather then .... let's say, two par 4's ?[/color]

I get it. I just dont agree.[/color]

No, you don't get it, and you don't agree.

If he decides to trust Doak, then more power to him.[/color]

I don't equate power with blind faith.[/color]

There is a difference between blind faith and trust[/color]

What's the difference ?[/color]

You didn't answer this question.

Everybody is way too analytical about peoples opinions.[/color]

Should we just accept all opinions as "The Gospel" ?

All Ryan was trying to do was throw in a little something that maybe Doak did the correct thing, and that maybe a blend of pars is a good thing.[/color]

How do you know what he was trying to do ?
Isn't that an opinion lacking a basis in fact ?
Your own conjecture ?

Then it all blows up and Ryan has no right to do this or that... [/color]

He has a right to say anything he wants to say.
And NOONE said he didn't.
He also has to be accountable for his statements.
Even Ryan admitted that he's unqualified to comment on the particulars at PD. You seem to be the only one clinging to the notion that ignorance IS an excuse for commentary.

Maybe you should actually listen to what Ryan has to say, because if he likes a blend of pars it relates to this discussion, whether he has played PD or not. If he says, I have always enjoyed a blend of pars and maybe it is OK at PD because it is unique, he has done nothing wrong at all. It is all how you perceive it.[/color]

You're lost and babbling.
What does a blending of pars mean ?
Doesn't every course possess that configuration, that quality ?

Quote

« **Reply #92 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:17:29 PM »

Quote from: Peter Pittock on April 01, 2006, 11:35:25 AM

But if I get an erudite opinion of someone whom I've trusted before, who hasn't seen the property, I might value that higher than the on-site flake.

I almost missed that one...I would have to agree.

« **Reply #93 on:** April 01, 2006, 09:07:21 PM »

John could you answer this question for me? If there really was enough room for a short par 4 in place of hole 10 or 11 would you choose a weaker par 4 and a strong par3 over two strong par 3's.

« **Reply #94 on:** April 02, 2006, 04:12:30 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2006, 03:53:01 PM

Let's not discuss hypotheticals, let's discuss the issue at hand, Pacific Dunes and Tim Ryan's opinion of the routing.

Did Tim Ryan offer an erudite opinion ?
Do you know him ? Do you trust him ? Have you trusted his opinions before ? Who is the flake who's visited the site ?
Do you know him ?

Somehow Ryan and I have now become one person.

Must we deflate the value of Mr. Kavanaugh's opinion on the course since he played alternate shot on the course? As such, it seems that he can really only understand the shot values provided by half of the course. Seems an odd format for him. He is so passionate about the driver that he openly complains about the fact that there is one fewer opportunity to hit the club over the course of 18 holes, yet he is willing to forego half the tee shots in the round. He probably only got to hit the tee shot on either 10 or 11, not both, so can he fully understand and appreciate both holes? Or is being there sufficient?

« **Reply #95 on:** April 02, 2006, 08:15:09 AM »

Tyan,

Our alternate shot format consisted of us each hitting a drive, playing the other guys ball..then alternate shooting from the best choice we had. With my partner being a 22 handicap I may have seen more of the course than I had ever imagined.

"John could you answer this question for me? If there really was enough room for a short par 4 in place of hole 10 or 11 would you choose a weaker par 4 and a strong par3 over two strong par 3's."

Rim,

No...but I would choose a universal class par 4 and a great par 3 over two world class par 3's..

« **Reply #96 on:** April 02, 2006, 10:56:15 AM »

JakaB,

I'm still intriqued by your assertion that a great to world class par 4 exists where two great par 3's currently reside on # 10 and # 11.

I don't see it.

How many yards to the right of # 10 green is # 11 green ?

The 10th hole is onlly 206 from the back tee, so how do you create a good to world class par 4 out of those two holes ?.

« **Reply #97 on:** April 02, 2006, 11:49:39 AM »

O/T

Can anyone give me the link to the thread about Pacific Dunes supposed "hidden tees"? Just curios about 'em.

Can't seem to find it with the search.

« **Reply #98 on:** April 02, 2006, 12:27:05 PM »

John,

Thanks for the clarification on the alternate shot. It explains that you've hit all the tee shots, but I'm still interested to know if Patrick feels like you can fully understand the shot values of all the approaches if you haven't played each one of them.

I realize you are just answering Ryan's question, but do you agree that #10 and #11 are both world-class, or is your assertion that they are just good par 3s?

Is your bigger concern the back to back nature of the par 3s and the fact that there are 4 on the back nine, or is the issue that you don't think the holes are as good as they can be? If it's the latter, then I'd like to hear your ideas for the alternate routing other than turn 10 and 11 into a good par 4, which most of us seem to agree doesn't exist on that land.

« **Reply #99 on:** April 02, 2006, 04:16:26 PM »

Tom Doak,

Can you supply the yardage from the mid-point of the 10th green to the mid-point of the 11th green ?

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Jordan Wall

Ryan Farrow

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Ryan Farrow

Patrick_Mucci

peter_p

John Kavanaugh

Tom_Doak

Patrick_Mucci

Jordan Wall

Jordan Wall

Tim Bert

peter_p

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

John Kavanaugh

Ryan Farrow

Tim Bert

John Kavanaugh

Patrick_Mucci

Pat Howard

Tim Bert

Patrick_Mucci