[JakaB]

You people love the look...whatever look that is..to each his own.  You people understand length..the long and the short of it.  You people can explain why this bunker goes there and why that hazard goes here....you know a great hole when you see it and a great course when you play it...but what you don't know is diddly.   You don't know why one course brings out the best in competitors of a now long 67 year span...you don't know why the best architectural hole on a course may be perfectly placed in the 3rd slot of 18....you can't explain why if a course where played like a cd and tracks could be mixed and matched...you wouldn't have the same course at all...you go so far to say the 67 years of solid exciting interesting golf shots don't prove great architecture....why do you say that...because you don't know diddly and don't even know why.

[Brian_Gracely]

holy cow JakaB...you just took 250+ words to explain subjective opinion, relative experiences, random chance, mother nature and historical interpretation.  

thanks for confirming that we don't all live on a one-way road heading east.  did you expect that the pairing down to ~1000 would actually provide some clarity?

[TEPaul]

"...you go so far to say the 67 years of solid exciting interesting golf shots don't prove great architecture....why do you say that...because you don't know diddly and don't even know why."

Oh yeah?

Who said that? Read the "lessons from Augusta" thread again---you'll learn something if you feel you don't know diddly!

[Adam_F_Collins]

Art and design are not exact sciences.

These kind of pursuits are made more of strong feelings, preferences and opinions.

Certainly, there are plenty of things around the building of courses, functions of systems such as drainage, safety buffers, etc. which can be fitted with rules and equations, but as far as the arrangement of the course and how it plays or looks...

You can only know what you prefer some things and the reasons why you prefer them.

According to the dictionary:

Theory - 1. An explanation based on thought or speculation. 2 An explanation based on observation and reasoning. 4. An idea or opinion about something. 5 Thought or fancy as opposed to fact or practice.

[JakaB]

thanks for confirming that we don't all live on a one-way road heading east.  did you expect that the pairing down to ~1000 would actually provide some clarity?

Do 800 ducks in a row count as one or 800...

[JakaB]

I'm gonna be late for stag...but to test this theory that I'm not sure most of you know even exists....what holes at Augusta could be flip flopped and not change the outcome of a 72 hole tournament.....the easy example of two that could not are 12 and 16....not even close.

[TEPaul]

John:

You do know, don't you, that ANGC was designed with the nines reversed?

[JakaB]

John:

You do know, don't you, that ANGC was designed with the nines reversed?

I course I don't...I don't know diddly myself.  What the hell does who designed it originally or how...have to do in how the ball plays today.  Even Tom Doak said the other day he has to get it in the ground and see how it plays before he knows if it works....I would guess that over time it became obvious that the nines are best reversed...in ten years if technology keeps a changing..they might be best reversed back.   That is what makes it unexplainable.

[JakaB]

As subtle as it would be....how would switching #4 with #6 at Augusta change the architectural resonance of the course...with both holes being par 3's it would seem to make no difference to the average student....but you guys arn't average.

[JakaB]

I know its night time and I know you guys don't like to look beyond the obvious...so I'm gonna give you a little taste of the truth.....

Every course has a frequency or resonance so to speak...someone with talent or luck can make changes that appear on the surface to be poor or misguided...but if they don't change the frequency the changes don't change the course....case in point..the work at Augusta.

All I want to know is how does it happen>>>>>>

[TEPaul]

John, you're too much. In one post just above you say you don't know diddly and in the next post you're launching into chances, even nuancy ones on a course's "frequency" or "resonance".

On the next post would you mind taking out your innate ANGC TUNING FORK and twaaaaaaanging it for us a few times and maybe we'll do even better answering your questions?

[TEPaul]

But, John, if it helps this thread at all I'll tell you a little architectural technique I think I've picked up by watching a guy like Coore in the field a number of times. It's called watch the ball, particularly with what it can and might do when it's running along the ground like a scared little red-assed rabbit!

[JakaB]

A simple exercise would be to consider which hole you would prefer to start on in a shot-gun start and why...If you were Gib you may want to start on 14 so 12 becomes more like the 17th at TPC...while this is Gib's opinion of a good change....it destroys the beauty of risk reward nature of 12 and thus changes the frequency of the course.  You need to remember the tournament scoring process involved with 12 with the birdie or eagle holes that follow....all this is lost once it becomes the 17th...thus all strategy is lost.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()