Love & Hate

[David_Tepper]

Doug Siebert-

I bring up the subject of golf "in the real world" and this guy comes back with Olympic, San Francisco GC, Santa Rosa CC, Pebble, Spyglass, Cypress and Spanish Bay! Absolutely classic. Now I see what we are dealing with.

DT  

[THuckaby2]

OK, I get it now.  Yes, the issue is now a bit clearer.  Patrick is comparing UK links to truly great American private courses, not in terms of playing them, but in terms of creating and/or changing them.  In that context, his question does make some sense.  Now how we were expected to glean that from this initial question, well... the world will never know.  

But Patrick, you have to understand that such courses are not a regular thing for most of us.

Pat, I'm a public course golfer.  Yes, I am a course rater for a magazine, as well as such in the "slope" context for the NCGA, so I am fortunate to play a lot of nice places.  But my normal diet of golf is local munis and CCFADs.  And yes, at least most of the latter are VERY penal.  We're talking OB on both sides of every hole... water on most... etc.  Why do I play them?  Because I love this game enough that to me it's better to play those than to not play at all, and often that's the choice I am faced with.  I am the anti-Ed Getka in this respect.

So when you say why would I accept penal over there when I don't over here... well... can you now at least acknowledge my incredulity at the question?

And I think a lot of us here have the same incredulity.  We are absolutely NOT being contrarian - come on, you know that's not my style - this is honest head-scratching at the question.

Yes, these UK links can be penal.  But no, in general they are just plain not more so than a lot of the courses we play over here.

So there you go.  You can take this or leave it, obviously.  But this is an honest, sincere, absolutely not contrarian answer.

TH

[Mike Benham]

... although resort courses would be disqualified from my exercise, as would public courses since the golfers that play public courses have no say in removing, altering or adding architectural features to those golf courses.[/color]

So, based on your resort or public course restrictions, Turnberry, Carnoustie, North Berwick and TOC should also be removed.

[Gary_Nelson]

Pat,

If a guy hates penal features in the USA but loves them in the UK, I would suggest that he is drunk on the scenery (and perhaps the Scotch).

Is it fair to compare the experience of a once-in-a-lifetime trip overseas to the day-in day-out features of one's home course?

Gary

[David_Tepper]

Mike Benham-

You can add Gleneagles to the list of resort/muni courses as well.

DT

[Patrick_Mucci]

Individually and collectively,

You guys don't get it.

Tom Huckaby,

You've missed again, like the field goal kicker for the Bills

The contrast wasn't with classic or golden age courses, it was with any and all private courses, where members have a say in what happens to their golf course.  

Public or resort courses can't be included because the golfers who play them have no say in the architecture, either in the design phase or once they're operational.

You also can't hold out a challenged site in a high land cost area, as a golf course representative of the entire country.

Mike Benham,

You're wrong, Again.

The exclusion of resort courses and public courses was solely in the U.S. since the golfers who play those courses have no say in altering the architectural features of those golf courses when they get back home.

David Tepper,

You mentioned the Bay area and I merely cited courses I had played in that general area.  When I first played Pebble Beach and Spyglass they weren't expensive, as they are today.  When Spanish Bay opened it also didn't command today's green fees.  Like Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes, the greater cost was travel, not green fees.

As I had posted earlier, the body of golf courses I've played is diverse and extensive.  Perhaps you missed that pertinent fact

You also fail to connect the dots on the lack of influence that public or resort golfers have over the architecture on the courses that they choose to play, a critical factor in the theme of the thread.

It's not a disregard for the public course golfer, rather the reality that they have NO say in altering or retaining the architectural features on the golf courses they play, whereas members of most private clubs can influence the decisions regarding architectural features on their golf course.

If I have to lay it out for you, so that you would understand it, A to Z, in the opening post, I'd still be typing the initial thread.

Since you stated that you never played St Andrews, Troon, Turnberry, Western Gailes, Gullane, Prestwick, North Berwick and others, which serve as MAJOR GOLF DESTINATIONS to the American golfer, don't you feel unqualified to respond to this thread, especially since I referenced Scotland on more than a few occassions ?

Name calling doesn't obfuscate the fact that you don't get it.

[THuckaby2]

Individually and collectively,

You guys don't get it.

Tom Huckaby,

You've missed again, like the field goal kicker for the Bills

The contrast wasn't with classic or golden age courses, it was with any and all private courses, where members have a say in what happens to their golf course.  

Public or resort courses can't be included because the golfers who play them have no say in the architecture, either in the design phase or once they're operational.

You also can't hold out a challenged site in a high land cost area, as a golf course representative of the entire country.

Patrick:

Oh I get it just fine.  However, this is certainly NOT what you were asking in post #1 of this thread.  Now that you have clarified it to what you say here, of course it makes sense, although the worth of the question remains open to debate.  Phrasing it as you did initially, it makes no sense at all.

So we're back to square one.  I'll answer again:  US PRIVATE CLUB golfers find these penal attributes in the the great UK links acceptable because such attributes are very different from what they face at home, and as golfers over there they are visitors, not dwellers.  If they saw these attributes as a regular diet, they would complain in the same manner as they do about the penal attributes they find at home.

TH

[Gary_Nelson]

Pat,

Let's turn this around a bit and take a look at Muirfield (Scotland... not Ohio).   The members there regularly play a course with penal bunkers.  They seem to be OK with the setup.   Are the US golfers wimpy in comparision?  Do the US golfers at private clubs "dumb-down" their courses and soften the penal aspects?  If so, where is a good example to illustrate this point?

Gary

[David_Tepper]

Mr. Mucci-

You did not reference private golf courses in the U.S. in your original post.

You did not reference a select list of golf courses in Scotland (apparently select in the sense that they are the only ones you have played) in your original post. You specifically referred to golf courses in the UK.

Having played Royal Aberdeen, Cruden Bay, Royal Dornoch, Nairn, Brora, Golspie, etc., I do not no regret having so far missed the major golfing tourist venues to be found elsewhere in Scotland. If that makes me unfit to comment upon the nature of golf in Scotland, you can add that to your list of mistakes in judgement.  

The only thing I "don't get" is how you expect everyone here to read your mind, scary as that thought may be to all of us, and infer all your intentions and nuances from your initial post.

Perhaps if you showed more respect for other peoples' opinions and did not question their honestly and integrity, threads such as these would not become the joke that this one has become.

DT
   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gary Nelson,

It's a good question.

The answer, I suspect is within the mindset and candor of that golfer.  On the surface, it would appear that the golfer is being disengenuous, and is giving undue weight to his new surroundings.

Or,

Perhaps, in the context of those surroundings, on the courses I mentioned, he feels that the penal nature of the golf course, the specific penal features are avoidable with prudent play.  And, that if he comes into play with them, he will  accept his fate.

If a wide fairway has a small, but deep, dangerously penal bunker in the middle, and some additional bunkers on the margins, perhaps the golfer relishes that challenge, and doesn't object to the penal nature of that bunker because he had a tactical chance to avoid it.

It would seem to be a rare occasion when an American golfer would come to Scotland, and play all of the courses I mentioned, and like the same penal features that he dislikes in America.

The penal nature of the courses I mentioned seem acceptable because of the culture of golf in Scotland, so perhaps your fictitious golfer accepts that culture.

Blind or hidden bunkers in play, a lack of directional guidance off the tee, which can lead to disastrous consequences.
These features are not looked upon kindly in America.

The 5th hole at Old Marsh is a good example.
A tribute to the 17th at Prestwick and the bell to his dad, this hole has been severely criticized by many.  Holes like # 17 at Old Marsh are extremely rare in modern day American architecture, especially when they have to be constructed, and not found in the land form.  Golfers seem to love # 17 at Prestwick, but I haven't heard the same praise of # 5 at Old Marsh, for similar features.

Pete Dye also brought sleepers/railroad ties back to America, and a good deal of the penal nature of golf in Scotland as well.
At the time he did so, many resisted the direction and effects of his designs that incorporated these features.

Perhaps it's the medal play nature of golf in America and the handicap system that makes penal golf so undesirable.

Perhaps that's why NGLA and GCGC are so much fun to play in a match play competition.
   

[THuckaby2]

Perhaps it's the medal play nature of golf in America and the handicap system that makes penal golf so undesirable.

Patrick:  as my nine year old daughter would say:

WELL, DUH-UH!!!!

This can't be what you are after here.  That is as obvious as the fact ND has no talent this year.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

If they didn't like those penal features, why do they return year after year to play them ?

Dave Tepper,

I thought my initial reference, in th opening post, to the golfers "HOME"[/color] course infered that he was a member of a private course.  Perhaps you missed that critical word.

You state that Royal Aberdeen, Cruden Bay and Dornoch aren't MAJOR GOLF Destinations.  Do you really believe that Dornoch is less of a golfing destination then Western Gailes, or Gullane ?  Now who's out of touch with reality.

Regarding opinions, their value isn't equal, hence all opinions shouldn't be held in the same regard, or viewed as validating any given subject matter.

Some of the leading opinions of the time held that the world was flat.  And, it wasn't until rockets with cameras were propelled into space that the last vestige of the flat earth society was disbanded.

Opinions are just ..... opinions,
Unless TEPaul endorses them.
Then they become grounds for being commited to Happydale.

[John Goodman]

What Pat M. seems to be saying is that private club US golfers ought to want the bunkering on their home courses to be as "penal" as Muirfield, the rough as brutal as Portmarnock, the penalty for a slice to be as severe as at the Road Hole, etc., and that they apparently don't want those things at home, while relishing them abroad, seems to be a contradiction.  

Assuming as I will the accuracy of the those assumptions, then the answer must lie in golfer psychology.  One wants his experiences on vacation to be different than home; else, why go?  And in my own personal experience, I've wanted to think the Scotland courses to be more difficult before and while I played them -- it's Scotland after all.  It's some consolation when you're paying off your roll/re-roll scotch bet that Tommy Nakajima couldn't get out of the road bunker and VanDevel couldn't avoid the barry burn, either.    

         

[David_Tepper]

Mr. Mucci-

I did not miss your reference to the word HOME. When I specifically referred one of my HOME courses that I play on a regular basis, you arbitrarily elimanated it from being relevant as it is a public course.

Surprising as you might find the notion, public golf courses are the HOME courses to the majority of golfers in the US.  

Having been to Dornoch six times in the past five years and having purchased a home this earlier this year, I can assure you that I am well aware of Dornoch's status as a golf destination.

You are the one who postulated Turnberry, Western Gailies, TOC, Troon, Gullane, Prestwick & North Berwick as the primary MAJOR GOLFING DESTINATIONS, not me.
 
Get a grip!

DT

[ForkaB]

Perhaps it's the medal play nature of golf in America and the handicap system that makes penal golf so undesirable.

Patrick, old bean

Hopefully, this is NOT the central plank of your "argument."  As I have tried to patiently explain many times before on this site, the UK handicap system is almost ENTIRELY based on stroke play.  Serious UK golf is predominantly stroke play--particularly for the better players.  And, as there is NO "equitable stroke control" for Handicap I players (5 HCP and below) if you get into a deep bunker you'd better find a way of getting out before you ring up double figures on your card and see yourself catapulted back into Category II!

If anything, GBI courses (and the associated handicapping system) are designed to sort out the wheat from the chaff in terms of stroke play, not match play.  If you think otherwise, you, as was Bogie in Casablanca, must have been misinformed.......

[Mike Benham]

You're wrong, Again.

I appreciate the recognition, at least it is a step up from the last few times when you insulted my golfing ability ...

[Michael Moore]

Someone needs to alert Ran that Princes Risborough Golf Club, "home" course of Matthew van Reysen, 13 years old, featured under "My Home Course", is in fact a public facility.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

What influence do you have over the architecture of any of the loosely interpreted courses you call "HOME courses ?

NONE ____

SOME _____

ALOT ______

Rich Goodale,

Which stroke play rounds count for handicap ?

What percentage of rounds are played at stroke play ?

John Goodman,

You get it.

Tom Huckaby,

They have the talent, unfortunately they're guided by a fellow they plucked from California.

Mike Benham,

I thought it would be preferable if I insulted your golfing ability rather then have you incriminate yourself.

[David_Tepper]

Mr. Mucci-

Did ANYTHING in your original post raise or refer to the issues of:

1) Private vs. public/resort courses?
2) The influence of members/players over the maintenance & design features of their "home course(s)"?
3) The relevance of storke vs. matchplay and the respective handicap systems in the US and GB&I?

The answers are no, No and NO!

It is unfortunate that none of us have received a glossary of "Mucci-speak", where words seem to have different inferences and implications that what is commonly accepted usage in the English language.

Here is a suggestion that I hope will benefit ALL of us - perhaps in the feature you could be just a little bit more forthcoming when you propose an issue for discussion. Why don't you give us 8 or 10 sentences laying out what you think the framework of our discussion might be. That might cut down on all this back and forth, saving us ALL a lot of time.

Finally, with regard to the value of opinions, we have one thing we can agree upon - the earth is indeed not flat! However, unless I missed the memo appointing you as the ulitmate arbiter of the validity of opinions expressed on gca.com, you are, like most of us here, just another guy with a little too much time on his hands.  

DT      

[John Goodman]

David, I don't know Mucci-speak, but I learned while drinking Budweiser at the Italian-American Club in Oswego NY with my wife's great-uncle, Victor Christoferro, that sometimes it's better just to agree . . .    

[ForkaB]

Rich Goodale,

Which stroke play rounds count for handicap ?

All closed and Open competitions.  Roughly 40-50/year for most clubs.

What percentage of rounds are played at stroke play ?

Depends.  For me, between 50-75%.  For top amateurs, probably closer to 90%.  For casual golfers probably 0-10%.

Happy to illuminate your understanding.  Other than the admirable goal of self-improvement, any reason why you want to know these things?

[David_Tepper]

John Goodman-

You could very well be right.

I think we may have entered "Mucci-world," a land of delusion and fantasy, where logic and rational thinking have no place. A land ruled by whim and capriciousness.

That is as plausible an explanation as I can come up with.

DT  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

It had been my understanding that only specified rounds were to be counted in determining handicap in the UK, and you have confirmed that.  Whereas, in America most, if not all rounds are intended to find their way into the computer.

David Tepper,

You really don't get it.

To deny the penal nature of golf in the UK, especially Scotland, and especially THE golf destinations, such as the clubs I mentioned, is absurd.

To not understand the meaning or the context of the word or words, "HOME CLUB" is to be naive at best.

Golfers from the U.S. travel thousands of miles, many for the express purpose of having their games and themselves abused.  Abused by the rain, the wind, the cold, the alien and penal nature of the golf courses, especially the deep, sod faced bunkers, but you want to pretend that all of those features are common place in the U.S., especially in the Bay area, and especially at a golf course that you willingly choose to play, despite your complaints about it.

It's a rare golfer, who upon his return from Scotland, says that he didn't like the golf courses.  Yet, those same golfers want the sanitized version of golf at their "HOME" course.
Those same golfers vote, in the name of "fairness" to soften the same features at their golf course that they find, or claim to find, so appealing in Scotland.

Do I have to spell everything out for you ?
The hidden bunkers, blind tee shots, blind approaches, severe bunkering, deep bunkers, deep straight faced bunkers.   Bunkers in the middle of the fairway, deflecting mounds, and heather and gorse.   One could also mention the wind, cold and rain, integral elements usually found over there.  Add it all up, and it's a different type of golf then exists in the Bay area or the U.S. in general.

How much more information does it take before you begin to understand the gist of the thread ?

You're in denial of the fact that golf in the UK/Scotland is dramatically different from golf in the U.S.

Maybe, if you reflect on why they had the small ball for all of those years, you might begin to understand some of the differences.  You already failed the handicap quiz, the relevance of the core differences in the two systems and their impact on the culture of golf in the UK and the US, and, you still don't grasp the connection.

Just because logic and rational thinking at this level are above and beyond your abilities, doesn't disqualify the merits of this thread and the underlying basic premise.

Try ...... thinking ......... globally.

Lastly, feel free to initiate your own threads as you see fit.
Word them any way you choose, make them as brief or as long as you please.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Why can't a public course where you are a member be your home club?

Don't members of public courses who are on the greens committee have a say in the architectural direction of that course?

Michael Moore
Fairlawn Men's Golf Assocation

[David_Tepper]

Mr. Mucci-

I would refer you gain to the text of your initial post. You said 'HOME golf course', not 'HOME club'.

In my initial post, I did not deny the penal nature of the 40+ golf courses I have played in GB&I. I simply explained how and why I find it different from the golf courses I play most frequently here in the US.

As it appears that we have played different golf courses both here in the Bay Area and in GB&I, perhaps our golfing frames of reference are just different.  What basis is there, other than your arrogance and hubris, for you to assert your experiences and observations are more valid than those of any other participant on this board?

DT