News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Andy Doyle

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #200 on: March 02, 2005, 05:03:20 PM »
What is the record for the most number of views for a thread?

AD

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #201 on: March 02, 2005, 05:05:02 PM »
What is the record for the most number of views for a thread?

AD

This one has a LONG way to go to match the record.  Go to "more stats".  Damn near 20,000 for a relatively stupid thread.  No further comment.

Kyle Harris

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #202 on: March 02, 2005, 05:07:52 PM »
What is the record for the most number of views for a thread?

AD

This one has a LONG way to go to match the record.  Go to "more stats".  Damn near 20,000 for a relatively stupid thread.  No further comment.

And now everyone finding that and looking at it makes it go up...

Fall was a great season for golf here in the NE, courses in their prime then.

Yeah, I missed afternoons to play Huntingdon Valley, Philmont North, Doylestown CC, Torresdale-Frankford, Jericho, Lookaway, Lu Lu, Sandy Run... :-)
« Last Edit: March 02, 2005, 05:08:20 PM by Kyle Harris »

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #203 on: March 02, 2005, 05:10:22 PM »
Kyle:

Wasn't it a damn good thing?  In SoCal, HS team got me on ALL of the good private courses... Bel Air, Riviera, LACC, you name it... Then through that team I also got to play Cypress, Pebble, Spyglass on a trip north....

We had no idea how good we had it.


TH

Kyle Harris

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #204 on: March 02, 2005, 05:11:04 PM »
Whoa...

Allan Long

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #205 on: March 02, 2005, 05:12:24 PM »
Originally, I tuned in to discuss some course, but lost my train of thought somewhere around Catherine Bell and can't remember a darn thing. I don't know who started this, but Bless You.
I don't know how I would ever have been able to look into the past with any degree of pleasure or enjoy the present with any degree of contentment if it had not been for the extraordinary influence the game of golf has had upon my welfare.
--C.B. Macdonald

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #206 on: March 02, 2005, 05:12:35 PM »
Yeah, whoa is right.  And what was sick was we were snot-nosed kids and most of the time it was just another course, just another match.  Oh, the trip north was appreciated, sure... but not even close to how it would be NOW, knowing what we do as adults....

I remember guys complaining about Riviera because it was too tough, not wanting to play the match.  I am not kidding.  We had a lot of spoiled brats at my school.

TH

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #207 on: March 02, 2005, 05:16:27 PM »
Yeah, whoa is right.  And what was sick was we were snot-nosed kids and most of the time it was just another course, just another match.  Oh, the trip north was appreciated, sure... but not even close to how it would be NOW, knowing what we do as adults....

I remember guys complaining about Riviera because it was too tough, not wanting to play the match.  I am not kidding.  We had a lot of spoiled brats at my school.

TH

I think I've mentioned it before, but my home course in HS was number 12 on the aforementioned "classic" list.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #208 on: March 02, 2005, 05:17:21 PM »
Kyle:

Wasn't it a damn good thing?  In SoCal, HS team got me on ALL of the good private courses... Bel Air, Riviera, LACC, you name it... Then through that team I also got to play Cypress, Pebble, Spyglass on a trip north....

We had no idea how good we had it.


TH


Reminds me of my friend who grew up in Oakmont, caddied there, worked on the grounds crew, played there numerous times.

We happened to be at the Lemieux Celebrity Invitational at Nevillewood - a nice enough new Nicklaus course, replete with waterfalls, etc. - and he turned to me and said, "How come I never get to play courses like this?"

I'm embarassed to say I recognized Trish - my wife is a devotee of The Bachelor and The Bachorette. I believe Shivas dated someone who looked like her like I believe he drives it 300 on command. ;D

KR -

Your new home course is no slouch, either. :)
« Last Edit: March 02, 2005, 05:18:25 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #209 on: March 02, 2005, 05:17:57 PM »
KR - yes, yes you have.  And that trumps BIG-TIME anything I got to do in HS.

Interestingly, I am slated to play your former home course tomorrow afternoon.  A filing deadline for which I await documents now, won't get until tomorrow, have to sadly rely on other people might cause me to miss it.  Here's hoping....

TH

Kyle Harris

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #210 on: March 02, 2005, 05:19:29 PM »
I feel for you there... My HS was blue collar

I played number one my junior and senior years and the scores would look like this for nine holes:

1: 37
2: 45
3: 47

...and so on...

At Huntingdon Valley's C Nine, I was the only one on the team to break 40.... and 50...

Kids were getting free golf and practice at the local muni, which was our home course, so they didn't care. At least they treated the course with respect and showed sportsmanship, but there was a lot of whining that things were too hard at times. Frustrating for a player like me, but everyone there became close friends and we still play together when we can.

We played an interesting Match Play Format that was basically a 12 hole Nassau. You got a point for winning the first six, the last six, and then the overall 12. The first six matches counted and then the last two were just for experience.

We would commonly lose by scores of 15-3, 15.5 - 2.5, or 17-1, 17.5-.5 with me picking up the points.

The problem with the format was qualifying for leagues was done in stroke play and a lot of kids would lower their score to qualify especially on our team. When you're playing a kid that can shoot 34 for nine holes and you normall shoot 45... it's easy to accurately have the match and say you shot a 40, so when we got to leagues... I'd sit pretty around 80 for 18 holes and smoe of our kids would be around 115.

But it was fun, and I miss it a lot...  :'(

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #211 on: March 02, 2005, 05:19:38 PM »
George:

I've seen shivas drive the ball 300 yards.  Oh, he needs some roll and some dry conditions, but mine eyes have seen that glory.

I also strangely do believe anything he says re women.  I just think he has no good reason to lie, or even exaggerate.

BUT... I am also very naive, as you know.

 ;D

Kyle Harris

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #212 on: March 02, 2005, 05:20:54 PM »
George,

You know my Oakmont pedigree :)

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #213 on: March 02, 2005, 05:24:55 PM »
You misunderstand - I believe both readily. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #214 on: March 02, 2005, 05:25:50 PM »
Very interesting, Kyle.  Strange you'd do 12 holes but it does make a certain sense...

A lot of our matches were 9-holes.  I wish we did 12.  You wanna talk about pressure-packed and easy to screw up?  Kinda hard to come back from 2-3 down in a 9-hole match.   ;)

We used a great system 3 of my 4 years where it was one point for head to head plus a point for better ball of partners... thus 5 points per group, four groups... matches came down to 8-7 lots of times.  I was that 8th point on the good or bad side a few times also... I have never felt golf pressure like that any other time.

I went to a rather snotty school.  Lots of rich kids.  Lots of great guys also, friends to this day.  I only got to go there because my mom taught there and we got free tuition...

TH

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #215 on: March 02, 2005, 05:28:13 PM »
I'll give a few non-vanilla brunettes for ya as I leave for the day:






Kyle Harris

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #216 on: March 02, 2005, 05:28:34 PM »
They've since changed the format (with a lot of yelling from me) to a Match/Stroke Hybrid...

Our kids play the ball to the hole, one point for match play and then one point for winning stroke play. Then the top six of eight stroke play scores get added up for a three point kicker.

It's not ideal, but at least the qualifying scores for the league championship are legit.

Now to get them to pick a non-dumb venue.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #217 on: March 02, 2005, 05:30:41 PM »
In an attempt to divert this back onto GCA, at least temporarily, there's no way Pebble's better than Oakmont. The ocean effect claims another. :) That, and the fact that everyone's prettier on the Left Coast than us Pittsburghers.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Kyle Harris

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #218 on: March 02, 2005, 05:32:29 PM »
With you there George,

...and there are many more out there who think like us.

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #219 on: March 02, 2005, 05:36:31 PM »
My parting shots for the day....

1. shivas - PLEASE come to TKPIV.  The 14 beers are on me.  I live for stories like that.

2. Oakmont ain't in the same league as Pebble, I say having never seen the former.

3. We seem to have pissed off JakaB and he claims we are making a mockery of the rating process.  In one respect that's kinda cool as the process deserves to be mocked, in a certain way... But outside of that, JakaB is full of shit this time.  Check out the Mike Keiser thread.

Off to face the long drive home.

TH

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #220 on: March 02, 2005, 05:40:51 PM »
Quick match play:

1: O 1 up
2: O 2 up
3: O 3 up
4: O 4 up
5: O 5 up
6: O 6 up
7: O 7 up
8: O 8 up
9: O 9 up

you get the idea. :)

In all seriousness, I'd give 6, 8, and 18 to PB - the rest are Oakmont or halved. And 8 is damn close, for all you 8 PB lovers out there. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #221 on: March 02, 2005, 05:43:55 PM »
George:

Well, having actually played Pebble quite a few times... and basing this on what I saw on TV re Oakmont... I shall say that you are high as a kite, or a world-class homer, or a combination of the two.

Not that there is anything wrong with any of that.

 ;D

Kyle Harris

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #222 on: March 02, 2005, 05:45:22 PM »
George, a bit more objectively, I think it'd be more:

1 O
2 O
3 O
4 O
5 O
6 P
7 P
8 H
9 H
10 P
11 O
12 O
13 O
14 O
15 O
16 P
17 O
18 P

Oakmont 6 up, but really winning 6 and 4....

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #223 on: March 02, 2005, 05:55:03 PM »
I can see halving 7.

No way can I see giving 10 to Pebble. #10 Oakmont might be the best par 4 on the course, which is really really really saying something.

I can't see giving 16 to Pebble, either. Unbelievable par 3 v very good par 4.

Upon further reflection, I'd probably give 15 to Pebble, but it's also close.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #224 on: March 02, 2005, 06:26:32 PM »
Interestingly, I am slated to play your former home course tomorrow afternoon.  A filing deadline for which I await documents now, won't get until tomorrow, have to sadly rely on other people might cause me to miss it.  Here's hoping....


Huck - It would be a honor to be your stand-in if need be, sort of Guest America's Guest ...

"... and I liked the guy ..."