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.


DMoriarty

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #100 on: May 30, 2003, 09:10:13 AM »
Quote
12 might be 340 down the middle of the fairway but it is less than 300 as the crow flies.  Furthermore, given the forward kick and the pitch onto the green, and tee shot of say 265 or more should end up on the surface (That is how Huckaby got there).  I hit driver to 20 feet and two putted for birdie.  I play a fade.  I could not care less if the ball sliced as it is all fairway right of the green (Same as two) my worst-case scenario was going to be pin high 20 feet right.  I'll bet you dinner that you can place the pin anywhere you want, give me a 20-yard pitch or a putt from the front of the green and go back to 80 yards and I will beat or tie you on four out of five balls.

David W. I wonder about what appears to be a typo in the first sentence quoted above.  Did you mean to say "any tee shot of say 265 yards or more should end up on the surface"?

Your dinner bet is an interesting offer.  If I werent a twelve index I might consider exploring it further, with a few modifications, of course.      

I'm curious though, that you would place yourself with 20-yd pitch or putt from the front (I assume if you used the tee as your reference point you would say right of the green not front.)   Do you think it as easy to hit your drive to a point 20 yds right of the green as it is to place your drive at a decent angle 80 yds out?  

Also a test for me to see how well I know the course. (If you,ve answered this before I havent seen it.)  I assume the  pin was toward what you called the front the day your had your 20 ft eagle putt.  Your putt was either from the very front(right) edge, or your putt was actually from the collar.  Please let me know how well I guessed.  

Questions for both TomH and DavidW:  Do you think it possible that there was some luck involved in your ending up just next to and right of the green?   How many times out of 10 do you think you could get back to that spot?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #101 on: May 30, 2003, 09:12:17 AM »
If I recall correctly, I think Tom Paul indicated that the last time Davis Love played PV, he only hit driver on one hole...

Not because he was trying to keep it in the fairway, per se, but because he wanted to avoid driving too far through them!  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #102 on: May 30, 2003, 09:16:26 AM »
Mike B.,
I saw Christy Canyon in a restaurant in the Valley a few months ago and I have to say that she was looking much the worse for wear.  She has a LOT of mileage on her and those were some hard miles.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

DMoriarty

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #103 on: May 30, 2003, 09:22:10 AM »
Tim, Golf in LA sometimes proves that golf is such a good game that you can have fun playing anywere.  That being said, I do think we are sometimes a little harsh on LA-- there are some fun older public courses, mostly by Bell, and there are some that have been built in the past 15 yrs that are enjoyable as well.  As for Rustic, come out and play.  

Quote
Don’t both courses – however different their appearance might be – really boil down to play around the greens?

I havent played Pine Valley, but this statement is only true at Rustic if you are not precise enough off the tee.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #104 on: May 30, 2003, 10:13:10 AM »

Quote
Tim,

I'm going to take a wild guess that Dave was putting a little puffery into that "Top 10 from 60 in" comment and that if somebody put a gun to his head to come up with 10 better, and he thought about it, he could easily do it.  I may be wrong, but that's just a hunch.

My question is: Why not challenge the skilled player's tee ball?  Good players are good players because they can golf their ball and more often know where it's going.  Why not design courses that test whether they can or not?  Isn't that the point?  Otherwise, why even bother with any sort of challenge off the tee?  And for that matter, why bother making approach shots challenging or green contours challenging for the skilled player?  Hey, as we've all heard a million times, 300 yards and 3 foot putts both count as 1 on the card.  Why challenge one and not the other?        

Shivas,
To the first point, I did not think he was putting puffery into that statement. It was not a wild claim, I think most feel this is pretty in line.

To the second point, I am not sure I get.

Did Augusta with no rough present no challenge off the tee?

Would modern courses be better off if we adopted U.S. Open width to challenge better players?

Lastly, with the difficulty of RC's green complexes, adding rough or lots of fairway bunkers would make the approaches impossible.

So even if I conceded that there is a lack of interest (which I do not), I am not sure what fixes would be proposed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #105 on: May 30, 2003, 10:25:09 AM »
Tim,

I am probably now as frustrated with you as Tom was yesterday.  Do you read our responses before challenging them?  I have corrected Challenge as Interest in almost evey single response, yet you still want me to argue challenge.  Is that because your argument falls apart if the word is interest?  To answer the question that you would be asking if you simply would read Tom and my responses: Yes a course must interest a player off the tee for it to be in the top 100, no matter how good the greens are.  Boring off the tee does not a top 100 make.

DMoriarty,

It was a typo and I did mean any.  My point on 20 yards out is that I will almost always carry my drive 265 yards and will either hit it straight or with a fade.  My worst case scenario would be a slice, putting the ball pin high, 20 yards right.  On ten shots, I would guess that I would hit the green four times, just miss the green four times and hit two slices giving me 20 yard pitch shots.  Somebody trying to hit an Iron and leave themselves an 80-yard approach would have no chance.  I could care less where the pin is.

Dan,

I did play the back.  Maybe you had a reverse wind?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #106 on: May 30, 2003, 10:50:14 AM »
Dave Schmidt:

I didn't make any wild guess. David Wigler said he thought Rustic Canyon was Top Ten (presumably among Modern) golf courses "sixty yards and in" and I took him at his word. I assume he chose his words carefully and meant what he said.

Given that, I was struck by his further assertion that because the course failed to challenge skilled golfers off the tee, he would not consider it Top 100 material.

Sitting back to ponder David's remarks I could not think of any golf course that has this combination of features. Indeed, early in this thread I asked if anyone else could. But, so far nobody has. That tells me something.

Then I thought of the comments Bob Lewis made about Pine Valley from the perspective of the skilled player - okay, let's say truly elite, amateur player. And I thought of my own last experience playing Pine Valley about six years ago:

My Handicap at the Time: 8
Fairways Hit: 12
Three Putts: 6
Score: 86

What does that say? Hell, today if I go down to my local muni I'm lucky to hit 7-8 fairways and the course couldn't be more than a "2" on the Doak scale.

But, your questions are fair: why not challenge the tee shot of the skilled player? Isn't this the point of the game? Why challenge play around the greens if one doesn't challenge tee shots?

I think the answers to your questions lie in tradeoffs. Do we have to make them? And, if so, which ones make sense?

On this subject, I happen to believe we are somewhat burdened by the past statements of famous architects - Mackenzie, perhaps - about the importance of creating golf courses for all levels of play. This marvelous idea sounds so great that I hope architects will always keep somewhere in the back of their mind. But, I'll go further and say we should only pay so much homage to it and should never assume it means that every shot on a golf course can present the same challenge to all level of golfers.

Let's take the Pine Valley example. For the 15-20 handicap players, many tee shots can be terrifying. He sees only the awesome distance he has to carry and the thick woods bordering the fairways frighten him all the more. By contrast, the skilled player sees only wide, easy to hit fairways. No big deal for him even if you found room to build longer tees. So, what would we have to do to instill the same level of psychological pressure on the skilled or truly elite player? How narrow would the landing areas have to be? And after we got done, how much fun would it be for the vast majority?

 No, we don’t push to narrow Pine Valley’s wide fairways just because they really fail to challenge skilled players. We tell the skilled player he will have to make his mark elsewhere – on and around the greens. We accept that tradeoff – just as the designers of Rustic Canyon intended – because it makes sense. This tradeoff makes sense because an undue emphasis on testing skilled players off the tee would make the course too unappealing for too many players. Who likes losing golf balls and being in the woods all day?

Now you will protest that I show no such sympathy for the man who can drive well but can’t putt or chip. No, I won’t cry for the man who wishes to be considered “skilled”. If he can’t putt or chip, he’ll just have to accept being not that great a player. If Tiger someday breaks Jack’s records, it will be because he has a better short game.

I’m simply happy to say “tough” to the guys who want to consider themselves “skilled” yet have no short game, but I don’t want architects making the game tiresome for the average guy who has no pretensions at all. That’s what placing undue emphasis on testing skilled players off the tee would do.

Some may believe we don’t have to make such tradeoffs, but I don’t believe it and think the guys who designed Rustic Canyon understand this far better than their critics.

P.S. About twenty years ago I heard from a very good golfer that he wasn’t impressed with Cypress Point. “Way too easy” this near scratch player said reporting his round right around 70. Good for him. Like Dan King said, he can play elsewhere.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #107 on: May 30, 2003, 10:54:23 AM »
David Wigler:

It's fine by me if you want to use the word "interesting" instead of "challenging".

But, the point remains, how are the tee shots at Pine Valley "interesting" for the skilled player?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #108 on: May 30, 2003, 11:26:59 AM »
Quote
On ten shots, I would guess that I would hit the green four times, just miss the green four times and hit two slices giving me 20 yard pitch shots.  

David Wigler,
You must be a machine.  I am wondering if Winged Foot in 1974 would have even been a challenge for you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #109 on: May 30, 2003, 11:27:50 AM »
David Wigler-

I find your comments regarding Ms. Parton to be extremely offensive and totally unnecessary in this discussion.  I happen to like nearly everything about her.

I also take umbrage from your characterization of my game at Cascata.  While I did wear my skirt that day and failed to break 80, I played the course from the back plates.  I even reached a couple of the par 5s on two, though I struggled on your uninteresting greens and bunkers.

However, given your relative youth and disadvantaged education, I do forgive you.  Some day in the not too distant future we will go at it on the course, mano a mano.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #110 on: May 30, 2003, 11:35:48 AM »
Mike Cirba-

Re: Cascata or Shadow Creek

Don't bother.  They know all the members of the Rees Jones and Tom Fazio Hate Clubs.  Perhaps when C&C, Doak, Hanse, or Strantz open up something out there you'll be welcomed.  Or maybe they'll uncover a NLE Ross course with bowled greens scratched out on the desert floor.

Just kidding!  Vegas is the place to go.  If I was only single and had no avesion to artificiality!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #111 on: May 30, 2003, 11:38:31 AM »
David Kelly:

David Wigler might do exactly as he said. The problem is that serious students of golf architecture need to think about what ten different people might do while playing a golf hole.

A serious guy like Bob Lewis understands Pine Valley doesn't involve that much interest - or what Tom Paul calls "direct tax" - off the tee for the skilled golfer, but he would also never criticize the course for it.

There is always a danger looking at a course from just your own point of view.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

DMoriarty

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #112 on: May 30, 2003, 01:00:43 PM »
Quote
My point on 20 yards out is that I will almost always carry my drive 265 yards and will either hit it straight or with a fade.  My worst case scenario would be a slice, putting the ball pin high, 20 yards right.  On ten shots, I would guess that I would hit the green four times, just miss the green four times and hit two slices giving me 20 yard pitch shots.

I am speechless . . . almost.   I expected you to predict a higher degree of success than I thought likely.  But wow.  Eight balls on the green or fringe and two others the perfect miss!  You've thrown me for a loop, confused me, knocked me off my foundation.

DavidW, one of the two of us drastically misunderstands this hole.  

I'll tell you what, I hate to go the bravado route, but cant think of what else to do.  So I'll call bullshit.

I've never seen you play, but I don't think you can do what you think you can.  In fact, I would be surprised if anyone can do what you think you can.  I feel strongly enough about it that I am willing to put my  money where my mouth is.  I will bet you that, in only ten shots from the black plates under normal (not wet) conditions, you cannot stop four balls on the green and four on the fringe.  You can hit two anywhere, out of bounds even, and still win.  You pick the amount, up to $1000.   My wife would kill me if I lost $1000 dollars, but I do not think that will be an issue.  If you want to play for more, I'll even go to my wife to lobby for approval.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #113 on: May 30, 2003, 01:04:55 PM »
To clarify, I am talking about the 12th hole at Rustic Canyon.  Are you?  Let me know if you accept, and for how much, as well as when you want to do it.  Offer good today only (I dont like to leave offers open.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »

FORTSONATOR

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #114 on: May 30, 2003, 01:32:53 PM »
It amazes me to this day how so many people think that to challenge a good player off the tee you need tree lined fairways, hazards, rough, or out-of-bounds.  I ABSOLUTELY disagree 110%.

Before I really get into my point I must say that these variables mentioned above can be penal when drives end up in them, however, I believe that a drive with none of the above can be as tough, if not tougher, if the green complex is difficult to approach.

Imagine being in the middle of a completely HUGE field of grass mown to fairway height and there is an extremely well defended green complex 400 yards out in this giant 1000 acre pasture of fairway height grass.  You can play in a 360 degree circle if you like.  With nothing to "frame" or "aim" at I would think that most of you and most "good" players would have a much more difficult time driving the ball in the proper place for an easier approach.  

On the flipside, take the same situation and put bunkers, water, trees, OB, rough, or any other penal additive that you want and frame the proper route for an easier approach to the green complex and I GUARANTEE we would all do better than without them overall.  WHY?  Because so much of this game is visual and the ability to visualize shots.  I would find it much easier to shape a shot away or towards some kind of hazard to help me get a better angle.

For example, if you take the "idiot trees" out of play on the tee shot at #18 at Pebble I think it would be an even more difficult tee shot.  The drive on #16 at NGLA would be tougher for me if the windmill were not in my sight.  I cut it off it every time!  

Obviously, hazards and the like penalize tee shots that are off line for the "forced" intended line of play but I find it more difficult to hit a tee shot with nothing to help frame it.  This is simply my opinion and I believe in it wholeheartedly.  Green complexes should penalize a misplaced drive more than hazards off the tee.

Jeff F.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #115 on: May 30, 2003, 01:36:44 PM »
Quote
Yeah, I don't thing ANGC without rough is challenging off the tee.  Seve and Olazabal have both won there twice hitting it all over the place.  I think the challenge off the tee there in the last couple decades was very much exaggerated.

I have to take the opportunity to disagree with Shivas, since I so frequently agree with him that Patrick probably thinks I'm biased.

I'd say Seve & Olazabal won because their superior scrambling ability allowed them to overcome their poor driving - not that their poor driving didn't matter. Golfers with lesser ability would likely not have won under these circumstances. If driving didn't matter at all, I'd imagine they would have combined for even more wins. Unfortunately, even the best scramblers in the world are not going to be successful scrambling  all the time. Heck, maybe their victories had more to do with simply having a tournament where they did drive the ball into their intended areas.

If the driving challenge were not there at all, I'd guess more nobodies would win. Look how often the normal tour courses, supposedly better driving tests, result in pure putting contests.

Lastly, Seve is still a master scrambler & putter - if driving didn't matter at ANGC he would still be competitive there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »
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

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #116 on: May 30, 2003, 01:49:33 PM »
Shivas,

Thanks. I do think we should take David at his word that he considers Rustic Canyon Top Ten sixty yards and in. If true, it is an amazing accomplishment for the project team and they deserve our highest compliments.

Part of my energy on this topic is that I believe in tradeoffs. Architects and project teams DO decide to emphasize different things in building a course. Frankly, I see the ability to create wonderful green complexes as far more worthy of our praise than simply building tee shots that challenge highly skilled golfers.

Couldn't any moron do the latter? Is that the kind of architecture we really want to encourage?

As for your comments on Augusta, I'm with you on the point about today's players hitting wedges to greens verses the way things were in Jones' day. But, I think it also introduces the whole issue of technology and how it has corrupted golf architecture. And that for another thread.....I think.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »
Tim Weiman

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #117 on: May 30, 2003, 01:56:49 PM »
Shiv -

Sounds to me like you're saying ANGC performed exactly as designed - allowing for the possibility of herioc recovery, unlike the US Open type setup. Doesn't mean that it still doesn't test driving - obviously not to the same degree as the US Open, but who really thinks the US Open provides any kind of model for good golf architecture?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
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

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #118 on: May 30, 2003, 03:38:30 PM »
Shivas,
When Seve won his Masters (1980 and 1983), you said he did it by scrambling.

"But as to your point that Seve and JMO won because of their scrambling abilities, let me point out that the reason they are even getting up and down and scrambling for pars in the first place is that they didn't have to wedge out of 6 inch rough like at the Open or waist high heather or nasty pot bunkers like at the British,"

BUT, Seve won at the British (1979 and 1984) to bookend his Masters wins nicely. Did these British open courses (Lytham and St. Andrews) not provide the challenge? Or were they anomalies?

Sticking to that argument, do you believe that Augusta was an inferior course with no rough?

Do you believe it could have been top 50, without possessing the challenge from the tee?

Lastly, do you believe the same could be said for Lytham or St. Andrews?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #119 on: May 30, 2003, 03:40:25 PM »
Tim
- you say
"Frankly, I see the ability to create wonderful green complexes as far more worthy of our praise than simply building tee shots that challenge highly skilled golfers.

Couldn't any moron do the latter? Is that the kind of architecture we really want to encourage?"

Is Tillinghast a moron for building Bethpage Black?
Flynn for providing the same stern test off the tee at Shinnecock?

Frankly your statement astonishes me.  Do you totally dismiss those views that believe a more balanced test from tee to green is better?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #120 on: May 30, 2003, 04:38:24 PM »
Geoffrey:

I don't think I ever spoke against a balanced test from tee to green. What I simply said is that its hard to believe that any golf course considered Top Ten sixty yards and in would not be considered Top 100 material simply because it failed to challenge skilled golfers off the tee.

You'll note I clearly said that the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee might be a factor to make some distinction between the quality of golf courses. I just think going from Top Ten (sixty yards and in) to outside the Top 100 (overall) doesn't make sense. It strikes me as putting TOO MUCH emphasis on challenging skilled golfers off the tee.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #121 on: May 30, 2003, 04:49:07 PM »
Sorry to jump into this thread late but I will add one point that already might be mentioned; if a course offers that much interest on the approach shots (and in various playing angles), then it goes without saying "IT IS challenging off the tee".  It has to be otherwise all that interest going on around the green can't be that effective.  

e.g. just because you hit the fairway at Pinehurst #2 means nothing.  The reason that is is because the greensites are so amazing!

If it is easy to get yourself in perfect position on the tee shot, then I would argue that the greensites can't be all that interesting (or effective).  

Mark

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #122 on: May 30, 2003, 05:09:52 PM »
Good one Mark- I fully agree.  Its like comparing the green complexes at Running Deer with those at Friars Head. Both are wild and crazy but one are the (IMHO) best modern set of greens complexes ever built while the others are just wild and crazy.

However, I could count how many times Tim posted that he doesn't see how its possible for David to say RC is a top 10 from 60 yards and in but not in the top 100 (I won't but its quite a few) before it shows a lack of respect for ones stated opinion.  The opinion was backed up with reasoning. Tim, I could also misconstrue your statement "I just think going from Top Ten (sixty yards and in) to outside the Top 100 (overall) doesn't make sense. It strikes me as putting TOO MUCH emphasis on challenging skilled golfers off the tee."  Could you please quantify how much is TOO much?  Its his opinion that its NOT too much at RC.  Can't we just accept that fact or are you willing to give me your QUANTITATIVE assessment of all of the elements of a top 100 golf course that are necessary for a balanced test?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #123 on: May 30, 2003, 05:43:35 PM »
Mark's post got me to thinking about this a bit more (always dangerous and I risk a migrane) but I think its clear (to me) that David's argument stems from the fact that he believes that blasting away with impunity so that he has a putt, pitch, sand wedge or other wedge into a greens complex (still from the fairway) takes away from the challenge and lets the stong (long) player score well. Its worth the risk in his opinion to fire away.

This got me think of this years LA Open at Riviera.  #10 at Riviera is one of the great short holes. Tom Paul uses it as an example of Behr's lines of charm and risk vs. reward. If you go right with a driver on this hole you are supposed to be dead due to the green sloping away, the narrow target over the bunker and almost equal death if you go long.  However, in the playoff of the LA Open admitedly a very important situation and tournament, Mike Weir I believe took out the driver and hit it way right into a bunker.  He, a skilled player, proceeded to hit the ball from that death spot to about 6 feet! Weather it was the 60 degree wedge, the "stop and drop" technology of the ProV1 or a combination of these along with great skill he choose driver, hit it in the worst possible spot but close to the green and escaped. Is this consistent with David's views?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer
« Reply #124 on: May 30, 2003, 05:57:30 PM »
Geoffrey:

I think the situation you described with Mike Weir probably is consistent with the thinking David Wigler expressed. Presumably, Weir qualifies as a "skilled golfer". Presumably, the situation you described on #10 at Riviera qualifies as an event where a skilled golfer wasn't challenged off the tee.

That sounds like what David was describing on a hole at Rustic Canyon - #7 or #12....I can't quite remember.

Do we agree on this much?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman