Seminole & Cypress Point: Overrated?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Hmmmm....a poor man's Flynn?  I don't think he was as great an architect as The Nature Faker, but he wasn't a slouch by any means; a notch below the top tier of architects working in America in my mind.  When he was good, such as when he devoted himself to the effort, he was very, very good.  When he was bad, he was pretty bad.  I think he was a lot more systematic in his routings and use of natural features (high tee, low fairway, high green---remember, it was you that pointed that out to me).  I'm sure his method of operation had a lot to do with it, but so what?  He sacrificed some of his art for quantity.  There are consequences for that in my consideration of his body of work.

I hope to see Seminole someday, Tom.  It would be even better if I saw it with you.  I'll try and keep an open mind in the meantime.  I certainly don't discount other people's views, even if they are tour players.

As for Bethpage Black and Pebble Beach...I'll save that for our long drive south in a couple of weeks.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Michael

I am sorry your thread did not turn out as you intended also.  The only thing that could have made it worse would have been if your friend himself had posted his opinions on this board.  I am sure he would have quit after only two pages rather than five.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEPaul,
The issue isn't about Seminole's reputation or hype, it's about Seminole's rating/ranking.
The ratings/rankings follow a precise categorized format and the evaluative process addresses each of those specific categories, arriving at a numeric indicator, the results of which are based on the cummulative tally of the component analyses.
This isn't a subjective issue of someone randomly hyping Seminole, or Seminole's reputation, it's about Seminole's placement on the rating/ranking scale based on an evaluative process that's pretty detailed in its structure and precise in its calculation."

Patrick:

The foregoing just could be about the biggest verbal garbage that has ever been put on this site. It's even worse than the criteria and process rationalization of the magazines for rating courses.

TE,

It is what it is.

The magazines have their formulas for determining the ratings/rankings.

It's not just the opinion of one fellow who observed Tiger Woods hitting one bad drive amongst his last 3,462 drives.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

How can you say that TEP? Clearly, if a magazine rating panel determines that Seminole receives a certain point total, every single one of their raters would have given Seminole exactly that total...right?

Obviously, mathematics and statistics weren't your strong suits in school[/color]

There is no chance that one, or perhaps even two, raters could give Seminole a lower score than what the final average score was, is there?

See the above comment[/color]

Just out of curiosity; if there were an individual rater, operating within all of his/her panel guidelines, that scored Seminole substantially lower than it's cummulative, posted final score, would that person be allowed to opine that the course is over-rated...to them ?

Absolutely.

But, your query assumes that the person in question, Michael's friend, would be intimately familiar with the rating formula, and understand that it's not contexted solely in the realm of whether or not the golf course presents a difficult test to a PGA Tour Pro.

Had your reading comprehension skills been slightly better than your math skills, you would have understood that.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sully:

Regarding your post above---I have no idea what the modus operandi of magazine rating or their individual raters is

Why does that not surprise me ?

That's the "core", the very essence of the issue.

How can you, or Michael's friend, posit on the merits of Seminole, in the context of the rating formulas, if YOU KNOW NOTHING about the rating formulas ?

Michael's friend contexted his opinion solely on the basis of the golf course not presenting a difficult test.

Like Sully, you need to get new prescriptions on your reading glasses or take a refresher course in reading comprehension.[/color]

---nor do I care. To me both of them are total bullshit.
A really good writer/critic of any golf course would sit a lot better with me.

Good,

Then you should accept this writer/critic's words.

"The real genius of Seminole is the routing, which uses the limited topography of the site brilliantly."

"But, if ANYBODY tries to tell you this isn't a great course, either they've just been treated like riffraff, OR THEY JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD IS."

That was Tom Doak who gave the course a 9 on his scale.

Case Closed ![/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,
[size=4x]

What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?[/size]

I'll inquire.

Top 7 Personal Classics

1. Pinehurst #2
2. Congressional Blue
3. Medinah
4. Riviera CC
5. Pebble Beach
6. Wannamoisett
7. Newport CC

Michael,

Here's my question, along with your intitial and subsequent response.

My question was simple:

"What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?"

If he wants to avoid the question because he can't answer it, or because he can't list any old, short courses that are better than Seminole and CPC, or that perhaps he mispoke, let him say so.

But, don't have him avoid the question by providing a non-answer, a statement that doesn't address the issue.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think I see the problem.
There is no "problem," just a difference of opinion.

It's more than that.

It's the abilty to see versus being blind.

Your friend has myopic vision. He can only see the golf course in the context of his game, which is a common failing amongst many.

I don't know how you can say this when he clearly stated that he understood and appreciated the historical standing of Seminole. Yes, he was evaluating the course in the context of his game... he readily admits that.

Are you now like Matt Ward in that you can evaluate a course in the context of someone else's game?

Of course I can.
Are you kidding me ?  
You don't get it, and neither does your friend.
If someone can ONLY evaluate a golf course in the context of their own game, his views are practically worthless, since they're confined to but one golfer amongst millions.

Architects must evaluate a golf course in the context of the games of every type of golfer and not solely in the context of ONE golfer's game.  They must forge a tactical challenge that
doesn't favor any one particular game, but, appeals to all games.

Tell me that you understand that.

 
In addition, your friend appears to have no concept of the numerous criteria and methodology employed by the magazines that produce the ratings/rankings of golf courses.
[/color]

Be careful here... you have no idea what my friend does or does not know about magazine rankings criteria. As a matter of fact, for all you know, he may be a member of one of the national magazine panels!

I don't have to be careful.
Your friend, thru you, contexted the rating/ranking process solely in the context of a course providing a difficult test.
IF he was involved in the process he would know better.
Obviously, he's not involved in the rating/ranking process. OR he's involved and doesn't have a clue as to how it works.


Your friends sole criteria, as evidenced in your post, was that the course didn't provide a difficult test.

For whom ?  For one one millionth of one percent of the golfers on the planet ?   Or, for 99 + % of the thousands of people who play there every year ?  Your friends perspective and analysis is in the extremely limited context of his game.

Your friend, obviously a GREAT player, can't differentiate between "short" courses and "LONG" courses.[/color]

I think he can differentiate between long and short just fine... of course, your "long" would be more in line with his "short."

Playing courses at 7,200+ on a regular basis, as recently as last week, having been in the presence of the greatest golfers in the world during their rounds and playing with fellows who carry the ball 300+ qualifies me to understand what long and short are.

And, Medinah # 3 at 7, 561 yards, Pinehurst # 2 at 7,305+ yards and Congressional Blue at 7,250+ yards don't qualify as short in any prudent person's assessment of golf course length.  In fact, at 7,561 Medinah # 3 will be the longest golf course in Major History.

Your friends categorization of the golf course as an "old", "short" golf course speaks to his inability to differentiate between long and short golf courses.

I also don't know many people who categorize Medinah # 3 as an "old" golf course.  It's had more surgery, major and minor than the "cat lady".[/color]

Pat, I asked my friend to give me a list of his favorite old and modern courses so that you guys would have some frame of reference for his tastes and be able to put his comments about Seminole and Cypress in context. I didn't qualify them as "long" or "short," that was your idea.

No, I asked you specifically, what short courses he thought were better than Seminole and CPC and you offered, as a blanket list, a number of golf courses.  You should have clarified the answer, or better yet, you should have had him address the question, and not avoid it by putting forth a general list that didn't address the question.

...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?[/color]

Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past.


Like all students, he has a lot to learn.  It also seems that he's in the midst of the learning process.  Astute architectural intellects can detect architectural features irrespective of their year of origin.  Obviously he's chosen to study the Nouveau school of architecture, skipping over all that came before it.[/color]

Pat, you are always chastising other people for not "reading" your posts... read mine. I think his list of favorite courses shows an appreciation for older designs.

I didn't ask for his list of favorite golf courses.
That list is irrelevant to the issue.


Also, his statement that some of the best courses he has ever played are the old masters in Australia shows he has an appreciation for classic design.


I'm not familiar with any courses in Australia, so I can't comment.


You just come accross as wanting to belittle him because he doesn't appreciate one of your favorites to the extent you think he should.


That's absolutely untrue.
I'm merely challenging his statement

He made a definitive statement, and now, you're wilting under the scrutiny directed toward that statement by claiming that I'm trying to belittle him because he disagrees with me, and that's untrue.

He stated that Seminole and CPC were overrated, or vastly overrated.  He made those statements strictly in the context of the ability of those courses to provide a difficult test for a PGA Tour pro.  But, that has NOTHING to do with the rating/ranking system.

If he thinks Seminole and CPC are overrated, let him state his case by addressing the component elements that comprise a golf courses rating/ranking.

He may have valid points, but you've/he's yet to express them




As I mentioned earlier, you'd be giving him great advice by telling him not to give up his day job.[/color]

I take offense to these smartass "keep your day job" comments. This is a strictly first-class guy who's opinion differs from yours... leave it at that.

I have no doubt that he's a first class guy, and a world class golfer, but, just because one's pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean that they sing well in the shower.

Architectural awareness points aren't awarded on personality or golfing prowess. You're looking to give him the very same brownie points that he objected to in his reference to CPC and Seminole, points awarded on pedigree rather than on merit.

Pat, I'm not trying to give him brownie points for anything, just trying to keep the conversation out of the personal attack mode. I don't think it is productive for guys like you to dismiss someone's opinion simply because you don't like what he has to say.

I didn't dismiss his opinion, I merely challenged it.
And that is productive.
Should we just accept everything he says as The Gospel ?
If so, tell us what else we should accept as the final word on golf course architecture.

If you're going to posit a theory or an opinion, be prepared to support it with fact and/or logical presentations.

You've stated his opinion.
If he's the intelligent chap you indicated, he should be capable of putting forth a cogent argument supporting his opinion.  To date, that hasn't occured.

Probably because he doesn't understand that the rating/ranking of a golf course has little to do with the golf course providing a difficult test for a PGA Tour Pro.

It's not that his opinion differs from mine, he's entitled to his opinion, no matter how outlandish it may be.

He's not familiar with the rating methodology, nor the criteria that make up the analysis. He couched his understanding of ratings solely in the context of providing a difficult test, which is flat out wrong. Since he's misinformed about the process, his conclusions are flawed and out of step with mainstream thinking on the subject of ranking/rating Cypress Point and Seminole.[/color]

As I said before, be careful here. You have no idea about my friend's background or "pedigree." Your belittling of him is based on assumptions that you are pucking out of the air based only on my sadly lacking reporting skills.

His backround and pedigree are as important to me as Seminole's is to him.

I can only base my responses on your presentation of his position.

I'm not plucking anything out of the air.
I've been careful to QUOTE you to make sure that I didn't mistate his position, which you made quite clear.

Are we now to assume that your typing skills are to blame ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike W.  

I too was dismayed by the way this thread turned.  

It was an excellent opportunity for me and I expect many others to learn something

Sean,

Could you tell us how you felt this was an excellent opportunity to learn something about architecture from a PGA Tour Pro who felt that Seminole didn't present a difficult enough test for him ?[/color]

[Joel_Stewart]

I am disappointed by many of the comments and responses that have appeared in this thread. I really thought some of you would be interested in the opinions of a world class player who has ideas which differ from a good number of the regulars on this site. Instead of asking intelligent, thoughtful questions that would help us try to delve into his rationale, many of you simply wanted to hammer his credentials, lack of knowledge, "myopic vision," selfish focus, etc.

Mike:

This thread is tame compared to others.  A number of months ago some guy was on this site trying to tell everyone here that some development 100 miles north of Las Vegas was going to be the greatest golf development of all time.  It featured something like 7 or 9 Jack Nicklaus golf courses.  When we asked him about why choosing all Jack instead of mixing it up with other architects he went away crying like a little baby saying he would never come back to this site.

I think there a lot of valid points to why a tour player may not like CPC or Seminole and it all relates to how he plays the game.  As someone else pointed out, his game is so far off the charts, almost all courses are easy to PGA players.  Furthermore, just because he is a tour player doesn't mean he knows anything about architecture and especially classic architecture.  

[wsmorrison]

Joel,

And just because he is a tour player doesn't mean he cannot know anything about architecture, especially classic architecture.  How do you know where he grew up, where he plays leisure golf and what his interests are?  Presuming the party line that his opinion has less value than any of us is preposterous.

[Tom_Doak]

Most of the problem here is that everyone is too sensitive ... not just about their "sacred cow" courses or architects but about their own opinions and anyone who disagrees with them.

However, I don't think as Wayne says that the opinions of Tour pros have been dismissed in this thread.  Michael Clayton (himself a Tour pro) pointed out that one of his good friends recently played Cypress and just loved it, making the point that not all Tour pros considered it too short to be a great course.  

I guess somebody could have asked Michael to ask his friend what else (besides the shortness) he didn't like ... I did ask which six holes he thought were stupid and the answers seemed to be 8-9-17-18, which was scary ... but I thought we did look for his reasoning and we never got it.  If he just wants to anonymously leave us with his expert opinion that Cypress Point and Seminole are overrated, well, we've taken that for what it's worth.  And chalk up another point for not allowing anonymous posters!

By the same token, there is no such thing as unanimous opinion in golf architecture as some here assume.  When I used to add up the rankings for GOLF Magazine, I was shocked to find out that with just 75 panelists there were only 2 or 3 courses that were unanimous top-50 choices ... a pro or two downgraded Cypress Point for being too short, even back then.

One thing I always admired about Pete Dye was that if you criticized his work he would ask you why.  If he didn't agree he wouldn't bother to argue, he would just dismiss you as not understanding the subject well enough.  It's too bad more participants here are not similarly secure in their own knowledge of the subject.

[Bryan Izatt]

TEPaul,

The issue isn't about Seminole's reputation or hype, it's about Seminole's rating/ranking.

The ratings/rankings follow a precise categorized format and the evaluative process addresses each of those specific categories, arriving at a numeric indicator, the results of which are based on the cummulative tally of the component analyses.

This isn't a subjective issue of someone randomly hyping Seminole, or Seminole's reputation, it's about Seminole's placement on the rating/ranking scale based on an evaluative process that's pretty detailed in its structure and precise in its calculation.

Let Coorshaw go for a week, he needs a break.

Wow!  A few questions for you Patrick.

So, ratings/rankings are not about reputation and hype?  They're about a precise, dispassionate evaluation of some categories of things related to golf courses?

Are all the rating processes of equal precision and accuracy in your opinion?

For your favourite, how is the evaluative process in each category normalized across the raters? Is there a precise analytic measuring scheme to ensure precision of rating the individual categories?

You're assuring us that there is no subjectivity in any rater's evaluation of any category?

Could you describe how the evaluative process is precise in it's calculation?  Do you mean the adding up of the scores in the categories?  Doesn't rating/ranking mean by definition categorizing things relative to others, as opposed to precise calculation?

Which rating scheme do you like best?  Golf Digest?  Golfweek?  Golf?  Is it the most precise?  Is it accurate?  What do precise and accurate mean to you in this context?

Since Golfwwek rates Seminole #15 and GD rates it #10, does that mean that the GD raters have over-rated it?  Or did they under-rate CPC by rating it #4 relative to the Golfweek raters #1?  Are the Golf raters the most clever because they came down the middle between the other two?

Are the existing raters on all the panels better qualified than the unknown friend of Michael's?  How do you know?

[Joel_Stewart]

Wayne:

He may know alot, I have no idea.  My only point is just because he is a tour player, doesn't mean he is also a standout in architecture or club fitting or agronomy or anything else related to golf other than being a great player. There are no free lunches.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wow!  A few questions for you Patrick.

So, ratings/rankings are not about reputation and hype?  

NO, they're not.
They're about an evaluative process where the component categories are well structured

They're about a precise, dispassionate evaluation of some categories of things related to golf courses?

Precise to a decimal point.

Are all the rating processes of equal precision and accuracy in your opinion ?

Mathmatically speaking, YES.

For your favourite, how is the evaluative process in each category normalized across the raters?

I don't understand the question

Is there a precise analytic measuring scheme to ensure precision of rating the individual categories ?

If there was you wouldn't need a system composed of 100 or 1,000 individuals.

You're assuring us that there is no subjectivity in any rater's evaluation of any category?

Where did I state that ?

Could you describe how the evaluative process is precise in it's calculation?  

The evaluative process is precise in that each rater assigns a numeric value to his assessment, so, for each rater, their evaluative rating is precise.

The compilation of each rater's precise analysis is a simple arithmetic exercise.
The math doesn't lie.

Do you mean the adding up of the scores in the categories?

See the above

Doesn't rating/ranking mean by definition categorizing things relative to others, as opposed to precise calculation?

No, the rating/ranking is a precise mathematical calculation, there's nothing subjective about the calculation.

If one course's assigned numeric equivalent is 98.6 and another's is 95.2, the higher score indicates a superior rating/ranking.

Which rating scheme do you like best?  Golf Digest?  Golfweek?  Golf?  

I have my own system that I prefer to the others.
Please don't ask me to detail it as I've detailed it many times previously.

Is it the most precise?  Is it accurate?  

Like the science of Mathematics, calculations are accurate and irrefutable.

What do precise and accurate mean to you in this context?

The definition of accurate and precise are as follows:

ACCURATE:  Free from error
PRECISE:     Exactly or sharply defined.

Since Golfwwek rates Seminole #15 and GD rates it #10, does that mean that the GD raters have over-rated it?  Or did they under-rate CPC by rating it #4 relative to the Golfweek raters #1?  

Neither

Are the Golf raters the most clever because they came down the middle between the other two?

What has clever got to do with it ?

Are the existing raters on all the panels better qualified than the unknown friend of Michael's?  

At the start of this thread, based on Michael's friend's comments, as a whole, yes.

How do you know?

Because Michael's friend's sole context in assessing Seminole's and CPC's rating/ranking was excessively NARROW, incredibly MYOPIC, limited to the fact that those two courses didn't provide a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro.

All of the raters/rankers know that there are numerous categories involved in the rating/ranking process, and not just the one category that Michael's friend presented, a category by the way that doesn't exist.  

There is NO CATEGORY that evaluates a golf course based on how difficult a test it presents to the PGA Tour Pro.

There's also a difference between a golf course being a difficult test in a casual round and a golf course being a difficult test when the course is specially prepared and the bell rings for a PGA Tournament.

You're wasting your time on this issue, choosing to defend an opinion that's flawed at its very foundation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

.........

I don't think as Wayne says that the opinions of Tour pros have been dismissed in this thread.  Michael Clayton (himself a Tour pro) pointed out that one of his good friends recently played Cypress and just loved it, making the point that not all Tour pros considered it too short to be a great course.  

I guess somebody could have asked Michael to ask his friend what else (besides the shortness) he didn't like ... [size=4x]
I did ask which six holes he thought were stupid and the answers seemed to be 8-9-17-18, which was scary ...

but I thought we did look for his reasoning and we never got it.

If he just wants to anonymously leave us with his expert opinion that Cypress Point and Seminole are overrated, well, we've taken that for what it's worth.[/size]  

And chalk up another point for not allowing anonymous posters!

By the same token, there is no such thing as unanimous opinion in golf architecture as some here assume.  When I used to add up the rankings for GOLF Magazine, I was shocked to find out that with just 75 panelists there were only 2 or 3 courses that were unanimous top-50 choices ... a pro or two downgraded Cypress Point for being too short, even back then.

One thing I always admired about Pete Dye was that if you criticized his work he would ask you why.  If he didn't agree he wouldn't bother to argue, he would just dismiss you as not understanding the subject well enough.  

It's too bad more participants here are not similarly secure in their own knowledge of the subject.

Tom, there's a difference.

This is a discussion group and Michael asked for comments based on his friend's statements.

At the present, I feel secure in my knowledge on the subject of Seminole and CPC, but that could change.

[TEPaul]

"This is a discussion group and Michael asked for comments based on his friend's statements.

At the present, I feel secure in my knowledge on the subject of Seminole and CPC, but that could change."

Patrick:

That could very well be but the fact is your knowledge of Seminole (or CPC), of course, does not determine the reputation or the opinion of Seminole (or CPC) of all golfers.

I think the point that is trying to surface here is that his (the tour pro friend of Michael Whittaker) opinon of Seminole (or CPC) is every bit as valid and perhaps important as yours is.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Frankly, I did not know it was possible to make a post as long (and as colorful) as your #157. Please let noone ever again say that I am the king of long posts.

[TEPaul]

"Michael
I am sorry your thread did not turn out as you intended also.  The only thing that could have made it worse would have been if your friend himself had posted his opinions on this board.  I am sure he would have quit after only two pages rather than five."

Hamilton:

Do you think it's possible for you to say anything more inappropriate than that remark of yours?

Actually, belay that, I think I already know the answer.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom - In fairness to Patrick Mucci, my friend is not a professional course rater (ranker). He is a professional golfer, skilled in getting the ball from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible. It is a specific skill that does not necessarily qualify him to judge the greatness of course design. It does qualify him to judge the ability of a course defend its par, but that is not what we are discussing here.

If I thought my friend's golf related skills were simply limited to scoring I would not have troubled this board with his comments. It is because I know he understands and appreciates great courses (regardless of his ability to score on them) that I found his comments on Seminole and Cypress provocative. I respect this guy's opinion... I don't always agree with it... but, I respect it, because I respect him.

The only other person who has participated in this thread and gets that kind of pass from me is Tom Doak. I know his background... I know he knows what he's talking about.

I have no idea who Patrick Mucci is, for example, or what qualifications, if any, he has to judge courses or criticize my friend... nor, do I care. He presents himself as a Big Fish on this site, but that means about as much to me as my friend's "pedigree" means to him. It's irrelevant. This is an open forum and I started this thread, so I need to take the good with the bad. It's so easy on a site like this to dismiss someone by saying, "You don't know what you are talking about." I'm going to try not to do that.

I've gone through this thread and collected the few legitimate questions that can be submitted to my friend concerning the courses under discussion. If I get an answer I will post his response.

[TEPaul]

"Tom - In fairness to Patrick Mucci, my friend is not a professional course rater (ranker). He is a professional golfer, skilled in getting the ball from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible. It is a specific skill that does not necessarily qualify him to judge the greatness of course design. It does qualify him to judge the ability of a course defend its par, but that is not what we are discussing here.

If I thought my friend's golf related skills were simply limited to scoring I would not have troubled this board with his comments. It is because I know he understands and appreciates great courses (regardless of his ability to score on them) that I found his comments on Seminole and Cypress provocative. I respect this guy's opinion... I don't always agree with it... but, I respect it, because I respect him."

Michael:

With all due respect I think you just contradicted yourself there--or at least your point.

In my opinion, if Seminole is going to aspire to true greatness in golf course architecture it should be able to subject itself to the opinon and comments of your friend the tour pro.

If we have gotten to the point where we can't even listen to the opinions about a golf course of a tour pro, then something has gone wrong somewhere along the line, in my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"This is a discussion group and Michael asked for comments based on his friend's statements.

At the present, I feel secure in my knowledge on the subject of Seminole and CPC, but that could change."

Patrick:

That could very well be but the fact is your knowledge of Seminole (or CPC), of course, does not determine the reputation or the opinion of Seminole (or CPC) of all golfers.

How many times must I remind you, this is not about Seminole's and CPC's reputations, it's about their standing in the ratings/rankings.

Please have Wayne or some other literate friend read this too you.

Has Coorshaw passed third grade yet ?[/color]

I think the point that is trying to surface here is that his (the tour pro friend of Michael Whittaker) opinon of Seminole (or CPC) is every bit as valid and perhaps important as yours is.


Again, this has nothing to do with MY opinion.
It's got to do with his opinion of Seminole's and CPC's standing in the rankings, AND he couched his opinion in the sole context of whether or not those courses present a difficult test to a PGA Tour Pro, which is not how the ratings/rankings are determined.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have no idea who Patrick Mucci is, for example, or what qualifications, if any, he has to judge courses or criticize my friend... nor, do I care. He presents himself as a Big Fish on this site,

but that means about as much to me as my friend's "pedigree" means to him.

Then you to need to reread my posts.
I said that I respected his pedigree like he respected Seminole's and CPC's pedigree.  You stated that he respected Seminole's and CPC's pedigree, it's traditions, history and standing in American golf.  What part of that didn't you understand ?

Refresher classes on reading comprehension are starting next Wednesday, perhaps you can car pool with TEPaul.[/color]

It's irrelevant. This is an open forum and I started this thread, so I need to take the good with the bad. It's so easy on a site like this to dismiss someone by saying, "You don't know what you are talking about."

Isn't that what Tom Doak, the fellow you said "knows what he's talking about" said ?[/color]

I'm going to try not to do that.

I've gone through this thread and collected the few legitimate questions that can be submitted to my friend concerning the courses under discussion. If I get an answer I will post his response.

If you could ask him, what "old", "short" American golf courses he feels are better than Seminole and CPC ?

Thanks[/color]

TEPaul,

You continue to miss the point.

It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions.  It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro.

Therein lies the conflict.

He's assessing those golf courses in a context not remotely related to how their ratings/rankings are established.

NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE on this site disagrees with him with respect to the inability of CPC and Seminole to present a difficult test to the PGA Tour Pro under normal or tournament conditions, save for the presence of a gale.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You brilliantly dodged the questions.  Who was it who called you Houdini?

Who would have guessed that you were referring to your own ranking system?  Or that I could have missed it the many times you've posted it on here?

Do you really believe "The evaluative process is precise in that each rater assigns a numeric value to his assessment, so, for each rater, their evaluative rating is precise."?  That a rater thinking to themselves that a category deserves a 9 out of 10 for a certain course is a "precise" ranking?  I guess in your mind it's more precise than rating it A or B or C or F.  Does your ranking system allow category ratings to one decimal place?  To two decimal places?  Is the summation of your rating accurate to only one decimal place?

Ah well, to each his own rating system.  We certainly know that virtually no one on here thinks the rating systems are bullet proof, or anywhere near.

Back to the topic, you persist in stating the premise that "It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions.  It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro."

Initially Michael said that his friend felt: "Bottom line... "greatness" is not just about length or difficulty of shot values for my friend. He thinks there are plenty of old "short" courses that are great."  So it seems his feeling that they are over-rated is not solely based on the difficulty of the test for a PGA Tour Pro.  Why do you keep insisting he does?  Further he described the shortcomings of CPC as related to 4 weak holes.  I don't recall he said they were weak solely because they didn't challenge him as a Pro.

[Ryan Farrow]

Bryan, didn't Pat just answer every single one of you 500 + questions. Houdini? Maybe… but certainly not in this thread. I have enjoyed Pats answers to a point of tears.

Again I agree with Patrick, this all comes down to why this mystery man thinks the courses are overrated and him identifying other great short courses is key to figuring out if he is a crazy person or not.

[Sean_A]

Bryan, didn't Pat just answer every single one of you 500 + questions. Houdini? Maybe… but certainly not in this thread. I have enjoyed Pats answers to a point of tears.

Again I agree with Patrick, this all comes down to why this mystery man thinks the courses are overrated and him identifying other great short courses is key to figuring out if he is a crazy person or not.

Ryan

Sure, Pat is accurate in what he says about number crunching, but number crunching is small chips compared to subjective opinion where rankings are concerned.  It sort of like slapping a Shelby engine into the Mustang.  A powerful engine to be sure, but without proper suspension the power isn't translated to the pavement.  The bottom line is that one must trust the opinion of the rater if the ratings are to be credible.  All the very fine mathmatical tools in the world can't alter this.  

Ciao