[John Foley]

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

That is one of the best lines I have ever heard on this forum!

[TEPaul]

"...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?

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

Patrick:

Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that intelligent young tour pro just wasn't "interfacing" properly with the architectural features of Seminole?  

Or is it possible to "interface" with Seminole's architectural features when your ball is nine miles above them and still rising?  

[PThomas]

"It's all there in front of you," is one favorite,

God how I hate that phrase!

[Garland Bayley]

Tom Doak has pointed out that you cannot build the same quality course from all tees. Therefore, if the course is of the highest quality from the tees that play say 6600, then if you normally play courses that are best from 7200 or more, you are probably not "interfacing" with the course as you should when you play 6600.

[JESII]

Garland,

I got lost in the wording, but I think you (and Tom Doak) are spot on!

[Brian Cenci]

When someone feels a course is overated...it's just their opinion, which the great thing is because we're in America we're allowed to have differing opinions.  

I recently played No.2 and thought it was overated, especially considering the cost.  IMO it is nowhere near the course Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes are and yet is similar in ranking to them in all publications...I even felt Pine Needles was a better course in fact...so to each his own.

Brian

[Marty Bonnar]

Michael,
pardon the twist, but I'm really enjoying this thread and couldn't help wondering if the young fella'm'lad has ever seen/played TOC.

And, if so, how it might have figured in his mindset, or have compared with these other examples?

ta,
FBD.

PS BTW, it is physically impossible, even in a pan-dimensional universe, for CPC to ever be 'over'-rated...

[David Stamm]

PS BTW, it is physically impossible, even in a pan-dimensional universe, for CPC to ever be 'over'-rated...

Spoken like a fellow Mackenzie fan! I agree, Martin. CPC overated? I think not. Not some peoples cup of tea? I'm sure that can be the case. But taken as a whole, most would agree that it is one of the 5 best in the country, if not the world. As for 18, as TEP pointed out, it does not play the way Mackenzie originally wanted it to play. I'm not making excuses being a Mackenzie fan, but this must be taken into consideration.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

This is what you wrote.

I'll address your recent responses when I return from an errand.

A good friend of mind is a member of the PGA tour. He is considered one of the up and coming young players and has done quite well for himself, already winning over 2.5MM dollars since joining the tour.

He is very bright and quite fun to be around. We have had many conversations about design, architects, tour courses, etc and although he has never visited this site, I think he would enjoy the banter and fit right in. He tends to enjoy straight forward courses that require shot making skills... for example, his favorite course in SC is Harbour Town.

Our conversation yesterday took an interesting turn... we were discussing his playing a recent outing at Seminole. He has played there several times and I asked him what he thought of the course. I was surprised when he said it was one of the most overrated courses he has played. He loves and respects the history, mystique and ambiance of the course and club, but he feels the course is just not a good enough test to be considered one of the top ranked in the world. He feels it gets too many "experience" points from the raters and that the course alone does not justify the lofty ranking it receives. "Without a very stiff wind the course is a par 65 or 66," he said. "But, they have one of the greatest old clubhouses and locker rooms in US golf."

I asked him if there were any other courses he felt were overrated. He said, to my amazement, that the MOST overrated course he had ever played was Cypress Point. "It is six of the greatest holes you will ever play, six average holes, and six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course. 17 and 18 are two of the worst holes I have ever played on a good course."

What's your take? Any suggested questions or thoughts for our next conversaton?

P.S.

Everyone on the planet knows that Seminole is benign when it comes to resisting scoring when there's no wind.

Fortunately, the wind blows pretty good most of the time.

[Jerry Kluger]

Patrick:

For those of us who have not played Seminole, could you point out the features that work when the wind is up but are not that significant when it is calm? Are there some features that are unique to Seminole which make it special and cannot be found at other courses?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom Doak has pointed out that you cannot build the same quality course from all tees. Therefore, if the course is of the highest quality from the tees that play say 6600, then if you normally play courses that are best from 7200 or more, you are probably not "interfacing" with the course as you should when you play 6600.

Garland, interesting concept, but how is it possible to say the highest quality is at 6,600 yards without some reference to a particular player and set of skills.  Wouldn't rating the quality depend on how a player would interface (Mucci concept) with the architecture at that length of course.  So, it's the highest quality at 6,6000 yards for a player who drives the ball 250 and hits his 7 iron 150 yards might be a more apt way to describe it.

Or do you think that the quality of architecture on a particular course can be divorced from the skills of the player playing it?  

[JESII]

Bryan,

I read it to mean...the best for the most...


Jerry,

Small deflective greens which become more difficult to hit as the wind picks up...so positioning and shot shape matter more...

[Bryan Izatt]

JES,

Probably a reasonable reading.

Using that understanding, the young pro in question probably doesn't fit into the "most" for Seminole or CPC.

I wonder what tees provide the highest quality architecture for the most on those two courses.  Regretably I can't say, not having played either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Scoring isn't the issue, it's Michael's friend's sole focus to the exclusion of everything else."

Patrick:

Where have you been?

In my office, working.  Where have you been ?[/color]

When players like that play a golf course you don't think the membership will talk about what they shoot on their course?


There's always been a member fascination with how the best golfers in the world, the PGA Tour players, will do on their course.  Since you're so familiar with Seminole you know how conditions of play and maintainance conditions influence score.[/color]
 
You don't think they talk about where they drive the ball and such?

The long ball has always been an object of interest[/color]

That's about all they do talk about---at any golf course. It's human nature, pal.

I wish it wasn't so but it sure is and if you don't think so you are really dreaming.

What has that got to do with the rankings as produced by Golfweek and Gold Digest ?

If you'll go back and read the opening post, you'll see that it's about Seminole's ranking, not hitting the ball long.[/color]

[Michael Whitaker]

...couldn't help wondering if the young fella'm'lad has ever seen/played TOC.

He's never been to Scotland.

[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.

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.

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.[/color]

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

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

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]

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

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.

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]

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Hand this guy a persimon driver and a balata ball and send him out there.

You guys keep saying that but it's a non sequitor. To someone born in 1980 who started playing golf in 1990 (using those years for illustration, I have no idea how old or young this guy is) that's like saying they ought to go camp in the woods with Civil War reenactors. Nobody plays persimmon and balata anymore and I highly doubt Mike's friend was commenting on how the course might have played when he was in diapers.

This is like saying the Mona Lisa isn't amazing because she doesn't have tattoos, piercings or breast augmentation.

The beauty of the art isn't dependent on the age in which it was created.  The pro who questions the quality is without the perspective to understand what he is looking at.  He only understands the most simplistic of his needs.  

Is it long? Is it hard? Are the greens faster than glass?  Age may add understanding and an appreciation of quality. Until then he will think Pamela Anderson is the Mona Lisa of his age!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

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

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

JES II,

This is for...... the reading challenged

Reread my question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What you are missing in your analysis is that you asked Michael to produce a list of his friends favorite "short" courses. His friend, not realizing the level of idiot making th e request, responded with two lists of favorite courses and let you break down what type of course he prefers. Pretty fair input if you ask me.

JES II,

Might I suggest that you begin proof reading after you type.

At 7,561 yards, the longest course in Major's history, you would appear to be the idiot.

Medinah # 3 a "classic" ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?

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

Patrick:

Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that intelligent young tour pro just wasn't "interfacing" properly with the architectural features of Seminole?  

NO,

It's got to do with one's architectural vision and awareness.

It can be myopic, limited to only seeing the architecture that "their" play sees, or one's vision can be ominiscient, seeing the architecture that "everyone's" play sees.  [/color]

Or is it possible to "interface" with Seminole's architectural features when your ball is nine miles above them and still rising?  

If one only sees "their" ball in flight, they're missing most, if not all, of the architecture.

Do me a favor.
Lend this fellow Coorshaw [/color]

[Kirk Gill]

It seems on point to me to quote the beginning of Ran Morrissett's writeup on Seminole where he quotes the good doctor: " 'A good golf course . . . is not necessarily a course which appeals the first time one plays it, but one which grows on the player the more frequently he visits it,' proclaimed Alister MacKenzie."    And then: "Bob Jones once said of St. Andrews, ' The more I studied the Old Course, the more I loved it; and the more I loved it the more I studied it.' The same could be said for David Eger, the 1988 U.S. Mid-Amateur champion, and Seminole. Eger first played Seminole in the late 1970s and thought the course to be just fair, but his dozens of subsequent rounds have him now convinced of the course's greatness."

So can't our unnamed young pro be granted a little slack? He's not the first to be unimpressed with an acknowledged classic, nor the only person whose opinion is out of step with mainstream thinking.

God forbid !

[Garland Bayley]

Tom Doak has pointed out that you cannot build the same quality course from all tees. Therefore, if the course is of the highest quality from the tees that play say 6600, then if you normally play courses that are best from 7200 or more, you are probably not "interfacing" with the course as you should when you play 6600.

Garland, interesting concept, but how is it possible to say the highest quality is at 6,600 yards without some reference to a particular player and set of skills.  Wouldn't rating the quality depend on how a player would interface (Mucci concept) with the architecture at that length of course.  So, it's the highest quality at 6,6000 yards for a player who drives the ball 250 and hits his 7 iron 150 yards might be a more apt way to describe it.

Or do you think that the quality of architecture on a particular course can be divorced from the skills of the player playing it?  

I thought I was implying what you suggest by making reference to properly "interfacing" with the design. Please excuse my pore engineerish.  

[Eric Franzen]

Michael Whitaker,

Thanks for posting your friends comments.
You rarely hear a touring pro's opinion about some of the classical golden age courses (the one's that are outside the touring rota). Maybe once a while a polite snippet but seldom an outspoken judgment from his specific perspective like this one.

[Mike_Clayton]

Eric,

Here is another.

It's from a pretty famous American player - very famous actually.Not Tiger.

A pro I know was playing a practice round at Royal St Georges for the 1993 Open with the great man and asked him what he thought of the course.

'Nothing a small nuclear explosion couldn't fix'

[Eric Franzen]

Mike,

Yes, that is a fun one-liner.
Alright, it doesn't really elevate any further discussion on what the pro liked and disliked about the course. I think the comments from Michael's friend did that.

You don't happen to have any additional information on which parts of the course that the great man would aim the nuclear attacks towards?

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()