Tee shot interest and challenge!?

[TEPaul]

I was very interested reading the thread on "Enough challenge for skilled players?"; particularly David Wigler and Tom Huckaby who've said in their opinion Rustic Canyon doesn't have much tee shot interest (or challenge).

I wouldn't even think to argue with them on that as their opinion on that is just whatever it is and that's fine by me. But I'd ask both why they think the course lacks tee shot interest and challenge.

If they feel that way simply because the tee shots as incremental shots on the play of the holes have very little risk and reward on those wide fairways only in the context of that incremental shot (the tee shot) I can certainly understand their sentiments although I don't necessarily agree with it.

Here's why. I would agree the unencumbered tee shots (due to low immediate risk wide fairways) lack interest and challenge only if the tee shot really means little to the second shots. But if they did mean something to the second shots then I wouldn't agree at all with them that the tee shots lack interest and challenge.  

Matter of fact, I'd say if those fairways are wide and unfeatured but despite that a golfer really does need to discover the best position on them for the potentially differing consequences of what comes next I'd say those fairways are not only interesting but perhaps more interesting than fairways that have lots of immediate risk and reward on the incremental tee shot alone.

The reason I say that is fairways such as Rustic's would then be making a golfer find meaning when it appears to him there may be no meaning there.

It's true that on some courses, maybe many courses (and maybe all good ones) there is a good deal on most all incremental shots that catch and hold any golfer's interest and create incremental challenge on all shots. There's nothing at all wrong with that--it's a particular style of architecture, particularly modern architecture.

This is nothing more really than what an analyst like a Max Behr might call "direct tax" architecture on each and every shot compared to a course that has "indirect tax" architecture.

Probably the best examples in America of "indirect tax" architecture would be Pinehurst #2 or certainly ANGC before it's fairways were narrowed--and as originally conceived and designed by Jones/MacKenzie.

Some golfers clearly don't like that kind of "indirect tax" architecture because in some spots there really does appear to be less challenge and consequentally interest. Those golfers prefer the more "direct tax" type because it does stimulate their interest and challenges their skill everywhere (on every single shot).

So the question of Rustic Canyon then becomes how much of an "indirect tax" is there (or not) from various positions on those big wide fairways and where the drive ends up in relation to any pin?

If it really doesn't much matter where the drive ends up in relation to various pins only then would I say the tee shots lack interest and challenge. But if it really does matter, and a lot, I'd say not only is there interest and challenge in those tee shots but perhaps even more than "direct tax" tee shots (the kind that Wigler and Huckaby appear to think are more interesting and challenging).

Why would I say it would be more interesting (and perhaps ultimately even more challenging)? Because it's asking any golfer to find the meaning in the entire hole--in the architectural unity of the hole that creates it's strategy when it doesn't at first appear there is any tee shot meaning (as opposed to the obvious immediate meaning of "direct tax" tee shots).

Part of the reason for those wide unencumbered fairways at Rustic was to encourage any golfer to begin to understand good "indirect tax" architecture and to realize that strategy is not necessarily so much in the incremental single shot context that most modern golfers think it is or even want it to be.

And so the architects of Rustic designed wide unencumbered fairways on purpose partly for that reason. The idea was to do that to make more golfers think more for themselves rather than be dictated to by an architect and by architectural design. And when they did that they also understood very well that some golfers would look at that style as a weakness because they'd feel they weren't being challenged enough.

The other thing that seems to have come up on the same "Enough challenge for the skilled golfer?" thread was the idea about what rewarding golfers with birdies or even eagles on some holes means as to the perception of the course and its architecture.

That was done on purpose too also realizing that some golfers might see that as a weakness because the course would be seen as perhaps too easy.

The intention was to balance that apparent scoring giveaway with risk and real penalty on the other end of the spectrum. I haven't play the golf course but the idea was that on those holes (particularly the par 4s where birdie or even eagle were a real possibility) would be real potential disasters too for even skilled players.

To understand how that works at Rustic it's probably necessary to play the golf course a number of times.

For those who haven't done that they might get a misperception of the course. If a guy like Dave Wigler had a number of eagle putts on certain holes the question becomes could he or should he expect that to happen every time? Most who seem to be familiar with the course through much playing of it say not and that given say ten rounds there even Dave Wigler might make some birdies and even eagles but that if he continues to be aggressive or not understand the "indirect tax" aspect of the unencumbered wide fairways he may end up making a number of "others" too.

That's the point of it all. Creating holes that over time create a wide scoring spectrum for all golfers was the hope of the designers.

And also I believe the thing they were trying to do was reward (or perhaps penalize less) a golfer who thought really well and perhaps didn't execute perfectly a bit more than the golfer who technically struck his shots perfectly but didn't think well or perhaps didn't really think at all.

And lastly, I'd ask Dave Wigler something about what he said about the interest and challenge of shots from 60 yds and in at Rustic and the apparent lack of logic of the uninteresting tee shots in relation to that. I just can't understand how a course can be really interesting and challenging from 60 yds and in and when the golfer gets farther away than that it somehow becomes less interesting and challenging. I can't see much logic in that unless a golfer was playing a course like that in reverse.

[JohnV]

Tom, excellent post, I'm reminded of a quote from Bobby Jones that I read:

Bobby Jones on Strategy –

There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one. One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment upon the bad shot, to place it's perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble demanding the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering; the other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion to the excellence of the drive.

If  David and Tom feel the "indirect tax" does exist, but don't like that type of hole, they would appear to favor the first approach while some of the others would favor the second (but still like the first at times.)   But, maybe as you said, they don't feel it exists and that it doesn't matter where you hit the tee shot at Rustic Canyon.  If so, I would think that it definitely would be a failure in the eyes of Geoff and Gil as I think that it was their concept to provide that kind of challange.

I'm also reminded of the first of Tom Doak's Three Strategic Principles: That the hole location on a given day may change the ideal strategy for playing the hole.

This also implies a hole with a more "indirect tax" than a direct, you must hit it here kind of tax.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Nice quote there by Jones. I've seen it but a long time ago. It does dovetail perfectly into the point of this thread.

Secondly, thanks for the compilation of my post. I don't know why it takes me 1000 words to say what you did in 100. Maybe I just don't think people will understand what I'm talking about unless I say it over again from a bunch of differing angles.

Anyway, some of the point of my thread was to put this entire discussion of Rustic Canyon, and it's tee shots on a bit of a less pesonal level. As far as I'm concerned it really doesn't matter to me (and I don't see why it should matter to anyone, except them) if Dave Wigler and Tom Huckaby prefer the "direct tax" type of architecture more than the "indirect tax" type that Rustic (Pinehurst #2, ANGC and a number of other excellent courses) is supposed to be.

Of course, as you said, whether or not Rustic really is a good "indirect tax" course and how much it is becomes the important question.

A lot of Ross courses are very much the "indirect tax" type. That's why Ross has been called such a good "second shot" or "approach shot" architect. As such, Ross has also been called one of the most "democratic" architects because he appeared to want to let every level get a decent start on his holes before getting into the meat of them which generally was at and around the green. Some have said Ross did that (democratic architecture) because it was an excellent way of accomodating all levels, at least for a while on every hole, and consequently inspiring more people to play the game which of course was good for business.

I've heard more than a few times people say about Ross courses, including my own, that they feel they hit well struck shots but weren't real sure why they weren't scoring well and even making real mistakes. It's because they really are striking shots well but they aren't thinking well about the subtle, sometimes apparently low challenge tee shots which do have meaning (although often not appearing to) but mostly only in relation to the second shot.

Have you ever noticed how much courses of this "indirect tax" type are what might be called "back end loaded"? Courses that are really of the "indirect tax" or "back end loaded" type are generally courses that have really good and really interesting greens throughout.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John V,

It's difficult to make the ideal tee shot face a simpler approach without making the less then ideal tee shot face a complex or more difficult approach.

I think that the two schools of thought are almost identical, only one is phrased in more extreme terms.

I find both viewpoints in harmony with one another.

[George Pazin]

As I stated on the other thread, a lot of the difference lies in how one defines "interest."

To me, boring is playing a tight tree lined course where the only decision is do I have to hit an iron off the tee.

Others obviously have different opinions on what is interesting.

All that other thread showed was what stubborn SOBs we all are.

[Jeff_McDowell]

JohnV,

Thanks for the quote. I had the same quote in mind reading Tom's initial post. Where did Jones write this?

Pat, I believe there are ways to make the indirect tax a real penalty, but as Dave said in the other post it's tough to make the penalty severe enough to matter a lot when you're hitting wedge into a green. When you're real good you're going to stick your wedge close all the time.

[JohnV]

Patrick, you obviously don't see some of the courses I get to see in my career as a USGA Course Rater.  A wide open fairway with a basic wide open green will play pretty much the same regardless of where you hit it.

As George said, a line of trees down both sides or even worse, a lake down both sides might put a premium on a straight shot, but it isn't very interesting to me.  It especially wouldn't be interesting to me if it was like that on every hole.  But with a wide fairway where I have to think about where I want to hit it is much more interesting.  Having only spent one day at Rustic Canyon I'm not totally sure if I find it interesting off the tee, but I think I do.  I want to play more of it, but I won't be getting the chance anytime soon.

Jeff, I believe I got it from Golf is My Game.  I have a file with a number of interesting quotes like that one and Tom Doak's strategic principles which is where I pulled those from.

[TEPaul]

"This also implies a hole with a more "indirect tax" than a direct, you must hit it here kind of tax."

JohnV:

This is the entire point of this whole thread. That's the "indirect" part of the whole thing. The fascinating part of this is in the context of really wide unencumbered (and unhazard featured) fairways it can be just so unapparent at first. One might say that it's not only "indirect" but also very much less than visible. But the point is there really is a best place to be and others that are very much less so--and all on those big wide fairways.

That's why I think this type of architecture CAN BE more sophisticated. It generally calls on the intelligence of any golfer to analyze the entire hole carefully, and not just the ramifications of the shot at hand (tee shot) and what it all means in unified sense (whole hole strategy). Obviously they are sort of forced to do that because the architect has not only removed shot dictation from them but almost all architectural direction on a particular shot unless one looks carefully past the shot at hand.

This is the reason I was so fascinated by Rustic Canyon's #12 in concept (before it was built). That fairway was conceived as so big and so unfeatured on such a short hole that it was  tought almost any golfer would just look at it (the enormous fairway) and sort of smell a rat! The rat of course was totally the green and what it and it's pin positions meant in relation to tee shot fairway positioning. That, though, was really all about the somewhat more conservative tee shot play on that hole. Trying to actually drive the green had it's very own ramifications and risk/rewards (to the left) that didn't have to do with most of the fairway really. But the juxtaposition of the two was the whole package and how they worked off each other in the mind of particularly the long hitter.

It's sort of part of Behr's principle that you can have the high risk situation but it always works better in the mind of the golfer if there's something right next to it (juxtaposed) that seems conservative to him. Because of this if and when he makes a mistake Behr felt he was far less likely to criticize the architecture (the man-made aspect of it).

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Your distinction between an "indirect tax" and a "direct tax" makes a lot of sense to me.

In my opinion, the "indirect tax" approach to design probably does more for the game.

But, folks like Tom Huckaby and David Wigler probably favor the "direct tax" approach. I just wish they would articulate why - in their opinion - it is better for the game.

[TEPaul]

One aspect of that #12 Rustic and what's been said about it could also be a sort of a fascinating wrinkle and one that really isn't even architectural although the implications very much are.

Dave Wigler said he that if he could get the tee ball within 20 yds or so of that green as opposed to 80 yds or more he could almost guarantee better results over extended play. I really question that thought.

Rustic's #12 could be much like GMGC's #8 green which I call a potential "fake out" hole and would be far more so if they'd let us take down the willow tree directly behind the pond near the green. Taking the willow down would tempt far more golfers to challenge carrying the pond off the tee (maybe a 250 yd carry).

But the thing is if one is tempted and actually succeeds in doing that and feels they've been rewarded I'm certain that time and experience will tell them they surely haven't been.

And why is that? Simply because hitting a 1/4 to 1/2 wedge shot into a green like that has a far greater liklihood for disaster than hitting an 80-100 yd wedge in there.

Some would counter that very good players don't really care about that they're so good in every way but then one would have to ask why even tour professionals tend to lay back to their ideal wedge range on various approaches. Even they can be concerned about executing partial shots correctly and then there's also the matter of spin or lack of it and the importance of that.

[TEPaul]

"Your distinction between an "indirect tax" and a "direct tax" makes a lot of sense to me."

Tim:

That's Max Behr's distinction not mine. In his examples it had a slightly different application. He didn't use examples of tee shots to completely unencumbered fairways but the result and effect is essentially identical.

Frankly, I'm certain Max Behr would feel that this discussion about completely featureless wide fairways that really do have meaning as to positioning of tee shots in relation to what comes next is even more sophisticated than some of the "indirect tax" tee shot and architectural examples he used.

[GeoffreyC]

Tim- Frankly, I think David and Tom HAVE articulated (and very well) why they feel the interest from the tee is lacking at Rustic Canyon.  Likewise Mike Cirba, Dave M and others have articulated (and very well) their opposing viewpoint.  I have purposely stayed out of this (even though I have a distinct opinion and I've played the course -with Geoff S once no less) because in part I think we have learned all we can from this discussion and asking the same questions of one another over and over degrades into useless argument. The points have been well articulated and those of us who have played the course have reasoned opinions.  Tim, I suggest you go and play the course so that you can have a reasoned opinion as well as Mike, David, David Tom and others.

[Rick Shefchik]

I believe there are ways to make the indirect tax a real penalty, but as Dave said in the other post it's tough to make the penalty severe enough to matter a lot when you're hitting wedge into a green. When you're real good you're going to stick your wedge close all the time.

I had the same thought as I was reading this thread. So much of golf strategy is made irrelevent by execution -- either good or bad -- that at times it seems the architect is really just satisfying/amusing himself and few armchair archies who know enough about this stuff to understand and appreciate it.

We're all affected by what we see on the tee, but the excellent player is competitive more because of the quality of his ball-striking than his thinking, whereas the poor player can brilliantly analyze a golf hole, choose the proper strategy and still make a snowman.

How many of us fall into a middle category where our decision-making is crucial to our performance? Well, it's all relative to the score we expect/want to make, I guess, but I still think we're on some esoteric ground here.

I was playing with Dan Kelly the other day on a short dog-leg right par 4; the right side of the hole, all the way through the green, slopes from right to left, and a bunker guards the right front corner of the green, where the hole was cut that day.

Dan hit what looked to be a perfect drive down the left side of the fairway, leaving him a sand wedge to the green from the ideal angle. I faded a 3-wood into the right right, up on the hillside, leaving me a wedge -- with the ball well above my feet -- over a bunker to a hole cut close to the right side of a right-to-left sloping green.

Turns out Dan's ball ended up a foot or two off the fairway in thick rough; he gouged it out but it caught the left edge of that front bunker. Mine was in light rought; I hit kind of a miracle shot with a lob wedge that cleared the bunker, landing on the right edge of the green and trickling down to five feet from the hole.

I know that's just an anecdote, but I'd been thinking about the outcome on that hole for a couple of days after we played it, and this thread reminded me of it. Sure, I'm still going to try to drive my ball where Dan did; sure, I had to get lucky to get that close to the hole from where I was. But more often than not, that seems to sum up what happens in golf. You plan, you screw up, you make a new plan, you get a bad bounce, you make a new plan, you get lucky, you putt and you go to the next tee to make a new plan that isn't terribly likely to matter.

[Bill_McBride]

There's another approach to looking at this width vs tee shot thing.  MacKenzie does this a lot - he'll set up a wide fairway, lots of room to bomb away, but there'll be a severe hazard on one side of the wide fairway.  Then the green will be either protected or angled so that only the tee ball which flirts with that hazard has a good angle into the green.  A great example is # 3 at the Valley Club.  430 yds long, the hole slides around the creek and there's a fairway bunker on the right side as well.  The green is angled maybe 30 degrees away from the left side, actually faces the fairway bunker more than the center of the fairway.  If you blast away up the safe left side, you've got a longish iron shot to a very steep green (one of the steepest on the course) with bunkers on the left side and the green running away from.  The net effect is that 50 yard wide fairway plays maybe 15 yards wide.  

There are certainly some examples of that at Rustic Canyon.  If you're on the wrong side of the center bunker on # 13, no way you're going to be able to hit the 2nd shot on the green if the pin's on the other side.

I certanly prefer that design concept to the pinched, tree lined fairways suggested by George, where the question is not do I take an iron but which one?

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey:

I don't believe this discussion should stop at all. This isn't just about Rustic Canyon. This is an architectural concept and application to me (and a potentially very sophisticated one) even if it's discussed somewhat in theory.

I'd much rather discuss the pros and cons of architectural concept that's potentially interesting and how various players feel about it in a larger context than I would what the meaning of it is regarding Rustic Canyon's ranking or David Wigler having a few eagle putts at Rustic Canyon after playing the course once.

Of course it matters to what degree a golf course such as Rustic Canyon uses unencumbered fairway width and pulls off the use of it in relation to the rest of its architecture. That's something that anyone who plays the course should feel for himself. But the concept of unencumbered fairway width and what it can and can't mean strategically is a very important discussion to have.

Some even think the supreme example of that--ANGC--was never understood in that sense by even some apparently accomplished architectural minds. So yes, the concept and theory of this discussion is a good one to have despite whatever Dave and Tom on the one hand and Mike and DaveM on the other hand think about Rustic Canyon and its tee shots.

[TEPaul]

"How many of us fall into a middle category where our decision-making is crucial to our performance?"

Rick Shefchik:

If you want a really good example of how much decision making can effect performance you should see what happens on a golf course to players when all the pins are removed!

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoffrey Childs:

Actually, I never questioned whether David Wigler articulated why he feels Rustic Canyon lacks "challenge" or "interest" off the tee for the skilled player. To the contrary, I accepted this statement just as I did when Bob Lewis essentially made the same comment about Pine Valley.

Furthermore, I accepted David's view that from sixty yards and in Rustic Canyon is a Modern Top Ten.

What I don't feel David or Tom Huckaby has articulated is why the failure to challenge or interest the skilled golfer off the tee should matter that much. If Pine Valley doesn't do it, why would we think less of Rustic Canyon for following the same example?

I just have a hard time believing a course is Top Ten sixty yards and in and not Top 100 overall. Something doesn't add up. You have to really put a lot of emphasis on testing the driving skills of skilled golfers to reach the conclusion David and Tom apparently have done.

[GeoffreyC]

TEP- A discussion (again) about width, strategy, line of charm and their role in golf course architecture is certainly both educational and worth in depth and detailed discussions.  I've actually gone back to try to digest some on Behr's writing (not an easy feat for me) based on your posts. Thats what this website is about.

However, what I was referring to was Tim's statement above

"But, folks like Tom Huckaby and David Wigler probably favor the "direct tax" approach. I just wish they would articulate why - in their opinion - it is better for the game."

and I think that Dave and Tom's views on the subject have been more then adequately discussed on the other thread.  Whose opinion (yours, Tim's, Dave's or Tom's?) on this specific issue is going to be changed?

Also, have you played golf with Dave Wigler (I have at Victoria National)? Why would you question his ability to get better scores from 20 yards away then someone else from 80? How is that a productive way of continuing the discussion?

That's part of the reason that I will not put my 2 cents (architecture wise) into this discussion.

[GeoffreyC]

Tim- I don't think you're reading their replies carefully enough.  I think I have an excellent idea of their evaluations of RC from their posts. For someone who has not thought much of lists or top 100's in the past you are really fixating on David's statement's.

Go play the course! My opinions are in the archives.

Also, the Pine Valley analogy doesn't hold water either. You think of it as a FACT that Pine Valley is the ultimate golf course.  If David or Tom believed Shinnecock Hills were better because in part its more balanced due to the value of the tee shots would their opinions be wrong?

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey, you quoted from Tim Weiman;

"But, folks like Tom Huckaby and David Wigler probably favor the "direct tax" approach. I just wish they would articulate why - in their opinion - it is better for the game."

and then you said;

"and I think that has been more then adequately discussed here.  Whose opinion (yours, Tim's, Dave's or Tom's?) on this specific issue is going to be changed?"

Geoffrey;

I realize that. I'm not interested in changing anyone's opinion, not Dave Wigler nor Tom Huckaby. If they like "direct tax" challenge and interest on all their tee shots or even all their shots on all golf courses that's fine by me. I do wonder though about their understanding and certainly their appreciation of what might be called "indirect tax" architecture and certainly of the type that Rustic Canyon might have. I've never played the place so I wouldn't know but here I'm reading some (mostly those who've played the course numerous times) who think it exists although apparently Dave and Tom may not. Perhaps Dave and Tom just aren't aware of it--certainly no crime in that, since my recollection is they've played the course once. And furthermore a few things Dave Wigler has said about Rustic and it's tee shots VS from 60 yds and in seems very illogical to me--so I asked him about that. If that's not discussion, then what is?

Maybe I'm nuts but I thought you asked me why I would say or imply that Dave Wigler was a liar, but when I quoted that part of your post it was;

"Also, have you played golf with Dave Wigler (I have at Victoria National)? Why would you question his ability to get better scores from 20 yards away then someone else from 80? How is that a productive way of continuing the discussion?"

I've neither met nor spoken to Dave Wigler (although TommyN told me today he's an extremely nice man). So why would I question his ability to get better scores from 20 yds away then someone else from 80? Simply for the very same reasons I've already given--it very well may be easier on various holes to get a better score with a full shot than some partial one.

That's not calling him anything, it's basically disagreeing with what he said. If disagreeing with someone's opinion is even remotely akin to calling them a liar the world would be a strange place indeed. And how on earth could I be calling him a liar for questioning some claim he made if he hasn't even attempted it yet?

But questioning his claim of what he could do over extended play compared to something someone else might do I certainly am. And this isn't about dropping 10 balls at 20 yds and 80 yds either--this is about the pros and cons and the risks and rewards of hitting tee balls to those spots first. That's the way I look at golf and strategy anyway. I've not known anybody who grades players on individual incremental shots, that's for sure. To all of us it's only about what you make and whether you win it or lose it in a whole hole context.

That's a lot of what this website is all about when any of us discuss architecture. The problem arises only when people feel that we all must agree or that something horrible has happened if we disagree and continue to.

I don't feel that way at all, and I'd be sorry and a little depressed if you or Dave Wigler feel that way.

Tom

 

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

1- The disagreement about width and your analogy to direct and indirect taxes has been covered again and again.  How many times does someone have to try to defend himself?  If someone thought more highly of Shinnecock Hills vs. Pine Valley in part because of the demands of the tee shots would you question their judgement (again and again and then start another thread as a pretense to discuss it some more in another context)?

 2- If you or David or anyone else actually could hit driver to a par 4 where your WORST possible outcome (that's the claim) was a 20 yard shot right of a green with no rough or bunkers between the ball and the pin (that's the case on #12 at RC), would you really choose anyhing but a driver and lay up to 80 yards? I wouldn't!

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoffrey:

You are correct to say that I usually don't put much weight in discussions of whether a course is Top 100 or not. And I probably won't in the future. Besides, I haven't seen Rustic Canyon. So, for heaven's sake, why would I argue whether it is or isn't Top 100? Do you really think that is my point here?

The topic wasn't Rustic Canyon so much as the logic David Wigler used to evaluate the course. He found the course to be Top 10 within sixty yards but outside the Top 100 due to the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee. If you look carefully, even Tom Huckaby questioned that kind of thinking. Tom argued that what I really failed to understand was that Rustic Canyon didn't challenge or interest ALL players on too many holes. That’s a very different argument altogether, in my view. Tom wouldn't share with us how many holes fit this description or which ones. But at least he recognized that only so much weight could possibly be given to challenging skilled players off the tee. I respect Tom for that.

I also fail to understand why my Pine Valley analogy doesn't make sense. Nowhere did I describe it as the "ultimate course", nor would I ever question anyone having a preference for Shinnecock. What I merely pointed out is that tee shots don't present much challenge for skilled players. That is to say exactly what David Wigler said about Rustic Canyon. But, David went on to cite this as a reason to exclude a course from Top 100 consideration when the same has never been said for Pine Valley.

[TEPaul]

"1- The disagreement about width and your analogy to direct and indirect taxes has been covered again and again.  How many times does someone have to try to defend himself?  If someone thought more highly of Shinnecock Hills vs. Pine Valley in part because of the demands of the tee shots would you question their judgement (again and again and then start another thread as a pretense to discuss it some more in another context)?"

Geoffrey:

I'll be honest with you. That both pisses me off and saddens me at the same time. These threads aren't about disagreements to me as much as so many people seem to want to turn these discussions into that subject. These discussions start out about architecture and shortly thereafter they devolve into discussions about what constitutes disagreement and all the hurt feeling baggage and bullshit that goes along with that.

We may as well call this whole website GOLFDISAGREEMENTATLAS.com dedicated to the discussion of the subject of how people feel about disagreement over the Internet!

As far as I'm concerned the subject of width in architecture, encumbered, unencumbered and how and why it can have interesting applications and results is almost endless and one of the very most fundamental subjects of all of architecture, in my opinon. Certainly Behr thought so for a myriad of reasons that some won't even consider on here because they won't or can't take the time to read him and understand him which admittedly isn't easy--but if and when you do---Oh My God! I wouldn't mind doing a course someday with a whole new and different amalgamation of width concepts from differing times and places. There're so many differing arrangements! Most all of it comes from the essays and thoughts of Max Behr and then expanding on it. That kind of thing is at the very heart and soul of conceptual architecture which is where architectural ideas and applications get born.

Again, this has nothing to do with asking Dave Wigler or Tom Huckaby to defend themselves or trying to make them do that. I'm asking them questions and I'm doing it in the context of points I'm trying to make, sometimes theoretical sometimes not.

We can have discussions on this site always in the context of continuous disagreement. That's the way a lot of golf is looked at and certainly architecture. It's just a real shame that so many people on here take that continuously disagreeing discussion so personally. As far as I'm concerned it's not about me or them, it's about architecture and everyone's opinion of it--whether they agree or disagree it matters not.

And I try not to insult people on here or make them feel bad about themselves--you know that, although occasionally I guess I've failed at that. The only guy I insult regularly is Pat and everyone on here knows perfectly well that's a joke and we're very good friends.

If we have to constantly wade through the pros and cons of disagreement on here on every thread that some may be interested in this whole site will be less than fun and interesting that's for sure.

If you think every single thing has been covered before, and time and time again about width and what it can mean in architecture then I can certainly understand you not wanting to look at the subject but I sure don't think it's all been covered before--not by a long shot.

If the regular contributors could ever take in all of what Max Behr was really saying and why, even on the subject of width, although he wrote about so much more, this website would truly take off and fly--there is no doubt to me about that!

[TEPaul]

Tim:

To be honest with you your remark about Pine Valley and what Bob Lewis said about it may need to be reanalyzed--for at the very least some may have misconstrued it in the context of these threads and discussions. I had a long post about that very thing--the degree of tee shot interest and challenge at PV and what Bob Lewis may have said or meant by his remarks on that. I didn't post it but it's saved and maybe I will post it. I've seen and spoken with Bob Lewis around PV for years and have played against him there.

Bob Lewis may have said he didn't feel there was all that much challenge or interest at PV off the tee for a very skilled player--probably such as himself. But my sense is he never meant to say that tee shots there really aren't interesting or challenging--he probably just meant in the overall context of what PV is and can be for a very skilled player that part of it just isn't where most of the interest of playing the course is. But by that I can't believe he ever meant to say tee shot interest and challenge wasn't there at PV. I say that because I've personally seen him more than a little interested in the tee shots at PV and more than a few times challenged by them too.

More than anything else if you do happen to miss almost any fairway at PV you really are a lot more than a little f...ed! And that includes Bob and any other highly skilled player and I have little doubt he would say the same. But in relation to other things--other interests and challenges of and around the course it's not really the primary concern. So it's a relative thing not an absolute one.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I think someone once said about Jack Nicklaus that he concentrates very hard and tries to do his very best on every shot whether in practice or in tournament play.

I'd say the same thing about Bob Lewis. So, no, I can't imgine him being bored on any tee shot at Pine Valley or any other course. He's intense, treats every shot like a challenge and tries to do hit very best. Just that alone creates plenty of interest.

I may have taken some liberty quoting Bob but I did want to highlight the issue of width at Pine Valley and how the challenge of tee shots varies significantly depending on the quality of the player. The mid handicap player can be easily intimidated by many tee shots and simply "sees" the golf course differently than the skilled player. Skilled players know how far they can hit the ball and they know about the likely dispersion of their shots. Thus, many of the terrors of Pine Valley aren't nearly as real for them off the tee. They see the width when other less talented players see the trees.

My impression, however, is that Pine Valley can still strike fear into even the very best players around the greens, especially in competitive play.

My real point is to express skepticism about emphasizing the importance of challenging skilled players off the tee and to do so by narrowing fairways. We will never be able to achieve a reasonable balance between fun and challenge for all by doing so. Pine Valley overwhelms the less skilled off the tee; for the high quality player, however, its not that big of a deal. It's not the essence of the course.

So, I brought up the subject of Pine Valley and Bob's comments merely to highlight that the attempt to achieve greatness by narrowing fairways to test skilled golfers is futile. It won't lead to great architecture. It would only be a step backward.

As you so eloquently put it on another post, it sounds like the Rustic Canyon project team understood that far better than its critics.