News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


TEPaul

Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & setup?
« on: August 20, 2002, 04:49:23 AM »
Jeff Lewis sent me an internal message on here saying that he still believes that great leaderboards indicate great courses.

I guess I can see that generally but he appears to subscribe to the notion that an unknown winner of a major like Rich Beem at Hazeltine ABSOLUTELY indicates that the golf course is crap and a poor tournament venue and a poor setup.

I told him that seems illogical to me. It could be true, sure, if you're looking at one of those Southern Cal Bob Hope type courses that are a complete birdiefest where 27 under par is needed to sniff the top of the leaderboard. Courses like that obviously have little risk and little real character to their architecture except maybe some visual drama!

But Hazeltine? Again, I don't know the golf course but six under through three rounds and a gutsy four under 68 on the final day to finish -10 and win by one? That sure doesn't indicate a poor course or setup simply because it was Rich Beem who shot it!

I told him you have to look at the golf played by the winner first and forget what his name is. After that you need to look at the golf played in relation to the other competitors and sure after that there's nothing wrong with throwing in some analysis because of who they were. Woods finishing a close second and Leonard finishing third or fourth with a few other well known names in there.

It seems extremely disturbing to Jeff too that a guy named Chris Riley, who few seem to know, slipped in near the top of the leaderboard.

Just look at the golf played, Jeff, and forget about the names, particularly with a winner at -10 for four rounds on the tour.

What does -10 mean anyway? It means to me that the course possessed plenty of risk and danger somehow, somewhere. Does that indicate good architecture? Not necessarily, but it certainly could! Did the top super star golfers make mistakes, three putt, make errors in judgement or execution because of the golf course either at the aggressive end of the spectrum or the other end of the spectrum on the conservative side?

It sure appears to me that all that happened. So what does that mean about the golf course (and it's architecture and setup)? I'm not real sure because I don't really know Hazeltine but it means something! Why don't we discuss it and try to find out?

Woods himself clearly didn't have his A game at Hazeltine-maybe B+ to A-! He made almost all his par saving putts which is indicative of a major winner but his birdie putts were really close but just not falling with the regularity they have for him in the past in other majors. Why? Was it Woods or was it Hazeltine's greens? He did have an unusually balky driver for him to have finished so high too.

No, I think Beem's success was because he played to his personal strengths of real aggressiveness (probably more than anyone else in the tournament) and he just got away with it because he composed himself and hung in there. He had some luck too and putted really well which all winners do!

Personally, I think Woods's tournament game plan and course management plan erred a bit too much on the conservative side throughout the tournament maybe costing himself a few more shots to the good, or who knows, maybe even a few shots to the bad. But I think he played a bit too conservatively and consequently the length of his birdie putts consistently showed that! But you have to ask yourself why Woods did play so conservatively. Was something about the course and its architecture concerning him to do that? It must have been! Why don't we discuss that hole by hole and determine what that means about Hazeltine. We all know tournament golfers don't want to give away the tournament early by mistakes in judgement but come on, hitting 2 irons on 464 yd par 4s? There must have been some serious risk on holes like that for him to do that, Is that good or bad architecturally? Is that a setup situation of completely taking a driver out of a tour players hands? It didn't take it out of Beem's hands and he made it pay off, didn't he? What does that mean architecturally and with the setup? It means plenty apparently, like a PGA Championship win!

I'm not even saying that Hazeltine isn't a piece of crap, as Jeff Lewis is, I'm only saying that can't be proven by only looking at the leaderboard and the winner!

You first have to look at the golf played by the winner and the golf played by the others and start to apply those facts to the golf course, its architecture and setup.

-10 alone in a major is indicative of something! At the very least it shows some kind of distinction with the golf course from the -27 under winners in those birdiefest courses in the desert or elsewhere that have little risk, little risk/reward and little character.

In my opinion, it's illogical to look ONLY at a leaderboard as the ONLY way to critique a golf course! There's a lot more to it than JUST that!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

redanman

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2002, 04:57:06 AM »
Re the question?

No.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2002, 05:14:43 AM »
Thanks redanman--I love that answer--extremely succinct!

If I asked you why and you chose to say--"Because"--I guess that would be, at the very least, extremely succinct too!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim Goodson

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2002, 05:36:24 AM »
Although Rich Beem is an unknown, he won't be for long. Everybody has to win their first major somewhere. Hazeltine is a quality golf course, but I think the PGA should use more of a U.S. Open approach. There are too many first-time major winners of the PGA, making it more like a regular tour stop than a major.
I think the real reason Tiger didn't win was his conservative approach, especially in the third round. He didn't start firing at the pins until the back nine Sunday - and look what that got him. Four birdies on the final four holes!
Afterward he said he isn't going to use Claude Harmon as a swing coach anymore.
Look for Tiger to be more aggressive in the future.
  
Quote
Thanks redanman--I love that answer--extremely succinct!

If I asked you why and you chose to say--"Because"--I guess that would be, at the very least, extremely succinct too!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2002, 05:59:38 AM »
In defense of myself....

I said that my first impression of the course was not great, BEFORE the tournament, and that the leaderboard served as confirmation of that notion. There are no absolutes in any of this, but I certainly believe that good courses set up properly do a better job of identifying the better players...not that Beem didn't play the ball-striking round of his life on Sunday, and just two weeks after an equally impressive round at Castle Pines.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2002, 06:00:20 AM »
...and Tom Paul, please don't paraphrase me so inaccurately...I did not say that Hazeltine is a piece of crap.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2002, 06:24:44 AM »
TEPaul:

I always thought that a true champion would somehow prevail after 72 holes of Medal play in a Major.  I've since learned that Hazeltine was a bad choice of venue, making it an embarrassment that a player as lowly regarded as Rich Beem could win.

When talking about career Majors, I hope that people toss out the U.S. Open won by Payne Stewart and only credit him with two for the PGA at Kemper Lakes and the U.S. Open at Pinehurst.  Ditto Hollis Stacy, who - if you ask me - only won TWO U.S. Open Championships since the one at Hazeltine was ill-gotten.

As stated so brilliantly above, everybody who wins a Major has to win their first somewhere.  When one of the Top 10 players in the world made every putt and shot 28 or 29 on the front 9 on Sunday to win the British, it seemed logical because he was one of the best players in the world at the time.  When someone nobody heard of played aggressively and won the Honda with Ping clubs sporting square grooves it was only because of his "cheater" equipment.  Now when you look back and see that these two players were Ian Baker-Finch and Mark Calcavecchia, you have to wonder whether or not the initial reaction to their feats was off base.

Why on earth anyone could have a bug up their butt about Chris Riley, I don't know.  He was a dominant junior player, standout collegiate player at UNLV, and top flight amateur.  His ascent to the Tour has been normal - it's the Phil Mickelsons, Tiger Woodses, and Justin Leonard who are the exception.  (Is Riley any different than Pat Perez, Joel Kribel, Steve Scott, Stewart Cink, Ted Tryba, or Matt Kuchar that didn't immediately gain access to the Tour?)

The fact that Chris Riley is the quietest person on Tour will probably make it take longer for him to get any recognition that he'd deserve.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Rokke

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2002, 06:26:01 AM »
Unknown winners, to me, indicate nothing more about course setup than a particular player(s) having a great tournament. Conversely, a great leader board doesn't indicate a good course or a good course set-up. If the local General Washington muni hosted an event, and Tiger, Ernie and company
swept the leaderboard, I don't think you could draw any conclusions about the course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2002, 06:53:12 AM »
Tom,

I think the opposite is true.  Quality winners tend to inflate the credibility of golf courses.  Would Olympic be in the top ten if its second place finishers were first and its first place finishers were second - I think so.  The argument against Olympic has always seemed to be that the Rich Beem's beat the Tiger Woods there.  

Look at Oakland Hills.  It is a good golf course but nowhere near as interesting as many of the top ten, yet it is consistently placed there.  Why - Because Ben Hogan called it a monster when he won.  Steve Jones certainly is obscure but Oakland Hills got its big win with Hogan.  I do not believe that a course is defined as bad by the quality of its winners.  I do believe that the general populous over inflates a course as good by the quality of its winners.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2002, 06:55:26 AM »
Jeff Lewis:

No you didn't say that Hazeltine is a piece of crap and I did paraphrase you when I said that. If I knew how to use the "quote" feature on Golfclubatlas, I would do that. So, yes, I did quote or paraphrase the words you used inaccurately.

But looking back at what you did say or certainly what you seem to have clearly implied, I don't know that I paraphrased what you appear to have meant that inaccurately.

You said that May=Beem, Valhalla=Hazeltine, The PGA tournament=Kemper Lakes, and in your email to me you said you still think Kemper Lakes is doo-doo.  So with that said, and that flow of analogies what would you expect me to conclude but that you think Hazeltine too is doo-doo=a piece of crap.

You also said that you meant Hazeltine appeared to be not very good BEFORE the tournament but that the leaderboard had confirmed your impression of the course before the tournament so what am I supposed to conlude from that except exactly what you're saying which is in your opinion the course wasn't very good before the tournament and that the leaderboard confirmed that, meaning the course wasn't very good during the tournament or after it too?

There's some very good, detailed discussion on this site, much of which you've provided and contributed to, I'm sure, but I think to keep it that way all of us who write on here should recognize that we need to be careful and precise about what we're writing or others might logically take it the wrong way.

It never really does much good when someone says something and almost every one takes it one way which happens to be the opposite way from how the writer may have meant it and then that writer claims that everyone is misrepresenting his implications or that no one on here can read properly! This, by the way, is the occasional modus operandi of one Pat Mucci!

So we all need to take responsibility for how we write things and how others take it, believe me I know because I probably write more than anyone on here and sometimes not accurately enough.

But again, I'm not saying that you aren't entitled to your opinion about the quality (or lack of it) of Hazeltine, its architecture or the setup for the PGA. I'm just saying that the way you appear to come to that conclusion from the leaderboard of that tournament ALONE apparently appears absurd to most on here and I just happen to be one of them who agrees that's absurd.

But don't worry about it and I don't want you to take anything I've said personally--it's just a discussion and there's always differences of opinion. But how or even if, anyone defends their opinions is very important to the quality of discussion on Golfclubatlas, I think.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2002, 07:10:05 AM »
Jim Goodson:

Did Tiger really say he's not going to be using Claude Harmon as a swing coach anymore? That's what you said he said anyway. I hope he isn't planning on using Claude in the future because Claude hasn't been around in a while I don't think!

And if Butch has been telling Tiger that he's the famous Claude Harmon these last number of years, that's another good reason Tiger might want to look for another swing coach!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

allysmith

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2002, 07:29:59 AM »
Absolutely not. :o

Great winners win on poor courses.

I do not doubt that unknowns win but your only unknown until you do win. A very simplistic statement but a certain grain of truth.

Can anyone honestly say Troon in Scotland is a poor course because Calc and Justin Leonard won when they were virtually unknown. The set up of Troon is timeless.

Is Augusta a poor course because once in a while Mr who the hell is that wins.

Quite frankly I think the question is without substance
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Robert_Walker

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2002, 07:40:50 AM »
Does anyone have any idea how good the worst player in the field at a major is?
Notwithstanding the Club Pros, The Amateurs, and the Old Past Champions, the fields at these events are strong, ie, everyone has a legitimate chance based on his ball striking ability.
Is, for instance, Rich Beem an unknown?
Maybe Dan Rather hasn't heard of him, but golf people have.
Same with Toms.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2002, 08:42:30 AM »
so i guess if we go by this pattern, the tpc at sawgrass is a bad course becuase Craig Perks won, st.andrews is a bad course, becuase let's face it, john daly has only won 4 times..
yeah i don't think so!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2002, 08:45:51 AM »
Frankly, not only is it a poor idea to analyze a course or architecture by the leaderboard alone, it's also a poor idea to analyze professional golfers and certainly even champions and superstars on the strength of various performances at various courses which logically will reflect on the leaderboard for them.

We seem to think that since these players are good, champions, superstars, whatever, that we should be able to expect a relatively consistent performance from them anytime! Wrong!

That may be true in some other sports but that's not the way it really is in golf, never was and probably never will be. There's so much more to high level tournament golf than getting consistently into positon and up the leaderboard because you have golfing talent--schedules, overall management of one's life, any kind of ailment, physical, mental, whatever.

There are and have been some awesome golfers that we see do some amazing things and because we don't know them as well as others we discount what they do--and sometimes that even appears to reflect on the courses they do it on! We shouldn't do that! What we should do is just look at what they did, period!

Because what we never see is the rest of it--the rest of their lives and how important that all is particularly over the long haul and when success of any kind comes anywhere near consistency in the overall make up of tournament golf.

We see Woods hit those amazing shots and seize the moment a mindbending amount of the time and we think that's just the expectable golf of a great golfer when he tees it up and plays the game--end of story.

But what we should realize better is that he does it because he is without question the strongest, most solid psychological and mental competitor, I, for one, have ever seen, and frankly by a long way, in my opinion.

Nicklaus was unquestionably immensely talented, beautifully prepared, a great course manager which he could vary so well given particular situations (like final rounds) and he was obviously one of those rare competitors who almost naturally  believed (without a scintilla of doubt) that he was better than those he played against--always.

But I think Woods goes beyond even that--he's almost so accomplished at that to appear sometimes to be a competitive killer or even some kind of evidence of odd fate!

We think many of these guys out there are wimps because they're scared of Woods because he's so good on the course. I don't think they're exactly scared of him, they just recognize an overall totally functioning product when they see one.

Woods is a phenonenal physical talent, sure, but he's outworked every other one of those pros in every other aspect of his life by a mile--and I think they, certainly more than us, truly understand that! And in those other areas he also may be about the best we've ever seen either completely naturally or because he's figured it all out and made himself that way in all those other areas!

If any of us think there are a bunch of young guns in junior high of high school or college that are going to come out and give Woods a serious run for his money because they might be able to hit the ball as pure or purer than he does and even farther, they better think again!

I think Woods was probably playing at about a B or B+ for him at the PGA and he came within a shot of Beem. But that fact takes nothing away from Rich Beem at all!

So Hazeltine may be good architeturally or it may not be but that won't show up in the leaderboard at that course necessarily!

The more I think about this subject on here the more I think that degrees of risk and risk/reward on any golf course that require high degrees of course management and the management of the degrees of temptation and how to filter that through 72 holes and also overall competitive zeal at any time are what begin to define and hone leaderboards which can probably help use analyze golf courses anywhere, anytime with any setup!

But when we do that we should keep in mind that what we're seeing is a game, a sport but very much an entire life encompassing business which is incredibly comprehensive and  probably quite elusive and so much more involved than the tournaments, the rounds and the shots we're watching!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Ed_Baker

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2002, 09:03:31 AM »
To Robert Walkers point: the depth of the field is incredible.

I don't know why the PGA gets the "minor" major rap,the U.S. Open has had its share of "obscure" winners too. Andy North twice,what else did he win, the Quad Cities Open?

I applaud the PGA of America for using many different venues for the tournament and my personal opinion is that Hazeltine accorded itself just fine even though it was soaked for much of the tournament.

If Tiger had won, would it somehow improve the perception of Hazeltine as a "legitimate" venue and validate the PGA's choice?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2002, 09:16:13 AM »
I've got two comments regarding the question as it relates to Beem.....

1.  Read the book "Bud, Sweat, and Tees" by Alan Shipnuck and you might have a different view of Beem being some unknown.  I think he was a major talent brewing to explode in this type of fashion.  By the way, he is a former Assistant Pro for all of those that think Club Pros have no game.

2.  Darren Clarke played my course yesterday at a Dimension Data outing and I spoke with him about Hazeltine and Beem and he said that Hazeltine was quite difficult but fair to good shots.  He also said that it was a suprise but not shocking to see Beem win.  Darren also told me that Beem is a super guy which after reading the book about him is easy to believe.

Beem didn't win because the course was weak or the conditions were easy, he won because he shot the lowest score.

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

Tim Weiman

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2002, 09:16:15 AM »
I see nothing wrong with an "unknown" occasionally winning a major championship.  It might be better if it happened more often.

No, I wouldn't hold Beem's win against Hazeltine.  Let's face it.  Tiger could have won by five or six strokes if he had been a bit less conservative and a few more putts fell.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2002, 09:21:50 AM »
Regarding Tiger's lack of aggressiveness at Hazeltine, I agree that he probably cost himself a few shots by playing conservative golf, but something about the course convinced him that that was the way to win.

In his Saturday press conference, he was asked if he planned to be more aggressive on Sunday, and he offered a puzzled looke and said, "Where can you be aggressive on this golf course?"

So the question, as Tom Paul has already stated in another way, is what was Tiger Woods afraid of at Hazeltine? Well, the rough become longer and wet after the Friday night rains, though I thought the fairway widths were adequate on most holes to risk driver (though not on 5, 6, 10, 14 and 16, where driver really isn't needed if you're one of the long hitters.)

The bunkers didn't look great, but as Funk and Calcavecchia found out on No. 1 Sunday, you weren't going to hit the greens in regulation if you couldn't avoid the bunkers off the tee (Tiger's miraculous bunker shot to the final hole completing his Friday round on Saturday morning being a rare exception.)

I think the key issue was the firmness of the greens. On Thursday and Friday they were about where the PGA wanted them -- not rock hard, but not dartboard soft, either. An approach shot had to be accurately placed to have a chance to get near the tucked hole locations, and par was a pretty good score. That all changed with the rain Friday night. Chaska got anywhere from three to five inches, and there's nothing the greenskeeper can do to offset that much water. It didn't become apparent how much the course had changed Saturday because the winds were so fierce, but on Sunday you could fire at the flags. It didn't take Tiger that long to figure it out, but he wasn't executing that well early in his round.

I think the answer to the Doyen's question about Hazeltine was that the field played three different courses: one on which the players were punished for being aggressive, one on which the elements made low scoring impossible, and one on which the best pros in the world could tear it up. I'm frankly surprised there weren't more low scores on Sunday; Watson came in with a 67 before the leaders teed off, and to me that indicated Leonard didn't have much of a chance. I expected several players to go low and blow by him, and the way Beem was playing, it didn't surprise me that he was one of them. But it did surprise me that Tiger was the only other one -- and that it took him so long to do so. Had Woods not made those bogeys on 13 and 14, he shoots 65 and wins the PGA. Somebody else could have done that Sunday, too. The course was still long, but practically defenseless -- and I don't think that had much to do with its setup or overall quality.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2002, 09:21:52 AM »
To answer the question:  NO

It also seems foolish to think this when all the great players were there and couldn't win.

Does that mean that the so-called Great Players can only win on courses perceived to be great.

Lee Trevino winning the US Open as an unknown mean the course was no good.  I don't think so.

How about Jack Nicklaus winning in a playoff against Arnold Palmer at Oakmont for his first major.  Bad venue.  I don't think so.

Why anyone would dis Chris Riley is beyond my comprehension.  He has made steady progress on the tour and was a terrific amateur.  He has been around making a move for a while and finally has his game coming together.  

Fairways and Greens,

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

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2002, 09:36:17 AM »
Tim Weiman:

I agree with what you just said about Woods and the fact that "IF" he'd played the PGA a little less conservatively and had a few more of those birdie putts drop (my God did he have a number of them just hang on or just skirt edges in the last two days) he would have won that tournament by 5 to 6 shots, as you said.

But, you know what, golfers like Woods or those that occasionally do the kinds of things he does so consistently very rarely ever use the word "IF"! It either happens or it doesn't happen and they generally just go on to the next one!

When I notice a player at that level or really any level not mention the word "if" much, or ever, I think I see a golfer that is likely to do well over the long haul certainly much better than those that use "if" all the time. I think it's sort of a self-fulfilling thing--the less you use "if" the less you'll even need to!

I've never heard a golfer who's won a tournament use the word "if" in any kind of expectant way, that I can recall.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2002, 09:49:19 AM »
TEPaul,

Since you've dragged me into this thread by mentioning my name in a disparaging manner, I'll answer for myself.

If Mr Beem had three (3) putted # 15 and Tiger won by one stroke, would this thread have merit ?

If Mr Beem had three (3) putted # 15 and Tiger won by one stroke, would the golf course have changed, architectually ?

One swing could have determined the outcome of the PGA, and you're going to judge an entire golf course based on that one physical movement of the club ?  You really have taken the analysis of golf course architecture to a new level.
The winner of a tournament determines the quality and merits of the architecture. of a golf course.  Hell of a theory !

Did Lee Trevino's win at Oak Hill diminish the golf course ?
Did John Daly's win at Crooked Stick diminish the golf course ?
Did Payne Stewarts, Will Phil Mickelson's ?

At the deep heart of the matter and this thread is TEPaul's subconcious bias against certain architects.   ;D

The question he really should be asking is,
Will a C&C golf course ever host a Major  ?  ;D

Can you imagine if one did, and can you imagine TEPaul's reaction when an unknown wins ???  ;D   ;D   ;D    :-[ :-[ :-[

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2002, 10:47:01 AM »
Pat:

Your post really surprises me--well, on second thought, I guess it doesn't!

First of all anything I said about you is not disparaging you--it's funnin' you!

And second, you should take your own advice and read things not just a little more carefully but a lot more carefully!

If you had you'd clearly see that your entire post to me for some reason assumes just about the exact opposite of what I've very clearly said through this entire thread that a leaderboard given that kind of good last round by any player (in this case Beem) says almost nothing at all about the archtiecture of that golf course!

What you could have done or should have done if you'd read this thread is address that post of yours to Jeff Lewis and not me!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2002, 11:06:57 AM »
Tom Paul:

I agree with your comments about "if".  My only point is that, in fact, Tiger came very close to winning.  If he had, this thread itself would not exist.  That suggests to me that the answer to the original question is "no".

Rich Beem won.  Tiger came close.  That's all.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2002, 11:26:41 AM »
Tim:

My answer to this thread topic question would definitely be "NO" too.

The only reason I posted this topic was to try to discuss why I consider the logic only of Jeff Lewis's remarks about Hazeltine to be basically absurd. It wasn't JUST that he said he didn't like the golf course (that's fine, I don't care about that) but it seemed clear to me and everyone else apparently that the only reason he gave for his opinion of Hazeltine is because the leaderboard (and winner) indicated so!

Or to be more accurate and fair to Jeff and what he actually said, is that he didn't think much of the course BEFORE the tournament and the leaderboard only confirmed that feeling he had BEFORE the tournament.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »