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.


Andy Troeger

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #50 on: August 12, 2007, 09:05:59 PM »
Tom,
I just wrote about three paragraphs as a response, then got logged out before I hit post. I'm not really interested in re-typing the whole dang thing...so I'll summarize  :-\

Thanks for the explanation first of all, it is interesting to know that difference between the projects. Regardless of the financial issues I believe that Mr. Klein and Mr. Whitten are entering into the designing/consulting areas because of their interest and love of golf courses as much as anything, and I think that shines through in their writing. In that sense as Paul mentioned, I'm not sure I see it being that different from your situation.

As long as any potential conflict is disclosed to the reader, I personally think whatever any of you gentlemen write should be available for publication. The readers are smart enough to make their own judgments based on the information provided. As shown on this thread, readers may disagree, but that's part of what creates discussion. What fun would it be if everyone thought the same thing?  :D

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #51 on: August 12, 2007, 09:35:29 PM »
The key point here is that there's an inescapable appearance that the owners of Erin Hills bought a big chunk of Golf Digest's editorial space when they hired Ron Whitten to help design their course.

If Whitten is ever going to establish himself as a designer who succeeds on his architectural skills alone -- and if Golf Digest is ever going to prove itself to be above messy conflicts such as this one -- the magazine and the critic should part company.

I can't really disagree.  Tom D gave up the Golf position to become a full time gca, but there probably were some uncomfortable moments until he did, even if not on the scale of this.  I just don't think Ron or Brad are ready to give up those regular (albeit probably too small) paychecks from the magazines to do it.

I can't really disagree with ole "trademark Kelly" either.  In the big picture, worrying about the ethics of a single golf course review in light of how unimportant the subject is, just lets us know we really have too much time on our hands.  Thats a good thing, of course!

Lines of ethics are constantly blurred in many fields.  Hey, my beloved ASGCA now accepts funding from major mfgs. to fund worthwhile projects, like the environmental golf book.  At the same time, members are supposed to specify materials based on independent judgement and not any financial inducements.  Is help in a worthwhile project to an organization you belong to an inducement to an individual?

And we have discussed magazines ranking courses and accepting advertising for some time now.

I applaud Brad for not taking the money, but is his situation like that of a college football scholarship athlete - Old Mac will benefit from the Golfweek writeup, but the one doing the actual work will get no renumeration?  I presume that it will be a good course.  Will Golfweek miss a scoop by never writing a word about it, ranking it, or taking ads from it? I doubt it.

For less drastic actions, I think GD will realize that keeping a Whitten course out of the Best New competition is a good start, but that more must be done.  They probably didn't realize when Ron started consulting that a public venue US Open worthy course would come of it, precisely when the USGA is starting to look at public venues as a more democratic choice for its events.

I mean really, whoda thunkit? ;)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #52 on: August 12, 2007, 11:04:57 PM »
I can't really disagree with ole "trademark Kelly" either.  In the big picture, worrying about the ethics of a single golf course review in light of how unimportant the subject is, just lets us know we really have too much time on our hands.  Thats a good thing, of course!

Jeff --

You, too, misunderstand me. I am absolutely NOT saying that we should not worry about the ethics of a single golf-course review, or that worrying about the ethics of a single golf-course review indicates that the worrier has too much time on his hands.

On the contrary! I think we should worry about ethics always, in every instance. I think that Ron Whitten's dual career is absolutely fascinating, ethically speaking, and deserves as much scrutiny as anyone cares to give it.

I was reacting to someone (I forget who) who said that those who would criticize Ron Whitten's piece were making a mountain out of a molehill. My point was that we all choose which molehills we care to elevate to mountain status (your molehill might be my mountain, and vice versa) -- and that molehills become mountains on this site every blessed day.

Which is just as it should be.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #53 on: August 12, 2007, 11:08:23 PM »
Dan,

Hmmm, you are so deep!

BTW, I would see a doctor about those molehills....... ::)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Andy Troeger

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #54 on: August 12, 2007, 11:12:31 PM »

I was reacting to someone (I forget who) who said that those who would criticize Ron Whitten's piece were making a mountain out of a molehill. My point was that we all choose which molehills we care to elevate to mountain status (your molehill might be my mountain, and vice versa) -- and that molehills become mountains on this site every blessed day.

Which is just as it should be.

Dan
Quote

Dan,
You were reacting to me, but I am used to being forgettable  ;D

I didn't really understand your original reaction either the way you just explained it, so I'm glad you clarified. This issue I guess doesn't seem as mountainous to me, but I'm sure some of the things I would post for days on end about probably seem pretty silly to the rest of the world :)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 11:13:00 PM by Andy Troeger »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2007, 11:21:02 PM »

I was reacting to someone (I forget who) who said that those who would criticize Ron Whitten's piece were making a mountain out of a molehill. My point was that we all choose which molehills we care to elevate to mountain status (your molehill might be my mountain, and vice versa) -- and that molehills become mountains on this site every blessed day.

Which is just as it should be.

Dan
Quote

Dan,
You were reacting to me, but I am used to being forgettable  ;D

I didn't really understand your original reaction either the way you just explained it, so I'm glad you clarified. This issue I guess doesn't seem as mountainous to me, but I'm sure some of the things I would post for days on end about probably seem pretty silly to the rest of the world :)

In the words Professor Higgins: I think you've got it!

I'm sorry you're so forgettable. (Emoticon omitted because, well, you know...)
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #56 on: August 12, 2007, 11:22:53 PM »
Dan,

I am with Andy - In reading your original post again, but not the one you reacted to, I suspected that you were saying that gca is molehill.  You actually said that we make mountains out of gca molehills every day.  That said, I do agree with you that ethics are ethics and we can and should be able to question them.  If we wait until the issues are too big, its too late.

BTW, both Brad and Ron both are ethical people, as anyone who knows both can attest. I am sure that played into their magazines decisions to allow them to pursue both aspects of golf design ( provider and critiquer) as it did with Golf Magazine and Tom Doak years before.

As I have said before, at this particular time in history, the field of golf course design critiques, golf course rankings and the like simply aren't in enough demand to have the financial resources to make them completely independent, a la consumer reports.  So, at this time, the magazines live perhaps on the edge of the perfect world.  

Of course, I suspect its not a lot different at the Pioneer Press, is it? Don't columnists get pressure to write or not write certain things in real life, despite the high journalistic standards that are set by the paper?  Not on an everyday basis of course, but don't situations arise that call judgements into question?

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #57 on: August 12, 2007, 11:41:31 PM »
I'm trying to think of an analogous situation, and the closest I can come up with is this:

If Rick Shefchik had still been on staff when "Amen Corner" was published, the book would not have been reviewed in the pages of our paper. We wouldn't have run a big photo feature about it, either, or an Editor's Note, telling readers that even though it was a wonderful, wonderful novel, it wouldn't be eligible to compete for any Best of the Year lists.

And Rick would not have been allowed to post a piece on the paper's Web site comparing his own novel with a novel by a Star Tribune sportswriter.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #58 on: August 12, 2007, 11:52:22 PM »
I'm trying to think of an analogous situation, and the closest I can come up with is this:

If Rick Shefchik had still been on staff when "Amen Corner" was published, the book would not have been reviewed in the pages of our paper. We wouldn't have run a big photo feature about it, either, or an Editor's Note, telling readers that even though it was a wonderful, wonderful novel, it wouldn't be eligible to compete for any Best of the Year lists.

And Rick would not have been allowed to post a piece on the paper's Web site comparing his own novel with a novel by a Star Tribune sportswriter.

And, just so there's no misunderstanding about this, except for the the photo feature, none of the rest of Dan's above scenario happened. The Pioneer Press did not review "Amen Corner," did not run an editor's note calling it a wonderful, wonderful novel that would not be eligible for year-end Best lists, and I did not post a piece on the Pioneer Press web site comparing "Amen Corner" to a (non-existent) novel by a (non-existent) Star Tribune sportswriter.

But the analogy is pretty close, anyway.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #59 on: August 13, 2007, 12:46:01 AM »
Dan and Rick,

I could be wrong, but the DMN is part of an entertainment conglomerate (BELO) and sometimes reviews other venues, but always notes if its a company owned by the same group.  For that matter, I have seen it in news references on TV as well.

If you note, as GD did, how someone was involved so that readers are aware, and can make their own decisions as to bias, is that within generally accepted guidelines?  If my memory serves, this seems to suffice for some outlets, given the "bigger is better" philosophy in American biz today. It seems like it may sometimes happen that one outlet reviews (or is forced to report on) another arm of the conglomerate.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #60 on: August 13, 2007, 09:54:05 AM »
Jeff:

Since you alluded to my career with GOLF Magazine years ago, I just want to correct one misperception about it.  While they listed me for years as a Contributing Editor, I only did articles on a commission basis, I was never a paid staff member there.  (Which could be seen either as my being young and naive, or as wanting to maintain my independence.)

Either way, GOLF Magazine was never really in a position to decide on what jobs I could take as a golf course architect.  They could only decide when my day job might be thought to conflict with the work I did for them, and we both decided that it did at an appropriate time.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #61 on: August 13, 2007, 10:29:52 AM »
We had this argument when Mr. Whitten's involvement with EH first came to light, and I haven't seen anything that would sway my opinion from what it first was: as long as he and GD are up front about disclosing his position with respect to the magazine and the work he did for the course, it's their business how they choose to report it.

They could put EH on the cover, do a 20 page article, throw in a centerfold, and I'd say that is their choice, they are the ones putting themselves in a position where others like The Golf Czar will certainly question their integrity.

That's their choice.

Golf Digest is in the reporting business. The only sway they hold is through the power of persuasion, and if they choose to use that power in a more overt manner, they risk losing their ability to persuade.

To me, there is a gigantic difference between Mr. Whitten's conflict, and the conflict between the architect who serves as the president of the Stanley Thompson Society, which is potentially much more of an advisory position, and a conflict between an attorney and a client, or a judge and a person before his court, etc.

I certainly respect any newspaper or other entity that chooses to handle potential conflicts in a more definitive manner, but ultimately that's their choice, and maybe their responsibility to shareholders, more than any sort of requirement.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #62 on: August 13, 2007, 10:57:55 AM »
George and Jeff,

Publications are indeed free to decide what is an untenable conflict and what can simply be handled by an up-front disclosure. There are no laws governing this, nor should there be. It's up to the individual publication to decide whether a disclosure of a conflict is sufficient to put readers' suspicions/concerns at bay.

As Jeff points out, it is sometimes unavoidable for a newspaper or magazine to report on/review a product by one of its staffers (or a staffer for the competition). There's obviously a tipping point here somewhere, and I suppose GD has not crossed it, in the minds of a vast majority of its readers. At the point where even the editors realized that they were being routinely exploited by developers who were hiring Whitten primarily for the coverage they were sure to get in GD, they'd do something about, I presume.

As for Ron Whitten, only he can decide whether he's being hired primarily for his design skills or his position with GD, but there's an easy way to eliminate any doubt that may exist.  

"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #63 on: August 13, 2007, 11:25:59 AM »
Tom,

Thanks for the clarification, but I wonder if pay mechanics would have altered anyone's perception as to the viability of you (or Ron or Brad) doing design work.

Rick,

I know there have been some developers who contacted Ron for the latter, and when told it could not be a GD best new candidate (I'm not sure if it can't be a top 100 course?) they dropped their interest quickly.  He did have to learn to separate the two, but he learned quickly.

I agree with you, in that I don't feel GD has crossed a line here, even if perhaps the CB/EH comparisons should have been handled in different articles.  As Tom D says, the mag loves to combine articles on courses, probably because only 3% of readers care enough about gca to care.  They may care about travel options and "courses you can play".  BTW, I don't think CB was covered unfairly in that article.

As Dan Kelly says, (if I understand him, and I apparently don't!) for this particular article, I think the ethics article is a molehill, but a possible lesson for GD in future conduct.  

If Ron moves more towards the design side, they may have to change their ways, or even writers.  BTW, Golf World used Geoff S to review SH for the PGA, so in that instance, they also apparently see no conflict with yet another writer who dabbles as a gca.

To paraphrase an old joke, it may now be harder to find a golf critic that hasn't dabbled in design than it is to find a virgin in (name your entity)!
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 11:27:26 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #64 on: August 15, 2007, 12:39:30 PM »
I finally played Erin Hills yesterday.  I find the turning of the word in the article a distortion of a true comparison between these two courses.  

All credit to Dan Moore who perhaps coined the best term, "glacial links".  As such, the terrain, has no credible association with links golf, in my view.  The land does not drain like a links, and I can say that because we played after moderate rains, the course was closed to motor carts, and the conditions were pretty soft, no roll-out, and with the severity of the rolling fairways in the depth of bowls and humps and hillocks, goes beyond what a links offers in being able to estimate or know where to play the rolling ball to advantage.  To me, that tends to render the use of the ground more of a thrill seekers crap shoot at EH than a game of clever players hitting shots to use the ground with effect.  The graded and shaped humps and hollows at Chambers make sense, are estimatable or calculable, placed properly; where as the natural severe humps and hollows at Erin tend not to be so to its detriment.  Those factors work in terrain that rolls like sand hills but don't seem to function where the glacier rolled through to create deep abrupt kettles, morraines, drumlins and eskers, IMHO.

I also feel that the following is a bit of misdirection by implication and perhaps too cute of the turn of words.

Quote
Chambers Bay is owned by Pierce County, Wash., making it a true public course. The site has 600 acres, plenty of room for onsite parking, and decent access for autos. It's rugged in the Whistling Straits sense, so spectators will have lots of vantage points, but it also has stacked piles of sand that can give way and twist ankles.

I walked pretty much all of the Chambers Bay course, and went up some of those stacked piles of material on fescue planted hillsides.  I have played, walked, and spectated at Whistling Straits.  Upon my one walk at ERin Hills, if Mr. Whitten is implying some lesser challenge of walking about for spectators, I think he is fudging greatly.  There are places that if spectators may go walking about that they won't be found again along certain FWs of EH!  Yes, there is plenty of "grounds" room for the big show tents and stuff upon entrance to EH, but absolutely no advantage over CB's extensive extra room.  Twisted ankles in deed.  I'd rather have the concession stand for orthopedic first aid and heat prostration at EH than CB.

As stated, we were relegated to walk with carts at EH.  I like to walk, but it is probably the hardest course I've ever walked.   Sand Hills and Ballyneal are pussycats to walk compared to EH.  Even Whistling Straits is a stroll compared to EH.  

Quote
At Erin Hills, we went with bent grass greens with subtle movements so they can be sped up to 13 on a Stimpmeter and still be puttable. Over at Chambers Bay, designers Robert Trent Jones Jr. and Bruce Charlton opted for fescue greens, which will putt slower, but their greens have more contour in them, so they'll putt slower uphill and faster down hills.

I'd say that the above is off base.  Even thought the greens at EH are already putting very true.  But, subtle they are not!  Many at EH would have good putters degreening themselves fairly often like from back to a front pin on 15 across hogs back ridges.  There are several mid green severe hogs backs that at 13stimp might be beyond the pale, IMO.  My take on the greens at EH are that they are really a mixed bag of "fun" like a carnival.  I like the carnival in small infrequent doses.  But, I couldn't take all the fun house mirrors, whirly vomit rides, and bearded ladies on a steady diet, I'm afraid.  Most of the EH greens are fair at about 10, but some seem that they would be off the chart over the top at 13.  I'd say we played them at about 10.5.  At 13, the turtle back 2nd would get to be goofy, I think.  And, the superfluous size of 10 is of no merit because it is wasted space for more than 1/2 of the emense green, IMO.  I played a similar sized green that was on the same principle as EH 10, at Bull's Bay.  BB "faux Biarritz" makes perfect sense and is designed with all of its vast space having some golf sense and pinable logic.  EHs 10th does not have that, I don't believe.

This little missive only addressed some of the article of comparison of EH to CB found on the first page.  

I'm already rambling, and will try to find someplace to inject many of my positive thoughts of EH.  It is definitely fun, challenging, a place you ought to go and play wild and ball busting golf.  But, the article itself has riled me because I just don't think it is a fair assessment of a comparison between the two.  

If I were on a committee awarding a major championship, this isn't even close, IMHO.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #65 on: August 15, 2007, 01:49:01 PM »
Dick:

At least this puts you in good shape for walking 81 holes of Langford/Moreau!

Curious - did you play the bye hole or the Dell hole, and what did you think of either? There seems to be a fairly wide spectrum of GCA opinion about which one is better, as well as the merits of the Dell hole. Also -- thoughts on walking...was it just the terrain, or some of the walk-backs and green-to-tee lengths?

Looking forward to more detailed conversation over a fish boil soon!


RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #66 on: August 15, 2007, 02:37:43 PM »
My back can only take so much, and my gut can only digest so much Ibuprofen... really.  18 at EH has me in full rest mode today.  I hope to do 9WBCC, 36 Lawsonia, and 18 OZ, but don't count on it!  :-\ :-[

EH, is almost a must-use forecaddie course if you are going to hit 20-30% of your intended lines off target, IMHO.  We walked, just the two of us, following two 18-20 somethings, very fit looking young men, who were not being held up ahead of them.  We teed off two full holes after they did, and soon caught them.  We were very happy to wait a few times on tees to catch some breese and wind in our lungs.  Yet it was a 5 hour round.   Mike kept his ball in play and didn't loose one.  I lost ~5-6.   The problem is, you hit one off your line over a blind feature, knowing it may probably be lost, you hit a provisional, over the same blind feature, maybe on what you think might be a better line, yet still it is blind, the slopes on the other side are severe, with blind features backing up more blind features, and you have no idea if your provisional is also lost (in some cases it is also lost).  How many provisionals do you hit?  :-\  In real competion, it could be a series of blind redundancy that fatally frustrates steady pace of play, let alone comfortable yet challenging shots.

#1 is simply not a good opening hole for a great golf course.  It is a ball buster par 5 with immediate vaguary, demanding angles, excessive contour and side- hill-up hill, down hill, rolling variablility through the FW to be the kind of hole that should get your round reasonably started.  Oh yes, there is plenty of room, and intermediate cut to the right.  But, anything left is toast.  I hit a beautiful drive to a steep up-hill left of center FW second.  I had to go flirting off the right of the big oak tree on the left side, over to a perpendicular mid 2nd LZ blind FW beyond the tree and at the top of a high hill behind the oak tree.  I tugged an otherwise long hit 5w with significant right to left wind into the dead and irretreivable wet land down the left.  I reloaded, hit over the oak seemingly perfect to the top knob beyond the tree with the blind FW beyond.  I couldn't tell if I was on the short side of the crest of the knob (where it is all rough with cart path to the bottom left of the knob down into wetland) or if I went up and into FW.  We looked for my provisional ball and didn't find it anywhere, either tumbled just short and down left, or through the FW or what we don't know.  This got my round off to a galloping 9.  Should a first hole be THAT fraught with peril?  I don't think so.

We played the bye hole and dell.  I like them both from a fun factor POV, but the bye hole is better competition hole, IMO.  The dell is just too quirky, obviously by theme it is blind, but the green is just so narrow and odd that it seems most balls will either be up in the back slope with downhill fussy shot that either needs to hit the hole or go way bye (not pun intended).  All of it is fun for anyone to just go play and have at it.  But, it isn't what I'd believe the pros want to see or deal with in serious competition.

I'll let more thoughts slip as we go.  I actually can't wait to go back there, at least knowing a few pit falls that one could not possibly know, even with the very nice yardage book they give you.  

BTW, the tee blocks go, 8266 (completely a fantasy for anyone) 7824 (they say Stricker shot 77 from there and I tend to think he had a GREAT DAY!) 7112, where the likes of Brad SWanson and maybe Mr Potts may break 80 but I'd bet against them, and 6544, where with my honest 12.3 handi, I doubt I could break 90 in 20 tries even if you created some suspicious and liberal local drop rules to keep the play going.

But... it was fun. ::) ;D 8)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #67 on: August 16, 2007, 02:42:46 AM »
I think I read today that Ron, Brad, Tiger, Finchem, Trump, Doak and Forrest Richardson where getting together to build a course off the coast of Peru.

I think it's tentatively named Old Machu Picchu.




....but wait....it is late and I could of dreamed that.

Ya know, I can be a one person comedy tour at times...comedienne and audience all rolled into one!



« Last Edit: August 16, 2007, 02:50:10 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #68 on: August 16, 2007, 09:53:01 AM »
hmmm 2:42Am...  Paul, are you posting again in your Tweedie Bird jammies with the built in footies, accompanied by a tumbler of Everclear?   :o ;D 8)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2007, 11:25:28 AM »
"Nicklaus only played the last 15 years of his career (outside of major championships) on courses which he'd been paid to design."

I had no idea that this was the case.  Even if this was a generalization with some exceptions, I still think it a loathsome form of behavior without honor.  In doing so, Nicklaus clearly prostituted his own interests while subordinating those of the sport.

Those Nicklaus-designed courses were hosting Senior events, but Tom is right, that's about all JN played on for most of his career on the Senior Tour, unless it was a major played on a non-Nicklaus design.   I always found that quite self-serving as well.

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2007, 11:35:29 AM »
Darn that Jack for supporting those courses where clients paid him huge amounts of money to build.  What an ass.  ;) ;D

Didn't Davis Love get ripped on GCA recently for not playing a course in Canada that he worked on?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2007, 11:37:28 AM by Craig Edgmand »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back