[PCCraig]

Anotherwords, a guy like Kohler first hired Dye to do BWR and that design wasn't really anything of a breakout design for a parkland course.  It was very good design in its specific layout of the golf holes, but still it fit the parkland site and was high quality compatible with the overall American Club.   Then Dye went to Kiawah and designed what he knew from experience and travel to the great old links - seaside courses to be a specific venue for an historic Ryder Cup, and what would be a seaside resort CCFAD course to incorporate the need for competition and proper aethetics for that geographic area.  He fit that to the site specific nature.  Yet in other site specific areas, he still designed parkland appropriate venues.  He didn't try to fit a round peg into square holes.... yet.  But, when Dye got the marching orders from Kohler back at Whistling Straits, they did sort of put a round peg (desire to have a somewhat Irish dunes-links on a property that wasn't that at all)  Thus some see it as a great construction triumph, and some see it as unnatural and strained.  

I find it interesting that many think that Blackwolf and Kiawah are very different courses in stlye. I think they are very much the same style of golf holes, just built on different kinds of land. Kiawah, while on the ocean and built on sand, never strikes me as a links course. Perhaps when I was playing I never felt the ground game was a strong option in many places?

Just a thought.

[John Moore II]

John K Moore:

Certainly, the success of Sand Hills had a very positive effect on Mike Keiser's plans to build Bandon Dunes.  Not many remember that Mike was one of the pioneer investors in Sand Hills, and it was in some respects a market study for his own project.

However, I think it's wrong to say that the Sand Hills course itself had a major impact on Mr. Keiser's thoughts about what he wanted.  He ALREADY wanted the kind of natural course he had seen on many older courses around the world ... he did not want Torrey Pines.  Sand Hills just proved that it was commercially viable to build the kind of course he wanted to.

Your use of the word "risk" at the end of your post is something I see often, and always find strange.  The big RISK in golf development is simply getting something into the ground at today's high prices ... and the key reason for the success of Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes is that the golf courses were built dirt cheap, in perfect sandy soils, to mitigate the risk. 

I'm not sure how much more it would have cost to build Torrey Pines or some other course in that style, but using others' cost models would have added to the risk more than a familiar style subtracted from the risk, IMHO.

Tom, thanks for the response. I think the perfect part of what you said was that Sand Hills proved that it was commercially viable to build a place like Bandon. Without knowing anything about Mr. Keiser other than his name, I can say he is a mighty smart business man. His success at Bandon is proof of that for sure. It does make me wonder if someone with his business intelligence would have taken the risk of putting Bandon on the ground at all without some proof of being viable. I did not know he had anything to do with Sand Hills.

But I think this still ties everything together. The resorts are inclined to follow the trends set by the private courses. I really can't think of a resort course (except for TPC Sawgrass, which of course was funded by the PGA Tour with the specific intent of hosting a 'major' tour event) that set or defined a true trend in the business.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

With respect to the exertion of influence on golfers, what in you opionion carries more weight, word of mouth from other golfers, or, the golf magazines ?

If golf magazines are the more significant influence, would you agree that the photos carry more weight than the written reviews.

If that's the case, doesn't it give credence to the concept of "signature holes" and promoting golf through visuals as compared to playing experiences.

Is it possible that TOC suffers from being unphotogenic ?

[John Moore II]

Tom Doak,

With respect to the exertion of influence on golfers, what in you opionion carries more weight, word of mouth from other golfers, or, the golf magazines ?

If golf magazines are the more significant influence, would you agree that the photos carry more weight than the written reviews.

If that's the case, doesn't it give credence to the concept of "signature holes" and promoting golf through visuals as compared to playing experiences.

Is it possible that TOC suffers from being unphotogenic ?

I may say that if TOC suffers, it does not suffer much considering it is typically ranked in the top 5 of any reputable publication. I should say that that makes for considerable respect.

But going with the visuals thing, how many of the great courses have you played or seen that are not somewhat visually striking? I may say that Pinehurst #2 has a slight lack of visually striking features, however, the panorama from near the first green where you can see pretty much 75% of the golf course it very nice. But I think it is rare that a course be universally held in high regards and not have something about it that is highly appealing to the eyes.

Have you ever played a course and said 'Hmm...thats one of the finest courses I have ever played, but dang it was ugly'?

(Not trying to answer or speak for Mr. Doak though)

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

So those are the only two categories in which to judge visuals ...... ugly or beautiful, with nothing in between ?

Is it your opinion that TOC is visually exceptional in its presentation and beauty ?

[John Moore II]

JKM,

So those are the only two categories in which to judge visuals ...... ugly or beautiful, with nothing in between ?

Is it your opinion that TOC is visually exceptional in its presentation and beauty ?

Well, I've never played TOC, but given what I've seen on the TV, yeah, I'd say its pretty striking. It seems that you have quite good views of the entire course in some cases, the water in others, the old town from other places, and of course the view of the R&A clubhouse and the Old Course Hotel. So, yeah, I might be inclined to say its pretty exceptional.

I wasn't trying to say there is only beautiful or ugly. But I would say that there is likely no really great course that is not visually appealing to at least a 'good' level, if only in how the course 'rolls' and 'flows' together.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other resorts(spouse/children activities with golf as an option),tend to emphasize all the irrelevant stuff.

So, using golf (or any other activity to bond with your family) is irrelevant? Without making a value judgement, I will offer that others have different priorities.....

[JMEvensky]

The other resorts(spouse/children activities with golf as an option),tend to emphasize all the irrelevant stuff.

So, using golf (or any other activity to bond with your family) is irrelevant? Without making a value judgement, I will offer that others have different priorities.....

"Irrelevant stuff" as it pertains to playing golf.Fountains,fluffy towels,et al may make a resort more attractive.But,IMO,they don't add to the game.

I think this is the problem with the original topic as stated.There are 2 different types of resort courses.Some are golf specific,some use golf as one of several attractions.

My guess is that more family bonding happens on the Disney courses than those at Bandon.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JM,

I agree that there are golf destinations and golf resorts.  Golf resorts and public courses etc. do provide a great service if they start familes golfing, even if their architecture isn't inspired to the degree that Bandon is.  For that matter, most country clubs that people praise as "a course you could play every day" are actually fairly benign tests of golf, but very interesting.

Is if fair to say that the difference in this Platinum age and the Golden Age is that a higher percentage of the very good and great courses actually are public or resort courses compared to that era? 

As to the influence they have on lower level courses, I would say its there, as the architecture is much better on mid range public courses than it ever was, even if we can't duplicate the fanastic sites of some of the famous resorts.

[JMEvensky]

JM,

I agree that there are golf destinations and golf resorts.  Golf resorts and public courses etc. do provide a great service if they start familes golfing, even if their architecture isn't inspired to the degree that Bandon is.  For that matter, most country clubs that people praise as "a course you could play every day" are actually fairly benign tests of golf, but very interesting.

Is if fair to say that the difference in this Platinum age and the Golden Age is that a higher percentage of the very good and great courses actually are public or resort courses compared to that era? 

As to the influence they have on lower level courses, I would say its there, as the architecture is much better on mid range public courses than it ever was, even if we can't duplicate the fanastic sites of some of the famous resorts.

Anything or place that makes kids(or entire families) interested in playing golf is unequivocally good,IMO.I wasn't trying to diss bonding,just trying to say that there are golf resorts and there are resorts with golf.Golf destination/golf resort is a better way to distinguish.

I think you make a good point about there being a higher percentage of good courses publicly available today as opposed to years ago.It does stand to reason that a lot of this is due to "resort golf" influence.That would certainly qualify as having "created positive trends" which was the original question.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah, they were called "country clubs for a day" but I always thought of the upscale public course really as more of a "resort for a day, and close to home so your wife won't complain......."

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

So those are the only two categories in which to judge visuals ...... ugly or beautiful, with nothing in between ?

Is it your opinion that TOC is visually exceptional in its presentation and beauty ?

Well, I've never played TOC, but given what I've seen on the TV, yeah, I'd say its pretty striking.

So the sole context of your evaluation of the visual presentation at TOC is from the Goodyear Blimp, a Crane Camera or a Camera on a nearby roof.

Would you equate aerial or tower views with the view from the golfer's eye ?

It seems that you have quite good views of the entire course in some cases,

Where does the golfer enjoy a view of the entire golf course ?

the water in others,


Where does the golfer enjoy views of the water ?

the old town from other places,


Where does the golfer enjoy views of the olde town ?

and of course the view of the R&A clubhouse and the Old Course Hotel.


All of a sudden, old buildings adjacent to a golf course represent scenic views ?

Tell me about the view from # 17 tee as you play the golf course.

So, yeah, I might be inclined to say its pretty exceptional.

Then you don't know what you're talking about, especially since you've never walked or played the golf course.

I wasn't trying to say there is only beautiful or ugly. But I would say that there is likely no really great course that is not visually appealing to at least a 'good' level, if only in how the course 'rolls' and 'flows' together.


"Visually appealing" ?
Would that include views of old, old buildings right next to the golf holes ?

You, and others can't apply a double standard.
You can't embrace old, old buildings as visually pleasing and then reject houses offset from the golf course on resort or residential golf courses as unattractive.

[Sean_A]

JKM,

So those are the only two categories in which to judge visuals ...... ugly or beautiful, with nothing in between ?

Is it your opinion that TOC is visually exceptional in its presentation and beauty ?

All of a sudden, old buildings adjacent to a golf course represent scenic views ?

So, yeah, I might be inclined to say its pretty exceptional.

Then you don't know what you're talking about, especially since you've never walked or played the golf course.

I wasn't trying to say there is only beautiful or ugly. But I would say that there is likely no really great course that is not visually appealing to at least a 'good' level, if only in how the course 'rolls' and 'flows' together.


"Visually appealing" ?
Would that include views of old, old buildings right next to the golf holes ?

You, and others can't apply a double standard.
You can't embrace old, old buildings as visually pleasing and then reject houses offset from the golf course on resort or residential golf courses as unattractive.

Pat - what, you haven't had a good row lately so you thought it was time to try and push some buttons? Same ole, same ole.  Its a New Year, turn over a new leaf.  The views of the "old" buildings from the course are famously appealing.  In case you hadn't realized it, Auld Grey Toon is said with affection.  Some buildings are more appealing than others - where is the double standard?  Leave it to you to try and prove a (pointless) point by choosing the worst view on the course. 

Anybody - how the heck does TOC get mentioned in a thread about modern (huh?) resort (huh?) courses?

Ciao

[John Moore II]

JKM,

So those are the only two categories in which to judge visuals ...... ugly or beautiful, with nothing in between ?

Is it your opinion that TOC is visually exceptional in its presentation and beauty ?

Well, I've never played TOC, but given what I've seen on the TV, yeah, I'd say its pretty striking.

So the sole context of your evaluation of the visual presentation at TOC is from the Goodyear Blimp, a Crane Camera or a Camera on a nearby roof.

Would you equate aerial or tower views with the view from the golfer's eye ?

It seems that you have quite good views of the entire course in some cases,

Where does the golfer enjoy a view of the entire golf course ?

the water in others,


Where does the golfer enjoy views of the water ?

the old town from other places,


Where does the golfer enjoy views of the olde town ?

and of course the view of the R&A clubhouse and the Old Course Hotel.


All of a sudden, old buildings adjacent to a golf course represent scenic views ?

Tell me about the view from # 17 tee as you play the golf course.

So, yeah, I might be inclined to say its pretty exceptional.

Then you don't know what you're talking about, especially since you've never walked or played the golf course.

I wasn't trying to say there is only beautiful or ugly. But I would say that there is likely no really great course that is not visually appealing to at least a 'good' level, if only in how the course 'rolls' and 'flows' together.


"Visually appealing" ?
Would that include views of old, old buildings right next to the golf holes ?

You, and others can't apply a double standard.
You can't embrace old, old buildings as visually pleasing and then reject houses offset from the golf course on resort or residential golf courses as unattractive.

Pat--I'm not sure what you want me to do. You directly asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability and told you what I thought.

I do not hold courses to a double standard, other than to say some houses are appealing and some aren't. I used to build houses for a living, I sometimes like to look at houses on the golf course. Cookie cutter houses, little dinky ranch homes, and boxy things, I don't like to see on a golf course. But a well designed home can be just as visually striking as a great golf course, at least for me. So long as the houses are set back far enough off the fairways and are designed in good taste and unique, I have nothing against them on any golf course.

And I agree with Sean, what does TOC have to do AT ALL with a modern resort course built in the past 20. 30 or even 50 years?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

So those are the only two categories in which to judge visuals ...... ugly or beautiful, with nothing in between ?

Is it your opinion that TOC is visually exceptional in its presentation and beauty ?

All of a sudden, old buildings adjacent to a golf course represent scenic views ?

So, yeah, I might be inclined to say its pretty exceptional.

Then you don't know what you're talking about, especially since you've never walked or played the golf course.

I wasn't trying to say there is only beautiful or ugly. But I would say that there is likely no really great course that is not visually appealing to at least a 'good' level, if only in how the course 'rolls' and 'flows' together.


"Visually appealing" ?
Would that include views of old, old buildings right next to the golf holes ?

You, and others can't apply a double standard.
You can't embrace old, old buildings as visually pleasing and then reject houses offset from the golf course on resort or residential golf courses as unattractive.

Pat - what, you haven't had a good row lately so you thought it was time to try and push some buttons? Same ole, same ole.  Its a New Year, turn over a new leaf. 

For what purpose ?
JKM made the statement that the views at TOC were visually exceptional, when the fact is that he's never set foot on TOC.
Ergo, he's unqualified to make that assessment.

That you would prefer for me to agree with an uninformed opinion is interesting.  Perhaps it's a reflection on your penchant for espousing the wrong view.   

The views of the "old" buildings from the course are famously appealing. 


To whom ?

Unless you embrace double standards, you can't have it both ways.
To state that the buildings surrounding TOC enhance the views of and from the golf course is disengenuous at best.  There's nothing aeshetically appealing about the hotel adjacent to the 17th hole.

In case you hadn't realized it, Auld Grey Toon is said with affection. 


Perhaps in a romantic context, but, in reality, one can't subscribe to the theory that old buildings immediately adjacent to a golf hole, enhance the views of and from the golf course.

Next you'll be singing the praises of Emerald Dunes.

Some buildings are more appealing than others - where is the double standard?  Leave it to you to try and prove a (pointless) point by choosing the worst view on the course. 

That's really a dumb thing to say, but that doesn't surprise me.

First you claim it's a cherished view, and in the next breath you admit that it's the worst view on the golf course.

Although, some might claim the view from # 17 tee has that distinction.

For you to posture that the buildings surrounding the golf course enhance the views of the golf course is sheer lunacy.  However, that's not the real point.   You just want to argue with me.  Unfortunately, you picked the wrong topic.  You've already confirmed what I alluded to, namely that the views of the old buildings don't enhance the scenic presentation of the golf course.  You yourself described them as the "worst views"

That you would support JKM's position is even more fascinating.
He's NEVER seen the golf course personally, so how would he know what it looks like to the golfer ?  Yet, you backed his position.  I'd say that that's more than just being argumentative for arguments sake, I'd say it's just plain dumb.

Anybody - how the heck does TOC get mentioned in a thread about modern (huh?) resort (huh?) courses?

Go back and reread how the thread evolved and you'll answer your own question.  You blindly supported a conclusion drawn by a man who's never set foot on TOC.  Ask yourself, how could you be so dumb ?

[Sean_A]

JKM,

So those are the only two categories in which to judge visuals ...... ugly or beautiful, with nothing in between ?

Is it your opinion that TOC is visually exceptional in its presentation and beauty ?

All of a sudden, old buildings adjacent to a golf course represent scenic views ?

So, yeah, I might be inclined to say its pretty exceptional.

Then you don't know what you're talking about, especially since you've never walked or played the golf course.

I wasn't trying to say there is only beautiful or ugly. But I would say that there is likely no really great course that is not visually appealing to at least a 'good' level, if only in how the course 'rolls' and 'flows' together.


"Visually appealing" ?
Would that include views of old, old buildings right next to the golf holes ?

You, and others can't apply a double standard.
You can't embrace old, old buildings as visually pleasing and then reject houses offset from the golf course on resort or residential golf courses as unattractive.

Pat - what, you haven't had a good row lately so you thought it was time to try and push some buttons? Same ole, same ole.  Its a New Year, turn over a new leaf. 

For what purpose ?
JKM made the statement that the views at TOC were visually exceptional, when the fact is that he's never set foot on TOC.
Ergo, he's unqualified to make that assessment.

That you would prefer for me to agree with an uninformed opinion is interesting.  Perhaps it's a reflection on your penchant for espousing the wrong view.   

The views of the "old" buildings from the course are famously appealing. 


To whom ?

Unless you embrace double standards, you can't have it both ways.
To state that the buildings surrounding TOC enhance the views of and from the golf course is disengenuous at best.  There's nothing aeshetically appealing about the hotel adjacent to the 17th hole.

In case you hadn't realized it, Auld Grey Toon is said with affection. 


Perhaps in a romantic context, but, in reality, one can't subscribe to the theory that old buildings immediately adjacent to a golf hole, enhance the views of and from the golf course.

Next you'll be singing the praises of Emerald Dunes.

Some buildings are more appealing than others - where is the double standard?  Leave it to you to try and prove a (pointless) point by choosing the worst view on the course. 

That's really a dumb thing to say, but that doesn't surprise me.

First you claim it's a cherished view, and in the next breath you admit that it's the worst view on the golf course.

Although, some might claim the view from # 17 tee has that distinction.

For you to posture that the buildings surrounding the golf course enhance the views of the golf course is sheer lunacy.  However, that's not the real point.   You just want to argue with me.  Unfortunately, you picked the wrong topic.  You've already confirmed what I alluded to, namely that the views of the old buildings don't enhance the scenic presentation of the golf course.  You yourself described them as the "worst views"

That you would support JKM's position is even more fascinating.
He's NEVER seen the golf course personally, so how would he know what it looks like to the golfer ?  Yet, you backed his position.  I'd say that that's more than just being argumentative for arguments sake, I'd say it's just plain dumb.

Anybody - how the heck does TOC get mentioned in a thread about modern (huh?) resort (huh?) courses?

Go back and reread how the thread evolved and you'll answer your own question.  You blindly supported a conclusion drawn by a man who's never set foot on TOC.  Ask yourself, how could you be so dumb ?

Blah, blah blah Patrick.  Whether or not JKM has seen the view of St Andrews from TOC is irrelevant.  One could insert any one of a million names or more in his place.  Its fair enough if you don't think the views of St Andrews from the course are beguiling, but to suggest that it is a double standard for others to have a different opinion is narrow minded in the extreme.  Can you not accept that some architecture is more aesthetically pleasing than other types?  Oh, wait, why am I bothering to write any of this to a guy who doesn't think views off the course are important?  For cryin out loud, its not rocket science - just an opinion. 

Ciao 

[Rich Goodale]

Getting back to the original post.....

The answer is "no."

What "modern period resort courses" have done is unrealistically raise expectations about what the average golf course developer can and should be able to do in terms of design, maintainability and aspiration.

The best golf courses are those that are not only deisgned well, but which are lovingly nurtured and revised over the first 40-50 years of their life.  The current model seems to assume that a great goilf course can be birthed fully born, like Athena from the head of Zeus.  NOT!

They have created negative trends, Pat, not positive ones.  Sorry......

Rich

PS--and please read Sean's posts more carefully.  He knows more about what has happened and is happening in the home of golf than you or even Tom Paul ever will.  You are doomed to have been born and live in the GCA backwater that is hte US of A.  In every one of your posts, we feel your pain........

j-p p

[Gary Slatter]

Getting back to the original post.....

The answer is "no."

What "modern period resort courses" have done is unrealistically raise expectations about what the average golf course developer can and should be able to do in terms of design, maintainability and aspiration.

The best golf courses are those that are not only deisgned well, but which are lovingly nurtured and revised over the first 40-50 years of their life.  The current model seems to assume that a great goilf course can be birthed fully born, like Athena from the head of Zeus.  NOT!

They have created negative trends, Pat, not positive ones.  Sorry......

Rich

PS--and please read Sean's posts more carefully.  He knows more about what has happened and is happening in the home of golf than you or even Tom Paul ever will.  You are doomed to have been born and live in the GCA backwater that is hte US of A.  In every one of your posts, we feel your pain........

j-p p

I have to say Yes, in some cases.  Our two resort courses opened in 2001 and 2002 and we have just renovated them. Aside from our goal of improving the drainage and playing conditions, both are now more "locally authentic" and they fit their location here in the Home of Golf (sorry Boo, it's not Florida). When the courses opened they were considered "American courses", well, now they are Fife courses!
I consider Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart, Dukes as other "resort" courses and IMHO they also are very positive modern additions to golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whether or not JKM has seen the view of St Andrews from TOC is irrelevant. 

Why is it irrelevant ?
Aren't facts and accuracy relevant to you ?


One could insert any one of a million names or more in his place. 

That's hypothetical.
TOC was the specific topic.

Its fair enough if you don't think the views of St Andrews from the course are beguiling, but to suggest that it is a double standard for others to have a different opinion is narrow minded in the extreme. 

Not at all.
Others have villified Pebble Beach and other courses for the "buildings" one sees from those golf courses, so, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say that adjancent buildings detract from the views of and on the golf course and then state how the old buildings at TOC provide a beautiful view.

Can you not accept that some architecture is more aesthetically pleasing than other types? 

Is it the architecture or the eye of the beholder ?

Oh, wait, why am I bothering to write any of this to a guy who doesn't think views off the course are important? 

They're not, in terms of the play of the golf course and the quality of the architecture.

But, you've reinforced my point.
You think views OFF the golf course are important.
Yet, the views of the buildings adjacent to # 17 and # 18 at TOC are anything but beautiful.  How do you reconcile your conflicted opinion ?

For cryin out loud, its not rocket science - just an opinion. 

It was an opinion offered without any basis in fact vis a vis JKM's personal experience.  He's never set foot on TOC.  Yet, you want us to accept and lend credence to his opinion, no matter how uninformed it is.
 

[John Moore II]

Whether or not JKM has seen the view of St Andrews from TOC is irrelevant. 

Why is it irrelevant ?
Aren't facts and accuracy relevant to you ?


One could insert any one of a million names or more in his place. 

That's hypothetical.
TOC was the specific topic.

Its fair enough if you don't think the views of St Andrews from the course are beguiling, but to suggest that it is a double standard for others to have a different opinion is narrow minded in the extreme. 

Not at all.
Others have villified Pebble Beach and other courses for the "buildings" one sees from those golf courses, so, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say that adjancent buildings detract from the views of and on the golf course and then state how the old buildings at TOC provide a beautiful view.

Can you not accept that some architecture is more aesthetically pleasing than other types? 

Is it the architecture or the eye of the beholder ?

Oh, wait, why am I bothering to write any of this to a guy who doesn't think views off the course are important? 

They're not, in terms of the play of the golf course and the quality of the architecture.

But, you've reinforced my point.
You think views OFF the golf course are important.
Yet, the views of the buildings adjacent to # 17 and # 18 at TOC are anything but beautiful.  How do you reconcile your conflicted opinion ?

For cryin out loud, its not rocket science - just an opinion. 

It was an opinion offered without any basis in fact vis a vis JKM's personal experience.  He's never set foot on TOC.  Yet, you want us to accept and lend credence to his opinion, no matter how uninformed it is.

At least I prefaced what I said by stating it was an uninformed opinion. I didn't mean for it to be accepted as gospel. I gave a simple opinion based on the admittedly limited knowledge that I have. And its not as though I am the only person on here who has ever done that.
 

[Sean_A]

Whether or not JKM has seen the view of St Andrews from TOC is irrelevant. 

Why is it irrelevant ?
Aren't facts and accuracy relevant to you ?


One could insert any one of a million names or more in his place. 

That's hypothetical.
TOC was the specific topic.

Its fair enough if you don't think the views of St Andrews from the course are beguiling, but to suggest that it is a double standard for others to have a different opinion is narrow minded in the extreme. 

Not at all.
Others have villified Pebble Beach and other courses for the "buildings" one sees from those golf courses, so, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say that adjancent buildings detract from the views of and on the golf course and then state how the old buildings at TOC provide a beautiful view.

Can you not accept that some architecture is more aesthetically pleasing than other types? 

Is it the architecture or the eye of the beholder ?

Oh, wait, why am I bothering to write any of this to a guy who doesn't think views off the course are important? 

They're not, in terms of the play of the golf course and the quality of the architecture.

But, you've reinforced my point.
You think views OFF the golf course are important.
Yet, the views of the buildings adjacent to # 17 and # 18 at TOC are anything but beautiful.  How do you reconcile your conflicted opinion ?

For cryin out loud, its not rocket science - just an opinion. 

It was an opinion offered without any basis in fact vis a vis JKM's personal experience.  He's never set foot on TOC.  Yet, you want us to accept and lend credence to his opinion, no matter how uninformed it is.
 

Pat

The only relevant part of JKM's opinion is that it is held by many thousands of golfers.  I don't know why you insist that one can't think building A is pleasing to look at while building B isn't.  There is nothing remotely double standard about it.  You keep tying to bring so called facts into matters of opinion - where is the accuracy in subjective matters such as pleasing architecture?  There are plenty of buildings on courses that have put me off.  However, I can't in the least say this is true of St Andrews.  Even the ugly view off the tee of 17 has merit in that the hotel has golf architectural merit - and fairly unique feature no less.  Is it in the eye of the beholder?  Well, a yes, isn't that what an opinion on architecture is?  Again, you don't have to take JKM's word for anything.  Ask  golfers who have been to St Andrews and I would bet dimes to dollars that the majority would say either the city enhanced their experience or was at the very least a neutral factor.   Very, very few would say the city actually detracted from the experience and I reckon you must be the president of this club.  Practice a new way of trying to drag people down.  Its 2009 - don't be such a drag dude. 


Ciao

[John Moore II]

Sean--You and I must be the only ones who have yet to learn that it is pointless to argue with Pat. Seemingly pointless to try and converse with him as well, it would seem. Argueing with him is kind of like argueing with a tree stump and expecting to get somewhere.

[Patrick_Mucci]

At least I prefaced what I said by stating it was an uninformed opinion. I didn't mean for it to be accepted as gospel.


JKM.

I agree.
You were very upfront with your caveat.
Only an idiot would support a statement that you yourself deemed to be uninformed.


I gave a simple opinion based on the admittedly limited knowledge that I have. And its not as though I am the only person on here who has ever done that.

Agreed.
Your caveat acknowledged your inability to present a fact based, informed opinion.  Only a dolt would stand behind it.

Is TEPaul posting under Sean Arble's name ?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

The only relevant part of JKM's opinion is that it is held by many thousands of golfers. 

How do you know that ?
Did you take an exit poll of golfers coming off the 18th green ?

I don't know why you insist that one can't think building A is pleasing to look at while building B isn't. 

Would you list those who think looking at the railshed replica/wall from the 17th tee is visually beautiful ?

Would you list those who think the view of the hotel from the 17th tee is visually beautiful ?

There is nothing remotely double standard about it.  You keep tying to bring so called facts into matters of opinion - where is the accuracy in subjective matters such as pleasing architecture? 

You're like the women with terribly shaped, heavy, dimpled legs who wear mini-skirts, you just don't get it that the visual presentation is unattractive.

There are plenty of buildings on courses that have put me off.  However, I can't in the least say this is true of St Andrews.  Even the ugly view off the tee of 17 has merit in that the hotel has golf architectural merit - and fairly unique feature no less. 

Well I'm glad that you finally admited that the view is UGLY.
I knew that eventually, reality would be absorbed into your position.

As to the hotel having GOLF architectural merit, please cease self medicating at once.

Is it in the eye of the beholder?  Well, a yes, isn't that what an opinion on architecture is? 

Go back and re-read the part about the mini-skirts.

Again, you don't have to take JKM's word for anything. 


JKM was smart enough to add a qualifier to his comment, a caveat admitting that his opionion from the golfer's eye was worthless.
When someone says, "Well, I've never been there and seen it or played it, but, my opinion is .......  only a dolt would attribute credibility to that opinion.  The author of the statement had the brains to disqualify it, obviously some readers don't.

Ask golfers who have been to St Andrews and I would bet dimes to dollars that the majority would say either the city enhanced their experience or was at the very least a neutral factor.   

That wasn't the issue.
Nice attempt at trying to change the issue, but, you're getting desperate as you too realize that your position is untenable.  You even stated the view was UGLY, so, case closed.

Very, very few would say the city actually detracted from the experience and I reckon you must be the president of this club. 

Again, you're intentionally drifting off the issue.
Admit defeat and let's go on to the next thread or post.

Practice a new way of trying to drag people down.  Its 2009 - don't be such a drag dude. 

Perhaps I should adopt your modus operandi of distorting the truth and changing the issue when it appears you've lost the debate.

[Sean_A]

Ok Pat, this is all about taking someone to task because he saw some pix and heard some commentary about the legendary views of of St Andrews and then said the views were lovely himself even though he has never seen the them in the flesh as it were?  Well, if you choose to be obtuse yet again, there isn't much left to say.  However, I don't like to know that a grown man is spitting his dummie so I will humour you.  The views toward St Andrews from TOC are hideous.  Do you feel better now?

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()