[Kalen Braley]

...
I suppose you have the same contempt for a hole like CPC 16 then?

A hole that high cappers have really no chance to par.  ....

If I remember The Spirit of St. Andrews correctly, Dr. Mac claimed he could make bogey playing it only with a putter. Anyone who's play leads him to hit into the hazard is simply letting his ego get in the way. Of course Dr. Mac admitted to letting his ego get in the way leading him to take much higher numbers himself.

Why do high cappers have really no chance at par? That's like saying low cappers really have no chance at birdie. I think you need to rethink that statement, and some of the others you made later in your post.

Garland I stand by my statement....and all the rest in my previous post.

If anyone makes bogey from the blue tees just with thier putter, I'll eat my hat shivas style, and my shirt too...

Because to have any chance they would have to knock thier 1st shot over the ravine to the layup area.. and then hit another good shot to get on the green just to have an opportunity to two putt.

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

As I indicated, I was giving my recollection. Bogey may not have been the number, but it was better than some  big number you apparently took. And it was better than the number he actually took when losing the hole to someone he figured he could have beaten with his putter.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

The careful reader could see your arguments were directed at Matt, not Jim. That is all I wanted to point out to Kalen, who was mistakely accusing you of being anti-Engh.

[DMoriarty]

Andy,

I understand that it is probably not the original intent, and that is really the point isn't it?   Doesn't it seem like the heroic thrill or "deadsville" aspect to this hole is perhaps being forced into it unnecessarily?    The usual argument is that the rough mountain terrain forces the architect to traverse canyons etc. and that playability must be sacrificed for the sake of having a golf course in the rough terrain at all.   But that's not really the case here, is it? 

By "duffer" I generally mean bogey golfer.   I agree that just about every Mountain course is designed this way, but I don't think this should be the case. which is another reason why I comment on these threads.  Rough terrain presents challenges for the designer but they can be overcome without throwing out the fundamentally solid golf course architecture.    It seems to have gotten to the point where the heroics have nothing to do with the necessity of the land but are forced in even where they might not fit.    That is bad for golf in my opinion.     How can the game survive if a huge chunk of golfers cannot even play the courses? 

[Andy Troeger]

I think having a smallish playable area to the left would benefit the hole--it would help the bogey golfer more than the better player. At worst it just gives the better player another option. Its a great hole for the longer hitter and most decent golfers, but its not all things to all people (nor does it necessarily try to be). I like the hole, but that's not to say it can't be improved.

Personally I like "heroic" opportunities while playing golf, at least on occasion. But I think there should be reasonable opportunities for the conservative golfer to play around the trouble if they so choose. I'm not against forcing them to execute a shot or face the penalty once in awhile either though. Three forced carries on one hole though is a bit more than what I would be able to argue for, however, at least from the playability perspective.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I hear what you say --- loud and clear but frankly the slavish impulse to make everything fair to such a degree that the inherent qualities of the land are softened to such a degree just to say that Dan Duffer can hit ground balls right up until they reach the target is straining the issue fsr beyond reasonableness in my mind.

I know you are looking for some sort of middle ground but frankly the 18th at Lakota is being dissected by others who have never played the hole and they are simply providing their armchair QB analysis and often it's seriously lacking.

My God -- the so-called "forced carries" or quite tame and utterly within the realm of most golfers who have achieved a modicum of skill levels. All of the jawboning I hear about Lakota makes me laugh when these same folks have no issue with courses across the pond that feature narrow fiairways bordered by hay-like rough and then these same delightful types either remain silent or are tripping overthemselves with love and kisses.

When you say any hole can be improved -- my answer is what is broken now at Lakota's 18th ?

I see the desires of a small and vocal minority group that decires anything remotely requiring a hint of skill. The carries people are talking about are far from straining people -- especially when I have seen / played countless other holes where the strain to produce such a rewarding result is far more demanding.

When folks bark that "fundamental golf course architecture" is being sacrificed then why not play the hole and see for oneself if that theory really applies to the hole in question. Real credibility comes from being observant through the actual playing of a shot / hole / course that can separate what one believes is the case (mainly through photos and the like).

Andy, the playability perspective is rarely challenged for old time layouts like Bethpage Black, Winged Foot / West, Oakland Hills / South and others of that classic period. It's generally saved for modern designers - the anti-Engh sentiment. What's so amusing is the absolute certainty that so many of these folks have of the man's work -- when they have only personally played one or time of his layouts. I commend you for being able to weigh in with more meaningful comments that add to the discussion.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I'm pretty confident that you have seen the 18th hole at Forest Highlands Canyon Course. The general strategy is fairly similar to Lakota Canyon's at least in terms of the stream running through the hole, although its a mirror image. They maintain a small swath of grass on the right side of the creek essentially so that the ladies have a play that doesn't require two forced carries. Admittedly, its not an area I would have ever tried to play to, but the super told me that the ladies really appreciate it. Lakota Canyon could cut that area left of the canyon down to the point where the ball would be easily findable and playable without having much effect on the better player and at little expense to the course.

I think the hole is wonderful as it is, including for the bogey golfer. Many an 18 hcp would get a great thrill if they managed to par the hole and execute the shots properly--perhaps equivalent to a single-digit executing the heroic carry and making a birdie. I guess my point is that the hole is laid out in a form that it could be even better, but its probably an 8 as is for me.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

What's amazing is how such a fine hole like the 16th at Lakota has no discussion.

Superb par-4 hole that is well within the means of just about any golfer.

[Jim Franklin]

 How can the game survive if a huge chunk of golfers cannot even play the courses? 

One minute you bash Engh because of his bowl greens and kick board fairway mounds that make the game too easy, and now it is too hard. What is it? Too easy or too hard?

Engh makes the game fun for all levels of golfer. While I am not the biggest fan of Lakota Canyon, I have played it and did like some of it. #18 was one of the holes that was fun.

[Doug Wright]

Overall, I like Lakota, especially the front nine. I think the 16th is an excellent hole. However, I didn't like the 18th. I tried to find my prior commentary on the hole but couldn't find it. I did find some other discussions that I paste in below. Basically, I agree with Andy Troeger's comments above. Yes, it's a challenging hole for the better player as it should be I suppose; however, I think there is too much that's penal about this finishing hole for the average or less than average player. For example, I think my wife, a 30 something handicapper, would have a hard time finishing the hole. What a way to complete a round!  Although it's been a few years since I've played Lakota, I remember distinctly this question from the teenage kid checking in my cart at round's end: "What did you think of 18?" he asked. "Why do you ask?" I replied. "Because a lot of people hate it," he said.  In this case I think the hole's placement in the round means a lot. If it were located earlier in the round like the 12th hole or something, the ball in pocket golfer would have a few holes to forgeddabbouddit.

Here is 2004 Matt Ward review and commentary on the 18th hole at Lakota: 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,15222.0/

Other Lakota commentary:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29608.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,18506.0/

Matt’s 2004 review of Lakota’s 16th:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,15289.0/

[JESII]

Maybe it has been answered by those of you gushing about the strategic choices present on the hole and I missed it...Assuming I were hoping to make a 4, would I ever try anything other than driving it down the right side of the left fairway in hopes of hitting some sort of shot onto the green in two?

[DMoriarty]

Doug,

Thanks for posting your comments and the links to those threads, especially the first one which features a bit more nuanced discussion with more participants as compared to his one.   I hope posters like Kalen take a look at it so they at least better understand some of the issues that have been raised about this type of hole.  
______________________________________________________________________

Andy,

I understand what you are saying and think you may understand where I am coming from as well.   I like heroic carries as well, but they can be overdone and they have serious drawbacks when there is no realistic and reasonably safe way to avoid them.  

My comments on this thread were as much about how we evaluate holes and courses as anything about this particular golf hole, which I have never even seen.    On that count, Matt pretty much makes my point for me.    He (and others) have this strange idea that herculean distance in and of itself is not enough of a reward, and that for a hole to be great it must not only reward the big hitter, it must also punish the short hitter.   It is just not enough for him that the long hitter has a 7 iron or a 9 iron (Matt's two examples) into the green, he needs the crummy golfer to have a few more forced carries and play a hole that is effectively much longer and much harder.    

____________________________________________________________________________________

How can the game survive if a huge chunk of golfers cannot even play the courses?  

One minute you bash Engh because of his bowl greens and kick board fairway mounds that make the game too easy, and now it is too hard. What is it? Too easy or too hard?

Jim, It is not a matter of hard or easy, it is about challenging one widely accept scenario of "strategy" and about one being able to continue to pleasurably golf with out constant threat of losing one's ball.    I think I have said a few times that with a few exceptions I did not see this as a large issue at Black Rock.  

I wish you guys could take the comments at face value rather than reading this Engh persecution stuff into them.  

Engh makes the game fun for all levels of golfer. While I am not the biggest fan of Lakota Canyon, I have played it and did like some of it. #18 was one of the holes that was fun.

I am pretty sure I said up front that I too thought the hole would be fun to play, at least a few times.   My concern is the toll it might take on non-low handicapper over many plays.   The same complaint could be made about many other modern courses with unavoidable "do or die" scenarios.  

_______________________________________

I cannot tell in the photos . . . Is the right fairway at a slightly higher elevation than the first fairway?    The first part of the 2nd fairway looks quite narrow, and then looks like it widens out substantially.   How narrow is this first part?  

[Kalen Braley]

Doug,

Thanks for posting your comments and the links to those threads, especially the first one which features a bit more nuanced discussion with more participants as compared to his one.   I hope posters like Kalen take a look at it so they at least better understand some of the issues that have been raised about this type of hole. 
______________________________________________________________________
 

Dave,

I never argued that the hole doesn't have penal aspects to it. I just don't think it plays as difficult as everyone makes it out to be...and I'm a bogey golfer who is well more than capable of putting up big numbers!! 

The thing is, penal golf holes have a place on every golf course, IMO....I'm just not a fan of penal golf on every hole.  But the real part your missing to Lakota Canyon, and if you've played it you would know this, is that the course has relativily few forced carries. Having a couple of forced carries on the last hole is no big deal because the golfer isn't bombarded with them previously during the round.

So I will say again, the 18th hole works really really well as an interesting closer that is no doubt challenging to just about every skill level.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I never argued that the hole doesn't have penal aspects to it. I just don't think it plays as difficult as everyone makes it out to be...and I'm a bogey golfer who is well more than capable of putting up big numbers!! 
...

Kalen,

You are also an upbeat guy that will not get down on a course, because it made you put up big numbers. However, I would posit that the average bogey golfer is going to be more discouraged by putting up a big number on this hole than you are.

[Jim Franklin]

  
  

Engh makes the game fun for all levels of golfer. While I am not the biggest fan of Lakota Canyon, I have played it and did like some of it. #18 was one of the holes that was fun.

I am pretty sure I said up front that I too thought the hole would be fun to play, at least a few times.   My concern is the toll it might take on non-low handicapper over many plays.   The same complaint could be made about many other modern courses with unavoidable "do or die" scenarios.  

_______________________________________

I cannot tell in the photos . . . Is the right fairway at a slightly higher elevation than the first fairway?    The first part of the 2nd fairway looks quite narrow, and then looks like it widens out substantially.   How narrow is this first part?  

I guess that would make Pine Valley a lousy course too then. There are plenty of forced carries where the average golfer just can't navigate and would lose balls like its fun. For some reason though, it still remains the top course in the world. Why does Pine Valley get a free pass?

[Kalen Braley]

...
I never argued that the hole doesn't have penal aspects to it. I just don't think it plays as difficult as everyone makes it out to be...and I'm a bogey golfer who is well more than capable of putting up big numbers!! 
...

Kalen,

You are also an upbeat guy that will not get down on a course, because it made you put up big numbers. However, I would posit that the average bogey golfer is going to be more discouraged by putting up a big number on this hole than you are.

Garland,

This may be...but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of just being a person who happens to play golf...I'll explain.

While its true that one like me could never compete straight up with a guy like Jim Franklin, there isn't much fundamental difference between what we're both looking for on the course.  We both want to play well, have a good time, hit some great shots, and be challenged.  Outside of the fact that he cheats by hitting such better shots than me,  ,  just because i'm a high capper doesn't mean i want flat, treeless, bunkerless, featureless, and waterless holes so I can score well.  Even a high capper like me appreciates a good challenge on a hole every now and then....just not beat over the head with them for an entire 18 holes....which is in part how I would summarize Lakota Canyon. 

So in the end we're all just people with varying golf skills, but there isn't much difference in the "human component" side of things when it comes to approaching the game.

Furthermore, I think its borderline insulting that someone like David M would suggest that high cappers don't want to be challenged on occasion as well....and you of all people as a high capper should be wary of these false myths as they are perpuated against golfers of less skill as well.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Furthermore, I think its borderline insulting that someone like David M would suggest that high cappers don't want to be challenged on occasion as well....and you of all people as a high capper should be wary of these false myths as they are perpuated against golfers of less skill as well.

David wrote, "My concern is the toll it might take on non-low handicapper over many plays."
Kalen, you can only be insulted if don't read what is written.

There is a local course that has forced carries to the green on 9 and 18. I think it is the stupidest design in town. It has been my experience that few high cappers leave that course with a smile on their face.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

This is because you haven't been following the theme David has been setting up as a "bogey golfer" over this entire thread.  These are all comments he's made....none of these words are mine. Its nothing short of a complete fascination on what duffers like or dislike, and that they are all spineless wonders who can't appreciate a good hole and/or a challenge.

As I said, I haven't played the course, but the hole looks like it would be fun to play a few times, but is it really a good hole to play regularly and a good hole for anyone but a low handicapper and moderately long hitter

By "duffer" I generally mean bogey golfer

What do you suppose the ratio of lost balls to golfers is?   I wouldn't be surprised if it was 1:1

So the struggling golfer can avoid one forced carry by trying to leave himself 170 yards over nothing but unplayable crap all the way to the green?

for the higher handicap player and the shorter hitter. 
-  Are there NOT three forced carries where one can easily lose one's ball if one plays the hole conservatively?   
-  Is the pitch shot from the right fairway NOT to a shallow green, with a miss hit likely finding itself in "deadsville?"  (If not, why did you describe it as such, and praise Engh for making the third shot so?)
-  Will a higher handicapper or a short hitter NOT often face an extremely challenging and relatively long second shot just to make it onto the right landing area?    That is if the higher handicapper and short hitter doesn't nut their drive, or even if he does?
-  Will the higher handicapper or short hitter who has to lay up in the first fairway NOT often be facing 170 yards or more on this third shot, the last 150 yards of which is over unplayable crap?
-  Will a missed shot at any point on the hole (except the green) NOT often result in a lost ball? 
-  Will NOT the bogey+ golfer lose at least one ball (on average) on this hole?  Won't some lose a sleeve or so

And Matt, your claims about talking to higher handicap players about the course ring totally hollow to me.   Whether or not you talk to them, you obviously have little concept about how anyone else plays the game except for how you think you do, otherwise you wouldn't make ridiculous claims about what one can and cannot expect from these golfers

A shot being manageable for a high handicapper yet extremely demanding and challenging for you?

Asking a higher handicap golfer to hit a shot over 150 yards of crap plus however much he missed on the lay-up?

But shouldn't everyone condemn golf holes (and courses) where the trouble is largely irrelevant to better golfers yet constantly and repeatedly beats the crap out of higher handicap players?

Would anyone bother with the other layup area if this swath was fairway?   Would the hole be much different the Matt Wards and their 9 iron second shots?   Because it seems like this would make a big difference to the higher handicap player, wouldn't it?

But let me ask if it is possible that you are looking at the course from the perspective of a better golfer on this issue?   How many forced carries are there for a duffer or bogey

Again, I wonder if you are thinking about this from the perspective of the bogey golfer.  You say "the shots are not that difficult" which makes me wonder, what shots?   The only "shot" you will necessarily get from the duffer is a shot from the tee, and from there who knows where the ball will go.

If bogey golfers average less than one lost or unplayable ball per round on this hole, I would be surprised

[Garland Bayley]

OK Kalen, since you don't get it I will highlight the part I took issue with on your post. David is concerned with how the hole will play repeatedly, not how the occasional player will handle/feel about it.

I think you did not make optimal use of your time with your quote barage above. You may think David is overstating the difficulty for the bogey player, but I think he is right in pointing out the difficulty for the bogey player. I don't have a lot of desire to play three forced carries in a row. Why do you think I make so many double bogeys? Because I badly miss at least one shot on many holes. You saw that in action. I won holes with pars, you won them with bogeys.

...
Furthermore, I think its borderline insulting that someone like David M would suggest that high cappers don't want to be challenged on occasion as well....and you of all people as a high capper should be wary of these false myths as they are perpuated against golfers of less skill as well.

David wrote, "My concern is the toll it might take on non-low handicapper over many plays."
Kalen, you can only be insulted if don't read what is written.

There is a local course that has forced carries to the green on 9 and 18. I think it is the stupidest design in town. It has been my experience that few high cappers leave that course with a smile on their face.

[DMoriarty]

I guess that would make Pine Valley a lousy course too then. There are plenty of forced carries where the average golfer just can't navigate and would lose balls like its fun. For some reason though, it still remains the top course in the world. Why does Pine Valley get a free pass?

Jim,  Could you please point out for me where I said that Lakota was a lousy course?   Because I don't recall writing that, and if I did then that was a mistake on my part.

As for your comments about Pine Valley you raise a good question.   If these holes are really no less playable than Pine Valley, then why should we criticize them?    That may be impossible for me to answer since I haven't seen Pine Valley (or this course) and likely never will, but I have a few thoughts as an outsider looking in.

First, I am not sure your comparison is apt.  From the various depictions and descriptions with which I am familiar, it looks as if a few of the carries at Pine Valley are over water; but aren't most of the famous and arduous carries over sandy waste areas?   If so, then won't the higher handicapper or short hitter still be able to keep playing his ball, even when the initial shot falls short?   If so, then I wouldn't necessarily consider Pine Valley to be unplayable.  Again, hard and unplayable are not the same thing.

Second, I am not sure that Pine Valley has always received a complete pass.   I believe that while CBM was fond of at least parts of the course he was also critical of Pine Valley because it was not equally interesting and playable for the duffer as for the quality player.   H. J. Whigham apparently thought the same thing.   So at least two of the most well known and well respected experts on golf courses at the time the course was created did not give it a complete pass.

I can't say for sure whether or not I would give it a pass, but if the course truly offers no way for anyone but a low handicapper to repeatedly play and enjoy the course without the constant threat of going to his pocket for a new ball, then I'd like to think I would NOT give it a pass.  With all respect to the members and the many who sing its praises, to my mind it would NOT be the best course in the country if only a few in 100 golfers had the skill to play it without the caddies toting dozens of extra balls.   But as I said, I don't know whether this is the case or not.  

Please don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing Pine Valley.  I am just trying to make sense of your comparison.  And I'd if it really is as unplayable as you suggest, then I'd like to think that I would remain consistent.   Or perhaps the place is so mind blowing that I would completely change my views on what constitutes quality golf course architecture.  

But truthfully whenever I see or read a depiction of the course I am surprised at how playable the Pine Valley appears (at least in comparison to the reputation of the place.)   Yes it looks very difficult but it doesn't look unplayable to me.   While I am not a big fan of repeated forced carries even over sand, in large part the course looks incredibly interesting and fun, where most golfers would love it play after play even if they had to dig bad shots out of one of the bunkers or waste areas.    I am also always surprised at just how strategic and wide the course appears in old video and photos.   But perhaps I am mistaken about this as well.

Could it be that, like CPC 16, Pine Valley is truly great but not necessarily something that many golf courses should try to emulate?   Is Pine Valley great for a limited membership of competent golfers, but not at all for general consumption?  After all, Pine Valley is a very desirable club and could shape their membership to fit the demands of the course if they so chose.  In contrast, newer courses are often either open to the public or searching for a members and not in the best position to shape the quality of play to the course.  

Could it be that most attempts at building a course like Pine Valley will not get the balance right between challenge and playability, with most of the failures coming at the expense of playability.  After all, there is a very vocal component of the golf community who seem to be infatuated with challenge and don't see it as even compatible with playability.  Isn't this what Golf Digest's "shot testing" component (or whatever it is called) is all about?    

____________________________________

Kalen,

It seems you really want to take offense to my posts regardless of my intent.  Perhaps you are the one carrying a grudge?

Your laundry list of my supposedly insulting statements is curious.  Much of list comes directly from Matt. The rest of the list is from my own experience and observations. As far as I can tell, the points may be harsh but they are a pretty accurate assessment of a bogey golfer.  Not necessarily a bogey golfer at his or her best, but as they usually are.  After all, bogey golfers are not usually at their best for long.  

Either you and I have had very different golfing experiences or you are simply looking to take offense from whatever I write.   I suspect the latter.  For example you write that I have "a complete fascination with what duffers like or dislike, and that they are spineless wonders who can't appreciate a good hole and/or a challenge."  While I have obviously offended you, this has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I don't know or care what duffers think they "like or dislike."  Rather, I am concerned with how they play.  More specifically, I am concerned with how golfers of differing abilities interact with the golf course.  The stated likes and dislikes of any group of golfers will not necessarily tell the same story as their actual interaction with the golf course.

[Kalen Braley]

OK Kalen, since you don't get it I will highlight the part I took issue with on your post. David is concerned with how the hole will play repeatedly, not how the occasional player will handle/feel about it.

I think you did not make optimal use of your time with your quote barage above. You may think David is overstating the difficulty for the bogey player, but I think he is right in pointing out the difficulty for the bogey player. I don't have a lot of desire to play three forced carries in a row. Why do you think I make so many double bogeys? Because I badly miss at least one shot on many holes. You saw that in action. I won holes with pars, you won them with bogeys.

...
Furthermore, I think its borderline insulting that someone like David M would suggest that high cappers don't want to be challenged on occasion as well....and you of all people as a high capper should be wary of these false myths as they are perpuated against golfers of less skill as well.

David wrote, "My concern is the toll it might take on non-low handicapper over many plays."
Kalen, you can only be insulted if don't read what is written.

There is a local course that has forced carries to the green on 9 and 18. I think it is the stupidest design in town. It has been my experience that few high cappers leave that course with a smile on their face.

Garland,

I'm not seeing how frequency of play has anything to do with this.  Whether you play it once or 100 times, its still the same hole, with the same challenge, and the same fun shots. Perhaps an example is needed.

Lets consider 8-10 at Pebble Beach....a stretch of long par 4s that hug the coastline with death lurking down the entire right side.  Any high capper who could play this stretch in +3 would probably be tickled pink as they are all hard pars for the bogey golfer with big numbers lying in wait.  Does this mean Pebble is OK to play just once or twice, but would suck with multiple plays?

I don't know about you, but I couldn't imagine ever tiring of playing that stretch of holes, regardless of the fact that I would loose countless balls and take huge scores.  Lakota Canyon #18 is the same to me...its a challenging hole, but i can't imagine tiring of playing it after multiple plays.

[Kalen Braley]

____________________________________

Kalen,

It seems you really want to take offense to my posts regardless of my intent.  Perhaps you are the one carrying a grudge?

Your laundry list of my supposedly insulting statements is curious.  Much of list comes directly from Matt. The rest of the list is from my own experience and observations. As far as I can tell, the points may be harsh but they are a pretty accurate assessment of a bogey golfer.  Not necessarily a bogey golfer at his or her best, but as they usually are.  After all, bogey golfers are not usually at their best for long.  

Either you and I have had very different golfing experiences or you are simply looking to take offense from whatever I write.   I suspect the latter.  For example you write that I have "a complete fascination with what duffers like or dislike, and that they are spineless wonders who can't appreciate a good hole and/or a challenge."  While I have obviously offended you, this has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I don't know or care what duffers think they "like or dislike."  Rather, I am concerned with how they play.  More specifically, I am concerned with how golfers of differing abilities interact with the golf course.  The stated likes and dislikes of any group of golfers will not necessarily tell the same story as their actual interaction with the golf course.

David,

I must admit I had a nice chuckle while reading your attempted "spin/twist" and turning this this thing into some supposed grudge against you.  So in case you have forgetten, we'll review things as they stand:

1)  You were the one who chimed in 1st on both Black Rock and LC #18 and derailed otherwise interesting threads.
2)  You were the one to irrationally rip both these courses up one side and down the other despite the fact you've never even seen LC, much less played it.
3)  You were the one to 1st take this thing personal by referring to those who enjoy Enghs courses as "Enghophytes".
4)  You were the one trying to hide your seething contempt for Jim's work by using the failed comedy cop-out of Rock Star Jim and his ampi-theatre bowls.
5)  You were the one to go on and on and on about how high cappers hate the 18th hole with no evidence to support your position.


Sorry to say it David, but this is about you and your issues, and I understand its no fun for you when someone points these things out. For the record, I'm not surprised to see you bust out the standard deflection attempt either.   

[Garland Bayley]

...
I don't know about you, but I couldn't imagine ever tiring of playing that stretch of holes, regardless of the fact that I would loose countless balls and take huge scores.  ...

That's what I've been trying to tell you! You are too bloody upbeat! 

[DMoriarty]

Kalen,  If you are so  thin skinned so as to take offense to anything in this thread,  then perhaps  you need to grow up some.   There is an interesting conversation going on but you are so busy trying to take offense that you have completely missed it.  Too bad because you might have had something to offer.  Why not take your own advice and stick to discussing architecture?

____________________________________

Kalen,

It seems you really want to take offense to my posts regardless of my intent.  Perhaps you are the one carrying a grudge?

Your laundry list of my supposedly insulting statements is curious.  Much of list comes directly from Matt. The rest of the list is from my own experience and observations. As far as I can tell, the points may be harsh but they are a pretty accurate assessment of a bogey golfer.  Not necessarily a bogey golfer at his or her best, but as they usually are.  After all, bogey golfers are not usually at their best for long.  

Either you and I have had very different golfing experiences or you are simply looking to take offense from whatever I write.   I suspect the latter.  For example you write that I have "a complete fascination with what duffers like or dislike, and that they are spineless wonders who can't appreciate a good hole and/or a challenge."  While I have obviously offended you, this has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I don't know or care what duffers think they "like or dislike."  Rather, I am concerned with how they play.  More specifically, I am concerned with how golfers of differing abilities interact with the golf course.  The stated likes and dislikes of any group of golfers will not necessarily tell the same story as their actual interaction with the golf course.

David,

I must admit I had a nice chuckle while reading your attempted "spin/twist" and turning this this thing into some supposed grudge against you.  So in case you have forgetten, we'll review things as they stand:

1)  You were the one who chimed in 1st on both Black Rock and LC #18 and derailed otherwise interesting threads.
2)  You were the one to irrationally rip both these courses up one side and down the other despite the fact you've never even seen LC, much less played it.
3)  You were the one to 1st take this thing personal by referring to those who enjoy Enghs courses as "Enghophytes".
4)  You were the one trying to hide your seething contempt for Jim's work by using the failed comedy cop-out of Rock Star Jim and his ampi-theatre bowls.
5)  You were the one to go on and on and on about how high cappers hate the 18th hole with no evidence to support your position.


Sorry to say it David, but this is about you and your issues, and I understand its no fun for you when someone points these things out. For the record, I'm not surprised to see you bust out the standard deflection attempt either.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()