The common thread in greatness

[JESII]

If we are defining "Greatness", or maybe limiting the definition of "Greatness" to those 15 or so courses on the first post, my initial thought is that eliminates the Mackenzie creed of "the greatest joy to the greatest number..." as a descriptor...unless it was describing something else...maybe it was describing the architects job.

"Getting the most out of the land" can't be the descriptor for greatness because you can build a good course on crap land without it being considered a great golf course, or really anything all that noteworthy...although I think I understand what Tom means by "adding to the greatness of golf"...what's his course in Colorado that's promoting a unique caddy program? That could fit, as could the Old Macdonald concept...along with dozens of other projects from many other designers I'm sure.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  


I agree that "making the most of the land" isn't enough without some qualifiers.  Some land is so bad that trying to "make the most of it" by putting a golf course there is very bad idea and therefor bad architecture.

Since we seem to be working off of Tom Doak's statements, I once heard him say during a presentation that one couldn't build a world class golf course without a world class site.  

So perhaps a great golf course is created by making the most of a world class site.  (If the site is good enough, then perhaps making the most of the site is actually making the least out of it.)

[Tom_Doak]

David / Jim / et al.

I have exited this thread because I don't want it to be about what I think, as JC was setting it up.  Great golf is not just about what I think.  It is beyond what any one person thinks.  So, feel free to add to the discussion ...

David, I don't remember ever saying exactly that a world-class golf course was only possible on a world-class site, though it's certainly far more likely if other constraints [budget, environmental, and architectural talent] are assumed to be a constant.  If I'm going to go out and build five new courses in the next five years, wouldn't you assume that the best site will produce the best of them?  [Perhaps not, though ... if Old Macdonald is really as good as some people say, then the result must be more about the client than the property.]

Interestingly, though, one of the keys to a great course is how the pieces fit together, and I have seen in the past that on some sites it is possible to fit the pieces together easily, and on other, equally beautiful sites, it is just impossible to do because one stretch of land limits your options.

[George Pazin]

Interestingly, though, one of the keys to a great course is how the pieces fit together, and I have seen in the past that on some sites it is possible to fit the pieces together easily, and on other, equally beautiful sites, it is just impossible to do because one stretch of land limits your options.

How tough is it to see this in advance?

How common is it that you play a course and see something connecting over difficult land and you are impressed with how well it was done?

Perhaps naively, I would assume almost every site would have a couple stretches of real difficulty, even the ones everyone (foolishly) assumes are "so easy, of course anyone could build a great course there".

[JC Jones]

Tom Doak,

I'm sorry if you think this thread (or my other one for that matter) are about you or what you think.  Questions were directed at you only after you chose to engage; I therefore assumed we were in a discussion and it was ok to ask you your thoughts, specifically, on what you thought was great, or fun, or any of the other questions posed.

I also asked other people who engaged what their thoughts were so I am not sure how you got the impression the threads were about you and your thoughts.  In any event, I apologize for the miscommunication.  I have ideas based upon the many courses I have seen as to what is great, but I like to hear other people's thoughts as we'll as I don't think I am smart enough to come up with alll the answers on my own.  Thankfully, others recognized the sincerity in my questions and have chosen to participate in, what I have found to be, a very interesting discussion.

With regrets,

Jason C. Jones

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Maybe I have it wrong.  But whether or not you said it, I am sticking with it.   I don't think one can have a world class golf course without a world class site.  Or at least it makes it very unlikely.  And much of the bad design out there is a result of designers and developers trying to get more out of a site than is there in the first place. 

[George Pazin]

Tom,

Maybe I have it wrong.  But whether or not you said it, I am sticking with it.   I don't think one can have a world class golf course without a world class site.  Or at least it makes it very unlikely.  And much of the bad design out there is a result of designers and developers trying to get more out of a site than is there in the first place. 

This comment, particularly the last sentence, deserves its own thread. And I mean that in a good way.

As for the earlier point you made, do you think most would call Merion's site world class? Or Oakmont's? I haven't seen the former in person (and I'd understand if you don't want to address it), but I have seen the latter many times. On each occasion, I think, why is Oakmont one of the world's greatest, while so many sit on similar land to far lesser effect? Is it my evaluation of site that is way off, or is Oakmont really a special course when it comes to its architecture? No surprises for guessing my answer...

I almost - almost, but not quite - think that every site has the potential to be world class (throw out the mountain course/canyon course outliers). But I think it takes someone really special to see what each site offers. I'll call this my "Michelangelo Big Hunk O Marble" theory...

[DMoriarty]

Don't know Oakmont's site.   Merion's could make for an interesting discussion, but disaster would likely ensue so I'll leave it alone. 

Of the courses listed, Merion is the only one without sandy soil.   Or am I wrong about this? 

[George Pazin]

Oakmont's sure isn't, unless by sand you mean clay.

[DMoriarty]

I didn't think Oakmont was on the list, but I see now that it is on the second list.   

Any more without sandy soil?

[Tom_Doak]

Cypress Point is not all on sand, nor is Pebble Beach (assuming it was on the second list).

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

Apology accepted.  Perhaps I misinterpreted your posts, but starting with my list of 10's, and then asking me specifically about my own criteria, made it more about me than I was comfortable with.  And I still won't talk about everything I know, though I will talk about some of the less obvious parts as they came up.

George:

"How the pieces fit together" is one of the less obvious parts.  Most people would walk a property and never pick up on it.   A practiced golf architect would probably recognize pretty quickly that it's going to be a problem, but you never know if it's solvable until you have a solution in hand ... and sometimes one architect solves what another could not!  [As an example, one of my associates walked the site for the second course at We-Ko-Pa and reported that he thought it had an unsolvable part ... but Bill Coore seems to have figured it out okay.]

I do think Merion was a world-class site.  The stream, the quarry, the elevation changes are all excellent stuff.  It's amazing that the architect managed to put it together in such a tight plan, and in fact it took a major modification for it to all come together, but it was a great site.  Oakmont, as I recently opined on another thread, is more of an exception to the rule, though not as bad of a site as some make it out to be.

I also agree completely with David M's thought that "much of the bad design out there is a result of designers and developers trying to get more out of a site than is there in the first place."  It comes into play especially when you are trying to solve the problem of a difficult stretch on an otherwise good piece of property ... because it's far easier to ruin a good property than a bad one.

[Bart Bradley]

Perhaps someone already said this but I'll jump in anyway.

In my opinion, to be great, a course must be unique.  If it is unique it may or may not share a "common thread" with other great golf courses.

I understand that uniqueness alone does not make a course great.

I have my doubts that you can identify a single common thread ...because without being unique, I don't think we would agree that a course is great.  The actual thing(s) that make(s) a great course unique is (are) often what makes it great.

Bart

[David_Elvins]

No it really doesn't make sense and either does the person who was penalizing PV for forced carries!  

Tom,

It makes sense to me in the way I judge courses.  For a course to be absolutely one of the best of the best, a 10 ranking on my scale, it has to be one where I could take my mum out for a game (and I am not talking about club politics here).  I am sure from what I have read that Pine Valley is an absolutely wonderful course and a true marvel of architecture.  But if I were to categorise the best of the best, it fails a crucial test in my opinion.

Barnbougle Dunes is a '10' in my mind.  I am not sure I know anyone who rates it less than a nine.  The architecture is fantastic and it is a true test. I have played there with pro golfers and they loved it.  And i have also played it with a guy who had never played golf n his life before.  He loved it.  I may have mis-read Pine valley, but I don't think that it would offer the same sort of accommodation to the novice player.  Royal Melbourne and St Andrews are two other courses that I would rate a 10 that, IMO would accommodate novice players.  

Like I said, we are talking about the best of the best here.  And imo Pine Valley's forced carries and penal nature for the less experienced player stands out against the course that i rate the best of the best.  

[Mac Plumart]

JC…to get the ball rolling regarding finding an answer to your question;

Please tell me how you or anyone knows whether a course a) got the most out of the land or b) added to the greatness of golf (whatever that may mean)?

Let’s start with Tom Doak’s statement,

"my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."

“greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list”    Right away, we need to get away from the notion that this is definable in a way that is easily understandable like mathematics or science.  It isn’t simply 2+2=4.  It isn’t water freezes at 32 degrees farenheit.  Frankly, I think it is more akin to what I do for a living…making investment decisions.  Stock X and Stock Y might both trade for a P/E multiple of 5, but one is cheap and a value and the other is going out of business.  The trick is sorting through the rubbish to find the answers regarding why.   
 
“greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list”  George Pazin responded with this in regards to Tom’s answer…

“I think JC just wants something a little more specific - indeed, it seems to be the point of the thread.

As I said on the other thread, I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" type of definitions - a bit too egocentric for me, and it implies a lack of fleshed out thinking, imho.

I can accept it when Tom says a course adds to the greatness of golf, but I'd rather hear how…”

George, I don’t think you are going to get it.  That is, something more specific.  St. Andrews is great and it is links golf with massive double greens.  Harbour Town is great with tight tree lined corridors and teeny-tiny greens.  It isn’t a matter of ticking off boxes on a list.  If it was, everyone would be making great courses. 

So, where do we go next?  Well, Mr. Doak says it is “a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf." 

Let’s take a pause here.  This definition is based on what Tom Doak says.  Why do we value what Tom Doak has to say?  I’d argue it is two things.  The first is his resume regarding building great golf courses.  On the list I keep of “Unanimous Gems” (courses ranked by each and every major golf course rating entity as one of the greatest in the world), he has 3 courses, Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers, and Barnbougle Dunes, second most of any living architect, behind only Pete Dye with 6 and tied with Jack Nicklaus.  And frankly, Sebonack, Ballyneal, and Rock Creek Cattle just might make that list very soon.  Regardless, his work is very good.  The second is his resume of courses visited.  I’ve done reading and researching and a little traveling and playing in my 3 years being involved with golf and thus far I’ve played something like 70 courses.  However, Mr. Doak has seen many, many more than that.  Therefore, the context in which he can place things is at an elite level.  Furthermore, he has written some books on golf, which adds to his credibility…but so have others, so I don’t place this at as high a level as the other two.

Given this resume he has developed serious credibility, so we value his opinion.  So, when he says things we listen.  And he says that the greatness of a golf course is “a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."


Let’s start with the easier one first…”adding to the collective greatness of golf.”

To look at this let’s rewind to the beginning, St. Andrews Old Course; The home of golf.  This is where it all started.  A land so perfectly suited for the game of golf that very little had to be done to it for people to begin playing on it for centuries.  Huge greens, wide open fairways, crazy undulations, links land, windy, and great soil for golf.  So, obviously this course added to the greatness of golf as it started it all. 

NGLA…CBM, schooled in the greatness of a golf course at St. Andrews, returns to America to find not a single golf course worthy of the name.  And after a period of time, he builds the ideal golf course.  Since this is a watershed moment in American golf history, it added to the collective greatness of golf.

Oakmont, Pine Valley…I think I’ve got these courses right and there may be more.  But in response to  Bob Crosby’s “Joshua Crane” article, Tom Macwood wrote a reply.  In that reply he discussed the battle of British vs. American golfers.  At that time, the British were dominating the golfing scene.  American’s wanting to gain dominance over the sport built more demanding and difficult golf courses.  After the completion of these courses and after ample “practice” time on them, Americans began to dominate golfing competitions.  This competitive/training ground style of golf course added to the collective greatness of golf.

Harbour Town…in contrast to the “bigness” of many of the courses (including St. Andrews) this course was tight and narrow with very small greens.

Sunningdale Old…Heathland golf, rather than links, a massive breakthrough at the time.

Hirono…greatness in Japan.

Sand Hills…wide open prairie golf, natural, minimalistic.

I think I could drone on and on and go course by course, but perhaps you all get the point. 

   

The next point, “getting the most out of a piece of property,” to me is the routing of a course.  Plain and simple.  In a well routed course, you make the best use of the land the course in on, you take great advantage of natural green site, you open up strategic options, and you use natural hazards and strategically place man-made hazards.  To me it all comes down to routing.

In fact, I just reviewed a section in Brad Klein’s book “Rough Mediations” entitled “Routing Is Destiny”.  It is a quick read and is quite enlightening, but a bit brief.  But perhaps being brief is all that you can do with being overly verbose and without having a specific piece of property to route. 

Another great read regarding routing is CBM’s “Scotland’s Gift”.  The chapter entitled “Architecture” is amazing.  Here are a few snippets…

“Wind, I consider is the finest asset in golf”

“In designing a course try to lay out your holes so that they vary in direction.”

“There should be every variety of hazard."

“Diversity in nature is universal.  Let your golf course architecture mirror it.”

“Paths and roads…should never be part of the course”

Frankly, on this chapter I could go on and on and on…it is fabulous.  But on the whole, I think it touches on routing directly and indirectly and is vital to understand and comprehend.

George Thomas’ “Golf Architecture in America” has chapter called “The General Plan for the Property”, which I think takes routing even a step further.  Placement of club house, privacy of the holes, and the quote of the chapter to me, “Don’t strive for length when you sacrifice character.”

And the last example I will use is “The Spirit of St. Andrews.”  Chapter 2 lists the 13 general principles for a golf course.  Apply them all for a well-routed course. 

But going back to Brad Klein’s book, I think he hits on two of the most important points regarding routing.  #1…”The most important rule of all is to keep the land interesting.”  And #2…”there is nothing worse than a formula or cookie cutter program.”

So, for all you who want a list; check out Mackenzie’s general principles.  But I think this is more of an art thing than a scientific thing.  So simply applying all of his 13 principles might not yield a great course if they don’t fit the land. 

Here is a quick list of some of the best routed courses I’ve seen and, therefore, examples of some places where I think the architect got the most out of the land.

Seminole…really this land isn’t great.  It is right by the beach, so you’ve got the wind.  But it just has one big dune.  And the way Ross took the course up and down that dune is quite something.

Canterbury…I think this course is severely under-rated.  It only has 146 acres and it has a club house in the middle, but Strong did a masterful job in my opinion.  Short holes, long holes, sunken greens, elevated greens.  In the end, this is routing.

Grandfather…this may not be the best course in the world because this mountainous land isn’t ideal for golf.  But Maples strung together 18 holes in a magnificent manner making it walk-able with extreme variety.

Holston Hills…Simply superb.  Perhaps the land is boring.  Kind of a wide open field.  No ocean.  Not much going on.  But Ross takes you up some hills, round a few bends, and to some excellent green sites.

Harbour Town…I LOVE this routing.  In fact, I think “pacing” might be a better fit here.  It starts out tight and narrow and almost makes the golfer claustrophobic, but gradually gets wider and more open.  16 almost opens totally up, but one tree sits right in the middle of the fairway.  The par 3 17th finally takes you to the waterway and the opening up of the land is amazing…almost a liberating feeling.  And the 18th is the widest fairway on the PGA Tour.  It is an amazing feeling to finally be free.

Poorly routed courses and/instances where the architect didn’t get the most out of the land are…

Classic Club…Palm Springs course former PGA Tour stop.  It seemed like every darn hole was a dogleg hole with water on the dogleg side of the hole and many of them had the fairways sloping into that water.  Boring, monotonous, frustrating.

Cougar Point…the routing takes you over roads, bike paths, and right next to homes.  Tee boxes are right by busy streets, busy bike paths are right by greens and tee boxes…you get no sense of privacy or intimacy.  Is it poor land for golf?  Maybe.  But the routing simply isn’t good either.

 I also think “greatness” will yield timeless entertainment and I said this on another thread and I believe Ben Sims said the same thing on this thread.  Take a well routed course that adds a little bit to the collective greatness of the game and you’ve got a timeless gem.  And you know what; from time to time these great courses are overlooked for a period of time.  Crystal Downs was overlooked for years.  NGLA sort of hung around in mild obscurity for some time.  And right now, I believe Canterbury is getting overlooked.  Another course that I have great interest in checking out is Kingsley.  Is it a great timeless gem?  I don’t know, but time will tell. (and for the record I have yet to play Kingsley).

Also from time to time courses are the flavor of the month, or the decade.  For example, when I went to Champions Retreat with Mark Pritchett the cabin we stayed in had the Top 100 courses from 1983 (or something like that).  There were tons of RTJ and Dick Wilson courses.  Some are still ranked and regarded highly, while others have faded away.  Are they great?  Maybe.  Maybe they will resurface.  Or maybe they we overrated back then.  Again, time will tell.

Check out the courses on the list Tom Macwood posted from 1939.  If the courses on that list are still regarded as Top 100, they are great for some reason.  No doubt about it.

Oh my God this is long.  My apologies!  But with such a long and complex topic I did my best.  There is a million more things to talk about, but I really do think Tom Doak pretty much nailed it.  As did CBM in Scotland’s Gift.

[Colin Macqueen]

Mac,
Thanks vwery much for this enlightening post. Yes it is long but well worth the read. Your avid interest is marvellous. This sort of post helps me very much to crystallise elements of golf course architecture as you tie it back to the professional and historical points of view.

Cheers Colin

[Peter Pallotta]

Very nicely done, Mac!

This thread is fascinating; the tip of some iceberg. I know that a number of you, many of you, including Tom, could look at a golf course and see much more than I could. What would you be seeing (and in seeing, appreciating)?  Makes me think of a line I've quoted before: "What a man sees and hears has a lot to do with where he's standing, but even more to do with the kind of man he is."  Makes me think of that great speech: "Brutus and Caesar. What should be in that 'Caesar'? Why should that name be sounded more than yours? Write them together, yours is as fair a name. Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well. Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with them, Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar. Now, in the names of all the gods at once -- Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed rhat he is grown so great?" Fantastic stuff. And yet, I like King Lear better, messy though it is. It has that world-class, other-worldly, scene with Lear holding the dead Cordelia in his arms, adjusting her clothes so that she can breath better and then, realiing the truth, saying: "Never, never, never, never, never".

Oh goodness, I've lost it.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"My question is, what does it mean that they made the most of the property?  I assume that it is not akin to Merion making a great course out of a small parcel.
Can you help me with your understanding of this sentence?"


Keith:

That statement or idea of "making the most of the land (for golf)" is pretty simple and basic really and it pretty much forms the essential ideas of what some refer to as "minimalism."

I've told this personal story about ten times on here over the last decade but I’ll tell it to you because judging from the small amount of posts you have it looks like you haven’t been on here long. To me it is a perfect example of what it means to get the most out of the land or out of a particular property.

I had gotten in touch with Coore and Crenshaw to come and look at a particular property known as Ardrossan Farm in Villanova, PA. Ardrossan had been an app 800 acre estate that was a replication of one of those massive English country estates sometimes referred to as a "park" complete with massive manor house, stables, diary area and a number of historic buildings and such. We were looking at it because the Montgomery/Scott family who owned it had made a proposal to my club---GMGC---that they take our land and give us a commensurate amount on Ardrossan.

So finally Coore came up and spent about five days with me on that land the first and second times. I think we had a topo map but he wasn't using it and I didn't even know how to. So the first day we just walked and looked and looked and walked all day long all over that property. I had never been with a golf architect on land before so I had no idea what to expect. After about 5-6 hours walking around without him saying hardly a word I just couldn't take it any more and so I just asked him what in the world he was actually doing.

What he said to me in the next 20-30 minutes was without question the best architectural education I ever got.

He said: "See that little bump on the ground in front of us? I'm looking for things like that and how it twists and turns with that other bump or contour out there about 20-30 yards and how that twists and turns with those others farther off and how they twist and turn with the ones on that top-line of land over there and how they twist and turn with the tree line way over there that may even be off the property and how that twists and turns against the sea of sky that essentially frames it as far as the eye can see. I'm looking for things like that while all the time trying to determine how they can be used for golf." (by that he essentially meant how the golf ball will react on them).

He then asked me if I saw what he meant. Then he said: "If we do this I will look at this entire property from every angle and every vantage point in the same manner of the perspective I just pointed out to try to determine if we can use this property and all its natural grades and landforms as they are and if we get to points where it isn't working for golf then we will need to enhance them for golf somehow."  He then explained that this was his exercise for using the land as it is and getting the most out of it as it is but obviously always having to consider the balance and variety of a golf course and the holes on it and where they would best need to come (par 3s, 4s and 5s) and in consideration with some of the other ramifications of the property such as which building would become the clubhouse and such.

He also said that land like Ardrossan's that was rolling and beautiful with some streams and historic buildings and such is actually a whole lot more complicated in this process than something more bland or uninteresting because it creates some obstacles to the exigencies of golf in some difficult places.

So THAT was the best 20-30 minute education on golf architecture I ever had, and certainly the best I ever heard on what it means to try to get the most one can out of what a property offers before you put golf on it.

But then I realized I couldn't exactly go back to my board and tell them what he'd just told me. So eventually I asked him what I could tell them about the place. Frankly, he didn't really want to say because as he explained at that point he did not really want to get locked into something specific and he said he did not want to create plans at that point either. But eventually he said that in his opinion---this site, this place, Ardrossan Farm, probably had more of what he called "Instant Maturity" for a golf course and golf club than perhaps any site he had ever seen and that for that reason as well as others he would prefer to use it as much as it was before golf as he possibly could. So that's what I told my board.

Did Bill Coore really love Ardrossan Farm for a golf course? You know, I think he did but I'm still not sure how much. I learned later from him while doing the same thing on some other sites around here that sometimes he tends to feel that a site that has the kinds of big and broad and huge scale topographical contours that Ardrossan has can create some problems in the over-all in that he thinks (as he once said) that golf and golf holes can get kind of lost in them. I think he prefers the smaller type contours that really are undeniably the best for golf (viz. all those little rolling smaller contours all over TOC). But then again they did Kapalua that seems to have some immense contours of various types.

So THAT, Keith, is what I think "getting the most out of land or a property" means; essentially trying to use a piece of property for golf as much as you can the way it is before golf was put on it. I don't think there can be a better example of that term than what I just told you above, and if there is I've never heard it.


 
 

[Mac Plumart]

Tom Paul...awesome!!!  Thanks for sharing.

I have heard that story before, but like any great book re-reading (re-hearing it in some cases) it often very worthwhile.  And was very worthwhile.

Thanks!

[Keith OHalloran]

TE Paul,
My GCA member card say "member since "2010", so you are right I  had never heard that story.

I do appreciate it, and I understand what you are saying. That being said, I wonder how to reconcile that point of with view with praise for a course like Shadow Creek that seems to be valued precisely because the course was built on property that was not suited for golf.

[TEPaul]

"That being said, I wonder how to reconcile that point of with view with praise for a course like Shadow Creek that seems to be valued precisely because the course was built on property that was not suited for golf."


Keith:

I don't call that getting the most out of the land. Shadow Creek was just a massive amount of earth moving and shaping to create an interesting landscape for golf out of a flat desert area.

[Mac Plumart]

I've actually thought a lot about Shadow Creek.  I had to play it, just to see it.  And it is quite something.  Over the top opulance and luxuary in every sense of the word.  Amazingly lush grass, first class service, beautiful scenery, ultra privacy and seclusion.  But I got a feeling that is what it was all about.  Rather than a Pinehurst #2 which is all about the golf.  I made a statement awhile ago and called Pinehurst #2 "pure golf" and I kind of got killed for it.  But that is what I am getting at...Shadow Creek isn't all about the golf, it is about the pomp and circumstance.  It is essentially the golf architect and land owners ultimate in self-indulgence.  Let's create something out of nothing.  And quite frankly, the course is something to behold.  I really enjoyed it.  Probably my favorite Tom Fazio course.

As far as getting the most out of the land, hell yes it did.  But it cost 50 million gazillion kabillion dollars.  Therefore, I don't really think it is practical over very useful to study it to get a sense of what getting the most out of the land is all about because how many times in the history of the golfing world are people going to do this type of thing?  A handful?

But I do think it brought something new to the collective greatness of golf, especially since The Lido is no longer with us.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

You're right that Lido could probably be considered a former day Shadow Creek type golf course in that they got something reputedly really good (world-class) out of basically mostly a coastal tidal marsh. And the cost of it relative to that time must have been somewhat shocking to some. Macdonald seemed to play that up too, almost seemed to brag about the cost of it, even though in those days a lot of projects mentioned the phrase, "No expense spared." But with the Lido (1914-15) we pretty much know what it costed to create.

[TEPaul]

George Pazin:

Regarding your Post #81, you should start a thread on the subject you mentioned in that post; it could be an excellent subject and discussion. Using both Oakmont and Merion East would be using two very interesting examples. Don't worry about what Moriarty said that another disaster would ensue. There've been numerous threads on Merion on this website going back over ten years and the only ones that turned into disasters were the ones those two guys participated in.

The sites and land of Oakmont and Merion East both before golf on either site and after golf was created on them just are what they are, and certainly don't provide much opportunity for a disasterous thread, although obviously some on here know them a lot better than others do.

[Peter Pallotta]

"I believe the real reason St.Andrews is infinitely superior to anything else is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no one knew anything about the subject at all...".

Dr. Mackenzie - 1920

A pithy line. Is it true?

Say 'yes' and I wonder: then what are we talking about?

Say "no" and I wonder: then why not talk about it forever?

Pete