I am not surprised that many didn't get my posts. Nonetheless, I am heartened to see that certain of you are actually capable of expressing a critical opinion about something, even if it nothing more than dislike of me. You posted because I offended you, and good for you for so doing. I posted because I am offended by the increasingly superficial, frivolous, and almost childish nature of the discussion on the website, and the drive-by (fly-by?) gushing, hyping, and high fiveing that is replacing frank and substantive discussion of golf course design on this website. Gil Hanse's work deserves more, as does the website. Obviously I am not referring to all the posts, only to those that fit the description here and in other threads.
__________________________________
Mike Hogan, I wasn't really backtracking, but rather I was continuing to try and "stir the pot." Those weren't even my words. They were Mr. Johnston's after he was called out for hs passive-aggressiveness pot shots at certain posters and a certain neighboring course. Interesting that no one had a problem when it was Mr. Johnston's "lame attempt at backtracking."
And sometimes pots need stirring, which is why I am still stirring. Kitchen work is thankless, but I have no taste for burnt stew.
_____________________________________________________
Bryan Sheehy, I don't believe I mentioned "rankings and access." More to the point, I think Mark Pearce may have been commenting on Mac's attempts to reduce Hanse's body of work to "single trade mark," and/or his attempt to arrive at a shallow, group-think consensus of a single "truly world class" course. Or perhaps he was noting that Mac's interest in Hanse's architecture doesn't seem to go any deeper than "making travel plans." I know those are some of the reasons I commented and continue to stir the pot.
________________________
Tim Nugent, I agree with the entirety of your post. Gil has been around for decades and substantively discussed in great detail in the past, yet it takes the Olympic job for him to make it onto Mac's travel itinerary, and some are acting as if they just heard of the guy?? To me that speaks volumes about the current depth of knowledge and discussion on gca.com.
________________________
Kalen, I don't see the sections you quoted as having much to do with this discussion, but perhaps that is a topic for another thread. Regardless, I have no problem with Mac traveling to see whatever courses he wants to see. But I am offended by the superficial nature of these discussions, the notch-in-the-belt mentality that goes along with it, the apparent unwillingness and/or inability of many on the site to even begin to engage in frank discussion of golf course architecture, and the attempts to reduce Hanse's body of work to a quick and easy survey of like and dislikes and a single trademark feature and/or course. We are supposed to be here to substantively discuss golf course architecture, and that necessarily involves scratching beneath the surface, and beyond helping Mac nail down his latest travel plans.
As an aside (and again possibly best left for another thread) I am not so sure that traipsing around the country playing every course that happens to be in the "spotlight" is the best way to learn about golf course design. It may be different for other people, but if really learning about golf design were my goal, and if I could only choose on or another, I think I'd be better off playing 100 rounds at a single truly great and important course (think TOC or NGLA) rather than playing one round only at each course on any "top 100" list.
___________________________
Garland,
Those quotes from Gil's website are interesting, but if he wants any love around here he better try something else. If Gil and Jim are out there intentionally trying to make each course unique and different, then how the hell can we be expected to reduce his courses to a quick survey list or find a single trademark feature or course?
Kidding aside, I am interested in your comments about Rustic and think they may provide the basis for an interesting discussion. I know you were responding to D Kelly mentioning something about top 20 modern, and I have no idea whether he was talking about within the US or Internationally as you seem to have assumed. Either way, I have no interest in such lists and if I recall you aren't big on such rankings either, are you? If not maybe you can expand on your thoughts on the place without bothering to try and place it in a top __anything? I don't mind substantive comparisons to other courses, but I doubt expressing our opinions about whether we think it is a better course than, say, Bandon Dunes, will get us very far unless such opinions are fleshed out.
I'll say to start that i agree with David Harshbarger and David Kelly about the suitability of the place for golf. Now many working architects might disagree and some apparently did disagree (allegedly choosing other nearby sites over Rustic) but then to my mind that is part of the brilliance of the place and those responsible.
_______________________________________
Niall,
Apology accepted. But please try harder next time, as you are dangerously close to me in drawing me into a substantive discussion and I don't want to be kicked off the site for trying to actually discuss architecture. (Don't laugh, I've seen it happen elsewhere.) Perhaps next time include a gratuitous discussion of the menu or at least some praise of the clubhouse, which looks pretty cool to me. Or maybe you should just drop this potentially interesting line of discussion and move on to providing nugatory answers to the next set of survey questions in post 51. Better yet, just answer true or false. . . . Damn you, Niall, I cannot resist . . . sorry Mac for further detracting from your survey, but Niall has sucked me in . . .
I haven't had the pleasure of playing Castle Stuart and so I certainly cannot address your comments about what you see as redundancies, but your comments about wide fairways remind the comments of some about Rustic Canyon. Specifically, some feel the fairways are too wide and that there is often no real strategic advantage to be had by challenging one side of the fairway or another. This seems to be a popular viewpoint among some who haven't played the course regularly and who perhaps haven't played the course under varying conditions, including outrageous winter winds.
(These are often good golfers and they almost inevitably view Rustic as too easy the first time they play it because of the width, but their scores rarely if ever support their opinion that the course is a pushover because of the wide fairways. A typical conversation: What did you think? Fun, but way too easy wide open and easy. So what'd you shoot? Well I had a really bad day but I'll tear it up next time.)
In contrast, many of those who have played the course regularly and repeatedly find that, while the ideal positioning often changes with the conditions and pin placement, there are almost always a distinct advantages/disadvantages stemming from tee ball placement (or lack thereof.) It is just that rather than being dictated by green side bunkering or hazards, the advantage/disadvange is almost always dictated by subtle contours on or around the green. In other words, while it may be that a golfer might hit anywhere in the fairway and still have a reasonable chance of ending up on or around the green (as opposed to say, in a bunker, or deep rough) properly placing one's tee shot is necessary if one is to have a good chance accessing the pin on the next shot (be it, putt, pitch, chip or chip.)
So I guess my question is this: At Castle Stuart do you think it is possible that there exists a similar sort of subtle relationship between the green contours and placement off the tee? Again I haven't played the course, so I may be all wet on this but watching the tournament on t.v. it sure looked like angles mattered, even under pretty soft conditions and benign conditions (excepting the obvious of course.)
Thanks.