[David Kelly]

Pat:
What is your definition of "a bad golf course"?


And people complain that the quality of the topics and questions have gone down hill over the years !

Yeah Carl, don't ask for a definition of a bad golf course, stick to scintillating, high quality questions like are there bad golf courses on the ocean.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Kelly,

52 replies and 1,240 views would seem to indicate that the topic/question is more scintillating than most others, or hadn't you noticed those numbers.

Then I reviewed the last thirty (30) pages of topics and noticed that you hadn't contributed any scintillating topic/threads.

In fact, you hadn't contributed any topics/threads, not a single one in over thirty (30) pages.

Then, I went to the contributions section and saw that you haven't contributed a single penny to this site.
Not one measly dollar.

So before you open up your big mouth again,  try contributing something to this site, intellectually and financially.
Nothing scintillating mind you, just something interesting enough to garner 1,240+ views and 52+ replies.
And while you're trying to  think of something to contribute, you can send Ran a check to help support this site.
A "scintillating" check would be appreciated.

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

Speaking for myself, I can say that five (5) of those views of this post are my own, because I am always curious as to what kind of crazy sophism and/or evasion you will implore during the course of a given thread, and with your last response you certainly did not disappoint.  You have asked others on this thread to provide a rationale for their answer as to what constitutes a "bad" golf course.  It seems fair that you do the same.  It would help facilitate the discourse, as opposed to the defensive tirade that you chose to go on.

That notwithstanding, please put me in the camp that says "yes," there is a bad golf course on the ocean, as well as on bays and lakes (I am not going to identify any specific golf course, only answer the original question in the binary format in which it was posed), though I will say that my reasoning is primarily because I do not believe that bodies of water have any inherent impact on the physical structure/architecture of a golf course.  The soils and terrain that surround bodies of water may well be conducive to "good" golf, but it is hardly a guarantee.  I also believe the concept of "badness" to be such a personal matter that it is difficult to generalize outside of ones own opinion(s).  In other words, I'm just not sure what answering this question (even if it was posed better) actually accomplishes.  You seem to believe it is important, but won't tell us why.

[JMEvensky]

Then, I went to the contributions section and saw that you haven't contributed a single penny to this site.
Not one measly dollar.

Merely a sidebar to this pissing contest,but you shouldn't always assume that all contributors are listed. Some people like to make donations anonymously.

Now back to your regularly scheduled pissing contest.

[Tom Yost]

Pat,
At some stage it is possible to make a judgement without playing a course.  

I guess you could make a "judgement" about how a meal tastes based upon how it looks in a poster, or how a woman is in bed based upon a photo of her, but what credibility would you assign to those evaluations ?

Charles Blair Macdonald, on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift" expressed his opinion on your question, in the negative.
I don't see how you can evaluate the play of a course without ever seeing it.

I would be able to tell you that a course with 18 island greens would be bad without having played it, for example.  

That's a predisposed hypothetical where the assumption predetermines the outcome.
A hypothetical extreme doesn't make your case..

Likewise, It is reasonable to surmise that a course that has water bounding 18 holes and on 8 of those holes has water bounding both sides of the hole is bad without having to play the course.  

I don't think it is reasonable since you don't know if the water actually comes into play.
After all you're just looking at a schematic which may or may not be accurate.

Pat's right.  The schematic doesn't tell the whole story.  The holes not bounded by water on both sides have water on one side and houses on the other.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Yost,

Sort of like Pebble Beach ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Speaking for myself, I can say that five (5) of those views of this post are my own, because I am always curious as to what kind of crazy sophism and/or evasion you will implore during the course of a given thread, and with your last response you certainly did not disappoint.  You have asked others on this thread to provide a rationale for their answer as to what constitutes a "bad" golf course.

Steve,

You seem to think that David Kelly is so inept that he's incapable of speaking for and defending himself.
I'm sure he's more competent than you seem to give him credit for.

If you could read with a scintilla of comprehension you would see that I questioned the evaluations of those who had never played the course/s they were panning.  In other cases I inquired as to what made certain courses bad. 

It seems fair that you do the same.  It would help facilitate the discourse, as opposed to the defensive tirade that you chose to go on.
There was no defensive "tirade", and the use of the word "tirade" is simply your absurd, exaggerated attempt to misrepresent my responses, which were inquisitive in nature.  Your rush to defend David Kelly is typical of your responses where you add nothing to the dialogue and topic at hand.
I'm sure you remember your last absurd foray to defend an indefensible position.

As to deciding what's fair, when you initiate a thread, you can decide what is and what isn't fair as the responses roll in.
 

That notwithstanding, please put me in the camp that says "yes," there is a bad golf course on the ocean, as well as on bays and lakes (I am not going to identify any specific golf course, only answer the original question in the binary format in which it was posed), though I will say that my reasoning is primarily because I do not believe that bodies of water have any inherent impact on the physical structure/architecture of a golf course.  

That's interesting.  I wonder how many architects would consider an inland site the equal of an waterfront site ?

Have you ever been to and played Sebonack ?  Cypress Point ?  Pebble Beach ?
Does the ocean/bay add nothing to the play and architecture ?

Ask those who have played Sebonack what they thought as they approached the 11th, 12th and 15th greens, or how they felt when they teed off at #'s 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 17 and 18.  Or how nervous they were on their approach to # 1 or their tee shot on # 18.

How many times have you heard, on this site, "if Pebble Beach was in Kansas" ?

The soils and terrain that surround bodies of water may well be conducive to "good" golf, but it is hardly a guarantee.

I never said it was, why are you implying that I did ?

I also believe the concept of "badness" to be such a personal matter that it is difficult to generalize outside of ones own opinion(s).
I would tend to agree with that, although I do believe that there are certain standards that may be undeniable.

In other words, I'm just not sure what answering this question (even if it was posed better) actually accomplishes.  

What does answering any question on any thread on this website accomplish ?
It's a forum, a "discussion" group, nothing more.

You seem to believe it is important, but won't tell us why.

It's a topic of discussion, nothing more.
If you're not interested in the topic, don't read it, and more importantly, don't respond to it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()