News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2013, 10:50:42 AM »

The real reason is that there a not a bunch of well heeled, affluent, schmoozers like you Patrick that belong to the website out here on the left coast that can report on the old and renowned; and the best and new.

One only has to look at this reply/post to answer the question as to why the site has deteriorated.
It's posts like these that dilute the quality and integrity of the discussions.



Sorry Patrick, but that was just stating a fact, with perhaps a poor attempt at humor in referring to you as a schmoozer. In Portland for example, we don't have posters that belong to or have a high degree of access to Portland Golf Club and Waverly that could be reported on. Bill McBride had a "national" membership a Columbia Edgewater, and could report on it, but has dropped that for a few years since the economy went bad. But, yet we hear from you right coasters about members or access at Merion, Garden City, Winged Foot, etc. You yourself have quite good access to many clubs that our members on the left coast can only dream about having access to. If you are dismayed that we don't report on second tier clubs and courses out in the Pacific northwest than I think you are wrong. Many have been reported on, had photo tours, and often get recommended to people inquiring about traveling to Bandon. You yourself have gotten friends on Portland Golf Club and Waverly. Why don't you discuss? ;)

GJ,
It wasn't the word "schmoozers". It was the words "well heeled, affluent schmoozers" that I found objectionable.
It's indicative of resentment, envy and class warfare and has no place on this website.

As to access to "Merion, Garden City and Winged Foot, Chip Oat is a member of Merion, I'm a member of Garden City and Neal Regan is a member of Winged Foot and all of us are friends who met on GCA.com.  All of us would gladly extend invitations to each other because of our friendship and respect for one another.  In addition, all three of us have generously extended invitations to others whom we've met on this site, without ever having met them in person.  If you haven't been the recipient of any invitations perhaps introspection might help.

As to my access to clubs in the Northwest, I played at Portland CC in the 1999 USGA Sr Am.
I arranged for my surgeon to play a number of course in the Portland area thanks to another kind fellow I met on GCA.com.

So, In both cases, it had nothing to do with being a "well heeled, affluent schmoozer"

As to discussing "second tier" courses, I've discussed "Sandpines" and "Tokatee" on numerous occassions.

The fact is, there's a paucity of great to good courses worthy of discussion in the Northwest, when compared to the "right" coast, as you say.

But, California has an ample supply of courses worthy of discussion.

Rancho Santa Fe is certainly one of them.
Wilshire was another.
Sandpiper another, and I've initiated and participated in discussion on all of them.

So what's your problem.

P.S.  As to being "well heeled and affluent",  I never inherited a penny when my parents died, nor was I the benefactor of any trusts or gifts, during their lives or after their passing.  My parents provided me with a great education in and out of school.




Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2013, 12:15:24 PM »
Tom, I'm going to use quote bubbles here simply because you bring up a lot of points I believe need addressing. I don't want to make it seem like a debate, but more a healthy discussion.

Quote
I still don't think there are hundreds of courses worth restoring.  What's driving the restoration industry is desperation, on the part of many out-of-work architects, and vanity, on the part of many club members [WE have a DONALD ROSS course, too!].

100% on the desperation part and we can see the results of those that are using the gimmick of the word restoration to power the work they no longer have: RIVIERA is a perfect example, but now, I think the persons responsible for that mess see that there is only one way to disguise it and say its renovation, thus actually destroying the masterpiece they once had.  By chance, did you get to see any of that same person's work at Winged Foot? I did, and I was shocked, dismayed and saddened. What's worse is now we have Merion to mourn as well as the greatest course of the all--the very one that drive you and I to our love and passion for this great art--THE Old Course of St. Andrews, all done  by rank amateurs with little to no insight other then to strengthen. Its a dirty word.

But, I think your selling short those that would like to see their courses brought back to life by those that care and know where the greatness lies in the ground and know that there are the "right" people out there to get it back. I've met many a passionate and driven member that will go to no end to show his fellow members that they made mistakes and there is a place to recover from them. They are out there doing there best to get it done, even if it means getting lambasted as the club lunatic and treated harshly to the point of wanting to leave their club. But these are resilient people and they still fight on for architectural greatness at their club's. One of them is even a woman whose driven to restoring the greatness. I've got to tell you how impressive it is to see her in action!

Having people passionate about their golf courses and restoring the elements that made them fun and entertaining designs is a good thing I would think. They just need the right people to get it going. And once again, I disagree with you. I think every course with the name Raynor, Ross, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Bell, Watson, Macbeth, Egan, Macan, Dunn et. al. should be restored and we should be reading whats in the ground as a testament to the greatness.

Quote
I do think it's important to have a handful of examples of each architect's best work.  It's too bad that so many of the guys whose names you listed have had all of their work destroyed, and it's too bad that hardly anyone is out there trying to restore the best of it.  I've been to Woodland Hills and Palos Verdes CC, for example, and if they were once great courses, they've done a great job of hiding it between then and now ... neither would even get a 5 in The Confidential Guide today.

Tom, This is where both you and your book have failed. As much as that book inspired a lot of us and gave us the legs which to stand, there are many faults to the book; many courses where you didn't see all of the course, yet rated them. Also, the subject and the opinions are always varied. Look at us on this thread!

At the time you rated Lundin Golf Club I think it was a four or something well short of the mark. Then, you admitted to me on this very site that you only saw four holes! Yet, here on this fabled grounds were some of the most influential golf holes which Charles Blair Macdonald would use as inspiration for his designs in America, which you would later revisit and design a golf course in his honor using the same tools of inspiration.

Hmmmm? ? ? ? ? Inspiration? ? ? ? ? Maybe just maybe there is something to see and learn with these courses, or, are you shutting yourself off now to the learning process?  I hope not! I know I will never do that till the day I close my eyes.

You yourself have to admit that what existed at Lundin had devolved horribly, yet the bones were there to see the greatness of what Macdonald saw--I mean, come on! You even got Mike Kaiser and Uncle George Bahto to go there with you! 

And one can see this same thing at what is left of our West Coast courses. You have good people driven to make bring it out. I think it would be far better to help drive the industry of good people capable of doing the work--a positive for you then put it down. This is why all golf courses that any of us should see as worthy, deserve restoration. and most, honestly, do you really want to be the judge and juror to this?

Quote
If there was such a great legacy of golf architectural thought out west, I can't quite understand how all you enlightened west-coasters allowed it to be lost after the Depression, but that's another story.

Tom, How did Lido die? Timber Point and the others during this harrowing time in our world's history? When you say "enlightened west coasters" it makes me realize your smugness and arrogance, or what fame and success has done to you. I think I could, myself, go on any course in the world; on any coast in the world and appreciate the architecture at any level--its what I love and I used to think you did too. Now, I'm not so sure.

This makes it even more confusing when thinking that you used an open mind while writing the critical commentary in the Confidential Guide. Like I said earlier, there are many faults in that book. Still it remains one of my most prized because its not only a great book because of your insight on courses you did actually write about with passion but also allows me to now see exactly what you don't know and should. None of us are perfect! It also makes me appreciate Ran's write ups that much more.

Tom, I say this with all due respect and honesty: You have the power to influence many with your knowledge and intellect into the art. You educated me with your writings and our camaraderie in the past.  I'm pointing this stuff out to prove to you what you are seemingly no longer capable of seeing or simply don't want to see.  Just like our West Coast courses that only an assorted few can be seen in photographs and what little, but still valuable evidence that is still in the ground. That is after all the brain candy for guys like you and me--what's in the ground. The same use of what's in the ground at places like Palos Verdes and Woodland Hills. Its there.

Quote
Donald Ross and his associates (Ellis Maples, George McGovern, Orrin Smith, Walter Hatch, etc.)
C.B. Macdonald and his associates (Seth Raynor, Charles Banks)
A.W. Tillinghast
George C. Thomas (though he did only the one course out East)
Harry Colt
Hugh Alison
Alister MacKenzie
Perry Maxwell (and the Wood Brothers who built his courses)
George Crump
Herbert Leeds
William Fownes (and his superintendent)
Hugh Wilson
William Flynn (and his young associate, Dick Wilson)
Fred Hood
John Duncan Dunn
Walter Travis
Devereux Emmet
Wayne Stiles
John Van Kleek
Willie Park, Jr.
Robert White (one of Tom MacWood's faves - I have no clue if he designed anything or not)
Herbert Strong

I think this is really beside the point, though.  What matters is the courses that got in the ground, not who built them.  When you concentrate on who built them, you're projecting about the quality of the work, unless you've got the pictures to prove it.

Tom, There were a few points to listing. The main thing was to list how many of the same guys you listed, that I listed, and I didn't even put down Seth Raynor on purpose, despite two courses in Hawaii and no courses completed, only planned in California. You see, they moved out here; They settled here; they worked here and eventually died here, or close to died here. (In the case of Tillinghast who then moved in with is daughter in Ohio for the last year or two of his life) These minds of great influence in the classic Golf Architecture we love.

Compare out list, we have six, but you forgot Fowler and his masterful work at Eastward Ho! so that's seven; If I would have included Raynor or Allison (who was doing work in Japan and stayed out of California, simply because of MacKenzie, well, I think you can get my point. n some ways today its no different then you or Rees Jones in China, where you went were the work was or where it carried you. But in California, the all moved out here for various reasons. Hunter was teaching at Cal I believe, Thomas to grow roses year round; MacKenzie, whether it was to get out of town to evade a jealous husband or wife or simply because he saw a vast landscape that was worthy of great golf and could yield a crop like Cypress Point, Pasatiempo or The Valley Club.  You had a Max Behr, who was the most vocal if not influential voice with his Golf Illustrated magazine, who after losing his wife to Influenza, picked up his young son and daughter and moved out West and tarted finally getting to prove his theories in the ground. Tom we are talking some very bright and intellectual people that became "enlightened west coasters."

Some of these very same people would go on to write the most definitive books ever on the subject. Are you going to now discount them also?

The fact was it was getting done out here in the Enlightened West, Australia, Japan and even in Hawaii, then a depression, world war, redevelopment and simply old age and illness stop this movement dead in its tracks here in the United States. It ended faster then it got started with no one left to drive the car. And that's why it can barely be seen today. To me, that tragedy in golf is far more enlightening in what can happen. I've had a front row seat to see what is left being destroyed on a day to day basis every time Fazio's Tom Marzlotov gets off of a plane at LAX. And that's the point, what can you do to stop it!?!?

Quote
Just curious -- of all the NLE courses you listed, which of them do you think might have got a 7 or higher in The Confidential Guide if I'd seen them in their heyday?

Tom, if its O.K. with you, I'd like to take a brief rest here for a bit, not because I can't produce a list full of El Cabellero's and Royal Palms. I have to get some work done. But I promise that I will list for you all of the courses that were worthy, what is left and what will never be again, as well as how technology would have deemed a lot of them obsolete, even for an amateur.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2013, 12:21:18 PM »
Not sure why Chandler Egan hasn't been mentioned. 

Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2013, 12:25:24 PM »
Bill, I've mentioned him more then twice I think.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2013, 12:29:09 PM »
...
The fact is, there's a paucity of great to good courses worthy of discussion in the Northwest, when compared to the "right" coast, as you say.
...

Oregon, population 3,899,353
1. Pacific Dunes, Bandon ★ ♣ ♦
2. Bandon Dunes (pictured above), Bandon ★ ♣ ♦
3. Old MacDonald, Bandon ★ ♣ ♦
4. Bandon Trails, Bandon ★ ♣ ♦
5. Eugene C.C. Eugene ★
6. Pronghorn Club (Nicklaus), Bend ♣ ♦
7. Pronghorn Club (Fazio), Bend
8. Pumpkin Ridge G.C. (Witch Hollow), North Plains
9. Crosswater, Sunriver ♣ ♦
10. Portland G.C., Portland
11. Pumpkin Ridge G.C. (Ghost Creek), N. Plains ♣ ♦
12. Tetherow G.C., Bend ♣ ♦
13. Columbia-Edgewater C.C., Portland
14. Salishan Spa & G. Resort, Gleneden Beach ♦
15. Running Y Ranch, Klamath Falls ♦

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/oregon#ixzz2LB2RlhOH

New Jersey, population 8,864,590
1. Pine Valley G.C. (pictured above), Pine Valley ★
2. Baltusrol G.C. (Lower), Springfield ★
3. Baltusrol G.C. (Upper), Springfield ★
4. Plainfield C.C. Edison ★
5. Somerset Hills C.C., Bernardsville ★
6. Galloway National G.C., Galloway
7. Ridgewood C.C. (East/West), Paramus
8. Bayonne G.C., Bayonne
9. Liberty National G. Cse., Jersey City
10. Trump National G.C. Bedminster (Old), Bedminster
11. The Ridge at Back Brook, Ringoes
12. Mountain Ridge C.C., West Caldwell
13. Hidden Creek G.C., Egg Harbor Township
14. Trump National G.C. Bedminster (New), Bedminster
15. 15 Hamilton Farm G.C. (Highlands), Gladstone
16. Hollywood G.C., Deal
17. Metedeconk National G.C. (1st/3rd), Jackson
18. Trump National G.C. Philadelphia, Pine Hill
19. Atlantic City C.C., Northfield ♦
20. Trump National G.C. Colts Neck, Colts Neck

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/new_jersey#ixzz2LB2lzP7k


Given these ratings from Golf Digest, it may be that the paucity is actually in New Jersey, with twice the population of Oregon. ;D

Also, the Oregon courses seem to get far more discussion than the New Jersey ones, putting the premise of your thread in severe doubt. ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #55 on: February 17, 2013, 12:30:52 PM »
Tommy,

While you are gracing us with your presence, perhaps you can enlighten us travelling snobs as to which courses between LA and the Mexican border other than Barona Creek that we should make a special effort to see?

Jud,
Tell you what, give me a bit and I'll give you a good list of courses which to see; hopefully even maybe a chance for a beer or two if the schedules work out.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #56 on: February 17, 2013, 12:34:14 PM »
Jud,

Rancho Santa Fe would be one

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #57 on: February 17, 2013, 01:55:51 PM »
Bill, I've mentioned him more then twice I think.

Sorry, missed it in that long list.  He certainly did some excellent work. 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #58 on: February 17, 2013, 05:10:11 PM »
GJ,

I don't want to burst your bubble, but, after the first top 3 or 4 courses, the rest wouldn't make top 50 in the greater Met area.

There are so many courses that you never heard of that are good to great.

Just in NJ, courses like Essex County, The Knoll, Alpine, Montclair, Preakness Hills, Canoe Brook, Morris County, Woodcrest, Tavistock, etc., etc..
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 05:11:53 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #59 on: February 17, 2013, 06:52:22 PM »
GJ,

I don't want to burst your bubble, but, after the first top 3 or 4 courses, the rest wouldn't make top 50 in the greater Met area.

There are so many courses that you never heard of that are good to great.

Just in NJ, courses like Essex County, The Knoll, Alpine, Montclair, Preakness Hills, Canoe Brook, Morris County, Woodcrest, Tavistock, etc., etc..


I've played or seen most every course in the Portland area, as well as seen a lot of them in the MET and I would agree.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2013, 08:57:28 PM »
GJ,

I don't want to burst your bubble, but, after the first top 3 or 4 courses, the rest wouldn't make top 50 in the greater Met area.

There are so many courses that you never heard of that are good to great.

Just in NJ, courses like Essex County, The Knoll, Alpine, Montclair, Preakness Hills, Canoe Brook, Morris County, Woodcrest, Tavistock, etc., etc..


I've played or seen most every course in the Portland area, as well as seen a lot of them in the MET and I would agree.

Perhaps you two missed the state population comparison. And, it was a state comparison, not a metropolitan area comparison. I am perfectly willing to concede the Portland metropolitan area definitely lacks in comparison to the New York City metropolitan area.

Do you stack the deck when you play cards too Patrick?

Why don't you keep it in on topic, and discuss why you can list so many courses from back east that don't get discussed?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2013, 09:11:43 PM »

... It was the words "well heeled, affluent schmoozers" that I found objectionable.
It's indicative of resentment, envy and class warfare and has no place on this website.

Envy and class warfare? Really? Which part of ;D didn't you understand? Why do you choose to quote without the ;D context?

...If you haven't been the recipient of any invitations perhaps introspection might help.

I've had the invitations, so I don't think introspection is necessary. You've had many suggest you should be removed from the website. So where is the introspection necessary? ;D


...
P.S.  As to being "well heeled and affluent",  I never inherited a penny when my parents died, nor was I the benefactor of any trusts or gifts, during their lives or after their passing.  My parents provided me with a great education in and out of school.
[/color]


P.S. Since when does well heeled and affluent mean inheritance and trust benefactor?  ??? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are well heeled and affluent aren't they?

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #62 on: February 17, 2013, 09:41:33 PM »

... It was the words "well heeled, affluent schmoozers" that I found objectionable.
It's indicative of resentment, envy and class warfare and has no place on this website.

Envy and class warfare? Really? Which part of ;D didn't you understand? Why do you choose to quote without the ;D context?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the phrase, "what truth there be in jest".
I saw the  ;D, but it didn't override your words


...If you haven't been the recipient of any invitations perhaps introspection might help.

I've had the invitations, so I don't think introspection is necessary.

That's contradictory to your post # 20 where you complained about being unable to gain access



You've had many suggest you should be removed from the website. So where is the introspection necessary? ;D

To be accurate, "many" didn't suggest my removal, only a disgruntled few with bloody noses. ;D



...
P.S.  As to being "well heeled and affluent",  I never inherited a penny when my parents died, nor was I the benefactor of any trusts or gifts, during their lives or after their passing.  My parents provided me with a great education in and out of school.
[/color]

P.S. Since when does well heeled and affluent mean inheritance and trust benefactor?  ??? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are well heeled and affluent aren't they?

The inference was there
In addition you never mentioned Gates or Buffet in order to give your words context.

But, at the core, you knew what you were doing, you were personalizing the thread and adding a derogatory flavor to the thread.

And by doing so you added nothing to the value of the thread, rather, you detracted from it.



Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2013, 09:59:58 PM »
GJ,

I don't want to burst your bubble, but, after the first top 3 or 4 courses, the rest wouldn't make top 50 in the greater Met area.

There are so many courses that you never heard of that are good to great.

Just in NJ, courses like Essex County, The Knoll, Alpine, Montclair, Preakness Hills, Canoe Brook, Morris County, Woodcrest, Tavistock, etc., etc..


I've played or seen most every course in the Portland area, as well as seen a lot of them in the MET and I would agree.

Perhaps you two missed the state population comparison. And, it was a state comparison, not a metropolitan area comparison.

We didn't miss anything.
As long as you're comparing states, compare the size of the two states.
Until a Midwesterner in the form of Mike Keiser came along recently, there really was a paucity of good courses.
Take away the courses at Bandon and there's not a single course that makes the top 20


I am perfectly willing to concede the Portland metropolitan area definitely lacks in comparison to the New York City metropolitan area.


Forget the New York City area, the little dinky town of West Orange, NJ had more good courses than Portland.

Essex County East
Essex County West
Crestmont
Essex Fells
Rock Spring
Montclair 1&2
Montclair 3&4
Mountain Ridge


Do you stack the deck when you play cards too Patrick?

No and no need to stack the deck.
You're just in the dark when it comes to the abundance of courses, good to great courses in the greater NY area


Why don't you keep it in on topic, and discuss why you can list so many courses from back east that don't get discussed?
Because most want to discuss the recognizable icons, not the neat hidden gems that abound in the area.
And more have played those popular icons rather than the hidden gems, so for discussion purposes, they may not gain much traction, although The Knoll, Essex County and others were discussed in detail, you probably skipped over those threads as the names didn't catch your attention. ;D



Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2013, 10:14:59 PM »
...
That's contradictory to your post # 20 where you complained about being unable to gain access
...

Back to grammar school for you for the learning of the English language.
I might be forced to conclude that you have a guilty conscience that would bring you to make such a statement.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #65 on: February 17, 2013, 10:16:39 PM »
Tommy:

That's a great list of courses, and I have really no sense of any of them.  It would be great if you could document one or two here and how good they really were.

As someone with 2 1/2 NLE's to my own credit -- High Pointe [which may still return!], Beechtree, and Apache Stronghold which gets the 1/2 credit -- I can say that it's possible that you are projecting a bit more onto those courses than they deserve.  All three of mine were cool golf courses, or even very cool golf courses.  But none of them would have made the short list of the best courses in metropolitan NYC or California, for anybody except a real golf architecture junkie like ourselves.  You've probably listed a bunch of others in the same category.  I didn't know there were that many.

Tom, tell me there's a real chance that High Pointe may live again! Please!

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #66 on: February 17, 2013, 10:37:37 PM »
...

The inference was there
In addition you never mentioned Gates or Buffet in order to give your words context.

But, at the core, you knew what you were doing, you were personalizing the thread and adding a derogatory flavor to the thread.

And by doing so you added nothing to the value of the thread, rather, you detracted from it.



Warren Buffet is mentioned in every one of my posts. ;) Check it out.
You are the one personalizing the thread with what seems to be a guilty reaction to a jest. You made an inference that was not implied other than in apparently your mind.

The point still stands. We don't have a member of this website that belongs to the toniest old clubs in the Portland area to report on or discuss them. That is a serious statement attempting to answer your question about why there might be a lack of the discussion you are seeking.

How could a playful suggestion that you fund a Portland area member so he could get membership or access be taken as derogatory is beyond me. I didn't suggest you fund me, because I could care less. So much for your class warfare nonsense.

In a following post you write:

"most want to discuss the recognizable icons, not the neat hidden gems that abound in the area.
And more have played those popular icons rather than the hidden gems"

So it seems to me that you have answered the whole question that you started the thread with.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #67 on: February 17, 2013, 10:48:34 PM »
GJ,

This post isn't about courses in the Portland area.
If you'd like to start one, feel free to do so

I've started and participated on threads about Tokatee and Sandpines.

In addition, Astoria has often been mentioned.

I started this thread about WEST COAST COURSES

RANCHO SANTA FE in particular.

You want to discuss courses in the Portland area, so start a thread on them.

You've diverted the thread, not me.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #68 on: February 17, 2013, 11:06:24 PM »
Out of curiosity, how many GCA-ers have actually played Rancho Santa Fe in the past 2 years? 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #69 on: February 17, 2013, 11:18:32 PM »
Out of curiosity, how many GCA-ers have actually played Rancho Santa Fe in the past 2 years? 

I haven't

But, I haven't played Merion in the last two years either


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #70 on: February 17, 2013, 11:19:59 PM »
GJ,

This post isn't about courses in the Portland area.
If you'd like to start one, feel free to do so

I've started and participated on threads about Tokatee and Sandpines.

In addition, Astoria has often been mentioned.

I started this thread about WEST COAST COURSES

RANCHO SANTA FE in particular.

You want to discuss courses in the Portland area, so start a thread on them.

You've diverted the thread, not me.

Back to grammar school again for you since Portland would certainly be considered to be "west coast" if Rancho Santa Fe is.
I don't see you telling Tommy to go start a thread on California courses since that is what he knows best.

I don't see why you keep diverting your thread with your particular peccadilloes.

Also, when did Sandpines and Tokatee get promoted to 2nd tier? ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2013, 03:02:15 PM »
Tommy,

Great to see you here. Stop by more often!

That said, I don't think Tom D "failed" with his book (The Confidential Guide), anymore than you failed here at GCA or its predecessor Tradionalgolf.com.

Both were breakouts from the prevailing culture surrounding the golf course industry in which it wasn't ok the offer any criticism of the product. You and Tom were leaders encouraging change. We are thankful for that. I still remember that wonderful day when you gave your "tough love" speech to the brass at Yale. Wow, that was priceless.

Honestly, Tom probably showed even more courage with the CG. After all, he intended to make his living in the business. I can tell you from my oil industry experience, criticizing the powers that be is often pretty risky, especially if your paycheck can take a hit.
Tim Weiman

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2013, 03:35:10 PM »
Tim,

I think there is a difference.

You can't present a comprehensive analysis of a golf course when you've only seen four of the 18 holes on a golf course.

That's intellectual dishonesty.

I'd agree that it was a landmark book, probably the first to provide critical analysis of golf courses and their architecture, and I think it set the tone and standard by which golf courses are now judged.

And, I agree that it took a lot of "chutzpah" for Tom to come out with it.
It was a ballsy move and he took a big risk, but, that's what he believed in and he should be congratulated and commended for same.

Certainly a variation on Gary Player's method of describing courses. ;D

Never forget that we're all ignorant, ............just on different subjects.

And, that just because we're good to great in one area, doesn't mean that we sing well in the shower too ! ;D

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2013, 06:29:21 PM »
Pat,

I stand by my main point that Tom Doak and Tommy Naccarato both made a major contribution to understanding golf architecture, Tom with his landmark book and Tommy via the Internet. The big picture of their contribution should not be lost with any minor criticism.

In fairness, I don't think Tom ever claimed he played or walked every hole at every course included in the Confidential Guide. Ditto for Tommy who took liberty - and I am glad he did - criticizing big name architects ( e.g., Fazio, Rees Jones, Etc.) without ever seeing much of their work.

Their contribution was getting us to think critically and, honestly, we are all better for what  Tom and Tommy did.
Tim Weiman

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2013, 07:10:42 PM »
Tim,

I think there is a difference.

You can't present a comprehensive analysis of a golf course when you've only seen four of the 18 holes on a golf course.

That's intellectual dishonesty.

Here's my supposedly "intellectually dishonest" review of Lundin Links from 1994:

"Really half a links; the first five and last four holes were part of the original Innerleven course, along with the seaside holes from Leven GC down the shore, with play commencing from either end of the links.  The course extension, which lies partway up a hill facing the Firth of Forth, is of different character than the old holes.  Best of the lot is the 18th, a long two-shotter up a depression in the dunes to the old clubhouse.  3.  [7/82]"

Everything in that review is factual and honest.  Tommy takes me to task because he disagrees with the rating assigned to the course; and I would agree, having seen the course twice more, that I underrated it.  [The same is true for a few courses I saw in Scotland ... it was hard to put a number to the lesser courses, right on the heels of living in St. Andrews and North Berwick.]  I was there on a Sunday in July, 1982, when I couldn't caddie at St. Andrews because The Old Course was closed, and it was too busy for me to play, so I walked as much as I could without getting in people's way.  Unfortunately, I missed the two or three really good holes at the start which would have made my opinion of the course higher; but it's still only a 5, maybe a 6 if you are being really generous and ignoring the inland half of the course, which is WAY inferior.  I haven't even gone back and looked at those inland holes on my last two trips, so I don't want to be dishonest ... I wonder if Tommy N. has? 

Just because Macdonald took a couple of ideas from Leven makes it important to Tommy, but it does not make those particular holes any more compelling for the traveling golfer to visit today.  If you, Patrick, played the 15th hole you probably wouldn't even realize it was the genesis of the 17th at National, because it only played that way when Macdonald was using the old equipment in the 1870's; the hazards that made the hole interesting are less than 150 yards off the tee.  And it wasn't until my second walk-through with George years later, that I recognized the tee shot on the 17th hole to be the genesis of the drive on 16 at National, which Macdonald never mentioned anywhere ... but again, you have to visualize it playing a gutty ball, today you drive it 50 yards past the crown of the fairway.

Intellectually dishonest?  Tommy's argument is more intellectually dishonest than my book.  There are 800 courses in the book and I said right up front I didn't play them all, and for some I didn't walk every hole.  But for the vast majority, I walked every bit of them, and on the ones I didn't, there's nothing in the reviews that's dishonest.