[Jim Nugent]

Which of his courses do you think deserves to be in the World Top 100 and why?  

I'm not qualified to say, as I've only played two: both courses at Pelican Hill, back in the early/mid 1990s.  My pre-GCA days, but also my playing days.  At the time I felt they were ok, but not special.  Attractively laid out, but not so much substance.  

That's a pretty common knock on Fazio here.  It lines up with my only two experiences.  Just like the RTJ courses I've seen or played (Bellerive, Old Warson) pretty well line up with what I read about his courses here.  

My real point was/is that the courses that make up the world top 100 lists also tend to be the ones GCAers like.  RTJ and Fazio have few if any of these courses.  Guys like Doak, C&C, MacKenzie, CBM, Tillie, etc. have lots of them.  No surprise that they get more discussion here.  

RTJ's rep here is mostly as the guy who helped GCA take a wrong turn, that lasted for decades.  Fazio's rep is a guy who too often features form over substance, even though he clearly has the talent to do otherwise.  Both those match up well with my experiences with them.    

[Jim Nugent]

The critics wanted to hate Dismal River before it was ever grassed.  

I never picked up on that, though the course took criticism after it opened.  The various owners took a lot of the criticism to heart.  They made changes to Dismal, almost from the start, for years.  Suggesting the critics were not so off base.  

Why do you say they hated it before the course opened?  

[Jason Thurman]

I always would've though Jim Engh would've done the Sharknado of golf courses.

As for courses that undergo significant evolution in the five years after opening, I think of them more as the Chinese Democracy of golf courses, only if Chinese Democracy were released in 1998 and then remixed, rerecorded, and remastered continuously and publicly until the finished product was stamped ten years later. Perhaps Sharknado will undergo a similar evolution. I really enjoyed the film and its campiness, but there's a fine line between campy and just plain awful CGI. I'd love to see them remaster it with better computer animation and more stock footage, but the same fantastic continuity gaps and surrealist sensibility.

Two problems: Engh hasn't built anything 91% fresh and Chinese Democracy was developed under the guise of great expectations from the critics. The critics wanted to hate Dismal River before it was ever grassed.  Collect call for Thomas Dunne...the 80's wants your reviews back.

Good point. Maybe Dismal River White has more in common with Exile on Main Street. I actually like that comparison a lot better. Both were built by highly influential artists who always seems to play second fiddle to a contemporary (speaking of Nicklaus the architect, and obviously not Nicklaus the golfer). Both are heavily influenced by genres that aren't typical of their creator - Exile with its gospel and soul undertones and Dismal with its naturalist prairie influence in the work of one of the great parkland architects of the modern era. And both have become better over time, Dismal with its tinkering and Exile with its remasterings that have really improved the listening experience.

As for Engh, the real problem seems to be a lack of self-awareness. Sharknado knows exactly what it is. Engh doesn't seem as sure. My CGI complaint in Sharknado is minor, and it's possible the film's charm would've been destroyed had they listened to me. Engh, on the other hand, probably would've had the sharks hand-animated in beautiful and lush impressionistic tones. They'd have been lovely works of art that just didn't fit.

[Andrew Buck]

Jim,

I honestly haven't played most of Fazio's higher ranked courses.  I really enjoyed TPC Myrtle Beach, it's one of the better courses on the Strand IMO, and think he did a solid job at the Glen Club with a literally dead flat airfield.  After a number of plays I find Conway Farms to be a bit contrived.  I enjoyed Wynn Las Vegas in 105 degree heat which was a decent effort given the amount of real estate he had (even if I have a bit of a soft spot for the old Desert Inn course).  Which of his courses do you think deserves to be in the World Top 100 and why?  

I'm going to open myself up to scorn by sharing my perception which is based way too much on personal anecdotal evidence influenced by the courses I've played, and my age at the time.  

I feel like Fazio did a lot to prepare us for the Doak and C&C's of the world.  For my taste, Pete Dye put out much more thoughtful and strategic designs, however by the late 1980's his work was becoming stereotyped by the stadium feel, and I think Fazio broke from that to provide courses that appeared more natural, even if they weren't.  My first trip around Crooked Stick and Conway Farms were only months apart, but I can tell you Conway Farms stuck out to me more.  It was more innovative and fun to me at that time.  It also appeared more natural (even though it really isn't).  I think a lot of Fazio's work around that time, Black Diamond, World Woods, etc. seemed new and natural by comparison to the trends of the day.

I didn't play much golf from 1996 - 1999, and I remember really being excited to play the fazio course on a trip to treetops, but coming away extremely disappointed.  It felt soulless and uninspiring.  Looking back, Conway is a bit contrived as well, but that's seen much more clearly after we've actually seen GCA's implement minimalism in a naturalistic way, something few had seen in the 40 years leading up to that 1985-1993 phase.  I give Fazio credit for much of his work in that 1985 - 1993 timeframe, as I think it did subtly redirect things, or at very least prepare the unwashed masses (me) for the minimalism that has come into vogue.

Ironically, now I see some of Dye's newer courses as much more in line with nature, but not sure if that's my evolving views and perceptions, or a shift in his work from the 80's to later works.

I will now refresh and reread my groundbreaking statement 50 times in hopes you all like me!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I often see newbs come on here proclaiming their love for some non favored course, and quickly find they are out of step.  I recall doing the same thing myself, and also seeing many other architects come on here only to find the popular discussion topics are pretty limited.

BTW, I agree the top dogs generally deserve their accolades.  On the other hand, every critique of RTJ or Fazio probably stems from having done too many courses, perhaps being repetitive or inconsistent out of the box.  (That's a problem 99% of architects would LOVE to have!)

I do find myself wondering when and if that natural process of the same guys who built up the top archies reputations start the process of tearing it down.  It happens, to politicians, architects, whatever.   That said, I feel (just a gut feel, no real backup) that some of the rest of the world will move on, and this site would be the last to catch on to the next hot architect.

I have heard snippets of "C and C are getting repetitive" and just a few about Doak greens (they treat you like a baby treats a diaper.....oh wait, I wrote that one.....) but I haven't seen the process really accelerate.  That said, I wonder if/when it will.  If RTJ greens got critiqued/remodeled as too severe, why won't that happen to TD?

There may be some reasons.  Certainly, TD has had the best run of sites ever, and both firms are different than the big names of the past in that most of their projects seem to be golf only, rather than golf/housing that other big names get stuck with for marketing reasons.  For that matter, those two firms are the first to build their fan base via the internet, vs. magazines, which is also a big differentiator.

So again, there are reasons why they have stayed on top.  Obviously, some things never change (i.e., no archie stays on top forever) while other things in this new age have changed quite a bit. 

Back on topic, I also find myself wondering about the level of discussion here.  We really don't discuss architecture all that much.  Just try an esoteric question and you get five responses, tops.  Talk about a Doak or a classic and it goes for months or years.  In other words, for all the potential for intelligent discussion (and there is lots of it) it in many cases, this website turns into an internet version of some travel blog, with name dropping, course counting, etc.  I will grant its hard to discuss courses you haven't played, and even harder for most to discuss architectural concepts in depth. 

In fact, architectural concepts is where I think the real silence begins on this board, even moreso than in discussing different architects. 

[Grant Saunders]

Back on topic, I also find myself wondering about the level of discussion here.  We really don't discuss architecture all that much.  Just try an esoteric question and you get five responses, tops.  Talk about a Doak or a classic and it goes for months or years.  In other words, for all the potential for intelligent discussion (and there is lots of it) it in many cases, this website turns into an internet version of some travel blog, with name dropping, course counting, etc.  I will grant its hard to discuss courses you haven't played, and even harder for most to discuss architectural concepts in depth. 

In fact, architectural concepts is where I think the real silence begins on this board, even moreso than in discussing different architects. 

Jeff

I had been thinking very similar thoughts to what you have posted here since I saw this thread. You have however, managed to put it into words far better than I could have articulated.

I have played very few of what would be considered great courses (even in my own country) so it is often difficult to find something to contribute to the many multi page threads based around the usual suspects. On the occasion where I have commented it has been done so based on photos which is heavily frowned upon.

Architectural concepts are something which I can ponder and have started several threads in recent times about such things. One of which (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56128.msg1302399.html#msg1302399) you where kind enough to weigh in on. It dosent require a person to have notched up a certain number of high ranking courses to discuss concepts and examples can often be found in unexpected places.

I wonder if perhaps part of the issue is a reluctance/inability to visualise ideas as opposed to reacting to what is seen. It is far easier to look at something and decide whether you like or dislike it. It is much tougher to apply your own thoughts and build images without points of reference. Based on that, it is far more likely for discussion to take place on physical encounters versus theories. It is this tendency that would limit most people on this board from actually being able to design a course yet they can form strong opinions having played or seen something.

[Mike_Young]

How many active posters on this board make a living out of the golf industry? I'm going to say a lot. Remain "silent" or neutral or your bound to offend someone.

And, Jeff, I think most agree that a handful of designers out there today have produced so many top quality golf courses (and comparatively few clunkers) that they have earned the luxury of having people on this board assume their work will be quality. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about this concept yet, increasingly, people moan about it when people get excited about their courses.

B-
I've never worried about offending anyone

But let me stir some stuff....
I give the guys you mention above their due...The TD's or the BC's especially because they did not grow up in the business and because they did not develop their "expertise" by playing the game at a national or world championship level for 80 hours a week and having time for design on the side.  One chooses early to seek out the top sites and develop his craft on such.  That's admirable.  Yet developing one's "expertise" from housing projects that had multi-million dollar advertising budgets and unmaintainable maintenance budgets brings questions.  Now having said that....as a regional architect I'm not intimidated by any of the above, especially the player/designers.  I think the architecture trade is much like lawyers or doctors....F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochran may be national names but I would wager each of you knows a local lawyers that is better.  Take plastic surgeons...doo you become the best by going to Beverly Hills or do you become known as the best because you can find the clients that make you famous there?  I guarantee you there are four plastic surgeons in Athens that can perform as well as any in Beverly Hills but they don't have that famous patient list.  And the list goes on on whether it be knee replacements or penile enlargements.  
And so...many of us regional guys are fine with our deal.  I don't expect a site like this to know my work or that of many others....
I sort of look at it like this.  Let's say there are 600 signature level courses being played today.  And let's say they average 30,000 rounds each.  That's 18 million rounds per year out of a total of 480 million rounds played in the USA.  
The other interesting fact I see on this site is the number of experts it has created due to the low entry requirements  necessary to become a GCA expert.  There is nothing I enjoy more as an architect than watching a 90 year old players roll the ball down one of my courses and actually enjoy playing it.  I know he understands the game and enjoys the game for the sport.  I would sit and listen to him.  But I have played with some of the experts that sare on this site and expound on the bump and run and course strategies etc and yet they haven't even taken the time to learn to grip a club.  I'm sorry but I don't buy into the hacker as a GCA expert and that's not the same as a weak player as a GCA expert.  OK that's enough....

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,


A few years ago we saw a transition from "authors" to "photographers" and the site lost its depth.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,


A few years ago we saw a transition from "authors" to "photographers" and the site lost its depth.

Wow, I got slammed from my closest friends for that very opinion, I just didn't say it so well.

[archie_struthers]

 

Ok , I'll bite , although I may be a bit prejudiced by my personal history.  

I love Eric Bergstols's Bayonne!  It's fabulous , particularly given how the site isn't that big.   I'm also not  buying into the minimalist deal is harder to design than what he did .  To make it look natural by moving the dirt  is surely harder in many respects.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ok , I'll bite , although I may be a bit prejudiced by my personal history.  

I love Eric Bergstols's Bayonne!  It's fabulous , particularly given how the site isn't that big.   I'm also not  buying into the minimalist deal is harder to design than what he did .  To make it look natural by moving the dirt  is surely harder in many respects.

Archie,

I've often said that Bayonne is a modern wonder of the golf world.

Incredibly creative, especially when you consider that everything on that site is imported.

[Matt MacIver]

I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie.  With all the talk on here evidently there are several around the world, I hope I'm lucky enough to play a few, because I don't want to lower my (uninformed) standards.

I've been under-whelmed by two of my three C&C courses: Dormie and Chechesee.  I loved B Trails.

One of my favorite threads the last ten years here was John's in-depth, well written and highly participated Riviera v. Sand Hills thread.

[John Kavanaugh]

Matt,

Thank you. I will be the first to admit that my well seems to have run dry. There is no complicated theory. It just happens.

[Ben Sims]

In other words, for all the potential for intelligent discussion (and there is lots of it) it in many cases, this website turns into an internet version of some travel blog, with name dropping, course counting, etc.  I will grant its hard to discuss courses you haven't played, and even harder for most to discuss architectural concepts in depth. 

In fact, architectural concepts is where I think the real silence begins on this board, even moreso than in discussing different architects. 

Click, boom.  As much as I disagree with you on much Jeff, this is a very insightful couple of sentences.  I think we confuse the desire to travel, experience, and talk about golf courses as discussion of architecture. 

The spiral of silence also applies on that thought.  There's not much true architecture discussion going on because it doesn't get traffic.  The juice isn't worth the squeeze. 

On a side note, it's interesting who is posting on this thread.

--break break--

Mike,

I call you a conspicuous dissenter because you're slow to deal in idealism and the accompanying BS.  Take that title as you will; it's not meant to be negative.  Sometimes seeing the forest for the trees pisses people off.  I hate that about people.  Telling the truth is looked at as being pessimistic. 

The other point I'd like to make is that there is a business component to all of this.  Negative statements about a golf course or a given architect have the potential to impact business.  Also, it's well documented here how beneficial a position on one of the magazine's list can be from a business perspective.  There's a lot of raters on here. 

Unrelated, I like how you phrased your sentence about the 90-year-old.  Mahaffey told me once that "it's complicated, but it ain't rocket science."  Or something close to that.  I think there's wisdom beyond the face value of that statement. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

"Mahaffey told me once that "it's complicated, but it ain't rocket science."  

I have heard that more than a few times in this biz.  

On the other hand, I recall playing in an ASGCA meeting with the late Bruce Borland.  I actually taught Bruce at U of I, got him a job at Killian and Nugent, but after I left, he went to work for JN.  Nicest guy on earth, and I recall having many deep discussions on architecture with him.  

However, that day, soon after he went to work for JN, when I asked questions or critiqued things on the course we were playing, he kept repeating a mantra of "that doesn't lay out "like it oughta" and other vague responses.  I kidded him that now that he was working for a big name, that he seemed to have gone to some training to make golf design seem a lot more difficult than it really is.  

If you think about it, all the big names (including other fields, like FL Wright) sort of base their marketing on flowerly words and concepts that make it sound as if they are getting it straight from God or something!  And their tidbits enlighten us who are mere mortal men.  

The Brauer's and Youngs of the world are pretty much straightforward comment kind of guys, which doesn't sell beans, as our more meager resumes will attest.

Ask RTJ about green contouring and you might have gotten a long answer, which really didn't say all that much clearly.  TD has a little of that in him, but frankly, he is an intelligent writer for this biz and can articulate some concepts pretty well for the interested reader.

Ask me or Mike, and we might say something like, "Well, first, it has to drain two directions, and if I am not limited in green size by budget, it can get a bit bigger and only then can I do a few cool things."  Intriguingly, I thought Fazio's book was pretty straightforward, in that he sort of revealed many things in an almost dissapointingly simple way - i.e. the contour comment above, or "I don't put too many bunkers on the right side of the green because it would be too difficult."

Well, I guess that architecture writing critique is really a whole 'nother thread.  That said, when we do post such things, its usually "what books should my snooty golf library contain?"  (okay, my snippy take on the typical question, but not too far off)

[Jeff_Brauer]

From time to time, I do try hard to frame a question in pure architectural thought here, but it usually gets back to "Hole X at Tiddly Links kind of does that" and so forth, which is still a travel log more than a thought.  

A few guys can post on those topics, but even then, I find that sometimes they are just parroting an old gca book, and chime in "If Ross wrote it, who are you to question it?"  Which, in a way, is still celebrity worship instead of real architectural discussion, no?  I mean, is quoting someone else really a thoughtful discussion on gca principles?

I often think to myself, you know, Ross was good and all, but even he had to get something wrong once in a while, no?  Is it wrong to suggest that?  

Or that things can change in 90 years, at least in detail if not guiding principles?  

If we think gca should never change, maybe this should be the golf architecture nostalgia board......

[Tom_Doak]

I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie.

Actually that puts you at three (assuming that TOC is in St. Andrews and not Kiawah).  If St. Andrews is not a 10 maybe your opinion is not so humble!

[Sean_A]

I've not played a perfect 10 (IMHO) and I've played TOC, #2, Bethpage Black, Pac Dunes, Carnoustie.

Actually that puts you at three (assuming that TOC is in St. Andrews and not Kiawah).  If St. Andrews is not a 10 maybe your opinion is not so humble!

I thought the theory of Doak 10 (not Bo 10) was debunked or at least shown to be a 9 with an added something which Doak admires and not a course where missing one hole means the world .  If I could only find that thread...

Ciao  

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff,

In debating, one of the greatest tests is supporting and opinion that you clearly don’t agree with. The reason it remains a great test is because you must consider the alternative. The gift it provides for the debater is all the facts have to be considered fairly. If you’re open-minded, it can make you question a stance or soften some of your strongest positions.

A discussion is a give and take proposition where ideas are shared, dissected and both learn something from each other. Not everyone comes here for a discussion.

[Tom Dunne]

I always would've though Jim Engh would've done the Sharknado of golf courses.

As for courses that undergo significant evolution in the five years after opening, I think of them more as the Chinese Democracy of golf courses, only if Chinese Democracy were released in 1998 and then remixed, rerecorded, and remastered continuously and publicly until the finished product was stamped ten years later. Perhaps Sharknado will undergo a similar evolution. I really enjoyed the film and its campiness, but there's a fine line between campy and just plain awful CGI. I'd love to see them remaster it with better computer animation and more stock footage, but the same fantastic continuity gaps and surrealist sensibility.

Two problems: Engh hasn't built anything 91% fresh and Chinese Democracy was developed under the guise of great expectations from the critics. The critics wanted to hate Dismal River before it was ever grassed.  Collect call for Thomas Dunne...the 80's wants your reviews back.

I don't really know what this means--especially the 1980s reference--but I already suspect I'm better off continuing to add to the spiral of silence.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

In debating, one of the greatest tests is supporting and opinion that you clearly don’t agree with. The reason it remains a great test is because you must consider the alternative. The gift it provides for the debater is all the facts have to be considered fairly. If you’re open-minded, it can make you question a stance or soften some of your strongest positions.

A discussion is a give and take proposition where ideas are shared, dissected and both learn something from each other. Not everyone comes here for a discussion.

Ian,
So true...

Ben,
I never was offended by the title of dissenter.
What offends me most often on this site is the aura of the enlightened and how enlightenment only comes to the left. I see it every day in Athens.  And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.  
As you know I live in an idealistic valued town.  It is the most liberal town in the SE USA.  I mean we have it all when it comes to being cool.  We have gay preachers and choir directors. We have little girls from affluent Atlanta suburbs ("townies") dressed in black with old black dogs enrolled in art school and yet can't draw a stick figure.  We have rock stars that bath with rocks instead of water.  We have coffee shops that only serve coffee beans that weren't picked by starving pygmies.  We have restaurants that serves squares of tofu in place of eggs.  I mean we go tit all when it comes to idealism and cool.   BUT the one thing that stands out the most to me in this college town when it comes to all of the cool stuff is intelligence.  So many of these gullible kids and adults with average or less than average intelligence feel that the best and most efficient way to be accepted and viewed as inteiligensia is to spout idealism and liberalism.  They become a member of the local herd and can never discuss anything.  It becomes cool to look at realist etc as stupid rednecks.  I see it everyday.  But I came here because it was sport.  It's like hunting in a baited field or fishing in a stocked pond to live in a town like Athens and watch these idealist and confuse them.  Many are good friends and we accept each other but even they admit that so many of their ranks go idealist to look smart and be accepted at the scooter store.

[JC Jones]

 And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.  

Mike,

Im not sure where you're going with this.  You made this political by starting the thread with a political article.  We also get that, to you, liberalism is pie in the sky, head in the clouds, ignorant idealism.  What is hilarious is that the politics you claim to be yours are actually.......liberalism.  So perhaps you should use a different term to describe all the people you view as "not intelligent".

Conservative victimhood went out of fashion a long time ago.  We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs.  What I don't get is how such a realist capitalist as yourself doesn't fully embrace Golfnow.com and other pressures on the golf business that the free-market so clearly wants.

[Jason Thurman]

I read Mike's last post less as a political statement and more as a people statement. I can't infer from it the political party he aligns with. I certainly understand the sentiment of #SMH-ing at all those who join the "break from the herd!" herd. There are a lot of blind followers in every political party who can't express any logical reasoning behind one position or another aside from the reasoning they've heard one of their "leaders" give. In the information age, with unprecedented freedom and knowledge at our disposal, most of us just want to be told what to think.

Few of us have time to become as informed as we need to be in order to form sound opinions on our own. That's the core issue with politics, child vaccinations, and golf course architecture. This site is intended to be a forum for frank discussion of golf course architecture. Unfortunately, the huge majority of us know very little about architecture, and so we relegate ourselves to following the reasoning we've heard one of our "leaders" give. It might be for the best. Who knows what kind of stupid conclusions we would draw if we used our own brains.

[Mike_Young]

 And I see it here when guys come on here and try to make a topic such as this political as with various comments trying to link this back to an event etc.  

Mike,

Im not sure where you're going with this.  You made this political by starting the thread with a political article.  We also get that, to you, liberalism is pie in the sky, head in the clouds, ignorant idealism.  What is hilarious is that the politics you claim to be yours are actually.......liberalism.  So perhaps you should use a different term to describe all the people you view as "not intelligent".

Conservative victimhood went out of fashion a long time ago.  We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs.  What I don't get is how such a realist capitalist as yourself doesn't fully embrace Golfnow.com and other pressures on the golf business that the free-market so clearly wants.

JC,

1.  Hmmmmm...my post ask a question.  It never mentions politics.  Now the definition of the "spiral of silence" ewas taken from an article that was political and I assume the blog it was on was also political.  ( it was sent to me so I only read that one part)  BUT I intentionally did not print the entire article because it was political.

2.  Secondly, I have never claimed any politics on here.  ( I don't think I have) and I never stated if I was conservative or liberal or independent or what.  I honestly don't view people by their politics anymore than I do the football team they choose to support.  

3.  I never said that people that supported Idealism were  " not intelligent" as you stated.  I accept and appreciate that there are extremely intelligent people on both sides of any debate.  I stated that in a college town many choose to "fake" intelligence by going to the more liberal side.  That's not saying that liberal thinking people are not intelligent.  

4.  Conservative victimhood...never heard of that...but it's funny you mention such.  I have often felt that the largest factor in determining one's political lean in this country has been whether one considers himself a victim or not.  

5.  you state:  "We get that you don't like those who are different from you and view your "realist" perspective as superior to theirs. " ..."We" Have you been appointed to speak for some group now?  Why not rephrase it into something like" it seems to me that you don't enjoy people who are different from you and you seem to think that a realist perspective is superior."  Anyway...You or "We" are incorrect.  Everyone is different and I thrive on hanging out with people that are different from me.

6.  And lastly, as a realist capitalist I don't like Golfnow because they make golf a commodity.  Eventually when Golfnow has what they need they will stop the barter system and I might consider them but for now they don't fit  my needs.

Cheers...

[Lou_Duran]

But I have played with some of the experts that sare on this site and expound on the bump and run and course strategies etc and yet they haven't even taken the time to learn to grip a club.  I'm sorry but I don't buy into the hacker as a GCA expert and that's not the same as a weak player as a GCA expert.

I am not often intimidated, but I did feel some trepidation going to the initial Kings Putter in 2002, knowing that I'd be playing with some of the professors of strategy, nuance, and all the finer points of golf architecture which somehow had escaped me in my then 30+ years of playing the game.  Wow, six hour rounds, the newest balls and equipment, riding carts, shots sometimes barely getting off the ground to any number of points on the compass, what a realignment with reality!  This august group so reflects the golfing population at large in most respects but one, we like to talk about the golf courses and those who design them.  To our chagrin, most of our friends don't, so here we are.

In discussing the "bunkers are too perfect" thread, a lurker I know commented something to the effect: "why would I want to consider what a 20-handicapper has to say about anything doing with golf?".  While I thought this was a bit harsh, Ian's reply to this thread on the better form of debating has me contemplating the merits of his case.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()