[Chris DeToro]

Certainly the downside of the emotionless Internet postings.  This is why there is a market for emoticons...  

[Jason Thurman]

Jud, to be fair, I really am a bit arrogant. And you really are a bit of an ass. But I like to think that it's "just a bit" for both of us, and that it really just gives us a bit of character. I do think both our posts probably make a lot more sense in print once someone has met us in person. Then again, half the people I meet in person still have no idea when I'm kidding and when I'm serious, so maybe not.

For the record, everyone from GCA.com that I've met in person knows that I sing your praises as one of the most generous and thoughtful people that I would never want to give strokes in a match for money. We don't play golf together nearly enough. You're a Langford guy. It's time for a trip to Clovernook.

Chris, truth. But I just can't bring myself to use them. The ellipsis is my emoticon...

[Jud_T]

We don't play golf together nearly enough. You're a Langford guy. It's time for a trip to Clovernook.

Book it.  I'm determined to find a Langford course beyond Winnetka Muni that I don't love...

[Chris DeToro]

It took me a long time to start using emoticons as I've only recently adopted it...

As a Langford guy, you should check out Lansing CC and Blythefield in Michigan...

Are you Chicago guys? 

[Jud_T]

It took me a long time to start using emoticons as I've only recently adopted it...

As a Langford guy, you should check out Lansing CC and Blythefield in Michigan...

Are you Chicago guys?  

I am, but Jason is from somewhere below the Mason-Dixon line, which in my world-view starts just south of Grant Park.

[Bill Seitz]

I don't think the divide is so much that old guys like classic courses and young guys like newer courses.  It's just that a lot of newer courses are easier to get on, and a lot of the classics (CD among them) are not all that easy to get on.  Older guys tend to have played more of the classics, whether it's through club connections, business connections, or just life experience.  Most of the great classics I've played (which aren't numerous to begin with), I've played once, and I'm sincerely grateful for those opportunities.  But I don't have Pine Valley, Cypress, and Merion (or CD) members ringing my phone off the hook with invitations for multiple plays. Kingsley is pretty accommodating for guests, and of course, there's enough of us here that pretty much anyone on GCA can tap a member to sponsor a day (I'm sure this is much the same for Ballyneal and Dismal).  Add to that Kingsley's "favorite son" status on GCA, probably fueled somewhat by the fact that it's kind of "GCA's little secret" in the golf world, and you're left with a course that a lot of people on this site have had the opportunity to play more than once, and probably had a pretty good overall experience at the time (thanks to our staff for that).  I mean, I don't see CD hosting a Midwest Mashie anytime soon.  That's not a knock, that's just reality.

I also think there's a little bit of ratings bias that creeps into opinions on the great courses.  Did I walk off CD thinking it was great because it was truly great, or did I think it was great because it's rated so highly and I'm supposed to think it's great and people will discount my opinion if I don' think it's great.  Rinse and repeat for all of the great courses.  I'm sure panelists face this same dilemma when they turn their ratings in on great courses.  

I don't think this thread ought to sour anyone on GCA, though.  These are discussions we'd all have no matter where they were taking place.  Every internet hang out has to get meta every so often.

[Matthew Lloyd]

I don't think the divide is so much that old guys like classic courses and young guys like newer courses.  It's just that a lot of newer courses are easier to get on, and a lot of the classics (CD among them) are not all that easy to get on.  Older guys tend to have played more of the classics, whether it's through club connections, business connections, or just life experience.  Most of the great classics I've played (which aren't numerous to begin with), I've played once, and I'm sincerely grateful for those opportunities.  But I don't have Pine Valley, Cypress, and Merion (or CD) members ringing my phone off the hook with invitations for multiple plays. Kingsley is pretty accommodating for guests, and of course, there's enough of us here that pretty much anyone on GCA can tap a member to sponsor a day (I'm sure this is much the same for Ballyneal and Dismal).  Add to that Kingsley's "favorite son" status on GCA, probably fueled somewhat by the fact that it's kind of "GCA's little secret" in the golf world, and you're left with a course that a lot of people on this site have had the opportunity to play more than once, and probably had a pretty good overall experience at the time (thanks to our staff for that).  I mean, I don't see CD hosting a Midwest Mashie anytime soon.  That's not a knock, that's just reality.

I also think there's a little bit of ratings bias that creeps into opinions on the great courses.  Did I walk off CD thinking it was great because it was truly great, or did I think it was great because it's rated so highly and I'm supposed to think it's great and people will discount my opinion if I don' think it's great.  Rinse and repeat for all of the great courses.  I'm sure panelists face this same dilemma when they turn their ratings in on great courses.  

I don't think this thread ought to sour anyone on GCA, though.  These are discussions we'd all have no matter where they were taking place.  Every internet hang out has to get meta every so often.

+1

This sums up my thoughts precisely.  I guess I view any dissent and debate as a good thing.  I like hearing different and strong POVs on anything subjective.

[JLahrman]

I don't think this thread ought to sour anyone on GCA, though.  These are discussions we'd all have no matter where they were taking place.  Every internet hang out has to get meta every so often.

I actually think it's one of the better discussions that I've seen on GCA. Most threads aren't worth reading once they get to the fifth page.

[Chris DeToro]

I agree as well.  Plus I think it's a great thing that it's been brought up.  Usually this type of topic is avoided and then we hold it against each other for having differing opinions

[JC Jones]

JC:  I'm sure my sweeping generalizations above do not fit every fan of The Kingsley Club.  However, maybe they hit too close to home.  If you want to make this personal, let's turn it around.  Let's test my theory out on one of Kingsley's biggest fans -- you.

1 - Are you a member of another club?

2 - How many of the top-100 courses have you played?  

3 - How many of them have you played more than twice?

4 - How many of them had you played before you started playing Kingsley regularly?


For myself, the only club at which I'd been a member prior to Crystal Downs was being a national member of the TPC at Sawgrass, when it first opened.  [It cost $50.]

By the time I saw Crystal Downs the first time, I'd already been to Merion, Pine Valley, Oakmont, SFGC, LACC, and about 20 others in the top 100, and I was surprised how well it held up to them.  

I hadn't played many of them more than once, except for Pebble Beach and Cypress Point and Harbour Town.  That's probably how Cypress Point became the gold standard for me.

By the time I came back to Michigan and started playing Crystal Downs regularly, I had spent my year in the UK and seen about 500 courses, and I'd played a bunch of the best ones multiple times.

So we are channeling our inner Matt Ward now are we?  I do find it funny that not only did you not answer my questions but rather, you proved my point with another dismissive post.  

One thing Ive come to understand is that arrogance, condescension and dismissiveness of others who disagree is not ever and indicator of confidence but actually, insecurity.  And, one thing that I've always found interesting that has come from the study of human behavior is that people's opinions are as equally influenced by things such as experience and knowledge as they are ego and emotion.  

[Sean_A]

Its true there have been many excellent courses built since Sand Hills and that the pattern of their designs tends to be big, bold, rugged golf.  I see that trend continuing for many reasons, but in the main its what people are looking for in golf these days and carts have made it quite easy.  I also think the new courses are far easier to access either because they are public, new and seeking members or younger guys seem more open to inviting strangers (sometimes large groups of strangers).  In any case, even the older guys are often inviting strangers through the medium of the internet - something at least I still consider the domain of the generation below me even though it was my generation which invented it.  30 somethings and below have lived with the internet just as I lived with books and I still feel a bit of generational division between the mediums.  In any case, once in a room together, that gap is significantly reduced.  The love of the game and courses is much the bigger connection and while there may be some generation preference, over time, just like opinions about most things, that gap too will close.  Besides, whats really in a ranking?  We all know the top 100 is really a top 250.  I think the plethora of fine new courses has made that quite clear.  

Ciao      

[Mike Hendren]

Another theory:  The two generations learned the game differently due to then-existing equipment and golf balls.  The younger generation grew up with more forgiving irons, an arsenal of wedges, big headed drivers and rocketing golf balls.  The result - they  enjoy and favor the swashbuckling golf (big, bold and rugged as Sean so aptly calls it) that is fostered by Kingsley Club.  By comparison, those of us who learned the game with clubs that were much more difficult to hit learned to score by course management, guile, feel and touch - attributes that are more highly demanded by golden age architects who were more prone to defend par around and on the greens as is the case at Crystal Downs.  

A generalization, I know.

Bogey

[Steve Kline]

Bogey - why do you think playing well at Kingsley is less dependent on course management?

[Mike Hendren]

Didn't say it was Steve.  Again I was generalizing.  That said, let me ask you for example: how critical is it to be below the hole at KC?  At CD?

BTW, I forgot to ask you in Cincy:  Are you kin to Patsy?

MIke

[JESII]

JC,

How was that post by Tom at all dismissive? You asked him a series of rhetorical questions and he responded with a way to play out this Generational Bias theory a bit deeper. I'm interested in your answers to his questions.

Also, a couple of your posts ago you called him an "anti-rankings guy"...have you been paying attention? If you were to ask me, Tom is and has been obsessively focused on rankings.

[Chris DeToro]

Another theory:  The two generations learned the game differently due to then-existing equipment and golf balls.  The younger generation grew up with more forgiving irons, an arsenal of wedges, big headed drivers and rocketing golf balls.  The result - they  enjoy and favor the swashbuckling golf that is fostered by Kingsley Club.  By comparison, those of us who learned the game with clubs that were much more difficult to hit learned to score by course management, guile, feel and touch - attributes that are more highly demanded by golden age architects who were more prone to defend par around and on the greens as is the case at Crystal Downs.  

A generalization, I know.

Bogey

I very much disagree with this point.  Kingsley is definitely a thinker's course as well and still requires touch around the green (and creativity with the tight turf and mounded greens).  I think that's why it's thought of as such a great modern course--it's not just a bomber's paradise, though it helps (as it does anywhere).  But if you think about the contours of some of those fairways, you can think your way around that course, utilizing the natural flow of the land to hit shorter clubs off the tees and into greens than just bomb and gauge

[Mac Plumart]

Another theory:  The two generations learned the game differently due to then-existing equipment and golf balls.  The younger generation grew up with more forgiving irons, an arsenal of wedges, big headed drivers and rocketing golf balls.  The result - they  enjoy and favor the swashbuckling golf (big, bold and rugged as Sean so aptly calls it) that is fostered by Kingsley Club.  By comparison, those of us who learned the game with clubs that were much more difficult to hit learned to score by course management, guile, feel and touch - attributes that are more highly demanded by golden age architects who were more prone to defend par around and on the greens as is the case at Crystal Downs.  

A generalization, I know.

Bogey

Great stuff!

Essentially, you are considering the idea that changes in equipment is changing our perceptions of what makes for a great golf course

I think your theory will, indeed, prove to be fact.

[JC Jones]

Another theory:  The two generations learned the game differently due to then-existing equipment and golf balls.  The younger generation grew up with more forgiving irons, an arsenal of wedges, big headed drivers and rocketing golf balls.  The result - they  enjoy and favor the swashbuckling golf (big, bold and rugged as Sean so aptly calls it) that is fostered by Kingsley Club.  By comparison, those of us who learned the game with clubs that were much more difficult to hit learned to score by course management, guile, feel and touch - attributes that are more highly demanded by golden age architects who were more prone to defend par around and on the greens as is the case at Crystal Downs.  

A generalization, I know.

Bogey

Bogey,

I think this is an interesting thought because I very much agree that equipment and technology can have an effect on the way one experiences a golf course. 

I disagree with the notion that Kingsley is not a thinking person's golf course.  I learn more with each play out there and even this past septemeber was introduced to a completely new strategy on #15 that yielded much more success.

As to your point about kids and big technology and old folks with the old stuff, I worked in golf retail for a number of years back in college and shortly thereafter and I can tell you that the younger guys were the ones coming in to buy the blades and the older guys were the ones coming into to buy the latest and greatest technology so they could feel young again 

[Mike Hendren]

JC, while I probably did so, I didn't meant to imply that KC didn't require course management and thinking.  

How about we consider this:  is there less margin for error around the greens at CD?

BTW it was much more fun when we weren't all getting along on this thread.

Bogey

[Steve Kline]

Bogey - not related to Patsy. Last name is spelled different.

I agree with the others that disagree with your intimation that Kingsely is not a thinking man's course. In fact it is far too short to be a bomber's course. There is an incredible amount of strategy there.

Why would being below the hole be a strategy you call out regarding Kingsley? I have not played Crystal but that seems to be of paramount importance there. Is it a redundant strategy. It is important on some holes at Kingsely but not every hole where other strategies/factors are more important. Off the top of my head from one weekend four years ago, you need to be below the hole (not long) on 8 and 9. There may be others.

[Phil McDade]

Bogey - not related to Patsy. Last name is spelled different.

I believe in Tennessee that's what's known as a rounding error.

[Mike Hendren]

Thanks Phil.  Much worse in Alabama where only 1 in 3 fans can spell "Saban."

Cheers.

Bogey

[William_G]

LOL, TLavin...your only as old as the woman you feel!

[Phil McDade]

Thanks Phil.  Much worse in Alabama where only 1 in 3 fans can spell "Saban."

Cheers.

Bogey

Saban or Satan?

By the way, I tend to agree with your generational bias. I once had a knock-down, drag-out battle here on GCA about the Kohler/Dye River Course at Blackwolf Run here in Wisconsin that I was convinced -- even though I never asked -- split along generational lines.

[Lou_Duran]

I don't suppose any of us take to the nation's highways in our BMWs and Porsches thinking in terms of buggy whips and horses (maybe with the exception of Steve Wilson and a couple others).  For the most part, the classics that are still "relevant" have been retrofitted to the extent they can be.  Some have pushed the balance envelope too far toward defending par on and around the greens with speeds (and firmness) too fast for their slope and undulations, IMO.

As to generational bias with regard to golf, I still believe that golf is a conservative, traditional game, that as long as human nature remains resistant to change, history tends to repeat itself, and that about the only thing we know for sure is that youth is fleeting.  Age catches up with all of us, and only those who have unusually strong affectations hold on to the thinking convenient to their youthful exuberance.  Fortunately, the realities of life inform most of us to the extent that we can dispel many of the romantic notions which (sometimes aided by the use of artificial substances) gave us such a buzz in our pursuit of cosmic justice and truth early in our existence.  I have seen it in myself- I used to hold Firestone-South as the epitome of what a golf course should be; now I much prefer Crystal Downs- and a bit in my 31 year-old son.

I have no idea what the age compositions of the various rating panels are, or if the sponsors have analyzed the data in that manner.  It would be an interesting exercise to see if the 20-35 cohort offers a different perspective than the 35-50 and the 50+.  I would also find it interesting if it was done longitunidally- what happens when the 20-35 group becomes the 35-50 and so on (as if the rating process is not complicated enough).   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()