[Ian Mackenzie]

I actually care little about Tom’s original point or Brandel’s response (which is just the same argument on either side we’ve heard 1,000 times).


I’m much more disappointed that people think it’s reasonable to snaffle a comment Tom made on here and send it on to Chamblee to elicit an argument.




Somebody took Tom's OP and put it on Twitter.  That's where I first saw it.  That is, surely, an abuse of this discussion group.


Mark Pearce

I call major BS on both of these remarks. Yes, several people brought Tom's comments to Brandel's attention. As Tom himself said: "there are lots of lurkers out there" FWIW, Brandel is NOT one of them.


GCA.com's Discussion Group is a publicly-disseminated forum, available to anyone who clicks into this site. Both Tom and Brandel are smart, strong-minded, articulate public advocates of their own opinions. One has a media megaphone and active Twitter account, the other this website and various publications. Each do so by their own choice.


I was asked by Brandel to post a response and did just that. If necessary, I'd do it all over again. That's called setting the stage for honest debate and the airing of different opinions. That's constructive and healthy discourse. Both Ally & Mark seem to suggest that isn't called for on GCA.com. As a multi-decade member of this site......that's pure hogwash.


 Other than clearing the waters of unnecessarily petty and silly ad-hominem style retorts, I find merit in parts of both their missives. I don't want to insert myself further, yet I have to call out those naysayers who believe the integrity of this website is compromised by promoting any kind of golf and architectural dialogue, no matter how asymmetric it may seem. I think Ran and Ben would wholeheartedly agree.

Good on you, Steve.
I've really enjoyed this thread.


Always operate under the assumption that anything written on the internet can circulate to anyone.
You were 100% transparent.


I think Brandel speaks ONLY for the professional game which is a tiny, tiny percentage of play.


Tom, and this is my personal opinion, openly eschews designing courses for the pro game and, instead, commits to fair and fun minimalist courses for the rest of us.

[Charlie Goerges]

Are you calling me a liar?  I repeat, the first time I saw Tom's post was on Twitter, copied and pasted as an image.  What possible reason do you have to not believe that?

I think he's actually taking exception with the idea that it's an abuse of the discussion group. Point being that anyone can see what we post here and repost it elsewhere.

If that's right, he could have been significantly clearer.


There is a difference (and a significant one) between someone looking at this site and its content, or referring someone to it, and taking a screen shot and posting it on Twitter to cause controversy.  Not least because that deprives a response in a thread of any context.  The Twitter post I saw was, very clearly, shit stirring (I hope that expression translates).

I agree that it seems likely the person who posted the screenshot to Twitter was likely shit-stirring. I also agree that doing that loses the nuance of a discussion that stays on this board. Unfortunately I think it's a risk we take posting to a forum that is viewable by the public. Ideally it all stays here where everyone gets an equal say, but sometimes this stuff happens. That said, Tom seemed to take it in stride and responded well to it.

[Rob Marshall]

You shouldn't post anything that you wouldn't want the person you are talking about to see. I would be willing to be Tom had no issue with it.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yeah I never doubted for a second that Tom would care. I’m merely pointing out that whoever alerted Brandel was inciting an argument deliberately.

[Jerry Kluger]

Interesting that some of the announcers advocated that trees were necessary to make the course more difficult but trees are removed so that grass can grow and I guarantee you that the players would much rather have to play around some trees than out of that deep rough. BTW: If the rough we saw, especially around the bunkers, is what the members regularly face then that the one course that would make me quit the game if I had to play it on a regular basis.

[Kalen Braley]

Courses like Carnoustie and Oakmont have very few trees and play plenty difficult..

[Peter Flory]

On the hole at LACC with the huge fall off on the right side of the fairway, most of the players seemed to be able to hit the left side of the fairway.  That seems to indicate that they can chase an angle. 

[Thomas Dai]

The game of golf is better when angles apply for it provides a situation where one of the most important yet one of the most often ignored aspects of the game, the use of the 5” between the ears, comes into play.
Atb

[Mark Smolens]

The reality is that angles do matter, but the way in which they matter is more of a spectrum than a stark binary. If a player is aiming anywhere but directly down the middle of a fairway or green, then angles do matter.

Lake right so player aims left isn't a function of "angles matter." It's a function of "penalties matter."

We've done this a hundred times here on GCA, though, so…

As per usual, Erik is correct. I caddied for a buddy in a CDGA Am qualifier a couple of weeks ago. He's started (at my suggestion) using the DECADE app. He hits the ball far, very far, and the "correct" lines that he took -- based upon the app -- were often incredible to my eye (we played a TopTracer better ball event in a local dome last winter and his ball speed with the driver was consistently over 180 mph, so he indeed hits it far). The key acc to Nick is penalty avoidance, not some "best angle" into a green or pin placement. But he works for a living (he's a radiologist) so his dispersion with the driver is as incredible as how far he hits it. Contrary to Azinger's "tree hugger" pronouncement, the "correct" target at Silver Lake's North Course was most often directly at a group of trees to the right or left side of the fairway some 300+ yards from the tree, depending upon which side of the hole had the most trouble.

[Sean_A]

Are you calling me a liar?  I repeat, the first time I saw Tom's post was on Twitter, copied and pasted as an image.  What possible reason do you have to not believe that?

I think he's actually taking exception with the idea that it's an abuse of the discussion group. Point being that anyone can see what we post here and repost it elsewhere.

If that's right, he could have been significantly clearer.


There is a difference (and a significant one) between someone looking at this site and its content, or referring someone to it, and taking a screen shot and posting it on Twitter to cause controversy.  Not least because that deprives a response in a thread of any context.  The Twitter post I saw was, very clearly, shit stirring (I hope that expression translates).

It strikes me that TD's comments were a bit of shit stirring. I don't see the problem.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

Yeah I never doubted for a second that Tom would care. I’m merely pointing out that whoever alerted Brandel was inciting an argument deliberately.

Ally-This happens all day everyday over many social media platforms regardless of the subject matter. That isn’t meant to be a justification but pointing out it’s just the way of the world.

[Tommy Naccarato]

I’m in 100% agreement with Tom regarding Brandel.


The greatest designers in this game always asked opinions no matter how diverse or different; George Crump, George Thomas, Hugh ‘Puffy’ Wilson and more.  It’s how the subject advanced to the point of a genius like Tom Doak talking to a fat electrician from La Mirada, California about the benefits of getting rid of the Fazio installed front bunkers at #1 Bel-Air; or a Gil Hanse discussing with a dry cleaner from New Jersey, just what was Seth Raynor thinking at Sleepy Hollow.  In my opinion, a Brandel Chamblis shuts that discussion down because he’s right and the world is wrong because we’re not nearly as knowledgable and well read as he claims to be.

[Mark Pearce]

I’m in 100% agreement with Tom regarding Brandel.


The greatest designers in this game always asked opinions no matter how diverse or different; George Crump, George Thomas, Hugh ‘Puffy’ Wilson and more.  It’s how the subject advanced to the point of a genius like Tom Doak talking to a fat electrician from La Mirada, California about the benefits of getting rid of the Fazio installed front bunkers at #1 Bel-Air; or a Gil Hanse discussing with a dry cleaner from New Jersey, just what was Seth Raynor thinking at Sleepy Hollow.  In my opinion, a Brandel Chamblis shuts that discussion down because he’s right and the world is wrong because we’re not nearly as knowledgable and well read as he claims to be.

Business coaches (at least some of the ones we use) talk about "colliding perspectives" and their importance in decision making.  I really like it when my team disagree with me.  Even better when they're right.

[Tom_Doak]

There is a difference (and a significant one) between someone looking at this site and its content, or referring someone to it, and taking a screen shot and posting it on Twitter to cause controversy.  Not least because that deprives a response in a thread of any context.  The Twitter post I saw was, very clearly, shit stirring (I hope that expression translates).

I have never participated on Twitter, in large part because it seems that the only purpose of it is talking loudly over others.


Whatever discussion there is on that platform about me, I don’t really care.  They don’t know me well enough to comment.


But it takes a special kind of [redacted] to screen shot a post here and put it on Twitter, declaring open season on me there while knowing that I’m not going to respond.  [Redacted] that guy, whoever you are.

[Steve Lapper]

There is a difference (and a significant one) between someone looking at this site and its content, or referring someone to it, and taking a screen shot and posting it on Twitter to cause controversy.  Not least because that deprives a response in a thread of any context.  The Twitter post I saw was, very clearly, shit stirring (I hope that expression translates).

I have never participated on Twitter, in large part because it seems that the only purpose of it is talking loudly over others.


Whatever discussion there is on that platform about me, I don’t really care.  They don’t know me well enough to comment.


But it takes a special kind of [redacted] to screen shot a post here and put it on Twitter, declaring open season on me there while knowing that I’m not going to respond.  [Redacted] that guy, whoever you are.

Tom,


 You might believe I'm that (redacted), but I assure you it was brought to Brandel from someone else.  I don't traffic in, nor post on Twitter and share the same reason as you, yet I have to ask that if you choose to describe someone as "washed-up.. (sic)..who can't compete*" here on GCA.com, how can you be truly upset if it finds its way to that person, or others? Is there not something inherently denigrating and somewhat challenging to those words?


   The internet is often little more than a web of algorithms and connectivity. Can you really say you were innocent of any form of "shit-stirring" by making such a statement and attacking someone knowing or believing they don't participate on GCA.com? Based on your last post here, that's considerably hypocritical.


 For the record, I couldn't agree more with your take on architecture (and I posted as such on the original thread) and have spent dozens of  hours trying to educate Brandel about the nuances of angles and protection of interest and fun on the course. His take on thick rough and trees is rather banal and antithetical to where great golf architecture has come from....and should continue to to go.


  His occupational role is limited to commentary about all things related to professional golf, from A-to-Z. He personally loves finding, and unafraid of generating, controversy (it creates interest and draws eyeballs for the Golf Channel), yet he does hundreds and hundreds of hours of real research to back up what pro golf "shit" he stirs. He mostly avoids personal attacks, instead engaging in statistics-backed debate. That's his expertise and milieu. Yours is undeniably golf architecture. I, and suspect many others, genuinely enjoy both.


 Lastly, posts on the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group belong to the world, not just the relatively few participants who are here from time-to-time. Otherwise, it is no more than narrowing echo chamber. Is that what Ran, Ben and Joe intended when they created it? I really doubt that. Perhaps all posters should realize that before they hit the blue button?


* He did win once on the PGA tour and won over $4M in the late nineties....hardly the stuff of "can't compete."

[Mark Pearce]

Steve,


First, you have chosen not to clarify whether you were accusing me of lying.  I assume that's an oversight.


Second, your last paragraph may be true but fails to address my paragraph to which Tom was responding.  The public nature of this board is not in dispute.  That doesn't, however, justify the shit-stirring by whoever it was (and I honestly can't remember) who chose to cut and paste a screen shot on Twitter.

[Mike_Young]

Sounds like Koepka said it best.  You got to put from below the hole in majors and preferably from 4o'clock to 8 o'clock on a dial.  Angles, fairway width, rough height and are probably conquered by several in a given tourney but not many can putt a ball from 60 feet to within 18 inches with the US Open on the line and recover the way the winner did constantly.  All the other stuff really matters on mediocre greens but when greens are that good, it's about the putting.  IMHO.

[jeffwarne]

The reality is that angles do matter, but the way in which they matter is more of a spectrum than a stark binary. If a player is aiming anywhere but directly down the middle of a fairway or green, then angles do matter.

Lake right so player aims left isn't a function of "angles matter." It's a function of "penalties matter."

We've done this a hundred times here on GCA, though, so…

As per usual, Erik is correct. I caddied for a buddy in a CDGA Am qualifier a couple of weeks ago. He's started (at my suggestion) using the DECADE app. He hits the ball far, very far, and the "correct" lines that he took -- based upon the app -- were often incredible to my eye (we played a TopTracer better ball event in a local dome last winter and his ball speed with the driver was consistently over 180 mph, so he indeed hits it far). The key acc to Nick is penalty avoidance, not some "best angle" into a green or pin placement. But he works for a living (he's a radiologist) so his dispersion with the driver is as incredible as how far he hits it. Contrary to Azinger's "tree hugger" pronouncement, the "correct" target at Silver Lake's North Course was most often directly at a group of trees to the right or left side of the fairway some 300+ yards from the tree, depending upon which side of the hole had the most trouble.

Very true.
someone hitting it with 180 ball speed VERY rarely plays course conditions or design where angles matter more than penalties.
Even when angles do matter, such as at LACC. the player can merely play away from trouble and take their scoring holes as they come(often randomly), not by forcing angles(less than shot) risking penalties(at least a shot).


Which is why I love giving playing lessons to women and other low speed players, where angles actually matter a lot, and the scale is such the player will rarely leave the field of play.


Unlike the example above who's field of play is often out of scale with his modern day ball speed(especially as someone wit aday job)

[Steve Lapper]

Steve,


First, you have chosen not to clarify whether you were accusing me of lying.  I assume that's an oversight.


Second, your last paragraph may be true but fails to address my paragraph to which Tom was responding.  The public nature of this board is not in dispute.  That doesn't, however, justify the shit-stirring by whoever it was (and I honestly can't remember) who chose to cut and paste a screen shot on Twitter.

Mark,


   The thought of not believing you never crossed my mind. Apologies if you took it that way. What I called BS on was that posting anything from here "was an abuse of the discussion group."


  I won't apologize for my belief that whatever is posted on the discussion group belongs to the public domain and as such is subject to rebuttal. Caveat Scribere

[jeffwarne]

The reality is that angles do matter, but the way in which they matter is more of a spectrum than a stark binary. If a player is aiming anywhere but directly down the middle of a fairway or green, then angles do matter.

Lake right so player aims left isn't a function of "angles matter." It's a function of "penalties matter."

We've done this a hundred times here on GCA, though, so…

As per usual, Erik is correct. I caddied for a buddy in a CDGA Am qualifier a couple of weeks ago. He's started (at my suggestion) using the DECADE app. He hits the ball far, very far, and the "correct" lines that he took -- based upon the app -- were often incredible to my eye (we played a TopTracer better ball event in a local dome last winter and his ball speed with the driver was consistently over 180 mph, so he indeed hits it far). The key acc to Nick is penalty avoidance, not some "best angle" into a green or pin placement. But he works for a living (he's a radiologist) so his dispersion with the driver is as incredible as how far he hits it. Contrary to Azinger's "tree hugger" pronouncement, the "correct" target at Silver Lake's North Course was most often directly at a group of trees to the right or left side of the fairway some 300+ yards from the tree, depending upon which side of the hole had the most trouble.

(Jeff Warne wrote)
Very true.
someone hitting it with 180 ball speed VERY rarely plays course conditions or design where angles matter more than penalties.
Even when angles do matter, such as at LACC. the player can merely play away from trouble and take their scoring holes as they come(often randomly), not by forcing angles(less than 1 shot reward) risking penalties(at least a shot penalty).


Which is why I love giving playing lessons to women and other low speed players, where angles actually matter a lot, and the scale is such the player will rarely leave the field of play.


Unlike the example above who's field of play is often out of scale with his modern day ball speed(especially as someone with a day job)

I actually think par is an impediment to a truly great test.
Too many yardage guidleines, rules and [perceptions.
A course where angles could be acheived, but others could tack-with few large penalties.
Width as in playability/findability, but not so much as in fairway width(spin)-yat wide enough to be a reasonable target from 340 yards away..
A course where an angle could be acheived at the expense of a flier or a bunker, not lost ball or unadvanceable gunch or penalty area.
Then you'd see the elite display their shotmaking skills vs. their management and short game skills.
LACC did a lot of this, but many couldn't comprehend it.


I liked LACC because they pushed the envelope of various yardages.
Would love to see more courses do this.


Sadly, ANGC has become a series of 460plus yard par 4's where once there was reasonable length variety.
Despite Crampton's 2 on #8, it was mostly unreachable in normal conditions pre 2001.
Now all 4 par 5's are easily reachable by the field, and most par 4's except 3, play the same

[Mark Pearce]

Steve,


First, you have chosen not to clarify whether you were accusing me of lying.  I assume that's an oversight.


Second, your last paragraph may be true but fails to address my paragraph to which Tom was responding.  The public nature of this board is not in dispute.  That doesn't, however, justify the shit-stirring by whoever it was (and I honestly can't remember) who chose to cut and paste a screen shot on Twitter.

Mark,


   The thought of not believing you never crossed my mind. Apologies if you took it that way. What I called BS on was that posting anything from here "was an abuse of the discussion group."


  I won't apologize for my belief that whatever is posted on the discussion group belongs to the public domain and as such is subject to rebuttal. Caveat Scribere

On the first, thank you.


On the second, I agree.  But not that copying and tweeting without context is acceptable.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


 You might believe I'm that (redacted), but I assure you it was brought to Brandel from someone else.  I don't traffic in, nor post on Twitter and share the same reason as you, yet I have to ask that if you choose to describe someone as "washed-up.. (sic)..who can't compete*" here on GCA.com, how can you be truly upset if it finds its way to that person, or others? Is there not something inherently denigrating and somewhat challenging to those words?


   The internet is often little more than a web of algorithms and connectivity. Can you really say you were innocent of any form of "shit-stirring" by making such a statement and attacking someone knowing or believing they don't participate on GCA.com? Based on your last post here, that's considerably hypocritical.


 For the record, I couldn't agree more with your take on architecture (and I posted as such on the original thread) and have spent dozens of  hours trying to educate Brandel about the nuances of angles and protection of interest and fun on the course. His take on thick rough and trees is rather banal and antithetical to where great golf architecture has come from....and should continue to to go.


  His occupational role is limited to commentary about all things related to professional golf, from A-to-Z. He personally loves finding, and unafraid of generating, controversy (it creates interest and draws eyeballs for the Golf Channel), yet he does hundreds and hundreds of hours of real research to back up what pro golf "shit" he stirs. He mostly avoids personal attacks, instead engaging in statistics-backed debate. That's his expertise and milieu. Yours is undeniably golf architecture. I, and suspect many others, genuinely enjoy both.


 Lastly, posts on the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group belong to the world, not just the relatively few participants who are here from time-to-time. Otherwise, it is no more than narrowing echo chamber. Is that what Ran, Ben and Joe intended when they created it? I really doubt that. Perhaps all posters should realize that before they hit the blue button?


* He did win once on the PGA tour and won over $4M in the late nineties....hardly the stuff of "can't compete."

Steve:


I didn't accuse you [or anyone in particular].  I had no problem with you posting the topic here.  But, since it wasn't you who posted on Twitter, would you concur that maybe the motivation of whomever did was to stir up shit and to attack me and/or Brandel?  That's a very different tack than going to Brandel directly for a reaction.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

I didn't accuse you [or anyone in particular].  I had no problem with you posting the topic here.  But, since it wasn't you who posted on Twitter, would you concur that maybe the motivation of whomever did was to stir up shit and to attack me and/or Brandel?  That's a very different tack than going to Brandel directly for a reaction.

P.S.  I had the thought last night that maybe Brandel's words about "a romantic attachment to a bygone era" could describe his own attachment to the U.S. Opens won by Hale Irwin and Scott Simpson.  Was not Winged Foot set up pretty difficult for the last U.S. Open?  Yet it produced a champion [Bryson] and a runner-up [Cameron Young] who approached it a lot different than Hale Irwin did.

[Tom_Doak]

Sounds like Koepka said it best.  You got to put from below the hole in majors and preferably from 4o'clock to 8 o'clock on a dial.  Angles, fairway width, rough height and are probably conquered by several in a given tourney but not many can putt a ball from 60 feet to within 18 inches with the US Open on the line and recover the way the winner did constantly.  All the other stuff really matters on mediocre greens but when greens are that good, it's about the putting.  IMHO.

It's not just putting from below the hole, it's chipping or pitching from below the hole.  If you are playing out of rough to a downhill sloping fast green, that's an automatic bogey in U.S. Open conditions, and if you get too cute with it, make it a double.

[Rob Marshall]

Steve:

I didn't accuse you [or anyone in particular].  I had no problem with you posting the topic here.  But, since it wasn't you who posted on Twitter, would you concur that maybe the motivation of whomever did was to stir up shit and to attack me and/or Brandel?  That's a very different tack than going to Brandel directly for a reaction.

P.S.  I had the thought last night that maybe Brandel's words about "a romantic attachment to a bygone era" could describe his own attachment to the U.S. Opens won by Hale Irwin and Scott Simpson.  Was not Winged Foot set up pretty difficult for the last U.S. Open?  Yet it produced a champion [Bryson] and a runner-up [Cameron Young] who approached it a lot different than Hale Irwin did.

Matt Wolff was the runner up not Cam Young

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()