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.


DMoriarty

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #175 on: January 06, 2004, 08:48:16 PM »
[Blah . . . .

Blah . . . .

Blah . . . .

Blah, Blah  . . . . ]

You simply forget to include the word "degree" in any statement you make. David -- you're so caught up in making a point you fail to understand the nature of "degrees" in the aspect of what constitues the spread between fair and unfair. Last I checked -- golf is a game of skill -- it is not devoid of the aspects you keep harping on (e.g. luck, randomness, etc, etc) but the aspect of the latter's involvement is really a contributing factor of a lesser sort -- it is not the crux of the game IMHO.

Matt, I've agreed that it is a matter of degrees for about 6 pages now.  So explain to us all to what degree a course should consistently punish the worse shot and reward the better shot.  For starters you could answer my questions regarding the Redan at NGLA:

Does the Redan consistently dole out the results the golfer deserves?  Is it fair?  Where would you put the Redan on your sliding scale of consistency?  Is the Redan good architecture?  

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #176 on: January 06, 2004, 08:54:54 PM »
Lou - I don't think one has to be an accomplished artist to evaluate art... any more so than one has to be an accomplished golfer in order to evaluate or design courses. A better analogy would be music. You don't have to be a great musical performer to appreciate great music. Nor, do great performers necessarily make great composers. Why? Because performance and composing represent two totally different kinds of talent. Talent in musical performance has no direct correlation with one's talent in music composition. Just as talent in golf performance does not necessarily have a direct correlation to one's creative talent in golf.

I think courses like North Berwick have not been built in the US because the American game evolved into something different than the original game played in Scotland. Our game is the "card & pencil" game where one's individual score takes precedent over everything. Their game is a "match" game where defeating your opponent, no matter what the score, is most important. Our courses reflect this difference... our attitudes about design reflect this difference... our pace of play reflects this difference... even our handicap systems reflect this difference.

Why do you think the old "classic" courses in this country are the most revered? It is because they are mostly copies or replicas of the original courses in Scotland and they are the closest connection we have to the "original" game. Why do so many Americans yearn for the pilgrimage to the "Home of Golf" to get a taste of how the game was originally played?

You asked, "How can a guy who can't hit a mid-iron shot high and soft nor punch it right-to-left (the majority of golfers) have a great appreciation for a traditional Redan?" I would respond... the same way I can appreciate Mozart without being able to play one note on a piano... the same way John Wooden could appreciate basketball enough to win 10 national titles without being able to make a jump-shot... the same way Siskel & Ebert could appreciate great movies without having to possess the skills to make one themselves.

I do not adhere to the notion that skill at golf performance automatically bestows some naturally superior talent in golf course evaluation or design. In my opinion, the reverse is most usually the case.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2004, 08:55:59 PM by Michael Whitaker »
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #177 on: January 06, 2004, 09:04:57 PM »
I'm sure this has been said, but I think it is the most thoughtful remark:
"Fair" and "Unfair" have less meaning when you consider golf as sport.  Not so if you consider it a game,
Jim Kennedy

DMoriarty

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #178 on: January 06, 2004, 09:26:35 PM »
Dave:

Talk about not reading the thread!

. . .

Where in the world (let alone this thread) am I advocating fairness?  Where?

Uhh . . . Gee . . . I don't know, Shivas, . . . . It's a long shot, but perhaps it was on the previous page, post 133, which begins (my emphasis added) . . .
 
See, guys, I think this is a question of fairness.  Oakmont, from what I hear, is so damn testing that it doesn't need that stuff to challenge the player.  So furrowed bunkers would be, to me, over the top and unnecessary.

No wonder you misunderstand my position . . . you arent even that familiar with your own!  

Nonetheless, I'm glad to see you've finally moved away from this fairness garbage.

Quote
All I'm saying is fariness and strategy and options should not be used as some sort of idological holy trilogy to make courses play so damn easy that the "popcorn golfer", the guy who has no idea where it's going, isn't exposed for what he is -- a lousy golfer!

You spend so much time trying to package my beliefs into easy vs. hard that you absolutely miss everything, even when we almost agree.  As an aside, if you find a real course where a lousy golfer wont be exposed as such, I'll eat my scorecard.

Quote
You want to talk NGLA, fine.  Tell me how you'd like 18 greens and fairway landing areas like the Punchowl, where 12 degrees offline gets the same result as 2, time after time after time.
 I absolutely loved the hole, but probably would not like the repitition.  By the way, if your approach is off you might find yourself up in one of the bunkers perched on the side of the bowl.  Not a great place to be in my experience.  

Now to the Redan.  

I am confused . . .
   First, after claiming you got screwed, you say:  Randomness?  Dave, to be perfectly honest, I dont' see randomness on that hole.  I see a hole where if you hit a good shot, it will do what it's supposed to the vast majority of the time.[/i]  
   But then you say, Now that I think about it, that shot is the damn Poster Boy for why nobody plays the ground game anymore!  Here I am, at the Holy Cathedral of TThe Ground Game, I hit the "perfect" shot, and I get f*cked!  If that can happen at NGLA, it can happen anywhere. . . .[/i]   Then you continue for a few paragraphs with your familiar rant about how the ground game is just not that reliable and that the air game is preferable.  

I see a bit of a contradiction here.  By arguing that the ground game is more unpredictable (my word not yours, but I think it accurately encompasses your position) arent you conceeding that there is a higher degree of randomness on ground shots??? If I recall your previous posts on this correctly, I think you have even talked in great detail about all the things that can go unexpectedly wrong with the ground game.  

To save you some typing,  I dont buy that you could have just as easily thrown a six iron down that slope and held it, at least not with any kind of consistency.  So dont go telling me that the hole is not random because the bring it in high and always hold the green option is a sure thing for a good shot.  
Quote
(BTW, if your first point was an absurd exaggeration, why do you claim that your points are rarely more than mundane.  Fess up, you've got some pretty radical ideas on golf and architecture. There's nothing to be ashamed of.
Because it was an absurd exxaggeration to make the point that Matt's point was also absurd.  And that Matt's points are absurd is certainly mundane.  I dont have radical ideas, I have conservative and traditional ideas.  It is the rest of you who have radicalized this whole thing and in doing so have screwed everything up.  

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #179 on: January 06, 2004, 09:32:35 PM »
ChrisB,

You are just too droll.  And I would never try to immitate the incomparable and legendary JakaB.  As for Salivador, Seve's estranged best friend, had he been trained with intermittent positive and negative reinforcements, he would have been dehydrated not from salivating, but from neurotically pissing every time he heard anything that sounded like a bell.  It's been 30+ years since I read about it (the Buss agression model?), but there is probably something in the social psychology literature which explains why uncertainty and the prospect of negative results has such a paralizing effect on behavior.  For me at least, there are some holes where I've had bad experiences that play a lot tougher than they reasonably should.  Call it an irrational, prolonged conditioned response.


TEP,

You are a funny one as well, making me find my Webster's II to fully understand how you were so nicely putting it to me.  I thank God for Matt's wise counsel.

There is nothing sporting about being in a foot deep foot print in the sand.  Come to think about it, yours is the second time that my sportmanship has been brought into question, and the first time was by a mutual acquaintance who currently resides in your state.

I did enjoy your retelling of Sandy Tatum's short presentation regarding Tom Watson.  Both of these men I admire greatly.  You are partially right, Watson does stare adversity in the face and relishes the opportunity.  We saw that several times at the British and US Opens.  His shot from the fairway sand on #9 at Colonial CC over the cement pond during the last round was nothing less than magical, and it propelled him to his last regular Tour victory.

But had Tom encountered my shot on #11 Scarlet, he would have done what I did, picked-up the ball and dropped it in the sand.  He might have salvaged his bogey, but would then have pulled over a tournament official and discreetly, but in no uncertain terms, have read him the riot act.

I can't speak for Matt, but like me, I doubt that he expects pristine conditions, perfect lies, and fortuitious bounces.  The ocassional element of luck is exciting.  In fact, some of my most satisfying shots have been under difficult conditions.  My most memorable one was actually hit by a friend who early in the round cold-topped his drive on a 230 par three over water during the club championship.  The ball somehow bounced several times on a bridge, over the water, and to a position where he could reach the green with his next shot.  He made a good four, had a hole-in-one with a thinly hit mid-iron on the 17th hole, shot 70, and won the championship by a shot.  Had the ball gone in the water on #3, knowing this this guy's demeanor, he probably would not have broken 80.  Fate or luck is charming and an important element in the game of golf.  But when results do not approximate performance on a "fairly" regular basis, just like in most endeavors, interest and desire to participate wanes.

Shivas,

You can compare me to MR. Hogan if you like.  Maybe even George Thomas when it comes to putting.  But my comments about undesirable conditions (let's get away from the emotionally loaded word- "fair") are applicable to the entire course.  Putting the pin back left at Lake at US Open speeds is no more defensible than not raking sand closely guarding the areas of play.  I subscribe to the opinion that penalties should be more severe the further one strays from the playing areas.  A half stroke penalty for a faiway bunker pinching a fairway is generally enough for me.  That goes for rough as well.  Miss the fairway by 30 yards (I think that you are familiar with this territory), and one should be made to suffer more severely.  Unfortunately, design and maintenance practices (overwatering of the primary rough) today often do the opposite.  If you want more Seve shots (MacKenzie also believed in providing the possibility of saving par from an indifferent shot by hitting a truly expectacular recovery), I would think that you would be for raked sand that would make them possible.  But maybe I am wrong.
   
   

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #180 on: January 06, 2004, 11:10:26 PM »
Before all of you throw grenades at my initial definition of the terms please provide yours as well. Many thanks ... you just helped with a 19th hole argument I'm having with a few of my golfing chums. ;)

So Matt, did you win the argument?  8)
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

TEPaul

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #181 on: January 07, 2004, 06:51:18 AM »
This has been an interesting thread with all kinds of sidelines and tangents--as usual.

I never actually offered a definition of "Fair" or "Unfair" (except in the case of that putt once at PB) simply because I think the subject is one not really worth having in golf--unfortunately the subject is discussed far too often for the good of golf, in my opinion.

However, to wrap things up on this thread for me and since Matt Ward started the thread I'd refer back to his initial post and also post #98 for an indication of what I think Matt Ward is implying he thinks fairness and unfairness in golf and architecture should be. Matt presents his opinion in quite general terms but that's OK.

But my answer to Matt Ward on the subject would be this;

Take the TOC or North Berwick under firm and fast conditions both "through the green" and quite firm condtions on the greens. I think we all know those two courses quite well and they certainly have changed very little architecturally over eons.

If Matt Ward thinks there's anything at all about those two courses under those conditions that is too inconsistent or unfair in some way then I'd have to say I do not agree with his position on this entire subject of consistency and fairness and unfairness in golf.

On the other hand, if Matt Ward, or anyone else, thinks those two courses offer the proper amount of consistency of play and fairness thoughout then I'd be in agreement with them on this entire subject.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #182 on: January 07, 2004, 09:56:21 AM »
You asked, "How can a guy who can't hit a mid-iron shot high and soft nor punch it right-to-left (the majority of golfers) have a great appreciation for a traditional Redan?" I would respond... the same way I can appreciate Mozart without being able to play one note on a piano... the same way John Wooden could appreciate basketball enough to win 10 national titles without being able to make a jump-shot... the same way Siskel & Ebert could appreciate great movies without having to possess the skills to make one themselves.

Points well made and well taken -- though one of your examples may be flawed. (When was the jump shot invented?)

In the spirit of "Fun Facts to Know and Tell," I quote www.hoophall.com (the Web site of the Basketball Hall of Fame):

John Wooden was a fabulous player before becoming the most successful coach in college basketball history. He enjoyed an All-State career at Martinsville High School, and at Purdue University was called the "Indiana Rubber Man" for his suicidal dives on the court. An excellent play maker and aggressive defender, Wooden was athree-time Helms Athletic Foundation All-America and named College Player of the Year in 1932, the year he and fellow Hall of Famer Charles "Stretch" Murphy led Purdue to the national championship. Wooden, who cites Ward Lambert, his Purdue coach, as being his greatest coaching influence, enjoyed a brief but successful semi-pro career before turning his complete attention to coaching.

The John Wooden-coached UCLA teams scaled unprecedented heights that no future organization in any sport is likely to approach. Under the masterful guidance of Wooden, the Bruins set all-time records with four perfect 30-0 seasons, 88 consecutive victories, 38 straight NCAA tournament victories, 20 PAC 10 championships, and 10 national championships, including seven in a row.
Wooden first learned about basketball when he was eight years old in 1918, 27 years after the invention of basketball. With a pair of his mother's hose stuffed with rags as a ball, young John would shoot at a tomato basket his father had nailed to a wall in their barn. From this humble beginning, Wooden would later become a collegiate hero at Purdue University.


The 1932 College Player of the Year, Wooden studied the game intensely under Hall of Fame coach Ward "Piggy" Lambert. As a matter of course, John Wooden was always learning and looking for ways to become the best. After graduation, Wooden pursued a career in coaching. He spent two years at Dayton (KY) High School and nine years at South Bend (IN) Central High School, compiling a 218-42 record. Wooden then coached at Indiana State University, where he recorded a two-year 44-15 mark. Wooden's big break came in 1948, when he accepted the head coaching position at UCLA. Although he would not win his first national title until 15 years later, Wooden began laying the groundwork for what would become the dynasty of all dynasties. He believed in lengthy practices for conditioning and endless drills to perfect fundamental skills.


Considered one of the finest teachers the game has ever seen, Wooden's approach rested on the idea that basketball is a game of threes: forward, guard, center; shoot, drive, pass; ball, you, man; conditioning, skill, teamwork. The latter was taught by coach Lambert at Purdue and forms the three blocks at the core of Wooden's own Pyramid of Success. The Pyramid is a well-known by-product of the Wooden coaching era. The principles outlined in it form the basis of Wooden's outlook on life and explain much of his success on and off the court. His ability to instill these principles upon his players made Wooden a master of developing talent. His premier players included All-Americans Walt Hazzard, Gail Goodrich, Lew Alcindor, Lucius Allen, Mike Warren, Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe, Henry Bibby, Bill Walton, Keith Wilkes, Richard Washington and Dave Meyers.


In a highlight-filled career, Wooden's coaching genius was often challenged. One such classic game was played on Jan. 20, 1968. Wooden's number-one-ranked Bruins, led by Alcindor, lost 71-69 to second-ranked University of Houston, led by Hall of Famer Elvin Hayes. The first-ever televised collegiate game was a showcase for Wooden and college basketball. It was played before 52,693 raucous fans at the Houston Astrodome. Interestingly, on its way to the 1968 NCAA title, UCLA would avenge its loss to Houston in tournament action. John Wooden, a six-time Coach of the Year, dedicated his life to basketball. His perseverance and endurance was rewarded, as he is one of only two people enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame as both a player and a coach.

 

"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Matt_Ward

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #183 on: January 07, 2004, 09:59:17 AM »
Steve Lang:

Thanks for asking .. some of my 19th hole friends have heads harder than Dave M and TEPaul put together! ;D

In sum -- they advocate even more fairness than I do. How's that for a switch!

TEPaul:

I agree with your take on the firmness of the courses you listed -- refreshing isn't it? Oops, I have to watch all this agreement it may mean a quick entry into the "dark side." ;D


TEPaul

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #184 on: January 07, 2004, 10:11:17 AM »
Matt Ward:

The firmness of those courses I mentioned in post #211 is not the point. Just give me your take on consistency, fairness or unfairness regarding those last three paragraphs and one way or the other your feeling on this subject will be answered for me once and for all.

Matt_Ward

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #185 on: January 07, 2004, 10:25:17 AM »
TEPaul:

I already answered that plenty of times -- I'm sorry if I don't walk in c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e lockstep with you but like Doak says in "Confidential Guide" -- if we agree 80% or more than just chalk up the rest as simple personal preference.

I mentioned the courses I played in Ireland and Wales and how much I enjoyed them. The combination of all the elements you mentioned were front and center and minus possibly a few holes, each was a delight to play. Yes, there was randomness at times, but the elements of fine shotmaking were not subject to complete whimsy and the reward / penalty aspects that I found were quite compelling and, in my mind, appropriate.

TEPaul

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #186 on: January 07, 2004, 11:13:33 AM »
Matt:

Well, I guess that's some kind of answer. The question was TOC, North Berwick and I'd throw in NGLA too under really firm and fast conditions, firm and fast greens too where the ball really moves around bigtime and random and unpredicatable things can happen in a heartbeat if you're not careful. I don't know if you've played those courses in conditions like I'm citing, probably not, but if you have and you can live with that type of thing completely as it relates to consistency of result (or lack of it), fairness or unfairness then basically we probably have no disagreement whatsoever on the issue on this thread.

I've never played Pennard and the other course you mentioned but maybe they were the same thing as I described here.

Matt_Ward

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #187 on: January 07, 2004, 11:18:29 AM »
TEPaul:

I love the subtle putdown -- "PROBABLY NOT." I know your a seer but cut me some slack Darth Paul will you -- I have played courses where the only thing harder might be the skin protecting your head. ;D

TEPaul

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #188 on: January 07, 2004, 11:24:12 AM »
Matt:

One other thing. In your last post you seem to imply those courses you played in Ireland and Scotland were fine by you but you also said 'minus a few holes'.

The courses I'm talking about here (except I've never played TOC) I would definitely not consider saying something like "minus a few holes". All the holes at NGLA and North Berwick are pretty much time tested and they just are what they are and unpredicatable things can happen on them that some would call inconsistent and unfair. But I wouldn't say something like that.

They just are what they are and the joy of it is to just figure out what to do about it! Thats a lot of the fun of it to me.

And don't give me any of this crap, like you have some others on here, that I'm not criticizing something because I don't have the guts to criticize some of these revered old courses simply because they are revered---but you do. What I say about these courses I'm talking about is the way I truly feel about them.


THuckaby2

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #189 on: January 07, 2004, 11:27:01 AM »
The courses I'm talking about here (except I've never played TOC)

Wait a second... did I read that correctly?  TEP, you have never played The Old Course?

Hmmmm... very strange.  You have been to Scotland, correct?  So I must ask, why not?

Perhaps this will be another fine tangent for this wild ride - this thread is just starting toward legend status...  ;)

Matt_Ward

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #190 on: January 07, 2004, 11:29:43 AM »
TEPaul:

Now -- now -- let's not get soooooooooooooo sensitive. Some people won't criticize anything because they are so hell bent on being invited back to some place. If you don't like what I have to say so be it -- but don't lump me with others who are so timid for self serving reasons.

I mentioned that the courses I played in the UK and Ireland  were a sheer delight. There might have been a few holes that go "over-the-top" with randomness / luck but I enjoyed the challenge in shaping shots to meet the challenges put forward.

Simple as that.


P.S. Maybe you should start a thread on the definition of revered? ;D

TEPaul

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #191 on: January 07, 2004, 11:30:13 AM »
"TEPaul:
I love the subtle putdown -- "PROBABLY NOT." "

Matt Ward, you are definitely about the most defensive contributor I've ever seen on this website and to be honest with you I can certainly see why!

You should take the advice you give to others on here and look in the mirror and when you do knock that rather large chip off your shoulder and just get on with it!

TEPaul

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #192 on: January 07, 2004, 11:38:38 AM »
"Wait a second... did I read that correctly?  TEP, you have never played The Old Course?"

TomH:

Never--I've never even been to St Andrews. I've said that a bunch of times on here. Until last summer I'd never even been to Scotland except once about 40 years ago--and I've mentioned that a bunch of times on here too. I could probably just about see St Andrew across the Firth of Forth last summer but I never got there--not that we had plans to--- there was so much other stuff to do and not much time. What would you have done--gone over to TOC or spent an entire day playing foursome golf at Muirfield with one of their primary historians? Tough call, huh?


Matt_Ward

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #193 on: January 07, 2004, 11:41:26 AM »
TEPaul:

How laughable is your last post? You're the almighty seer who initially throws forward the put down with the words "probably not" and then whines about it when I react to it.

Then you tell me not to throw forward the same "crap" when others bail out in providing no-holds-barred comments on the so-called "revered" courses. You mean the courses you "revere" right?

How bout a little respect Darth Paul?

You just come off this lofty "I know more than most" and when others, like me, counter with a different viewpoint, it's then turned around back to me as being "defensive." How lovely and utterly predictable. ::)

Isn't that really ironic -- on a thread that talks about randomness and unpredictability we get the same tired whine. Go figure ... ;)

THuckaby2

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #194 on: January 07, 2004, 11:42:08 AM »
TEP - hell yes you made the right choice last summer - remember I am one who continually trumpets that day at Muirfield as a "life-time must-do".   ;D

I had just forgotten that TOC was still on your to-do list.  It is a to-do, as you know.  But hell, that just gives you another damn good reason to go back some day.

TH

TEPaul

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #195 on: January 07, 2004, 11:55:58 AM »
"TEPaul:
Now -- now -- let's not get soooooooooooooo sensitive. Some people won't criticize anything because they are so hell bent on being invited back to some place. If you don't like what I have to say so be it -- but don't lump me with others who are so timid for self serving reasons."

Matt Ward, what the Hell are you talking about? Sure some people probably are too timid to criticize a course because they're worried they won't get asked back but when have I ever mentioned that and when have I EVER lumped you in with those who are timid to criticize architecture for self serving reasons?

Just how defensive are you anyway? Get that ridiculous chip off your shoulder against lawyers and any one else who happens to belong to a golf course will you please? You and your constant "brewski" attitude always taking shots at people you refer to as something like a "martini crowd" or whatever that stupid remark you made like it on this very thread.

You know what Matt? Has anyone told you you're full of shit lately? Because if they haven't they should have!


Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #196 on: January 07, 2004, 12:58:42 PM »
Michael,

Thanks for your long reply.  Please allow me to attempt a proper response.

YOU SAY:  "Lou - I don't think one has to be an accomplished artist to evaluate art... any more so than one has to be an accomplished golfer in order to evaluate or design courses. A better analogy would be music. You don't have to be a great musical performer to appreciate great music. Nor, do great performers necessarily make great composers. Why? Because performance and composing represent two totally different kinds of talent. Talent in musical performance has no direct correlation with one's talent in music composition. Just as talent in golf performance does not necessarily have a direct correlation to one's creative talent in golf."

Just as you mispoke about Coach Wooden, please go back to what you have written about music.  I think that you will find that a significant majority of writers and conductors are also accomplished players- at least low single-digit handicapers in
golf parlance.

Yes, as a duffer on the piano, you might be able to appreciate Mozart's talent.    But I suspect that those who've been brought-up playing and studying have far greater insight to what that boy-genious accomplished.  Admitedly, my use of the word "appreciation" was a poor choice.  I can take my next door neighbor who plays a couple of times a year to Pelican Hills, Cypress Point, and Pacific Grove Muni and he will appreciate all of them, but his lack of discernment wouldn't allow him to differentiate.

I think that the facts clearly reflect that there is a considerable positive correlation between ability to play and creative talent.  Just go to any of the rankings, the lesser of the evils in your case, and identify the top architects or designers.  Go into their and their associates' backgrounds and you will find for the most part a significant level of ability to perform.  
 
YOU SAY "I think courses like North Berwick have not been built in the US because the American game evolved into something different than the original game played in Scotland. Our game is the "card & pencil" game where one's individual score takes precedent over everything. Their game is a "match" game where defeating your opponent, no matter what the score, is most important. Our courses reflect this difference... our attitudes about design reflect this difference... our pace of play reflects this difference... even our handicap systems reflect this difference."

To the best of my knowledge, North Berwich is not being replicated in Scotland either, nor, for that matter, anywhere that we haven't corrupted by our culture.  Would you want a regular diet of North Berwick golf?  As much as I loved the place and its surroundings, after playing it a few times to really understand the course, I think that I would be ready for a Carnoustie or a Muirfield.  But that is just my Wardian ways.

YOU SAY:  Why do you think the old "classic" courses in this country are the most revered? It is because they are mostly copies or replicas of the original courses in Scotland and they are the closest connection we have to the "original" game. Why do so many Americans yearn for the pilgrimage to the "Home of Golf" to get a taste of how the game was originally played?

To answer your last question first, I know several people who've been to Scotland and have no intention of going back.  I would guess that a significant number of Americans would not like Scotish golf.

As to why the classic courses are most revered, I am not sure that they are in the golf design sense, except by a minority of nuts like ourselves.  One of the common denominators of the classics is exclusivity (absence makes the heart grow fonder).  The snob factor is no small part in this.  Another is the fantastic settings.  A third is the lack of construction restrictions which not only allowed for more coherent design, but also for more quaint, compact routings.
Extremely generous budgets allowing the club to pay six figure salaries for the best superintendents, state-of-the-art equipment, and whatever else is needed to achieve superior playing conditions (as deemed by the membership, which may not be necessarily firm and fast conditions) is no doubt a factor.  That they're often shorter and more playable, and just age and tradition may also have something to do with it.

YOU SAY: "I do not adhere to the notion that skill at golf performance automatically bestows some naturally superior talent in golf course evaluation or design. In my opinion, the reverse is most usually the case."

I agree with your first sentence; the word "automatically" being the key.  Based on my not too scant experience, your last sentence totally baffles me.   I can think of a couple of equally intelligent guys on this site, one who plays the game often and relatively well, the other who, in comparison, is somewhat new to golf.  After spending some time with both, no matter how much reading the latter has done, his intuitions, insights, and evaluations lack the substance and clarity of the former.  I generally concur that being a good golfer does not necessarily mean that you can be a superior evaluator or designer.  I will suggest, however, that if you look at the world of "evaluators" and designers, a common characteristic among many of the better ones is the ability to hit the shots, or at least, to be surrounded and greatly influenced by others who can.  

DMoriarty

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #197 on: January 07, 2004, 01:10:26 PM »
So Matt, I guess my questions to you regarding NGLA's Redan aren't worthy of response?   Or do you have no answer that fits within your silly fairness mantra?

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #198 on: January 07, 2004, 01:37:16 PM »
Matt -

I reviewed my notes on Paa Ko - not much more than what I already posted, other than confirming the hole numbers I cited that I liked (7,8,10,14,15,16,17) and adding that I really liked the 3rd green, the way it was perched up and had a pretty good slope to it. Also, I liked 10 more than 2 - they're pretty similar - because I liked the dipsy do nature of the 10th fairway.

I'd be curious to know how much the fairways were smoothed out - I think that was my biggest disappointment, the lack of internal fairway movement.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

DMoriarty

Re:Define "Fair" & "Unfair" ???
« Reply #199 on: January 07, 2004, 01:44:48 PM »
OK, Dave, so where am I advocating fairness.  Use of the word in one particular example, without advocacy, does not a general position make.

As to the Redan, what happened to me is not randomness.  That was "kick off the sprinklerhead" kind of stuff.  Very odd.  My jaw dropped.  I call that "Shit Happens."  

Dave, your beliefs package themselves into easy vs. hard. I've simply never heard you advocate anything hard and I've heard you advocate stuff that just makes courses easier dozens of times.  

Shivas,

First,  I dont give a hoot about your particular shot an at the Redan.  I am talking about the architecture.   (As an aside, I too hit what I thought was a perfect shot for me and it stuck dead, failing to run down the hill, no doubt bc lefty fades often dont run.)

Second, your word play is fooling noone.  There is no question in my mind or yours that both options contain a comparatively high degree of uncertainty of result.  The fact is, when standing on that tee, even after the ball is struck well, the golfer is quite unsure he will get the result he is after.  You can call it randomness, uncertainty, the element of luck, shit happens, tough beans, rub of the green, whatever.   We both know there is much more to results on this hole than just skill.

Quote
Hell yes, there are more variables with the ground game than the aerial game.  Duh.  There's nothing to concede since I never argued otherwise. But, we have been talking about luck vs. skill and the degree of importance each should have in the game, remember?  I'm saying that skill should be more important and that luck (good or bad) doesn't happen nearly as often as you think -- the reason most likely being that nobody plays the ground game anymore because it's the dumb play most of the time.  There's no inconsistency in that, Dave. That's just reality.

First, I am glad you are finally conceeding that in the past, when the ground game was more prevalent luck, randomness, uncertainty, shit happens, tough beans, and rub of the green, were much more common than they are notw.  It is quite big of you to finally drop your "luck has never been a significant part of the game" mantra.

Second,  as far as the "ground game being the dumb play most of the time"  I think this is because there are many too many people who think like Matt Ward . , . they've tried to minimize luck, randomness, uncertainty, shit happens, tough beans, and rub of the green through crummy architecture which doesnt incorporate interesting elements such as the ground game.  

Third,  nothing I am advocating has an iota to do with easy or hard.  Unless of course your definition of easy is usually having a good chance of being able to find and play your ball.  

Last, pardon my for thinking you advocated fairness.  After all, you only called it a question of fairness then gave examples of what you consider fair and unfair,   How silly of me.  
« Last Edit: January 07, 2004, 01:49:07 PM by DMoriarty »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back