[Jack Marr]

Ran

With all due respect, Ireland is no more part of the UK than Cuba is part of the US.

Regarding the rankings, do they only rate "higher profile" courses. There are lots of courses in Ireland better than, say, Mt Juliet (which I think is v. good, by the way) that would not be as well known.

Carlow, Headfort new, Headfort old, Esker Hills, Hermitage, Tramore, Gowran Park, Waterford Castle...

Mark O'Mera has built a new course in Maynooth, alongside a Montgommery one, which I bet will make the list on its profile. While I think the course is very good, I bet if Tiger Woods doodled a course on a beer mat and Charlton Heston built it, the "Woods-designed" course would make the list.

Do they have to be big and links to get on? A lot of the courses over here are dismissed by our American friends because they are not links, yet they rate American courses amongst the highest in the world, and they are not links.

Personally, I prefer the links, that said.

I enjoy your site.

Regards

Jack

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jack M

Very interesting post.

I wonder how highly Pine Valley would be ranked if it were, say, the Crump Course at Blairgowrie?

[Jack Marr]

Rich

I am probably at my most interesting when I'm giving out about something. Although where Golf Week ranks a particular course does not affect how much I enjoyment playing it.

I probably don't rate courses the same way many on this site do. I have never got angry at a feature of a course or with anyone who assessed the merits of a feature differently to me. I bet Colt or MacKenizie designed some terrible holes too. Blessed be the holy name!

It sounds like I'm saying "hurray for me", but I'm not, well not really. Courses shouldn't get points for who designed it or its budget or ... I've really enjoyed playing courses where the clubhouse were portocabins. I believe the portocabin in Pebble Beach is very plush.

The only difference between some of the big name architects and the less well known ones is that they wave their arms about more and move things backwards and forwards, until it looked like it did in the first instance. Ultimately, the most important consideration should be the shape of the ball - round (although I'm sure Titelist will design a rectangular one that goes 700 yds).

I don't really know what I'm talking aboutb - just ranting.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jakc

You have friends on this site.  Even the purest of the purists will admit that the Golden Oldies designed clunkers, both holes and entire courses.  If you cut through the bullshit, most people here don't give a rat's arse about the fact that some (if not all) architects are not perfect, and do not really care if a picture of a bunker taken from a particularly angle shows, or does not show, anything of interest, except to the photographer and his closest friends, or his most deadly enemies.  Most of us, I think, would rather focus on what is great about this great game than what may be, in some people's minds, lacking.  We recognize the inevitable imperfections, but we try to learn from them, not harp on them.....

It's all about the game, and if you are even remotely humanoid, that means that it is at least very much about "you" and "me" and all the other humanoids who inhabit this site, as no golf course means anything unless it is played, by a humanoid, at least in my very humble opinion.

Rich

PS--loved the tyops!

[Jack Marr]

Rich

That's comforting to know. My job on a golf course is to hit over all the badly designed hazzards  . I am not criticising those aluded to, as I would not begrudge them for doing what they enjoy.

The typos, or "typical graphical errors" (as a friend used to call them), are a specialty of mine.

Jack

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()