News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Chicago Golf Club
« Last post by William_G on Yesterday at 09:49:09 PM »
John,

CGC is a place where many people can play very well.

Cheers
22
Golf Course Architecture / Re: 2018 Open prediction? Winner and score.
« Last post by Chris Mavros on Yesterday at 09:47:10 PM »

The French are on fire in world sport, time for them to exact some revenge at Carnoustie.


Just had $10 on Alexander Levy at 550/1.


"Allez Alex"


Wow, Levy at 550/1?  I would take that too!
23

I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
 


Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.


If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?


Good point and I don't know how he gets treated moving forward.  But in terms of Ross, there are plenty of his courses that were changed and renovated over time, only now being worked towards his design traits.  F/T is a good example of moving back towards Ross recently (although I don't know where they're going moving forward) and Jeffersonville is another.  J-Ville was built in 1931 approx. and 70+ years went by before it was brought back.  Restoring to a designer's original intent seems like something that's become a lot more popular over the last 10 - 15 years, whereas before that I feel like courses were trying for something else.  Take Pinehurst 2.  Hosted US Open, was a top 10 US course with Rees work, then decided to go back to what it once was.  It was successful by many measures even though changed from Ross' design, but then returned to Ross recently.  I'm glad it did. 


And I don't know if it was Rees' work that was trendy then more than a certain style was trending that Rees marketed himself as providing and was successful at producing.  I also like to think that like other artful endeavors, an individual's style changes, even evolves.  Candidly, I belong to a club designed by Rees and to me, I believe it shows an evolved style from other I've played.  Whether that translates into an acceptable re-design at F/T for all of us is anyone's guess. 
24
Golf Course Architecture / Re: 2018 Open prediction? Winner and score.
« Last post by MKrohn on Yesterday at 09:22:55 PM »

The French are on fire in world sport, time for them to exact some revenge at Carnoustie.


Just had $10 on Alexander Levy at 550/1.


"Allez Alex"
25
Golf Course Architecture / Re: 2018 Open prediction? Winner and score.
« Last post by jeffwarne on Yesterday at 09:17:20 PM »
Rose -8
a little wind could make this quite challenging-greens may be soft, but woe unto someone who attempts to fly it to the green but doesn't land ON the green
26

I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
 


Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.


If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?



27
The closer to the hole you get the more skill seems to matter to the score you make.
The opposite is true, though. The closer you get to the hole, the more the gap between players of different ability levels narrows. From 1" everyone is PGA Tour level. From 200 yards, only about 150 people are.

So if that's the basis for your entire point… you're going to struggle to get agreement amongst those who know the truth here. Short par fives are dominated by good iron players who can get the ball onto the green and closer to the hole so that they have easier shots.
28

I don’t seem to be making my point well.


 I hear many people suggesting that short par fives are weak because you often end up with a short third shot.


I believe that the small possibility of getting home in two with the most likely outcome being a short shot is a good challenge.


I have observed over the years that a well designed short five challenges the short game well.


The closer to the hole you get the more skill seems to matter to the score you make.



29
Thoroughly enjoyed the interview and insight. Especially the mention of my beloved Muni.. aka Ocala Golf Club.
30
The short shot separates skill levels more than the long shot.
No, it doesn't. The opposite is true. Others have noted this, so I won't get into depth.

I do think that the short par five are still viable, good, and interesting holes. Whether you call them a loooooong par four or a short par five, who cares? Everyone plays the same course.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10