Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Michael Whitaker on March 22, 2007, 08:19:56 PM
-
A good friend of mind is a member of the PGA tour. He is considered one of the up and coming young players and has done quite well for himself, already winning over 2.5MM dollars since joining the tour.
He is very bright and quite fun to be around. We have had many conversations about design, architects, tour courses, etc and although he has never visited this site, I think he would enjoy the banter and fit right in. He tends to enjoy straight forward courses that require shot making skills... for example, his favorite course in SC is Harbour Town.
Our conversation yesterday took an interesting turn... we were discussing his playing a recent outing at Seminole. He has played there several times and I asked him what he thought of the course. I was surprised when he said it was one of the most overrated courses he has played. He loves and respects the history, mystique and ambiance of the course and club, but he feels the course is just not a good enough test to be considered one of the top ranked in the world. He feels it gets too many "experience" points from the raters and that the course alone does not justify the lofty ranking it receives. "Without a very stiff wind the course is a par 65 or 66," he said. "But, they have one of the greatest old clubhouses and locker rooms in US golf."
I asked him if there were any other courses he felt were overrated. He said, to my amazement, that the MOST overrated course he had ever played was Cypress Point. "It is six of the greatest holes you will ever play, six average holes, and six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course. 17 and 18 are two of the worst holes I have ever played on a good course."
Not having played either Seminole or Cypress Point I could only listen and express my surprise at his thoughts. I asked him to read Ran's reviews of the two courses on this site so we could have some common frame of reference when we next pick up the conversation.
What's your take? Any suggested questions or thoughts for our next conversaton?
-
Perhaps you could just slap him upside the head for me.
-
;)
Tom - That was my first thought, as well. As I've never played the courses I can only defend the opinion of those I respect, such as you and Ran. But, my friend is not an unschooled idiot. He knows golf, golf history, and he studies courses old and new. But, for some reason, these two courses do not rise to his level of "greatness." Is it just the overall difficulty factor?
-
Heavens, he should be beaten to death with a wet noodle ;D
-
Michael
A PGA Tour player who has earned $2.5 M is at least a +5 handicap. Since he's consistent as well then an average course is par 67 to his handicap. Throw in less then firm "normal" conditions and normal (non) rough and you cna knock off another couple of shots.
Therefore I ask what courses outside severe tournament conditions are not par 65 or 66 to these guys?
-
It's a perfect illustration of how those whose focus is on golf's renumeration for a living, have a totally different perspective than those who play the game for love of the sport.
Mike, your friends comment about relative par is the first clue that his focus is based on the game mind.
-
I get your point, and agree that nearly every course is a par 68 to these PGA Tour guys. But, Seminole and Cypress Point have obviously stood the test of time and numerous generations of golfers... and raters.
Does Cypress Point have six holes that could be considered "bad?" What's his problem with 17 and 18?
-
Both courses are very short for a Tour player. Heck, Claude Harmon shot 60 at Seminole nearly 50 years ago! And I think most Tour players would tell you that Cypress Point is no longer relevant for them.
The question is how much that has to do with whether or not they are great golf courses. A young Tour player is obviously biased in this regard, but he represents 0.001% of the golfing population. For 98% Cypress Point would be one of the 5-10 best courses in he world. It's really just an argument about how much importance we should attach to the other two percent.
I'd like to know which six holes are so bad at Cypress Point, though. Is he downgrading #5 and #6 because they're easily reachable? I can't count to six bad holes there. Maybe he confused it with Pebble Beach.
-
,
-
There was a thread somewhere along the way in which it was pointed out that most good players are able to achieve a high degree of tunnel vision in which all that matters is the particular shot they are about to execute. I'm sure this tends to somewhat remove the tempation to grant extra credit to a course for its setting.
It's like that old conversational ploy of "How good would Pebble be if it were situated on a cliffside on Colorado, a thousand miles from the ocean?" as though such a question makes any sense at all. I enjoyed my morning at Cypress Point about as much as a person is capable of enjoying life. Yet if I muster up the concentration to mentally review specific shots on specific holes there are a few holes that I could say make no particular demand on ones game...
How could it not be otherwise? In all honesty it wouldn't be realistic to want to play the tee shots on the fifteenth and sixteenth over and over again for four hours now would it?
The first of the one-shot holes is just a tee and a green and not an especially cunning green at that. Surely that can't be a hole that excites a fine player like your friend. The second of the front-nine three-shotters wouldn't be all that memorable if you were concentrating on hitting a long drive into the short grass and then pounding a second shot somewhere onto the green (which is probably pretty receptive to such a shot). And the eighteenth is widely disparaged even on this group.
Now don't get me started defending the seventeenth. I have nowhere near a Tour player's ability to block out the setting when I recall that hole. My pleasure in standing on that tee, having just played the previous hole, will always be as fresh in my mind as it was an hour later. So perhaps for that your friend deserves a slap up-a-side the head. But if you are talking about "Good golf holes for a good player" I think a perfectly valid case can be made disparaging a handful of those at CPC from the so-called "shot values" point of view.
I suspect that comparing back tees to back tees, neighboring Spyglass Hill may have fewer "nothing special" holes for a good player than Cypress Point. But even though the best holes at Spyglass are astoundingly good IMO there a several at Cypress that top them. So in sum, I advise following up on the conversation in the future but forgoing any figurative head slaps.
-
Perhaps you could just slap him upside the head for me.
I don't know...maybe it's the margarita's talking but...that's one of the funniest things I've ever heard you type, Tom!
I'd change my tag line to your quote, but Dan Kelly and I have an understanding..... ;D
Joe
-
re CPC : um, no, to say the least
-
Did the guy say *why* he felt that way? Other than the degree of difficulty? Did he say why he thought certain holes at CP were bad?
-
To each his own, I feel sorry for his opinions, he probably thinks the same of Elizabeth Taylor!
-
Michael Whitaker,
Perhaps this explains why so many modern PGA Tour players don't succeed at being great architects in their own right.
Low scoring by a PGA Tour player isn't synonymous with or indicative of inferior architecture.
I wonder what he would think of NGLA
It's also interesting to note that he deems architectural worthiness as a function of a golf course being a difficult test.
As to your next conversation, tell him not to give up his day job.
-
Michael:
I think your thread and your friend's opinions are most interesting and frankly pretty astute. It's also interesting he picks on both Seminole and Cypress because to be honest the look of them or their sites, their visual aura is very different.
It is not at all unusual to wonder what the big deal is about Seminole on one's first visit or one's first few, particularly if the wind isn't blowing. Frankly that has been happening for years at Seminole for first timers. Generally their opinions genuinely do change for the better over time and that frankly is part of the true mystery of that course because the altered feeling of golfers apparently is genuine.
Seminole with its two ridge lines is sort of unusual for south Florida but nevertheless the golf course really isn't the sexiest looking thing one has seen---actually quite the opposite.
Cypress, on the other hand is ultra beautiful and dramatic but really not until one gets to the back nine.
I do remember the first time I played Cypress being very disappointed by the look and aura of the front nine and I remember wondering what the big deal with Seminole was the first few times I played it.
And that was me. Someone above mentioned that these tour pro types are in a whole different world now and to them courses like these two are almost kiddie courses length-wise.
The only thing I would take exception with that your friend said (even for a player of that caliber) was his disappointment with Cypress's #17---but we must realize that Tiger playing that hole one time came very close to the green on his tee shot. That obviously tends to bring any hole down in the opinion of players like that if the hole wasn't actually originally designed as a short par 4 which #17 definitely wasn't.
I'm very sorry to say your friend sounds pretty astute in his opinions of those two courses but most of it, again, is logically because these tour player types really are in a different world now---eg they just hit all their clubs so much farther than courses like those two were designed for.
I can guarantee you, though, that if he played those two courses a number of times his opinion of both of them would certainly rise, in my opinion. The only real question to me would be---by how much.
-
What are his top 10 in the world?That might shed some light on his thinking.Also,how overrated?If he thinks CP is 10th ,he technically thinks it is overrated.My impression is he doesn't have it in his top 50?
-
TEPaul,
If you think Michael's friend's comments are pretty astute, you've reached a new level of Idiot-Savantism. ;D
-
I'd like to know which six holes are so bad at Cypress Point, though. Is he downgrading #5 and #6 because they're easily reachable? I can't count to six bad holes there. Maybe he confused it with Pebble Beach.
OK, I just got off the phone with my friend. He backed off the six bad holes at Cypress and said it was really more like four... two very short par fours (5 & 6?) and 17 & 18. We talked a bit about 15 & 16. He thinks 15 is a better hole. Says 16 gets all the pub because of its length.
As for Seminole... he thinks Palmetto in Aiken, SC is a better "short" course requiring a greater variety of shots. Oh, and he's very pleased with the changes to Palmetto and the direction of the improvements. ;)
Bottom line... "greatness" is not just about length or difficulty of shot values for my friend. He thinks there are plenty of old "short" courses that are great. Some of his favorites are in Australia... Royal This and Royal That (I'll save these for another discussion). He just doesn't think Seminole and Cypress fit into that category.
By the way, he also agrees with many on this site that the changes to Augusta National are going in the wrong direction. "It's the only course in the Top 100 that is adding trees," he said. "Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie are probably spinning in their graves each April."
-
TEPaul,
The interesting thing though is that that Michael says his friend has played Seminole a few times, so its not a one-visit judgement.
-
I haven't had the opportunity to play at Seminole but I have been told the greens are so fast as to be next to impossible when the course is set up for a pro am. One of our members who is a member there took our head pro down a couple of years ago. He reported that players were playing bunker ping pong across those slick greens and that there were many 4 putts.
Doesn't sound too easy to me when it's set up for serious competition.
Cypress Point? Anybody who doesn't love it is a commie rat or worse. ;D
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
-
I wonder what he would think of NGLA. It's also interesting to note that he deems architectural worthiness as a function of a golf course being a difficult test. As to your next conversation, tell him not to give up his day job.
I asked him about NGLA. He thinks it is outstanding. He just feels Seminole suffers from a bit of the "Emperor's Clothes" syndrome. "You go there thinking it has to be great because everyone says it is great. But, afterwards, you think there must be something wrong with you because you just don't see the greatness." "It is an amazing club, with a fabulous old clubhouse, and great members. But, when you judge the course by itself it just doesn't stand up. Palmetto in SC is a better course."
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
I'll inquire.
-
TEPaul,
The interesting thing though is that that Michael says his friend has played Seminole a few times, so its not a one-visit judgement.
That is correct.
-
"TEPaul,
If you think Michael's friend's comments are pretty astute, you've reached a new level of Idiot-Savantism."
I'm afraid not Patrick. If you did as much officiating of class A tournaments as I do and you watched what this new generation is doing as much as I have you would never say something like that. It's a much different world today and it's pretty shocking on that class A level compared to the class A player in our day.
You can definitely stop that level of player from scoring really low these days but the fact is you have to pull out almost every trick in the book with course set-up and maintenance practices.
If Seminole was set-up like the most intense day in the Coleman players like that guy would definitely not shoot 65 or 66 every time out even if he was playing well. One or two might on the odd occasion but not at will for most all players of that caliber.
Set Seminole up like it proably is for the membership every day and that friend of Michael's probably would shoot 65 or 66 every time out if he was playing well and putting well.
It doesn't mean to me that Seminole or Cypress are over-rated exactly, over-rated for what---a challenging course for a pro tour tournament? The architecture is what it is and hasn't changed---it only means that things have gotten out of control with that caliber of player on courses like those two.
-
TEP and Patrick,
Could you guys analyze the ninth hole at Seminole for me in the context of a guy like Michael Whitaker's friend? Please note that some players today are taking their driver out over the trees to the left and onto the shag range and coming in with mid-irons from there.
Thanks.
-
"Could you guys analyze the ninth hole at Seminole for me in the context of a guy like Michael Whitaker's friend? Please note that some players today are taking their driver out over the trees to the left and onto the shag range and coming in with mid-irons from there."
Oh come on, Sully. If players like that really are doing something like that off the tee on #9, frankly I don't know what the hell to say other than Michael Whitaker's friend is absolutely right.
There is no way in holy hell that hole (which I've always felt is not only the worst looking but also the most ineffective hole on the course) was even remotely designed to possibly contemplate or imagine a tee shot strategy like that.
If that type of player really is hitting a tee shot like that on #9 they would be absolutely massacreing the rest of the par 5s with the possible exception of #15 where there really is nowhere to go if they want to air out a driver that's that long. But even on #15 they might lay a 3 wood up in front of the second pond and just have a mid-iron in from there.
It's not that often I can related what these tour players are dong today on a golf course I really know like the back of my hand but if this kind of thing is happening like you describe, things have gotten so far out of control equipment-wise it's just sickening.
This is not the fault of Seminole or Cypress or their architecture.
-
Don't you think that green complex would do a pretty good job protecting that hole from approaches out of the shag range?
-
Michael I would love to have another reason to watch the tour when Tiger is not playing, what do we have to do for a name?
-
Michael
I played with a US Tour player yesterday in Melbourne (he is home for a week or so because he was not in Bay Hill or Doral) who is well versed in the history of the game and studies architecture both old and new.Growing up on the sandbelt he has a good eye for good work.
He played Cypress Point for the first time when he was up there for what ever they now call the Crosby.
He thought it was 'unbelievable' - 'one of the best 2 or 3 courses I have ever played.'
He well understands good architecture has nothing to do with how he plays the course.
We played at Peninsula South - once considered a long course in Melbourne - where we have recently rebuilt almost the entire course.
You can think you are building a 'long'par four but the reality is they are all drives and short irons unless the wind is against.
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
I'll inquire.
Top 7 Personal Classics
1. Pinehurst #2
2. Congressional Blue
3. Medinah
4. Riviera CC
5. Pebble Beach
6. Wannamoisett
7. Newport CC
-
Top 5 Modern (a really quick throw together)
1. Quail Hollow
2. Harbour Town
3. Spyglass Hill
4. Honors Course
5. TPC Sawgrass
-
I wonder what he would think of NGLA. It's also interesting to note that he deems architectural worthiness as a function of a golf course being a difficult test. As to your next conversation, tell him not to give up his day job.
I asked him about NGLA. He thinks it is outstanding. He just feels Seminole suffers from a bit of the "Emperor's Clothes" syndrome. "You go there thinking it has to be great because everyone says it is great. But, afterwards, you think there must be something wrong with you because you just don't see the greatness." "It is an amazing club, with a fabulous old clubhouse, and great members. But, when you judge the course by itself it just doesn't stand up. Palmetto in SC is a better course."
I'm positively tickled to have already played a "better course" than Seminole in my relatively short golfing career :D. But seriously, this perspective is extremely interesting. Mr. Whitaker, your friend's opinions seem similar to those that label Pebble Beach as being overrated because of the scenery (as has been suggested here already); does he believe Pebble is overrated? Or does its length serve it better than Cypress and Seminole in his eyes?
Mr. Clayton--
Is your playing partner's surname a homophone with that of an American PGA Tour player, perchance (I certainly understand if you'd rather not say)? But if it is, I think that he is the type of person the Tour should listen to when choosing classic, exciting venues for tournaments, having won at as classic a venue as there is in competitive golf.
I'm still convinced that courses shorter than 7000-7200 yards can still work for high-level competition (happens every year at TPC River Highlands, Brown Deer Park, Westchester), and I hope that the Tour realizes that the Corey Pavin and Jim Furyk types deserve as much of a shot as the Tiger Woods/Phil Mickelson/Ernie Els/"et al" types.
-
Michael
I played with a US Tour player yesterday in Melbourne (he is home for a week or so because he was not in Bay Hill or Doral) who is well versed in the history of the game and studies architecture both old and new.Growing up on the sandbelt he has a good eye for good work.
He played Cypress Point for the first time when he was up there for what ever they now call the Crosby.
He thought it was 'unbelievable' - 'one of the best 2 or 3 courses I have ever played.'
He well understands good architecture has nothing to do with how he plays the course.
We played at Peninsula South - once considered a long course in Melbourne - where we have recently rebuilt almost the entire course.
You can think you are building a 'long'par four but the reality is they are all drives and short irons unless the wind is against.
If he weren't at Doral, I'd have guessed that's everyone's favorite interview on Tour these days. The one who said, "Golf was better before. There was more art. It doesn't create a really rounded golfer."
That quote alone has made me an unabashed Geoff Ogilvy fan, Now I want to know who you playe with.
Ken
-
To add fuel to the fire, I have a wealthy friend (about a 8-10 handicapper) who likes great golf courses but doesn't obsess over them. He got the invite to play Cypress recently. His report to me, after the prerequisite boasting, was along the lines of "Well, it's pretty ordinary until the ocean holes, which are fabulous. The Quarry (at La Quinta, his new home club) is better."
Despite the fact he has fairly limited exposure to great courses, I was shocked, but amused by his assessment. The home course bias seems to be in effect here.
Harbour Town looks too narrow for my liking, but an accurate pro player might appreciate the need for shaped shots inbetween the trees.
-
Seems like all this proves is that people with an interest in architecture that have played a representative sampling of great golf courses can disagree on which ones they prefer.
I mean, who would have thought that?? ;D
-
"Don't you think that green complex would do a pretty good job protecting that hole from approaches out of the shag range?"
Sully:
I do not. I don't think the 9th hole green or green complex is any more challenging or interesting than the rest of the hole. And I don't think it makes much difference where you come at if from. Basically, in my opinion, Seminole's 9th hole is not necessarily a poor one compared to most golf holes extant but it does not even come close to measuring up to the rest of the holes on that course.
I'll remind you that no one ever told me this that I can recall---this is all my opinion that goes back about 40 years. I love Seminole but the 9th is either eminently forgettable or regrettable----take you pick. ;)
-
I am just dying to know what is ordinary about holes 2 through 9 at Cypress..............I suppose there isnt anything that special about #1 other than the fact THAT YOUR AT CYPRESS POINT!
I really think you could put a majority of tour pros on a airport runway and as long as they break par, they will call it a quality test of golf.........
-
No it wasn't Ogilvy who is at Doral but one of his best friends,Steve Allan.
Its interesting that the Australian players most interested in design all come from Melbourne and grew up on the sandbelt.
Steve is a member at Woodlands so he understands short but difficult courses.
-
As someone who was good at this game once said "They (the pros) play a game that we are not familiar with" ...
If I could hit my drives 300 yards consistantly, curve the ball on demand, pitch and chip to kick in range, and make 80% of my 10 footers, most every course in the world would seem easy.
The pro's don't see any of the hazards on the course, tunnel vision is an accurate statement.
I do believe that there is a way to have them better grasp the architecture ... take away their yardage books and pin sheets, their caddies and make them carry their own bag ... perhaps they will get a better feeling for a course ...
On second thought, why do we care what they think ...
-
Disregarding 4,5,6,17,18 I could see a player miss the brilliance of Seminole even after 4-5 rounds. The greens have some scary movement, but if it is somwhat calm and you are in a social situation, it is easy to miss things. Also, a long player might miss how angles play out if in a social round. Last time I played on a Sun. afternoon behind a couple of groups who were not unlike the Haversham's from Caddyshack--there was plenty of time to take in the greatness of the layout. Overall, Seminole is known for some fairly fast pace of play. I had always thought all the holes were like 4,6, and 18, so it was a real surprise to discover that nearly 2/3 of the property was dead flat. My first impression was how brilliant the routing incorporated the dunes with all the flat land.
-
What a douche this guy is. He is additional proof that a quality golfer does not mean much knowledge of architecture. Ok douche is a bit strong. South Park was on with that episode the other night. lol
-
Michael:
If it's the short par-4's your friend doesn't like, it's not holes 5 & 6 (those are short par-5's), but instead the 8th and 9th, which some people think are among the best holes on the planet.
I can understand a Tour pro not liking the 8th at Cypress Point. In theory, they are long enough to drive the green there, but the hole is blind from the tee and there's no way they could hold the green anyway, so the only real option for them is probably a 5-iron tee shot and a wedge. It's a much better hole for the members, and it is a crucial hole in the routing in order to get to #9, but it is probably overrated in itself because of the setting.
The ninth is just one of the best holes in the world. It's very short -- your friend could probably get home with a 3-wood -- but it's a frightening risk to attempt it because there are places around the green from which he might make six. Unlike the eighth, it's all in front of you, it's just about how much nerve you have. You can always play it with an iron and a wedge, and still the Tour players won't make 3 with any regularity.
-
Vis a vis Cypress, 8 is great and 9 is anything but fine. The former demands both strategic thinking and execution. The latter is just a crap shoot, with the high rollers (e.g. me, Shivas, etc.) trying the 1000-1 chance of driving the green, and the wimps (e.g. Nicklaus, Bernhardt, etc.) laying up with a 6 iron. 9 gets far too many brownie points for the old pictures of the old dune that frames it, but is completely out of play.......
Cypress is very cool, but not great. 1, 17 and 18 are extremely flawed, and the interior stuff ranges from inspired to merely transpired.
-
Cypress Point - I would happily play holes two through eleven which avoid the major ocean views. In fact, if you were allowed two holes with ocean views (12 and 13, and perhaps 9the tee) then I would have a perfect 12 hole golf course. I would happily play it again and again.
I think Michael Whitaker's friend would enjoy a game at Cypress with a 90% distance ball. And playing with genuine mates for a small bet (a beer or similar).
Thanks for voicing his opinion, he is entitled to it. Good luck on tour.
James B
-
Have him play CPC with persimmon and a 1970 titelist balata and see what he thinks.
-
Sully:
I do not. I don't think the 9th hole green or green complex is any more challenging or interesting than the rest of the hole. And I don't think it makes much difference where you come at if from. Basically, in my opinion, Seminole's 9th hole is not necessarily a poor one compared to most golf holes extant but it does not even come close to measuring up to the rest of the holes on that course.
I'll remind you that no one ever told me this that I can recall---this is all my opinion that goes back about 40 years. I love Seminole but the 9th is either eminently forgettable or regrettable----take you pick. ;)
That's astonishing to me.
My experience there is a few rounds played, 50 or so rounds caddied, and a half dozen more late afternoon (after caddying) skip around plays. So, obviously not to your extent, but also not just a one-off round.
I'm trying to figure out which direction to come at this from...How do you like #14? How about #7?
I think #9 is a good hole, even if it's a bit constricting with the distances the ball goes today. It seems to me that each shot gives each player a bit of risk to take to potentially gain an edge for their next. And the penalty for taking that risk varies from merely being in a somewhat worse position to...finding that water hazard on the right if a long hitter really wants the best angle into the green for their second.
Just a start, but how owuld you respond to those couple points and questions?
-
To be honest I'm not sure why Seminole has been asking the tour pros to come there for this get together in the spring. It's been going on for a few years and they seem to get a pretty impressive array of top notch players. I hope watching them play that course is not going to give Seminole any crazy ideas. When a story like Hank Kuehne driving the 16th green starts floating around like it did last year I don't know that it's healthy for Seminole. Seminole would have to really scratch around to do any lengthening and I sure hope these kinds of stories don't inspire the club to try----it doesn't need that.
On the other hand, there're an inordinate number of USGA Executive members who seem to be around Seminole these days. Maybe these kinds of stories might send them an important message. I don't think Ben Hogan (who belonged to Seminole) thought the golf course was overrated. ;)
-
Seminole vs. Pine Tree - I've played Pine Tree and I realized why it has been referred to as the best flat course in the US. I have not played Seminole - is it really better than Pine Tree or does it have such a status that no one dare make the comparison? I understand Pine Tree has done some significant work recently, espcially the bunkers, what's been done to Seminole? Clearly, courses evolve and with the weather that Seminole is subjected to, there is a great likelihood of changes - has the course changed much and if so, is it better because of it?
-
I'm not really in a position to comment about either as I've not played them (but I am playing Cypress this year), however I have played The Quarry and while it was very enjoyable, quiet, isolated and scenic I didn't think it was even the best course I've played in Palm Springs, so I will be astonished if I end up thinking it's better than Cypress Point!
-
I believe Mackenzie wanted a lower left alternate fairway on #2 but I don't recall why it didn't happen. I do know Mackenzie was upset with Morse for nixxing having #14 hug the coast and of course he was upset he couldn't put that back tee with the bridge on #18.
Maybe I'm wrong but something tells me the course (certainly the front nine) would feel so much cooler and more dramatic if it had all that unkempt sand area it had originally. The look of those original bunkers were certainly something dramatic to behold too.
-
Hand this guy a persimon driver and a balata ball and send him out there.
The question I would ask is what are the qualities of a golf course that make it great for him? I have no Seminole experience but have played several of the other top tens, including Cypress, and found them great experiences for an aging single digit. The environment and ambience of a Cypress or Pine Valley make up for their sometimes lack of defense against 460 cc's of titanium and space age material golf balls.
I have come to the point where I really don't give a damn about what the professional golfer thinks, their game resembles nothing I can relate to and their personalities for the most part are non existent.
I will be watching NCAA basketball this week. Are the golf pros playing? ;)
-
I wouldn't even attempt to compare Seminole and Pine Tree unless golf architecture had some kind of set standard which thankfully it doesn't.
But for a thumbnail sketch I'd say Seminole has it all over Pine Tree in the area of the vertical dimension (the playability of elevation and sloped greens and such) and Pine Tree probably has it all over Seminole in the way its features create angles in play, particularly at greens and green fronts. Belay that, on second thought Seminole does have enough interesing angles at green fronts.
-
Tom
That lower left fairway at CPC would be superb, as would a seaside green at 14. And, if they could only have re-routed the 17-mile drive so that it didn't screw up the tee shot on the 1st......
W.H.
The NCAA hasn't been the same since the two-handed set shot became obsolete. I blame Hank Lusetti.... :'(
-
Hand this guy a persimon driver and a balata ball and send him out there.
You guys keep saying that but it's a non sequitor. To someone born in 1980 who started playing golf in 1990 (using those years for illustration, I have no idea how old or young this guy is) that's like saying they ought to go camp in the woods with Civil War reenactors. Nobody plays persimmon and balata anymore and I highly doubt Mike's friend was commenting on how the course might have played when he was in diapers.
The question I would ask is what are the qualities of a golf course that make it great for him?
I think we can deduce a bit of this from the courses he mentioned to Mike as favorites. If he likes Quail Hollow, Harbor Town and Riviera it sure sounds like Cypress Point is a little on the wide-fairway end of the spectrum for him. He likes courses where you have to work the ball to smallish targets which of course is generally (generally I said!) at an opposite pole from the "strategic width" of fairways we like to talk about here.
Honestly, a lot of you guys are responding as though you can't even imagine there's a point of view other than a middle-aged club golfer who hits it like it's 1978. I think a course with the renown of Seminole or Cypress Point ought to offer fun and challenge to a young, flatbelly pro just as surely as they ought to be playable by a 60-year-old 12-hcp. Sounds like both of them do the latter better than the former in this guy's estimation.
Here's a fun exercise. Take some well-reputed courses that a Tour pro would love and evaluate them for how well they handle the needs of weaker players. Are there any great courses we could talk about that are of Seminole/CPC caliber for the flatbellies but "overrated" for the typical GCA Forum member?
-
The question I would ask is what are the qualities of a golf course that make it great for him?
I don't know this gentleman, but I see and hear a lot of quotes from Tour pros and things they say about courses they like are are pretty revealing, IMHO.
"It's all there in front of you," is one favorite, which tells me theat many of them don't like having to figure out where to put their ball.
The other one that comes up all the time is, "It's hard, but fair." Of course they like hard golf courses, they separate good ball strikers from bad ball strikers. And fairness generally implies some kind of proportional punishment based on how well a shot is struck.
And "good shot" is generally defined by whether or not it lands where the player intended.
So when he's 100 yards out, hitting L wedge to a hard, fast green that slopes away, it's the golf course's fault that it ended up in over the green. A "fair" test wouldn't have punished him for hitting a "perfect" shot.
The same applies to a ball that lands in the fairway and bounces off a mogul into the rough.
It's why many of them hate centerline bunkers. I have friends who say, "It's just not fair to put trouble in the middle of the fairway. Of course, they're the same yahoos who think they shouldn't have a bad lie in the fairway, either.
It's like the thread here on appreciation for quirk in courses.
Ken
-
And to think that MacKenzie reckoned that Cypress avoided criticism of its difficulty because of the beauty of the setting!
I think TE Paul has it right on both Seminole and Cypress Point: their true greatness would manifest itself even more over time, under different conditions, etc. And, this has got to be due in large part to their respective routings, by universal agreement two of the best ever.
The tour pro does get points for crediting Palmetto, even though it is no Seminole.
Ken
-
"Tom
That lower left fairway at CPC would be superb"
Rich:
Do you think so? I was just looking at a photo of the old hole (with Mackenzie on the tee) and I was wondering if that lower left fairway had been built if it wouldn't have almost killed the higher risk option of going up into the right fairway. It looks to me like that lower left fairway was directly inline between the tee and the green and consequently a shorter route. The only drawback I can see to the lower left option would be the player would be down low on his second shot and perhaps sort of blind. Balancing really distinct options like those two so they really do stay in a form of equilibrium (that they both remained used and functional enough in play) can sometimes be some pretty tricky shit. ;)
But you know that course better than I do.
-
If Seminole were 7400 yards, the pros would likely then call it the "greatest course in the world" because it'd kick their asses day in and day out. That's all Tour Pros respect - "resistance to scoring"...............
I'd modify that to add that they respect "tee-to-green resistance to scoring" better than what they might term "tricked-up greens resistance to scoring". From the sum of Tour-pro comments I've heard over the years I think they greatly respect any course that can make them score at or above par by something other than lightning-fast greens (which isn't a big deal for the best players anyway) or super-nasty rough.
I suspect the Tour-pro preference with the biggest difference from my own is that they seem to really like courses like Bay Hill or Doral or TPC Sawgrass with a lot of water. I'm honestly happiest with a course that only makes me directly challenge the water a couple times a round and that gives me at least half its holes without lateral hazards along the fairway. I doubt most Tour pros would feel that way at all.
-
Tom
You tak the hi road an I'll tak the low road, and i'll be a puttin' afore ye.......
What is needed on 2 CPC is a low road (left) which is fraught with danger, but gives a real chance for birdie (or eagle) if that road is chosen and executed properly.
Winchester CC has a somewhat similar hole (14?). It would be unidimensional (as is the current 2 CPC) if it didn't have the low road.
Ricardo
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
I'll inquire.
Top 7 Personal Classics
1. Pinehurst #2
2. Congressional Blue
3. Medinah #4
4. Riviera CC
5. Pebble Beach
6. Wannamoisett
7. Newport CC
That Medinah #4 course certainly has stood the test of time, since it was never built.
Couldn't resist.
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
I'll inquire.
Top 7 Personal Classics
1. Pinehurst #2
2. Congressional Blue
3. Medinah #4
4. Riviera CC
5. Pebble Beach
6. Wannamoisett
7. Newport CC
That Medinah #4 course certainly has stood the test of time, since it was never built.
Couldn't resist.
My bad cut & paste job... the #4 refered to Riviera as the next item.
-
Michael,
Seems interesting to me that Wannamoisett would be in his top 7 and that Seminole is so over-rated. If you mentioned it earlier in the thread, I apologize (I didn't see it), but did he elaborate on what it was about the course that he didn't like.
-
This subjective classification stuff is de rigeur on this website, so I'm not offended by the suggestion that these two courses might be overrated. I've only played Cypress Point, so I can chime in on that course. There are a couple so/so holes at Cypress Point, especially the 18th which is frankly an abomination, but in my opinion, it is hard indeed to "overrate" Cypress Point. The course flows effortlessly through the forest and along the shore of the peninsula in an ingenious way. The Mackenzie bunkering and greens are beguiling indeed. Then you add the undeniable majesty of the par 3's on the back nine and you have a supreme golf experience, even if your first tee shot goes over a hedge, over a road and in the general direction of the "driving range". What a place. I don't know where it belongs on the Top Ten list, but it does indeed belong.
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
I'll inquire.
Michael,
I'd also like to know, under what conditions did he play Seminole. When the wind is not up, which is unusual, it can be benign in terms of scoring, but, when the prevailing and non-prevailing winds are up, the course changes its personality, considerably.
It's not unusual for 1, 2, 3 and more club length winds to buffet the golf course.
-
My dad was a member at both, played most of the top 100 he considered CPC th best course ever. Iplayed Seminole once a long time ago and don't remember it well. CPC on the other hand has changed due to the drought and use of reclaimed water. I challenge your friend to play it if the greens were cut to their 1970's height. The key to CPC is not length but the greens. When CPC was still played on tour it was like the second shortest course but in the top ten for highest scoring average. Personally I have thought for years if it were set up for a US Openit would be one of the most difficult ever.
-
"TEPaul,
If you think Michael's friend's comments are pretty astute, you've reached a new level of Idiot-Savantism."
I'm afraid not Patrick. If you did as much officiating of class A tournaments as I do and you watched what this new generation is doing as much as I have you would never say something like that. It's a much different world today and it's pretty shocking on that class A level compared to the class A player in our day.
TEPaul,
I no longer officiate USGA events.
But, I do play with these fellows, and am keenly aware of the distance issue.
Michael Whitaker's friend contexted the "ranking" of Seminole in the sole context of offering a difficult test to the PGA Tour player.
You should know, after 7 or more years of posting on this site, that the rankings aren't determined on the basis of providing a difficult test.
And, if you looked at the golf courses he categorized as "SHORT", Pinehurst # 2, Congressional Blue and
Medinah # 3, you'd see that all of them are very, very long golf courses.
Hence, Michael's friend should stick to PLAYING golf at the highest level and not delve into a career as an architect.[/color]
You can definitely stop that level of player from scoring really low these days but the fact is you have to pull out almost every trick in the book with course set-up and maintenance practices.
Scoring on a 6,700 yard golf course by a PGA Tour player has nothing to do with the architectural merit of the golf course.
If nothing else, a course in your own backyard, Merion, should have taught you that lesson.
Merion's over 7,000 yards these days isn't it ?
What percentage of the members and their guests play it from all the way back ?[/color]
If Seminole was set-up like the most intense day in the Coleman players like that guy would definitely not shoot 65 or 66 every time out even if he was playing well. One or two might on the odd occasion but not at will for most all players of that caliber.[/b]
Scoring isn't the issue, it's Michael's friend's sole focus to the exclusion of everything else.
You're raising Idiot-Savantism to new levels[/b]
Set Seminole up like it proably is for the membership every day and that friend of Michael's probably would shoot 65 or 66 every time out if he was playing well and putting well.
I'll book that bet.[/color]
It doesn't mean to me that Seminole or Cypress are over-rated exactly,
BUT, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.[/color]
over-rated for what---a challenging course for a pro tour tournament?
That's not the criteria by which courses are rated/ranked[/color]
The architecture is what it is and hasn't changed---it only means that things have gotten out of control with that caliber of player on courses like those two.
It took you all of these posts and all of those typed words to finally figure that out ?
You need to get out of the cold, damp northeast to warmer climes.[/color]
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
I'll inquire.
Top 7 Personal Classics
1. Pinehurst #2
2. Congressional Blue
3. Medinah
4. Riviera CC
5. Pebble Beach
6. Wannamoisett
7. Newport CC
Michael,
I think I see the problem.
Your friend, obviously a GREAT player, can't differentiate between "short" courses and "LONG" courses.
Pinehurst # 2, Congressional Blue and Medinah are very long golf courses and Riviera and Pebble Beach aren't short, they're fairly long as well.
Newport is a par 70 that I wouldn't consider short and Wannamoisett is a par 69.
Since he considered 17 and 18 at CPC as weak, how does he view # 17 at Wannamoissett ? Or, # 18 at Newport ?
If he can't make the distinction between long and short courses how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit ?
In an earlier post you referenced his criteria for determining architectural worthiness, and it was in the sole context of a "difficult test" which almost always equates to length for a PGA Tour player.
As I mentioned earlier, you'd be giving him great advice by telling him not to give up his day job. ;D[/color]
-
...did he elaborate on what it was about the course that he didn't like.
Don't get me wrong... I didn't say he didn't like Seminole, just that he feels the course does not measure up in comparison to other courses considered "world class." My impression is that he sees Seminole as a great old course that services its members well, but no longer deserves its ranking as one of the best courses in the world. He thinks most amateurs are afraid to say anything less than glowing about Seminole in fear that they will be seen as "uneducated" or worse... unworthy. He is very appreciative and respectful of the history and aura associated with Seminole... I think he just feels it has seen its day as one of the elite courses and is benefiting too much in the ratings from past glory. I'm sure his opinion of what constitutes an elite level course differs considerably from yours and mine, given the differences in our game... but, it doesn't make his opinion invalid and it certainly does not deserve snide remarks (not you Terry) about his intelligence or appreciation of course design. I think he would be the first to admit, like Tom Doak says, that he represents a tiny fraction of the golfing population and sees courses in a different light. However, he does not discount the past or old courses... as I mentioned before he said some of the greatest courses he has ever seen are some of the old timers in Australia.
I'm going to ask him to read this thread and we'll see what kind of response, if any, he'll give us.
-
"Tom
You tak the hi road an I'll tak the low road, and i'll be a puttin' afore ye......."
Ricardo:
For about five years now that song or jingle has been the theme song to me of the very fundamental essence of what real strategic golf and golf architecture is all about. ;)
And if the hi road or lo road or any other way to travel from hither to yon is something less than completely obvious---so much the better.
Just imagine a couple of people standing and looking at miles and miles of open moors or whatever, and saying to each other:
"Ye take the high road and I'll take the Low road and I'll be in Scotland before Ye"
That is the fundamental essence of natural strategic golf to me----eg find your own best or quickest way! ;)
-
Thanks Michael,
I misspoke by using the term "dislike" as he/you certainly did not. I found it interesting that Wannamoisett made the list of favorites (I know it's overall favorites, and not "short" courses even though the eminent Mucci can't seem to) is all and was trying to find the hook.
Thanks again
-
"Scoring isn't the issue, it's Michael's friend's sole focus to the exclusion of everything else."
Patrick:
Where have you been?
When players like that play a golf course you don't think the membership will talk about what they shoot on their course?
You don't think they talk about where they drive the ball and such?
That's about all they do talk about---at any golf course. It's human nature, pal.
I wish it wasn't so but it sure is and if you don't think so you are really dreaming.
Somebody to Seminole members:
"Did you hear that Hank Kuehne drove the 16th green?"
Seminole members:
"Oh yeah, we heard about that but what difference does that make since we have such great architecture?"
;)
-
I think I see the problem.
There is no "problem," just a difference of opinion.
Your friend, obviously a GREAT player, can't differentiate between "short" courses and "LONG" courses.
I think he can differentiate between long and short just fine... of course, your "long" would be more in line with his "short."
...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?
Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past.
As I mentioned earlier, you'd be giving him great advice by telling him not to give up his day job.
I take offense to these smartass "keep your day job" comments. This is a strictly first-class guy who's opinion differs from yours... leave it at that.
-
Patrick,
What you are missing in your analysis is that you asked Michael to produce a list of his friends favorite "short" courses. His friend, not realizing the level of idiot making th e request, responded with two lists of favorite courses and let you break down what type of course he prefers. Pretty fair input if you ask me.
-
Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past.
That is one of the best lines I have ever heard on this forum!
-
"...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?
"Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past."
Patrick:
Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that intelligent young tour pro just wasn't "interfacing" properly with the architectural features of Seminole? ;)
Or is it possible to "interface" with Seminole's architectural features when your ball is nine miles above them and still rising? ;)
-
"It's all there in front of you," is one favorite,
God how I hate that phrase!
-
Tom Doak has pointed out that you cannot build the same quality course from all tees. Therefore, if the course is of the highest quality from the tees that play say 6600, then if you normally play courses that are best from 7200 or more, you are probably not "interfacing" with the course as you should when you play 6600.
-
Garland,
I got lost in the wording, but I think you (and Tom Doak) are spot on!
-
When someone feels a course is overated...it's just their opinion, which the great thing is because we're in America we're allowed to have differing opinions.
I recently played No.2 and thought it was overated, especially considering the cost. IMO it is nowhere near the course Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes are and yet is similar in ranking to them in all publications...I even felt Pine Needles was a better course in fact...so to each his own.
Brian
-
Michael,
pardon the twist, but I'm really enjoying this thread and couldn't help wondering if the young fella'm'lad has ever seen/played TOC.
And, if so, how it might have figured in his mindset, or have compared with these other examples?
ta,
FBD.
PS BTW, it is physically impossible, even in a pan-dimensional universe, for CPC to ever be 'over'-rated... ;D
-
PS BTW, it is physically impossible, even in a pan-dimensional universe, for CPC to ever be 'over'-rated... ;D
Spoken like a fellow Mackenzie fan! I agree, Martin. CPC overated? I think not. Not some peoples cup of tea? I'm sure that can be the case. But taken as a whole, most would agree that it is one of the 5 best in the country, if not the world. As for 18, as TEP pointed out, it does not play the way Mackenzie originally wanted it to play. I'm not making excuses being a Mackenzie fan, but this must be taken into consideration.
-
Michael Whitaker,
This is what you wrote.
I'll address your recent responses when I return from an errand.
A good friend of mind is a member of the PGA tour. He is considered one of the up and coming young players and has done quite well for himself, already winning over 2.5MM dollars since joining the tour.
He is very bright and quite fun to be around. We have had many conversations about design, architects, tour courses, etc and although he has never visited this site, I think he would enjoy the banter and fit right in. He tends to enjoy straight forward courses that require shot making skills... for example, his favorite course in SC is Harbour Town.
Our conversation yesterday took an interesting turn... we were discussing his playing a recent outing at Seminole. He has played there several times and I asked him what he thought of the course. I was surprised when he said it was one of the most overrated courses he has played. He loves and respects the history, mystique and ambiance of the course and club, but he feels the course is just not a good enough test to be considered one of the top ranked in the world. He feels it gets too many "experience" points from the raters and that the course alone does not justify the lofty ranking it receives. "Without a very stiff wind the course is a par 65 or 66," he said. "But, they have one of the greatest old clubhouses and locker rooms in US golf."
I asked him if there were any other courses he felt were overrated. He said, to my amazement, that the MOST overrated course he had ever played was Cypress Point. "It is six of the greatest holes you will ever play, six average holes, and six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course. 17 and 18 are two of the worst holes I have ever played on a good course."
What's your take? Any suggested questions or thoughts for our next conversaton?
P.S.
Everyone on the planet knows that Seminole is benign when it comes to resisting scoring when there's no wind.
Fortunately, the wind blows pretty good most of the time.
-
Patrick:
For those of us who have not played Seminole, could you point out the features that work when the wind is up but are not that significant when it is calm? Are there some features that are unique to Seminole which make it special and cannot be found at other courses?
-
Tom Doak has pointed out that you cannot build the same quality course from all tees. Therefore, if the course is of the highest quality from the tees that play say 6600, then if you normally play courses that are best from 7200 or more, you are probably not "interfacing" with the course as you should when you play 6600.
Garland, interesting concept, but how is it possible to say the highest quality is at 6,600 yards without some reference to a particular player and set of skills. Wouldn't rating the quality depend on how a player would interface (Mucci concept) with the architecture at that length of course. So, it's the highest quality at 6,6000 yards for a player who drives the ball 250 and hits his 7 iron 150 yards might be a more apt way to describe it.
Or do you think that the quality of architecture on a particular course can be divorced from the skills of the player playing it?
-
Bryan,
I read it to mean...the best for the most...
Jerry,
Small deflective greens which become more difficult to hit as the wind picks up...so positioning and shot shape matter more...
-
JES,
Probably a reasonable reading.
Using that understanding, the young pro in question probably doesn't fit into the "most" for Seminole or CPC.
I wonder what tees provide the highest quality architecture for the most on those two courses. Regretably I can't say, not having played either.
-
"Scoring isn't the issue, it's Michael's friend's sole focus to the exclusion of everything else."
Patrick:
Where have you been?
In my office, working. Where have you been ?[/color]
When players like that play a golf course you don't think the membership will talk about what they shoot on their course?
There's always been a member fascination with how the best golfers in the world, the PGA Tour players, will do on their course. Since you're so familiar with Seminole you know how conditions of play and maintainance conditions influence score.[/color]
You don't think they talk about where they drive the ball and such?
The long ball has always been an object of interest[/color]
That's about all they do talk about---at any golf course. It's human nature, pal.
I wish it wasn't so but it sure is and if you don't think so you are really dreaming.
What has that got to do with the rankings as produced by Golfweek and Gold Digest ?
If you'll go back and read the opening post, you'll see that it's about Seminole's ranking, not hitting the ball long.[/color]
-
...couldn't help wondering if the young fella'm'lad has ever seen/played TOC.
He's never been to Scotland.
-
I think I see the problem.
There is no "problem," just a difference of opinion.
It's more than that.
It's the abilty to see versus being blind.
Your friend has myopic vision.
He can only see the golf course in the context of his game, which is a common failing amongst many.
In addition, your friend appears to have no concept of the numerous criteria and methodology employed by the magazines that produce the ratings/rankings of golf courses.
Your friends sole criteria, as evidenced in your post, was that the course didn't provide a difficult test.
For whom ? For one one millionth of one percent of the golfers on the planet ? Or, for 99 + % of the thousands of people who play there every year ? Your friends perspective and analysis is in the extremely limited context of his game.[/color]
Your friend, obviously a GREAT player, can't differentiate between "short" courses and "LONG" courses.
I think he can differentiate between long and short just fine... of course, your "long" would be more in line with his "short."
Playing courses at 7,200+ on a regular basis, as recently as last week, having been in the presence of the greatest golfers in the world during their rounds and playing with fellows who carry the ball 300+ qualifies me to understand what long and short are.
And, Medinah # 3 at 7, 561 yards, Pinehurst # 2 at 7,305+ yards and Congressional Blue at 7,250+ yards don't qualify as short in any prudent person's assessment of golf course length. In fact, at 7,561 Medinah # 3 will be the longest golf course in Major History.
Your friends categorization of the golf course as an "old", "short" golf course speaks to his inability to differentiate between long and short golf courses.
I also don't know many people who categorize Medinah # 3 as an "old" golf course. It's had more surgery, major and minor than the "cat lady".[/color]
...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?
Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past.
Like all students, he has a lot to learn. It also seems that he's in the midst of the learning process. Astute architectural intellects can detect architectural features irrespective of their year of origin. Obviously he's chosen to study the Nouveau school of architecture, skipping over all that came before it.[/color]
As I mentioned earlier, you'd be giving him great advice by telling him not to give up his day job.
I take offense to these smartass "keep your day job" comments. This is a strictly first-class guy who's opinion differs from yours... leave it at that.
I have no doubt that he's a first class guy, and a world class golfer, but, just because one's pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean that they sing well in the shower.
Architectural awareness points aren't awarded on personality or golfing prowess.
You're looking to give him the very same brownie points that he objected to in his reference to CPC and Seminole, points awarded on pedigree rather than on merit.
It's not that his opinion differs from mine, he's entitled to his opinion, no matter how outlandish it may be.
He's not familiar with the rating methodology, nor the criteria that make up the analysis.
He couched his understanding of ratings solely in the context of providing a difficult test, which is flat out wrong.
Since he's misinformed about the process, his conclusions are flawed and out of step with mainstream thinking on the subject of ranking/rating Cypress Point and Seminole.[/color]
-
Hand this guy a persimon driver and a balata ball and send him out there.
You guys keep saying that but it's a non sequitor. To someone born in 1980 who started playing golf in 1990 (using those years for illustration, I have no idea how old or young this guy is) that's like saying they ought to go camp in the woods with Civil War reenactors. Nobody plays persimmon and balata anymore and I highly doubt Mike's friend was commenting on how the course might have played when he was in diapers.
This is like saying the Mona Lisa isn't amazing because she doesn't have tattoos, piercings or breast augmentation.
The beauty of the art isn't dependent on the age in which it was created. The pro who questions the quality is without the perspective to understand what he is looking at. He only understands the most simplistic of his needs.
Is it long? Is it hard? Are the greens faster than glass? Age may add understanding and an appreciation of quality. Until then he will think Pamela Anderson is the Mona Lisa of his age! :o
-
Michael Whitaker,
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?
I'll inquire.
Top 7 Personal Classics
1. Pinehurst #2
2. Congressional Blue
3. Medinah
4. Riviera CC
5. Pebble Beach
6. Wannamoisett
7. Newport CC
JES II,
This is for...... the reading challenged
Reread my question.
-
Patrick,
What you are missing in your analysis is that you asked Michael to produce a list of his friends favorite "short" courses. His friend, not realizing the level of idiot making th e request, responded with two lists of favorite courses and let you break down what type of course he prefers. Pretty fair input if you ask me.
JES II,
Might I suggest that you begin proof reading after you type.
At 7,561 yards, the longest course in Major's history, you would appear to be the idiot.
Medinah # 3 a "classic" ?
-
"...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?
"Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past."
Patrick:
Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that intelligent young tour pro just wasn't "interfacing" properly with the architectural features of Seminole? ;)
NO,
It's got to do with one's architectural vision and awareness.
It can be myopic, limited to only seeing the architecture that "their" play sees, or one's vision can be ominiscient, seeing the architecture that "everyone's" play sees. [/color]
Or is it possible to "interface" with Seminole's architectural features when your ball is nine miles above them and still rising? ;)
If one only sees "their" ball in flight, they're missing most, if not all, of the architecture.
Do me a favor.
Lend this fellow Coorshaw ;D[/color]
-
It seems on point to me to quote the beginning of Ran Morrissett's writeup on Seminole where he quotes the good doctor: " 'A good golf course . . . is not necessarily a course which appeals the first time one plays it, but one which grows on the player the more frequently he visits it,' proclaimed Alister MacKenzie." And then: "Bob Jones once said of St. Andrews, ' The more I studied the Old Course, the more I loved it; and the more I loved it the more I studied it.' The same could be said for David Eger, the 1988 U.S. Mid-Amateur champion, and Seminole. Eger first played Seminole in the late 1970s and thought the course to be just fair, but his dozens of subsequent rounds have him now convinced of the course's greatness."
So can't our unnamed young pro be granted a little slack? He's not the first to be unimpressed with an acknowledged classic, nor the only person whose opinion is out of step with mainstream thinking.
God forbid !
-
Tom Doak has pointed out that you cannot build the same quality course from all tees. Therefore, if the course is of the highest quality from the tees that play say 6600, then if you normally play courses that are best from 7200 or more, you are probably not "interfacing" with the course as you should when you play 6600.
Garland, interesting concept, but how is it possible to say the highest quality is at 6,600 yards without some reference to a particular player and set of skills. Wouldn't rating the quality depend on how a player would interface (Mucci concept) with the architecture at that length of course. So, it's the highest quality at 6,6000 yards for a player who drives the ball 250 and hits his 7 iron 150 yards might be a more apt way to describe it.
Or do you think that the quality of architecture on a particular course can be divorced from the skills of the player playing it?
I thought I was implying what you suggest by making reference to properly "interfacing" with the design. Please excuse my pore engineerish. :D
-
Michael Whitaker,
Thanks for posting your friends comments.
You rarely hear a touring pro's opinion about some of the classical golden age courses (the one's that are outside the touring rota). Maybe once a while a polite snippet but seldom an outspoken judgment from his specific perspective like this one.
-
Eric,
Here is another.
It's from a pretty famous American player - very famous actually.Not Tiger.
A pro I know was playing a practice round at Royal St Georges for the 1993 Open with the great man and asked him what he thought of the course.
'Nothing a small nuclear explosion couldn't fix'
-
Mike,
Yes, that is a fun one-liner.
Alright, it doesn't really elevate any further discussion on what the pro liked and disliked about the course. I think the comments from Michael's friend did that.
You don't happen to have any additional information on which parts of the course that the great man would aim the nuclear attacks towards?
;)
-
Eric,
I agree that its just a one-liner and does not really add to the discussion.
Presumably the quirky bounces and that not too much is predictable or 'fair' were at the heart of his lack of affection for the course.
Kind of the opposite of Birkdale - which pros are always going to love because its the least quirky of the Open courses.
-
I hate to take this to its most basic point but allow me to suggest that this entire thread is a rehash of the "resistance to scoring" criteria which was, and may still be, used by Golf Digest in its course ratings. Some feel it is valid and significant while others do not. Perhaps it is the prosecutor in me coming out - I need to break down a very complicated case to some very opinionated people.
-
Therefore I ask what courses outside severe tournament conditions are not par 65 or 66 to these guys?
RCD, it is not tricking up at all for the Walker Cup.
-
Mike Clayton:
Interesting quote from that famous player about St Georges.
Some of the significant members of Royal Port Rush told me a few years ago that Gary Player got to the tee of Calamity and looked down on the Valley course below and proclaimed that it was nothing that a fleet of D-8s couldn't fix. Needless to say Gary isn't very popular at RPR.
-
Actually, this has been a most interesting thread because although it isn't a regular occurence to get tour pro caliber comments on some classic courses there have been some recently and some classic courses seem to get rave revues from them.
So this probably is a very valid thread question.
For instance, I don't believe any tour pro caliber players have said Shinnecock is "overrated". ;)
-
Tom, how do you think they would rate NGLA though? Wouldn't surprise me to see more CPC or Seminole type reactions, as from Michael's friend.
Michael -- do you know how your friend likes NGLA? ANGC?
-
Jim:
I think a player like that would probably have somewhat the same reaction to NGLA but not to the extent of Seminole or CPC.
I also feel very strongly that a player like that would have a much less negative reaction to NGLA if the club simply gave that player a card whereby NGLA would be a par 70 rather than the par 73 it was last year.
BTW, NGLA has changed the par of the course as of this year to a 72 from 73. Hole #5 is now a par 4.
-
He is very bright and quite fun to be around... although he has never visited this site, I think he would enjoy the banter and fit right in...
He said, to my amazement, that the MOST overrated course he had ever played was Cypress Point. "It is six of the greatest holes you will ever play, six average holes, and six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course. 17 and 18 are two of the worst holes I have ever played on a good course."
Michael, your comments about your friend suggest he'd be a good one to know and play golf with. But his remarks about CPC and the other comment about the 16th hole at Cypress strike me as self-aggrandizing. It seems to me you need an ego the size of Montana to disparage these classic courses.
They've stood the test of time, and--unlike one of his faves Medinah#3 for example, haven't needed much "updating."
I suppose it's marginally worthwhile to try and critique them, but simply labeling them as overrated doesn't add much to the discourse and, it's clear from this thread, not many minds are going to be changed.
Better that the courses should simply be studied, and the best elements of them emulated in your friend's first "signature" design!
-
Michael Whitaker and AndyT:
I didn't say I assumed Michael's tour pro friend had only played Seminole once, I only mentioned that that is a very common reaction and from a bunch of people when they first play the course.
Seminole has been holding something in the last few years where an impressive smattering of well known tour pros have come to participate. Obviously they're all curious about Seminole. Perhaps Michael's friend has been part of that since it began.
Michael, I really appreciate this kind of input from your tour pro friend and I'd most definitely encourage you to encourage him to register and participate on this website.
Personally, I think it would be fanatastic to get some PGA tour pros participating on here. God knows they all probably have laptops and enough down time to get on here.
-
. God knows they all probably have laptops and enough down time to get on here.
I doubt it Tom...I'm sure they are constantly checking where they are in the Fed Ex Cup point race ::) ;)
-
;D :D ???
As to scenery, visual embellishments being a non-factor.
Would that make Shooters in Ft. Lauderdale , LOL, just an average place to get a drink?
-
TEPaul,
Didn't mean to critique your statements so much as just counter the prevailing sentiment here that "well the guy just played it once and obviously didn't get it."
More generally, I agree that its great to have an alternative point of view, and I applaud posters on this thread who have tried to gain an understanding of why this guy thinks the way he does. Criticizing his view point from a second hand account doesn't do anybody any good in terms of understanding the rationale.
This type of thread to me makes it appear to be not worth criticizing the status quo courses here sometimes because some will label you as an idiot who does not know anything about architecture instead of using it as a learning opportunity to understanding others' viewpoints. There are many statements on this thread of posters immediately trying to explain how such a silly thought could have come into this fellow's head.
I've never set foot on either one of these courses, but its important to me if I ever do to understand not just why most think they are great, but why detractors may think they are flawed.
-
God knows they all probably have laptops and enough down time to get on here.
I hear you.
I will mail a couple of the Swedish players tonight with a link to the thread about Merion's 10th and ask them to get on here.
You can thank me later.
-
"I will mail a couple of the Swedish players tonight with a link to the thread about Merion's 10th and ask them to get on here.
You can thank me later."
No Eric. You can tell those Swedish Tour pros THEY can thank you later. ;)
-
"TEPaul,
Didn't mean to critique your statements so much as just counter the prevailing sentiment here that "well the guy just played it once and obviously didn't get it."
Andy:
That's precisely what I'm trying to do too.
I love Seminole but one cannot just rationalize away the fact that so many players, particularly good ones, have wondered what the big deal is about Seminole after playing it the first time.
I love Seminole, always have, but I'm not about to tell all those players who have had that first impression that they just don't get it.
On the other hand, like TOC, I have seen how Seminole tends to grow on those players who pan it at first---maybe not all but a lot of them, so I just think this is an interesting subject and it's why I like to hear Michael Whitaker's tour pro friend's specific take on it.
-
Andy:
Regarding Seminole, let me post a few thoughts in a day or so on it that go back a long, long way and some of the ramifications of those thoughts to perhaps this subject.
But I'll tell you what they will basically revolve around.
I've know that course for years, decades---and me and most others considered it to be a very good course back then, probably great, but it certainly did play pretty tame all the time (for good players) compared to the way it is now or can be.
And then starting around 1990 I played in the first five or so Colemans and it just blew my mind.
The course was so much different than what I'd always known and it wasn't exactly over the top----just super challenging and intense. It was really cool, in my opinion.
I guess that is where I started thinking about the IMM basic idea but it didn't get really formulated in my mind until maybe ten years later when essentially the same thing happened to me at NGLA.
I was on the way home from Long Island after playing the National Singles tournament and I was at going by Exit 7A on the New Jersey turnpike and all of a sudden---BOOM---it all came together and became crystal clear to me in an instance---and the IMM jigsaw puzzle concept was born.
But I guess if I think back on it all now, it all sort of started around 1990 in those first few Colemans. Basically I just couldn't believe a golf course could be that much different from what I'd always known just because of some really well thought through maintenance pracitices strung together in combination.
-
Actually, this has been a most interesting thread because although it isn't a regular occurence to get tour pro caliber comments on some classic courses there have been some recently and some classic courses seem to get rave revues from them.
So this probably is a very valid thread question.
For instance, I don't believe any tour pro caliber players have said Shinnecock is "overrated". ;)
Personally I don't give a lot of creedence to an unnamed pro player saying Seminole and CPC are overrated. We have a former state amateur champion at my club who has also made it to the quarters of the US Amateur and he is completely naive to classic golf course architecture. Furthermore you have supers, architects and USGA folk that have no clue or respect for classic courses so I'm sure you would find it easy to find a number of pros who wouldn't like either of these courses. I would bet that John Daly as an example couldn't identify the intricacies of Seminole.
-
On the other hand, like TOC, I have seen how Seminole tends to grow on those players who pan it at first---maybe not all but a lot of them, so I just think this is an interesting subject and it's why I like to hear Michael Whitaker's tour pro friend's specific take on it.
Tom, I have a theory on this (though I'm obviously guessing with these particular courses, as I haven't had the pleasure).
Many great "classic" courses are more subtle in their defenses than most modern courses. As such, it may not be obvious which side of the fairway to favor, when to attack a certain hole location, where not to leave an approach shot, etc.
If you don't play there frequently enough, and especially under the right conditions, you might get away with something and not even realize it. Or you might get penalized and think it was your shot, rather than your (lack of) thinking.
Conversely, if you are fortunate enough to play said courses frequently, you start to feel more pressure on your drives, approaches and putts, knowing what is at stake, and you start to think more during your round, and, consequently, think more highly of the course as a result.
I think subtle classics - and likely also subtle moderns - will always suffer in the eyes of the non-frequent players.
-
Joel:
You may be one of a few perfect candidates for this thread's subject. As I recall you've only been to play Seminole one time, right, and fairly recently like in the last year or so?
Did you have the feeling the course didn't measure up to its reputation or hype the first time you saw it or played it? And if so, why?
Come on, be honest---matter of fact, be brutally honest.
-
Michael W
I'm not sure anyone's asked this yet; maybe it's in bad taste (architecturally speaking):
What did he shoot on Seminole and Cypress Point?
I'm just wondering; maybe he interfaced with the architecture (in one way or another) more than most of us have been assuming. Maybe his views aren't based on how hard/easy he found the course.....?
Peter
-
Patrick:
For those of us who have not played Seminole, could you point out the features that work when the wind is up but are not that significant when it is calm?
Are there some features that are unique to Seminole which make it special and cannot be found at other courses?
Jerry,
The location is fairly unique, sitting right on the Atlantic Ocean. This usually generates good wind.
Part of the genius of the design is the use of the twin parallel ridges and the impact of the wind on all holes.
One of the things I've noticed is that the greens don't play as large as their square footage. And, that most feed off into bunkers, swales or adjacent areas. The wind is a catalyst with respect to the feeding aspects of the greens and surrounds.
I good example might be the 17th hole. a par three running north to south along the Atlantic. The green is long and fairly narrow. Without wind, the green probably plays close to its square footage, but, it's still a difficult target. The Bunkers surrounding the green are fairly deep, hence the green, while it plays downhill from the tee, is elevated from its surrounds. With some of the prevailing winds out of the S, SE or E the green effectively shrinks to 1/3 its size, and hole locations become important factors in how to play the hole, especially with respect to planning your margins, your misses.
The greens can be slightly crowned, most are also sloped, thus marginal shots and good shots can slide into the surrounding bunkers and swales, leaving the golfer with a difficult recovery.
Shots with spin that don't quite carry to a plateau can find themselves rolling back into the bunkers or back down into the fairway, where the golfer still faces a dicey recovery.
Putting on those crowned and sloped greens is also a challenge, especially when the wind is up.
As the wind velocity increases, the challenge increases exponentially.
With a wind from the S, # 17 is difficult.
But, other holes, will benefit from that wind.
Holes like # 4, a difficult hole, will play easier.
If the wind reverses itself, # 17 might play easier, but, # 4 will be a bear.
What happens is that new challenges are presented with almost every change in wind direction, and, those challenges can be magnified as the velocity of the wind increases.
Without wind, I won't say that the course is defenseless, but, it's fairly benign, and quite enjoyable to play.
That was true 40 years ago and it's true today, although, being land locked, there isn't much that Seminole can do to offset the ridiculous increases in distance.
Ben Hogan, a decent golfer in his time thought that the 6th hole was one of the great holes in golf. It's a good hole without the wind. But, with winds from varying directions and at varying velocities, the hole takes on a multitude of new personalities.
It's fun to play in winds from any one of 360 degrees and from zero, to one, two and three club winds.
That quality exists on many, if not most of the holes.
With each perceptible change in wind direction and velocity comes a change in the character of the features and the hole. The process of interfacing with the architecture changes dramatically, and therein lies part of the inherent genius and lure of the golf course, its diverse presentation.
Given the opportunity to play 100 rounds of golf a year.
Give or take a few changes, my breakdown would be along the lines of:
Medinah # 3 1
Pinehurst # 2 8
Congressional Blue 1
Seminole 45
Cypress Point 45
It would be hard to imagine someone choosing
Medinah # 3 32
Pinehurst # 2 32
Congressional Blue 32
Seminole 2
Cypress Point 2
But, that's what makes horse races.[/color]
-
TEPaul,
The issue isn't about Seminole's reputation or hype, it's about Seminole's rating/ranking.
The ratings/rankings follow a precise categorized format and the evaluative process addresses each of those specific categories, arriving at a numeric indicator, the results of which are based on the cummulative tally of the component analyses.
This isn't a subjective issue of someone randomly hyping Seminole, or Seminole's reputation, it's about Seminole's placement on the rating/ranking scale based on an evaluative process that's pretty detailed in its structure and precise in its calculation.
Let Coorshaw go for a week, he needs a break.
-
Most of the the tour players that I know tend to be myopic in their views on golf courses. A lot of the pros tend to equate length and difficulty with greatness. Anything that is judged to be 'unfair' is a no-no as well. I have quite a few conversations about 'fairness' with my friends.
Maybe I'm being myopic but I can't see how Cypress Point can be overrated. I only played it once but the round is still very fresh in my memory.
-
Joel:
You may be one of a few perfect candidates for this thread's subject. As I recall you've only been to play Seminole one time, right, and fairly recently like in the last year or so?
Did you have the feeling the course didn't measure up to its reputation or hype the first time you saw it or played it? And if so, why?
Come on, be honest---matter of fact, be brutally honest.
I thought it was fantastic, one of the best courses I have played for shot making and options. On many of the holes you can bump a 5 iron or fly an 9 iron. One of the few courses that yardage doesn't matter, a tremendous feel golf course. This may explain the pro's dislike because like machines, if they don't have the exact yardage and they have to try something they are not comfortable with (god forbid a bump and run from 175 yards) then its no good.
Of course Seminole is known as possibly being the best routed golf course in the world. You play down wind, up wind, right to left and left to right all within 4 holes. No two holes are alike, there are a couple of water holes, short holes and long holes. It was one of those courses when I walked off the 18th I didn't want it to end.
After I left Seminole the following day I met Pete Dye who says he is the only living person who knew Donald Ross and maybe the longest living member at Seminole. He was disgusted by the rebuilding of Seminole's greens and bunkers and is very disappointed in the way Seminole now plays. Ouch.
-
Joel:
Pete is the longest living member of Seminole? I wonder what that means but I would doubt that. Pete's not THAT old and there have to be plenty of members who have been there longer than he has. Even I can remember when he joined which was probably in the late 60s or early 70s.
I coincidentally spoke to him just the other day (I called to congratulate Alice on winning a better ball tourney at Seminole) and he told me sort of how those greens got what he called "ruined". It was a pretty well known black contractor from Georgia that he said did it but I can't remember when but I think it was a long time ago. He told me his name but I forgot it. He also sent me Ross's green drawings.
-
"TEPaul,
Didn't mean to critique your statements so much as just counter the prevailing sentiment here that "well the guy just played it once and obviously didn't get it."
Andy:
That's precisely what I'm trying to do too.
I love Seminole but one cannot just rationalize away the fact that so many players, particularly good ones, have wondered what the big deal is about Seminole after playing it the first time.
I love Seminole, always have, but I'm not about to tell all those players who have had that first impression that they just don't get it.
On the other hand, like TOC, I have seen how Seminole tends to grow on those players who pan it at first---maybe not all but a lot of them, so I just think this is an interesting subject and it's why I like to hear Michael Whitaker's tour pro friend's specific take on it.
Well said. I certainly agree that both courses sound like fabulous places. I have to admit that degree of difficulty is not a huge deal for me. As a low-handicap amateur I tend to enjoy courses that make it possible to score on with good play but carry penalties for poor mental and physical execution. For example, in my round at Crystal Downs I made poor choices on the front and shot 47. On the back I was much better and shot 38 (with a double on #10).
It sounds like Seminole and Cypress Point both would be more than difficult enough for me :)
-
The other thing I really liked about Seminole was they have not over conditioned the golf course like 96% of the top 100 courses in the US. I'll place Maidstone, Newport and Fishers Island on the list with Seminole.
Below is a picture from Rans review of the 17th. I'll bet Mr. pro didn't like the fact every shot was perfectly set up like the tour.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/seminole17.jpg)
Tom: Pete was in such a foul mood I wasn't going to take him on regarding how long he's been a member. You and I both know there are some really old members but even if he joined in the 1960's, thats pretty damn old. He was serious though about knowing Donald Ross? I did try and debate him on the membership/green committee/board agreeing to Silvas green and bunker plan and he wouldn't budge on discussing it, just kind of shruged his shoulders?
-
Joel / Tom:
Pete Dye spent some time with Mr. Ross when he was stationed at Fort Bragg and he went over to Pinehurst a lot.
He had offered to oversee the "restoration" of Seminole to what he remembered of the Ross course but the board would not hear of it, Pete's reputation at the club being what it is. So naturally he was not a big fan of whatever transpired afterwards ... in fact I think it was the thing which made Pete such a critic of restoration, since he was all for restoring Camargo and Shoreacres when I worked for him.
-
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEPaul,
The issue isn't about Seminole's reputation or hype, it's about Seminole's rating/ranking.
The ratings/rankings follow a precise categorized format and the evaluative process addresses each of those specific categories, arriving at a numeric indicator, the results of which are based on the cummulative tally of the component analyses.
This isn't a subjective issue of someone randomly hyping Seminole, or Seminole's reputation, it's about Seminole's placement on the rating/ranking scale based on an evaluative process that's pretty detailed in its structure and precise in its calculation."
Patrick:
The foregoing just could be about the biggest verbal garbage that has ever been put on this site. It's even worse than the criteria and process rationalization of the magazines for rating courses.
-
How can you say that TEP? Clearly, if a magazine rating panel determines that Seminole receives a certain point total, every single one of their raters would have given Seminole exactly that total...right?
There is no chance that one, or perhaps even two, raters could give Seminole a lower score than what the final average score was, is there?
Just out of curiosity; if there were an individual rater, operating within all of his/her panel guidelines, that scored Seminole substantially lower than it's cummulative, posted final score, would that person be allowed to opine that the course is over-rated...to them?
-
"He had offered to oversee the "restoration" of Seminole to what he remembered of the Ross course but the board would not hear of it, Pete's reputation at the club being what it is. So naturally he was not a big fan of whatever transpired afterwards ... in fact I think it was the thing which made Pete such a critic of restoration, since he was all for restoring Camargo and Shoreacres when I worked for him."
TomD:
I'm not sure I understand any of that. Would you mind expanding on it or clarifying it? If you don't want to---I do understand.
-
Sully:
Regarding your post above---I have no idea what the modus operandi of magazine rating or their individual raters is---nor do I care. To me both of them are total bullshit.
A really good writer/critic of any golf course would sit a lot better with me.
-
Tom P,
Just giving Pat Mucci a needle about his position and approach to this conversation...nothing worth re-hashing.
You never answered my question about your feelings for #'s 7 and 14 at Seminole. I ask based on your stated lack of enthusiasm for #9.
-
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/seminole17.jpg)
Pretty. Assuming that shot is 175-200 yards long, that looks pretty difficult, too, for a regular guy.
I played golf yesterday with a nice guy yesterday who offered up Seminole as the most overrated course he had played.
-
Seminole is probably a bit underwhelming visually, but the golf is flat out great...IMO.
It is right on the ocean, but it does not even almost come into play, and you can really only see it from a couple of vantage points...could that be because your actually below sea level for much of the course?
-
On the subject of Seminole and Cypress and over-rated, I would offer this observation.
I was up at the club today and met Brett Langley, the son of the legendry Jim Langley, pro emeritus of Cypress.
I asked if it was true that he hit the tenth green, a par five with a drive and nine iron. He replied no, it was with a sand wedge and the driver was a persimmon headed club and he used a wound ball. This was some twenty years ago. He did point out however that the wind assisted drive was of no help when he turned around and played he eleventh.
He also pointed out that with the greens at a decent speed there were some holes that if you were above the hole, i.e. the fourth for example, there was no way you could two putt them.
Over-rated, no way.
Bob
-
I played golf yesterday with a nice guy yesterday who offered up Seminole as the most overrated course he had played.
I've heard it a few times as well and would offer that Seminole may be considered overrated by those who do not see the fine details in golf architecture or design strategy.
As for the magazine ratings, I believe both GolfWeek and Golf Digest will question panelists if their scores fall to far away from the standard deviation. There are a few courses that will receive love it or hate it type scores and sadly Seminole is one which in my mind doesn't deserve such treatment.
-
I think I see the problem.
There is no "problem," just a difference of opinion.
It's more than that.
It's the abilty to see versus being blind.
Your friend has myopic vision. He can only see the golf course in the context of his game, which is a common failing amongst many.
I don't know how you can say this when he clearly stated that he understood and appreciated the historical standing of Seminole. Yes, he was evaluating the course in the context of his game... he readily admits that. Are you now like Matt Ward in that you can evaluate a course in the context of someone else's game?
In addition, your friend appears to have no concept of the numerous criteria and methodology employed by the magazines that produce the ratings/rankings of golf courses. Be careful here... you have no idea what my friend does or does not know about magazine rankings criteria. As a matter of fact, for all you know, he may be a member of one of the national magazine panels!
Your friends sole criteria, as evidenced in your post, was that the course didn't provide a difficult test.
For whom ? For one one millionth of one percent of the golfers on the planet ? Or, for 99 + % of the thousands of people who play there every year ? Your friends perspective and analysis is in the extremely limited context of his game.[/color]
Your friend, obviously a GREAT player, can't differentiate between "short" courses and "LONG" courses.
I think he can differentiate between long and short just fine... of course, your "long" would be more in line with his "short."
Playing courses at 7,200+ on a regular basis, as recently as last week, having been in the presence of the greatest golfers in the world during their rounds and playing with fellows who carry the ball 300+ qualifies me to understand what long and short are.
And, Medinah # 3 at 7, 561 yards, Pinehurst # 2 at 7,305+ yards and Congressional Blue at 7,250+ yards don't qualify as short in any prudent person's assessment of golf course length. In fact, at 7,561 Medinah # 3 will be the longest golf course in Major History.
Your friends categorization of the golf course as an "old", "short" golf course speaks to his inability to differentiate between long and short golf courses.
I also don't know many people who categorize Medinah # 3 as an "old" golf course. It's had more surgery, major and minor than the "cat lady".[/color]
Pat, I asked my friend to give me a list of his favorite old and modern courses so that you guys would have some frame of reference for his tastes and be able to put his comments about Seminole and Cypress in context. I didn't qualify them as "long" or "short," that was your idea.
...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?
Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past.
Like all students, he has a lot to learn. It also seems that he's in the midst of the learning process. Astute architectural intellects can detect architectural features irrespective of their year of origin. Obviously he's chosen to study the Nouveau school of architecture, skipping over all that came before it.[/color]
Pat, you are always chastising other people for not "reading" your posts... read mine. I think his list of favorite courses shows an appreciation for older designs. Also, his statement that some of the best courses he has ever played are the old masters in Australia shows he has an appreciation for classic design. You just come accross as wanting to belittle him because he doesn't appreciate one of your favorites to the extent you think he should.
As I mentioned earlier, you'd be giving him great advice by telling him not to give up his day job.
I take offense to these smartass "keep your day job" comments. This is a strictly first-class guy who's opinion differs from yours... leave it at that.
I have no doubt that he's a first class guy, and a world class golfer, but, just because one's pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean that they sing well in the shower.
Architectural awareness points aren't awarded on personality or golfing prowess. You're looking to give him the very same brownie points that he objected to in his reference to CPC and Seminole, points awarded on pedigree rather than on merit.
Pat, I'm not trying to give him brownie points for anything, just trying to keep the conversation out of the personal attack mode. I don't think it is productive for guys like you to dismiss someone's opinion simply because you don't like what he has to say.
It's not that his opinion differs from mine, he's entitled to his opinion, no matter how outlandish it may be.
He's not familiar with the rating methodology, nor the criteria that make up the analysis. He couched his understanding of ratings solely in the context of providing a difficult test, which is flat out wrong. Since he's misinformed about the process, his conclusions are flawed and out of step with mainstream thinking on the subject of ranking/rating Cypress Point and Seminole.[/color]
As I said before, be careful here. You have no idea about my friend's background or "pedigree." Your belittling of him is based on assumptions that you are pucking out of the air based only on my sadly lacking reporting skills.
-
I am disappointed by many of the comments and responses that have appeared in this thread. I really thought some of you would be interested in the opinions of a world class player who has ideas which differ from a good number of the regulars on this site. Instead of asking intelligent, thoughtful questions that would help us try to delve into his rationale, many of you simply wanted to hammer his credentials, lack of knowledge, "myopic vision," selfish focus, etc. I was too embarrassed to send him this thread when I saw the petty nature of several comments.
I asked his permission to share our conversation with you because I thought you would find it interesting and provacative... and, a great discussion point. I'm sorry if it upset or offended anyone.
You "Gods" often pine for the old days when this site was in its heyday. Do you think belittling individuals simply because their opinions differ from yours is productive for this site? I don't think my friend would be interested in participating in other conversations if every time he has an opinion that differs from this site's norm he is forced to defend his "pedigree." He doesn't need the hassle... and, neither do I.
To those of you who appreciated what I was trying to do here, thanks! I completely understood that my friend's ideas on Seminole or Cypress would raise a few eyebrows, that's what made them interesting to me... and, I hoped, to you. If I had been familar with these courses I could have discussed them with him and questioned his opinions without your help. But, how much fun would that be?
I'm truly sorry this little experiment didn't turn out better.
-
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEPaul,
The issue isn't about Seminole's reputation or hype, it's about Seminole's rating/ranking.
The ratings/rankings follow a precise categorized format and the evaluative process addresses each of those specific categories, arriving at a numeric indicator, the results of which are based on the cummulative tally of the component analyses.
This isn't a subjective issue of someone randomly hyping Seminole, or Seminole's reputation, it's about Seminole's placement on the rating/ranking scale based on an evaluative process that's pretty detailed in its structure and precise in its calculation."
Patrick:
The foregoing just could be about the biggest verbal garbage that has ever been put on this site. It's even worse than the criteria and process rationalization of the magazines for rating courses.
Tom P
I agree with your comments completely. If course rankings are anything, they are subjective and a catalyst for hyping courses. All the number crunching in the world doesn't alter this.
Mike W.
I too was dismayed by the way this thread turned. It was an excellent opportunity for me and I expect many others to learn something - more's the pity.
Ciao
-
I agree wtih Mike and Sean
This could have been a great thread if those responding had seen it as an opportunity to discuiss the architecture of Seminole and Cypress rather than making ad hominem character assasinations of Mike's anonymous friend and others who didn't agree with them.
Rather we had 150 posts which mostly said:
"He's a pro so what does he know about archietcture!" and/or
"Why are Seminole and Cypress great? Well, just because, and you are stupid if you don't agree with me!"
Not a high point in GCA.com history...... :'(
-
I do not know Cypress Point or Seminole so had nothing at all to add to an architectural discussion. I would like to second the thoughts of Mike, Sean and Richard that this discussion fell mighty short of its potential. It could have been one of this site's highlight threads yet it accomplished so very little good.
I think we are all so far removed from the mindset of touring professionals that it was a welcome addition to hear how one of their rare segment of the golf population feels about two courses at the top of most lists by everyone on this site and courses that I only know in photographs. I think it is unfair that opinions are shot down simply because these players are so good. As in any population, there are bound to be different opinions and we should not disparage different opinions, certainly not out of hand because they are +5 or better. That makes no sense at all. We don't know who Michael's friend is, but if it were Geoff Ogilvey or like Geoff seems to have a similar understanding to most of us, he doesn't get slapped down. It would seem that this site's bias for certain courses and architects is again showing as well. We should respect other opinions, they are subjective and not taken personally.
I don't admire some of the sacred cow architects and courses on here to the extent most do. I don't mind being an outlier when it comes to Ross, Raynor, Bethpage Black, Pebble Beach, etc. These are my opinions and that's it. Why we take things personally when people disagree is rather startling. The website doth protest too much, methinks.
From photographs alone, I think there should be a lot of interesting discussions about the two courses mentioned on this thread. I cannot see why these two courses are bullet proof, especially Seminole. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if as many raters played Indian Creek as Seminole that the difference in ranking between the two would be almost nil. In fact, I would expect many would consider Indian Creek to be superior. Those I've spoken to that know both courses rather well, Indian Creek doesn't rely on the wind as much as Seminole (even though it was clearly designed with the wind in mind) nor does its interest and difficulty drop so dramatically with the wind drop. One of this site's biggest Seminole boosters may be going to IC pretty soon. It will be interesting to see his comments. I likewise have found a distant subjective examination of Cypress to reveal something less than perfection.
I'm sure some of my issues would be cleared up by a site visit, but others I am pretty convinced would still hold true. I've looked at thousands of golf course photographs before visiting the 50 or so Flynn courses that I have studied and have learned a thing or two about what I can learn from photographs and what I cannot, especially subjective issues.
I would hope that the tour pro has some pretty thick skin (he must by the nature of the sport he plays) so he will realize that the contents of this thread reveal our weaknesses as well and he will forgive us them and post more through you. I'd like to hear more about his thoughts on other modern and classic courses to spark architectural discussions. Having a broad perspective of opinion can only help, even if a majority may disagree.
-
I don't admire some of the sacred cow architects and courses on here to the extent most do. I don't mind being an outlier when it comes to Ross...
Wayne
Hang on there a minute my Philly friend. Dems fittin werdz!
Ciao
-
Attributes such as greatness are not inherent to a golf course. The worth or value of a golf course arises from its interaction with the golfers who play it.
If an unusual golfer comes to an unusual conclusion about a particular course that does not necessarily imply that his or her evaluation is flawed. It is equally plausible that the course exhibited a different mix of qualities when interacting with his or her game than it does when interacting with your game or mine.
Now admittedly the word "Overrated?" is somewhat loaded around here for various reasons. But given the normative level of esteem in which Seminole an Cypress Point are held, one could conclude they are "overrated" without exactly saying they are chopped liver.
I am personally comfortable with the idea that there might be golfer out there for whom Cypress Point is simply a very good course in an incomparable setting even though for my part I fully believe I'll never see a finer course and will be lucky to ever play one that is its equal.
-
Joel:
I bet Pete Dye really wasn't in a foul mood, but he can put on a great act that he is. ;)
Last time I actually saw him there were a bunch of guys standing around him and he said to one of them: "What course are you from?" and the guy said; "Seminole". Then Pete said: "That course has the worst greens in the world." The guy flinched a little but was pretty cool about it in my opinion. ;)
-
"You never answered my question about your feelings for #'s 7 and 14 at Seminole. I ask based on your stated lack of enthusiasm for #9."
Sully:
Sorry, I missed that.
Interesting you'd ask about those two. Why did you pick them by the way?
But anyway, when I answer that you should know I go back a long way there and the way I played those holes probably isn't anything like you do. First of all you probably drive it 60+ yards different.
I was never too impressed by #7 even if it's a pretty nice looking hole laying out below you from that tee. Believe it or not that cross bunker actually got into your head a little if you were into the wind and you missed it a bit. That thing is not even noticeable to you guys. The green is OK but isn't that much unless you really miss your approach shot.
#14 is an interesting one and perhaps something of a mini-theme of the flatland holes at Seminole that are pretty interesting in a Rossian way. By that I mean he didn't seem to attempt to do much with some areas of some holes on the flatland areas and pretty much just relied on a single feature or single area of a hole to carry it through. In my opinion, #14 is one of those in that there's nothing very interesting about the hole except the green which is wonderful. It's just another of Ross's theme of a real back to front slope meaning you really do have to strategically watch where you put your approach in relation to the pin (a good number of Seminole's greens carry that basic strategic theme and in a tournament like the Coleman you really have to pay attention to that or you're in trouble---ie a five foot downhill putt is way more dangerous that putting or chipping up from even just in the approach).
But again, with #14 and since I obviously used to play it very differently than you do, the thing I always thought was so interesting about that hole other than the green is I had to really pay attention where to lay up my second shot because of that open culvert on each side of the fairway. Isn't it interesting how something that simple can carry so much strategic importance to a golfer? I think that kind of thing is very cool on a course----sort of a perpindicular Oakmont drainage ditch effect. It's very simple but can really get in your head.
But again, you guys probably go at that green with a mid-iron so that feature I'm talking about is irrelevent to you.
-
I think we are all so far removed from the mindset of touring professionals that it was a welcome addition to hear how one of their rare segment of the golf population feels about two courses at the top of most lists by everyone on this site and courses that I only know in photographs. I think it is unfair that opinions are shot down simply because these players are so good. As in any population, there are bound to be different opinions and we should not disparage different opinions, certainly not out of hand because they are +5 or better. That makes no sense at all.
Well spoken, Wayne.
-
Wayne:
Actually, in my opinion, most of the contributors to this thread have been open-minded and fair about Michael Whitaker's tour pro friend's opinion.
As usual the loose canon who went off on a tangent and will ever-lastingly refuse to be reeled back to reality and reasonableness is Patrick Q. Mucci. Some of the others merely followed his hysterical lead. ;)
-
More generally, I agree that its great to have an alternative point of view, and I applaud posters on this thread who have tried to gain an understanding of why this guy thinks the way he does. Criticizing his view point from a second hand account doesn't do anybody any good in terms of understanding the rationale.
This type of thread to me makes it appear to be not worth criticizing the status quo courses here sometimes because some will label you as an idiot who does not know anything about architecture instead of using it as a learning opportunity to understanding others' viewpoints. There are many statements on this thread of posters immediately trying to explain how such a silly thought could have come into this fellow's head.
I've never set foot on either one of these courses, but its important to me if I ever do to understand not just why most think they are great, but why detractors may think they are flawed.
Wanted to bring my thoughts from yesterday back up since they match pretty well with the new prevailing sentiment. I think Rich and Wayne together especially hit the nail on the head that we tend to agree with Geoff O. when he says things that match the prevailing opinions on this site (and count me as one who respects his interest in GCA by all means), but then go back to our "touring pro mindset" when someone has a different viewpoint.
It is likely too late for this, but I would hope that maybe its not too late for someone with some knowledge of either/both of the two courses to ask an intelligent question or two to get this back on track?
-
"I don't admire some of the sacred cow architects and courses on here to the extent most do. I don't mind being an outlier when it comes to Ross, Raynor, Bethpage Black, Pebble Beach, etc."
Wayne:
Well, now, you've finally done it, haven't you? You've finally gotten around to admitting that you think Ross is nothing more than a poor man's Flynn, and that Raynor was nothing more than an anal engineer who didn't like Nature's randomness and needed to make things look more precise---as anal engineers tend to do.
But even I'm not sure what your problem is with Bethpage Black and Pebble Beach.
Actually, Wayne, I have little doubt that if you were to see Seminole you might actually think this tour pro friend of Michael Whitaker had massive OVERrated it with his UNDERratng of it. :)
-
Tom,
Hmmmm....a poor man's Flynn? I don't think he was as great an architect as The Nature Faker, but he wasn't a slouch by any means; a notch below the top tier of architects working in America in my mind. When he was good, such as when he devoted himself to the effort, he was very, very good. When he was bad, he was pretty bad. I think he was a lot more systematic in his routings and use of natural features (high tee, low fairway, high green---remember, it was you that pointed that out to me). I'm sure his method of operation had a lot to do with it, but so what? He sacrificed some of his art for quantity. There are consequences for that in my consideration of his body of work.
I hope to see Seminole someday, Tom. It would be even better if I saw it with you. I'll try and keep an open mind in the meantime. I certainly don't discount other people's views, even if they are tour players.
As for Bethpage Black and Pebble Beach...I'll save that for our long drive south in a couple of weeks.
-
Michael
I am sorry your thread did not turn out as you intended also. The only thing that could have made it worse would have been if your friend himself had posted his opinions on this board. I am sure he would have quit after only two pages rather than five.
-
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEPaul,
The issue isn't about Seminole's reputation or hype, it's about Seminole's rating/ranking.
The ratings/rankings follow a precise categorized format and the evaluative process addresses each of those specific categories, arriving at a numeric indicator, the results of which are based on the cummulative tally of the component analyses.
This isn't a subjective issue of someone randomly hyping Seminole, or Seminole's reputation, it's about Seminole's placement on the rating/ranking scale based on an evaluative process that's pretty detailed in its structure and precise in its calculation."
Patrick:
The foregoing just could be about the biggest verbal garbage that has ever been put on this site. It's even worse than the criteria and process rationalization of the magazines for rating courses.
TE,
It is what it is.
The magazines have their formulas for determining the ratings/rankings.
It's not just the opinion of one fellow who observed Tiger Woods hitting one bad drive amongst his last 3,462 drives.[/color]
-
How can you say that TEP? Clearly, if a magazine rating panel determines that Seminole receives a certain point total, every single one of their raters would have given Seminole exactly that total...right?
Obviously, mathematics and statistics weren't your strong suits in school[/color]
There is no chance that one, or perhaps even two, raters could give Seminole a lower score than what the final average score was, is there?
See the above comment[/color]
Just out of curiosity; if there were an individual rater, operating within all of his/her panel guidelines, that scored Seminole substantially lower than it's cummulative, posted final score, would that person be allowed to opine that the course is over-rated...to them ?
Absolutely.
But, your query assumes that the person in question, Michael's friend, would be intimately familiar with the rating formula, and understand that it's not contexted solely in the realm of whether or not the golf course presents a difficult test to a PGA Tour Pro.
Had your reading comprehension skills been slightly better than your math skills, you would have understood that.[/color]
-
Sully:
Regarding your post above---I have no idea what the modus operandi of magazine rating or their individual raters is
Why does that not surprise me ?
That's the "core", the very essence of the issue.
How can you, or Michael's friend, posit on the merits of Seminole, in the context of the rating formulas, if YOU KNOW NOTHING about the rating formulas ?
Michael's friend contexted his opinion solely on the basis of the golf course not presenting a difficult test.
Like Sully, you need to get new prescriptions on your reading glasses or take a refresher course in reading comprehension.[/color]
---nor do I care. To me both of them are total bullshit.
A really good writer/critic of any golf course would sit a lot better with me.
Good,
Then you should accept this writer/critic's words.
"The real genius of Seminole is the routing, which uses the limited topography of the site brilliantly."
"But, if ANYBODY tries to tell you this isn't a great course, either they've just been treated like riffraff, OR THEY JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD IS."
That was Tom Doak who gave the course a 9 on his scale.
Case Closed ![/color]
-
Michael Whitaker,
[size=4x]
What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?[/size]
I'll inquire.
Top 7 Personal Classics
1. Pinehurst #2
2. Congressional Blue
3. Medinah
4. Riviera CC
5. Pebble Beach
6. Wannamoisett
7. Newport CC
Michael,
Here's my question, along with your intitial and subsequent response.
My question was simple:
"What "old", "short" courses in the U.S. does he consider better than Seminole and CPC ?"
If he wants to avoid the question because he can't answer it, or because he can't list any old, short courses that are better than Seminole and CPC, or that perhaps he mispoke, let him say so.
But, don't have him avoid the question by providing a non-answer, a statement that doesn't address the issue.[/color]
-
I think I see the problem.
There is no "problem," just a difference of opinion.
It's more than that.
It's the abilty to see versus being blind.
Your friend has myopic vision. He can only see the golf course in the context of his game, which is a common failing amongst many.
I don't know how you can say this when he clearly stated that he understood and appreciated the historical standing of Seminole. Yes, he was evaluating the course in the context of his game... he readily admits that.
Are you now like Matt Ward in that you can evaluate a course in the context of someone else's game?
Of course I can.
Are you kidding me ?
You don't get it, and neither does your friend.
If someone can ONLY evaluate a golf course in the context of their own game, his views are practically worthless, since they're confined to but one golfer amongst millions.
Architects must evaluate a golf course in the context of the games of every type of golfer and not solely in the context of ONE golfer's game. They must forge a tactical challenge that
doesn't favor any one particular game, but, appeals to all games.
Tell me that you understand that.
In addition, your friend appears to have no concept of the numerous criteria and methodology employed by the magazines that produce the ratings/rankings of golf courses.
[/color]
Be careful here... you have no idea what my friend does or does not know about magazine rankings criteria. As a matter of fact, for all you know, he may be a member of one of the national magazine panels!
I don't have to be careful.
Your friend, thru you, contexted the rating/ranking process solely in the context of a course providing a difficult test.
IF he was involved in the process he would know better.
Obviously, he's not involved in the rating/ranking process. OR he's involved and doesn't have a clue as to how it works.
Your friends sole criteria, as evidenced in your post, was that the course didn't provide a difficult test.
For whom ? For one one millionth of one percent of the golfers on the planet ? Or, for 99 + % of the thousands of people who play there every year ? Your friends perspective and analysis is in the extremely limited context of his game.
Your friend, obviously a GREAT player, can't differentiate between "short" courses and "LONG" courses.[/color]
I think he can differentiate between long and short just fine... of course, your "long" would be more in line with his "short."
Playing courses at 7,200+ on a regular basis, as recently as last week, having been in the presence of the greatest golfers in the world during their rounds and playing with fellows who carry the ball 300+ qualifies me to understand what long and short are.
And, Medinah # 3 at 7, 561 yards, Pinehurst # 2 at 7,305+ yards and Congressional Blue at 7,250+ yards don't qualify as short in any prudent person's assessment of golf course length. In fact, at 7,561 Medinah # 3 will be the longest golf course in Major History.
Your friends categorization of the golf course as an "old", "short" golf course speaks to his inability to differentiate between long and short golf courses.
I also don't know many people who categorize Medinah # 3 as an "old" golf course. It's had more surgery, major and minor than the "cat lady".[/color]
Pat, I asked my friend to give me a list of his favorite old and modern courses so that you guys would have some frame of reference for his tastes and be able to put his comments about Seminole and Cypress in context. I didn't qualify them as "long" or "short," that was your idea.
No, I asked you specifically, what short courses he thought were better than Seminole and CPC and you offered, as a blanket list, a number of golf courses. You should have clarified the answer, or better yet, you should have had him address the question, and not avoid it by putting forth a general list that didn't address the question.
...how on earth can he detect architectural features, let alone, determine their merit?[/color]
Maybe its because he is an intelligent student of the modern game that is not living entirely in the past.
Like all students, he has a lot to learn. It also seems that he's in the midst of the learning process. Astute architectural intellects can detect architectural features irrespective of their year of origin. Obviously he's chosen to study the Nouveau school of architecture, skipping over all that came before it.[/color]
Pat, you are always chastising other people for not "reading" your posts... read mine. I think his list of favorite courses shows an appreciation for older designs.
I didn't ask for his list of favorite golf courses.
That list is irrelevant to the issue.
Also, his statement that some of the best courses he has ever played are the old masters in Australia shows he has an appreciation for classic design.
I'm not familiar with any courses in Australia, so I can't comment.
You just come accross as wanting to belittle him because he doesn't appreciate one of your favorites to the extent you think he should.
That's absolutely untrue.
I'm merely challenging his statement
He made a definitive statement, and now, you're wilting under the scrutiny directed toward that statement by claiming that I'm trying to belittle him because he disagrees with me, and that's untrue.
He stated that Seminole and CPC were overrated, or vastly overrated. He made those statements strictly in the context of the ability of those courses to provide a difficult test for a PGA Tour pro. But, that has NOTHING to do with the rating/ranking system.
If he thinks Seminole and CPC are overrated, let him state his case by addressing the component elements that comprise a golf courses rating/ranking.
He may have valid points, but you've/he's yet to express them
As I mentioned earlier, you'd be giving him great advice by telling him not to give up his day job.[/color]
I take offense to these smartass "keep your day job" comments. This is a strictly first-class guy who's opinion differs from yours... leave it at that.
I have no doubt that he's a first class guy, and a world class golfer, but, just because one's pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean that they sing well in the shower.
Architectural awareness points aren't awarded on personality or golfing prowess. You're looking to give him the very same brownie points that he objected to in his reference to CPC and Seminole, points awarded on pedigree rather than on merit.
Pat, I'm not trying to give him brownie points for anything, just trying to keep the conversation out of the personal attack mode. I don't think it is productive for guys like you to dismiss someone's opinion simply because you don't like what he has to say.
I didn't dismiss his opinion, I merely challenged it.
And that is productive.
Should we just accept everything he says as The Gospel ?
If so, tell us what else we should accept as the final word on golf course architecture.
If you're going to posit a theory or an opinion, be prepared to support it with fact and/or logical presentations.
You've stated his opinion.
If he's the intelligent chap you indicated, he should be capable of putting forth a cogent argument supporting his opinion. To date, that hasn't occured.
Probably because he doesn't understand that the rating/ranking of a golf course has little to do with the golf course providing a difficult test for a PGA Tour Pro.
It's not that his opinion differs from mine, he's entitled to his opinion, no matter how outlandish it may be.
He's not familiar with the rating methodology, nor the criteria that make up the analysis. He couched his understanding of ratings solely in the context of providing a difficult test, which is flat out wrong. Since he's misinformed about the process, his conclusions are flawed and out of step with mainstream thinking on the subject of ranking/rating Cypress Point and Seminole.[/color]
As I said before, be careful here. You have no idea about my friend's background or "pedigree." Your belittling of him is based on assumptions that you are pucking out of the air based only on my sadly lacking reporting skills.
His backround and pedigree are as important to me as Seminole's is to him.
I can only base my responses on your presentation of his position.
I'm not plucking anything out of the air.
I've been careful to QUOTE you to make sure that I didn't mistate his position, which you made quite clear.
Are we now to assume that your typing skills are to blame ?
-
Mike W.
I too was dismayed by the way this thread turned.
It was an excellent opportunity for me and I expect many others to learn something
Sean,
Could you tell us how you felt this was an excellent opportunity to learn something about architecture from a PGA Tour Pro who felt that Seminole didn't present a difficult enough test for him ?[/color]
-
I am disappointed by many of the comments and responses that have appeared in this thread. I really thought some of you would be interested in the opinions of a world class player who has ideas which differ from a good number of the regulars on this site. Instead of asking intelligent, thoughtful questions that would help us try to delve into his rationale, many of you simply wanted to hammer his credentials, lack of knowledge, "myopic vision," selfish focus, etc.
Mike:
This thread is tame compared to others. A number of months ago some guy was on this site trying to tell everyone here that some development 100 miles north of Las Vegas was going to be the greatest golf development of all time. It featured something like 7 or 9 Jack Nicklaus golf courses. When we asked him about why choosing all Jack instead of mixing it up with other architects he went away crying like a little baby saying he would never come back to this site.
I think there a lot of valid points to why a tour player may not like CPC or Seminole and it all relates to how he plays the game. As someone else pointed out, his game is so far off the charts, almost all courses are easy to PGA players. Furthermore, just because he is a tour player doesn't mean he knows anything about architecture and especially classic architecture.
-
Joel,
And just because he is a tour player doesn't mean he cannot know anything about architecture, especially classic architecture. How do you know where he grew up, where he plays leisure golf and what his interests are? Presuming the party line that his opinion has less value than any of us is preposterous.
-
Most of the problem here is that everyone is too sensitive ... not just about their "sacred cow" courses or architects but about their own opinions and anyone who disagrees with them.
However, I don't think as Wayne says that the opinions of Tour pros have been dismissed in this thread. Michael Clayton (himself a Tour pro) pointed out that one of his good friends recently played Cypress and just loved it, making the point that not all Tour pros considered it too short to be a great course.
I guess somebody could have asked Michael to ask his friend what else (besides the shortness) he didn't like ... I did ask which six holes he thought were stupid and the answers seemed to be 8-9-17-18, which was scary ... but I thought we did look for his reasoning and we never got it. If he just wants to anonymously leave us with his expert opinion that Cypress Point and Seminole are overrated, well, we've taken that for what it's worth. And chalk up another point for not allowing anonymous posters!
By the same token, there is no such thing as unanimous opinion in golf architecture as some here assume. When I used to add up the rankings for GOLF Magazine, I was shocked to find out that with just 75 panelists there were only 2 or 3 courses that were unanimous top-50 choices ... a pro or two downgraded Cypress Point for being too short, even back then.
One thing I always admired about Pete Dye was that if you criticized his work he would ask you why. If he didn't agree he wouldn't bother to argue, he would just dismiss you as not understanding the subject well enough. It's too bad more participants here are not similarly secure in their own knowledge of the subject.
-
TEPaul,
The issue isn't about Seminole's reputation or hype, it's about Seminole's rating/ranking.
The ratings/rankings follow a precise categorized format and the evaluative process addresses each of those specific categories, arriving at a numeric indicator, the results of which are based on the cummulative tally of the component analyses.
This isn't a subjective issue of someone randomly hyping Seminole, or Seminole's reputation, it's about Seminole's placement on the rating/ranking scale based on an evaluative process that's pretty detailed in its structure and precise in its calculation.
Let Coorshaw go for a week, he needs a break.
Wow! A few questions for you Patrick.
So, ratings/rankings are not about reputation and hype? They're about a precise, dispassionate evaluation of some categories of things related to golf courses?
Are all the rating processes of equal precision and accuracy in your opinion?
For your favourite, how is the evaluative process in each category normalized across the raters? Is there a precise analytic measuring scheme to ensure precision of rating the individual categories?
You're assuring us that there is no subjectivity in any rater's evaluation of any category?
Could you describe how the evaluative process is precise in it's calculation? Do you mean the adding up of the scores in the categories? Doesn't rating/ranking mean by definition categorizing things relative to others, as opposed to precise calculation?
Which rating scheme do you like best? Golf Digest? Golfweek? Golf? Is it the most precise? Is it accurate? What do precise and accurate mean to you in this context?
Since Golfwwek rates Seminole #15 and GD rates it #10, does that mean that the GD raters have over-rated it? Or did they under-rate CPC by rating it #4 relative to the Golfweek raters #1? Are the Golf raters the most clever because they came down the middle between the other two?
Are the existing raters on all the panels better qualified than the unknown friend of Michael's? How do you know?
-
Wayne:
He may know alot, I have no idea. My only point is just because he is a tour player, doesn't mean he is also a standout in architecture or club fitting or agronomy or anything else related to golf other than being a great player. There are no free lunches.
-
Wow! A few questions for you Patrick.
So, ratings/rankings are not about reputation and hype?
NO, they're not.
They're about an evaluative process where the component categories are well structured
They're about a precise, dispassionate evaluation of some categories of things related to golf courses?
Precise to a decimal point.
Are all the rating processes of equal precision and accuracy in your opinion ?
Mathmatically speaking, YES.
For your favourite, how is the evaluative process in each category normalized across the raters?
I don't understand the question
Is there a precise analytic measuring scheme to ensure precision of rating the individual categories ?
If there was you wouldn't need a system composed of 100 or 1,000 individuals.
You're assuring us that there is no subjectivity in any rater's evaluation of any category?
Where did I state that ?
Could you describe how the evaluative process is precise in it's calculation?
The evaluative process is precise in that each rater assigns a numeric value to his assessment, so, for each rater, their evaluative rating is precise.
The compilation of each rater's precise analysis is a simple arithmetic exercise.
The math doesn't lie.
Do you mean the adding up of the scores in the categories?
See the above
Doesn't rating/ranking mean by definition categorizing things relative to others, as opposed to precise calculation?
No, the rating/ranking is a precise mathematical calculation, there's nothing subjective about the calculation.
If one course's assigned numeric equivalent is 98.6 and another's is 95.2, the higher score indicates a superior rating/ranking.
Which rating scheme do you like best? Golf Digest? Golfweek? Golf?
I have my own system that I prefer to the others.
Please don't ask me to detail it as I've detailed it many times previously.
Is it the most precise? Is it accurate?
Like the science of Mathematics, calculations are accurate and irrefutable.
What do precise and accurate mean to you in this context?
The definition of accurate and precise are as follows:
ACCURATE: Free from error
PRECISE: Exactly or sharply defined.
Since Golfwwek rates Seminole #15 and GD rates it #10, does that mean that the GD raters have over-rated it? Or did they under-rate CPC by rating it #4 relative to the Golfweek raters #1?
Neither
Are the Golf raters the most clever because they came down the middle between the other two?
What has clever got to do with it ?
Are the existing raters on all the panels better qualified than the unknown friend of Michael's?
At the start of this thread, based on Michael's friend's comments, as a whole, yes.
How do you know?
Because Michael's friend's sole context in assessing Seminole's and CPC's rating/ranking was excessively NARROW, incredibly MYOPIC, limited to the fact that those two courses didn't provide a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro.
All of the raters/rankers know that there are numerous categories involved in the rating/ranking process, and not just the one category that Michael's friend presented, a category by the way that doesn't exist.
There is NO CATEGORY that evaluates a golf course based on how difficult a test it presents to the PGA Tour Pro.
There's also a difference between a golf course being a difficult test in a casual round and a golf course being a difficult test when the course is specially prepared and the bell rings for a PGA Tournament.
You're wasting your time on this issue, choosing to defend an opinion that's flawed at its very foundation.
-
.........
I don't think as Wayne says that the opinions of Tour pros have been dismissed in this thread. Michael Clayton (himself a Tour pro) pointed out that one of his good friends recently played Cypress and just loved it, making the point that not all Tour pros considered it too short to be a great course.
I guess somebody could have asked Michael to ask his friend what else (besides the shortness) he didn't like ... [size=4x]
I did ask which six holes he thought were stupid and the answers seemed to be 8-9-17-18, which was scary ...
but I thought we did look for his reasoning and we never got it.
If he just wants to anonymously leave us with his expert opinion that Cypress Point and Seminole are overrated, well, we've taken that for what it's worth.[/size]
And chalk up another point for not allowing anonymous posters!
By the same token, there is no such thing as unanimous opinion in golf architecture as some here assume. When I used to add up the rankings for GOLF Magazine, I was shocked to find out that with just 75 panelists there were only 2 or 3 courses that were unanimous top-50 choices ... a pro or two downgraded Cypress Point for being too short, even back then.
One thing I always admired about Pete Dye was that if you criticized his work he would ask you why. If he didn't agree he wouldn't bother to argue, he would just dismiss you as not understanding the subject well enough.
It's too bad more participants here are not similarly secure in their own knowledge of the subject.
Tom, there's a difference.
This is a discussion group and Michael asked for comments based on his friend's statements.
At the present, I feel secure in my knowledge on the subject of Seminole and CPC, but that could change.
-
"This is a discussion group and Michael asked for comments based on his friend's statements.
At the present, I feel secure in my knowledge on the subject of Seminole and CPC, but that could change."
Patrick:
That could very well be but the fact is your knowledge of Seminole (or CPC), of course, does not determine the reputation or the opinion of Seminole (or CPC) of all golfers.
I think the point that is trying to surface here is that his (the tour pro friend of Michael Whittaker) opinon of Seminole (or CPC) is every bit as valid and perhaps important as yours is.
-
Patrick:
Frankly, I did not know it was possible to make a post as long (and as colorful) as your #157. Please let noone ever again say that I am the king of long posts. :)
-
"Michael
I am sorry your thread did not turn out as you intended also. The only thing that could have made it worse would have been if your friend himself had posted his opinions on this board. I am sure he would have quit after only two pages rather than five."
Hamilton:
Do you think it's possible for you to say anything more inappropriate than that remark of yours?
Actually, belay that, I think I already know the answer.
-
Tom - In fairness to Patrick Mucci, my friend is not a professional course rater (ranker). He is a professional golfer, skilled in getting the ball from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible. It is a specific skill that does not necessarily qualify him to judge the greatness of course design. It does qualify him to judge the ability of a course defend its par, but that is not what we are discussing here.
If I thought my friend's golf related skills were simply limited to scoring I would not have troubled this board with his comments. It is because I know he understands and appreciates great courses (regardless of his ability to score on them) that I found his comments on Seminole and Cypress provocative. I respect this guy's opinion... I don't always agree with it... but, I respect it, because I respect him.
The only other person who has participated in this thread and gets that kind of pass from me is Tom Doak. I know his background... I know he knows what he's talking about.
I have no idea who Patrick Mucci is, for example, or what qualifications, if any, he has to judge courses or criticize my friend... nor, do I care. He presents himself as a Big Fish on this site, but that means about as much to me as my friend's "pedigree" means to him. It's irrelevant. This is an open forum and I started this thread, so I need to take the good with the bad. It's so easy on a site like this to dismiss someone by saying, "You don't know what you are talking about." I'm going to try not to do that.
I've gone through this thread and collected the few legitimate questions that can be submitted to my friend concerning the courses under discussion. If I get an answer I will post his response.
-
"Tom - In fairness to Patrick Mucci, my friend is not a professional course rater (ranker). He is a professional golfer, skilled in getting the ball from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible. It is a specific skill that does not necessarily qualify him to judge the greatness of course design. It does qualify him to judge the ability of a course defend its par, but that is not what we are discussing here.
If I thought my friend's golf related skills were simply limited to scoring I would not have troubled this board with his comments. It is because I know he understands and appreciates great courses (regardless of his ability to score on them) that I found his comments on Seminole and Cypress provocative. I respect this guy's opinion... I don't always agree with it... but, I respect it, because I respect him."
Michael:
With all due respect I think you just contradicted yourself there--or at least your point.
In my opinion, if Seminole is going to aspire to true greatness in golf course architecture it should be able to subject itself to the opinon and comments of your friend the tour pro.
If we have gotten to the point where we can't even listen to the opinions about a golf course of a tour pro, then something has gone wrong somewhere along the line, in my opinion.
-
"This is a discussion group and Michael asked for comments based on his friend's statements.
At the present, I feel secure in my knowledge on the subject of Seminole and CPC, but that could change."
Patrick:
That could very well be but the fact is your knowledge of Seminole (or CPC), of course, does not determine the reputation or the opinion of Seminole (or CPC) of all golfers.
How many times must I remind you, this is not about Seminole's and CPC's reputations, it's about their standing in the ratings/rankings.
Please have Wayne or some other literate friend read this too you.
Has Coorshaw passed third grade yet ?[/color]
I think the point that is trying to surface here is that his (the tour pro friend of Michael Whittaker) opinon of Seminole (or CPC) is every bit as valid and perhaps important as yours is.
Again, this has nothing to do with MY opinion.
It's got to do with his opinion of Seminole's and CPC's standing in the rankings, AND he couched his opinion in the sole context of whether or not those courses present a difficult test to a PGA Tour Pro, which is not how the ratings/rankings are determined.[/color]
-
I have no idea who Patrick Mucci is, for example, or what qualifications, if any, he has to judge courses or criticize my friend... nor, do I care. He presents himself as a Big Fish on this site,
but that means about as much to me as my friend's "pedigree" means to him.
Then you to need to reread my posts.
I said that I respected his pedigree like he respected Seminole's and CPC's pedigree. You stated that he respected Seminole's and CPC's pedigree, it's traditions, history and standing in American golf. What part of that didn't you understand ?
Refresher classes on reading comprehension are starting next Wednesday, perhaps you can car pool with TEPaul.[/color]
It's irrelevant. This is an open forum and I started this thread, so I need to take the good with the bad. It's so easy on a site like this to dismiss someone by saying, "You don't know what you are talking about."
Isn't that what Tom Doak, the fellow you said "knows what he's talking about" said ?[/color]
I'm going to try not to do that.
I've gone through this thread and collected the few legitimate questions that can be submitted to my friend concerning the courses under discussion. If I get an answer I will post his response.
If you could ask him, what "old", "short" American golf courses he feels are better than Seminole and CPC ?
Thanks[/color]
TEPaul,
You continue to miss the point.
It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions. It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro.
Therein lies the conflict.
He's assessing those golf courses in a context not remotely related to how their ratings/rankings are established.
NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE on this site disagrees with him with respect to the inability of CPC and Seminole to present a difficult test to the PGA Tour Pro under normal or tournament conditions, save for the presence of a gale.
-
Patrick,
You brilliantly dodged the questions. Who was it who called you Houdini?
Who would have guessed that you were referring to your own ranking system? Or that I could have missed it the many times you've posted it on here?
Do you really believe "The evaluative process is precise in that each rater assigns a numeric value to his assessment, so, for each rater, their evaluative rating is precise."? That a rater thinking to themselves that a category deserves a 9 out of 10 for a certain course is a "precise" ranking? I guess in your mind it's more precise than rating it A or B or C or F. Does your ranking system allow category ratings to one decimal place? To two decimal places? Is the summation of your rating accurate to only one decimal place?
Ah well, to each his own rating system. We certainly know that virtually no one on here thinks the rating systems are bullet proof, or anywhere near.
Back to the topic, you persist in stating the premise that "It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions. It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro."
Initially Michael said that his friend felt: "Bottom line... "greatness" is not just about length or difficulty of shot values for my friend. He thinks there are plenty of old "short" courses that are great." So it seems his feeling that they are over-rated is not solely based on the difficulty of the test for a PGA Tour Pro. Why do you keep insisting he does? Further he described the shortcomings of CPC as related to 4 weak holes. I don't recall he said they were weak solely because they didn't challenge him as a Pro.
-
Bryan, didn't Pat just answer every single one of you 500 + questions. Houdini? Maybe… but certainly not in this thread. I have enjoyed Pats answers to a point of tears.
Again I agree with Patrick, this all comes down to why this mystery man thinks the courses are overrated and him identifying other great short courses is key to figuring out if he is a crazy person or not.
-
Bryan, didn't Pat just answer every single one of you 500 + questions. Houdini? Maybe… but certainly not in this thread. I have enjoyed Pats answers to a point of tears.
Again I agree with Patrick, this all comes down to why this mystery man thinks the courses are overrated and him identifying other great short courses is key to figuring out if he is a crazy person or not.
Ryan
Sure, Pat is accurate in what he says about number crunching, but number crunching is small chips compared to subjective opinion where rankings are concerned. It sort of like slapping a Shelby engine into the Mustang. A powerful engine to be sure, but without proper suspension the power isn't translated to the pavement. The bottom line is that one must trust the opinion of the rater if the ratings are to be credible. All the very fine mathmatical tools in the world can't alter this.
Ciao
-
Arbs,
Your forgetting one major point here--your talking about a Ford when every good autophile knows that it takes Chevrolet or Chrysler fire power to compete....... ;)
I read this entire post early today--and while I can't comment on Seminole, the thoughts on Cypress Point--the perfect example of how much people look at courses compared to there own game--even the pros.... (more so)
I side with Pat. He nails it again.
-
Patrick:
I just want to hear precisely why the tour pro thinks Seminole and CPC are overrated. I'd like to hear him go through it hole by hole and explain what he means. In that process some on here may simply counter that he doesn't know what he's talking about but I view that kind of response as not particularly worthwhile---sort of a knee-jerk response, as it were.
Frankly, I've always thought that the automatic response from some that tour pros "don't get" architecture is pretty hilarious. One should consider Tom Doak's apparent change of opinion on that score. It doesn't take a genius to realize if tour pros really didn't get architecture at all it would be pretty unlikely they would be capable of being tour pros. ;)
-
Byran Izatt,
Here's what Michael said about his friend.
It's a ver.batim quote.
A good friend of mind is a member of the PGA tour. He is considered one of the up and coming young players and has done quite well for himself, already winning over 2.5MM dollars since joining the tour.
He is very bright and quite fun to be around. We have had many conversations about design, architects, tour courses, etc and although he has never visited this site, I think he would enjoy the banter and fit right in. He tends to enjoy straight forward courses that require shot making skills... for example, his favorite course in SC is Harbour Town.
Our conversation yesterday took an interesting turn... we were discussing his playing a recent outing at Seminole. He has played there several times and I asked him what he thought of the course. [size=4x]I was surprised when he said it was one of the most overrated courses he has played.[/size] He loves and respects the history, mystique and ambiance of the course and club, [size=4x]but he feels the course is just not a good enough test to be considered one of the top ranked in the world. [/size]He feels it gets too many "experience" points from the raters and that the course alone does not justify the lofty ranking it receives. "Without a very stiff wind the course is a par 65 or 66," he said. "But, they have one of the greatest old clubhouses and locker rooms in US golf."
I asked him if there were any other courses he felt were overrated. [size=4x]He said, to my amazement, that the MOST overrated course he had ever played was Cypress Point. "It is six of the greatest holes you will ever play, six average holes, and six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course. 17 and 18 are two of the worst holes I have ever played on a good course."[/size]
Not having played either Seminole or Cypress Point I could only listen and express my surprise at his thoughts. I asked him to read Ran's reviews of the two courses on this site so we could have some common frame of reference when we next pick up the conversation.
What's your take? Any suggested questions or thoughts for our next conversaton?
-
Patrick,
You brilliantly dodged the questions. Who was it who called you Houdini?
No, I didn't, I answered them all, you just didn't like or agree with the answers.
Who would have guessed that you were referring to your own ranking system?
I wasn't.
You asked me a seperate question, limiting my choice to three options, since none of those options was a suitable choice, I added a fourth option, which is my choice.
Or that I could have missed it the many times you've posted it on here?
Byran, I've made my self clear throughout this thread.
But, you asked a seperate question referencing a three tiered multiple choice question. But, you forgot to include a fourth multiple choice answer: D None of the above.
Do you really believe "The evaluative process is precise in that each rater assigns a numeric value to his assessment, so, for each rater, their evaluative rating is precise." ?
It's precise to that rater, just like Michael and others are alleging that Michael's friend's rating is precise to him.
That a rater thinking to themselves that a category deserves a 9 out of 10 for a certain course is a "precise" ranking?
Again, it is to the individual rater.
Would you prefer 1 in 20 ? 1 in 100 ?
It doesn't really matter, the statistical compilation and average score will remain a precise number.
I guess in your mind it's more precise than rating it A or B or C or F.
See my above answer
Does your ranking system allow category ratings to one decimal place? To two decimal places? Is the summation of your rating accurate to only one decimal place?
MY rating system doesn't use numerical indicators.
But, this thread ISN'T about MY rating system.
It's about the long established rating system of the magazines
Ah well, to each his own rating system. We certainly know that virtually no one on here thinks the rating systems are bullet proof, or anywhere near.
That was never the issue
Back to the topic, you persist in stating the premise that "It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions.
That's a joke.
He didn't have broad based opinions.
He had one opinion. And that opinion was that neither Seminole or CPC provided a difficult test to the PGA Tour Pro.
It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro."
Initially Michael said that his friend felt: "Bottom line... "greatness" is not just about length or difficulty of shot values for my friend. He thinks there are plenty of old "short" courses that are great."
NO !
That's not what he said initially.
I've re-posted his initial post in an attempt to refresh your memory.
So it seems his feeling that they are over-rated is not solely based on the difficulty of the test for a PGA Tour Pro.
No, you're incorrect.
Reread Michael's initial post.
Why do you keep insisting he does?
Because I possess decent reading comprehension skills and you don't.
Further he described the shortcomings of CPC as related to 4 weak holes.
He labeled 6, not 4, holes as weak and claimed that 17 and 18 were amongst the worst.
I don't recall he said they were weak solely because they didn't challenge him as a Pro.
What do you recall ?
-
I've only played Cypress once and I nearly wet myself several times during the round, so I wouldn't say it's overrated, but anybody who has played the course would have to agree with the sentiment expressed by this guy's friend about #s 17 and 18. The golf course should end at 16, because these two holes are clearly not worthy. 18 in particular is an abomination.
In fact, I would nominate it as the worst finishing hole on an otherwise out-of-the-world golf course. Any competition?
-
Patrick:
If you have such good reading comprehension maybe you should check out post #18, for starters. And in case it never occured to you perhaps you should consider that most of these threads on here are ongoing discussions so there really isn't any particular reason for you to always fixate on the initial post. The discussion's give and take is capbable of developing the subject beyond the initial post you know? Or maybe you never knew that. ;)
-
Patrick:
I just want to hear precisely why the tour pro thinks Seminole and CPC are overrated.
TEPaul,
He told you already.
Didn't you read his comments on CPC ?
Didn't you read the part about Seminole not providing a difficult test ?
I'd like to hear him go through it hole by hole and explain what he means. In that process some on here may simply counter that he doesn't know what he's talking about but I view that kind of response as not particularly worthwhile---sort of a knee-jerk response, as it were.
Noone is disagreeing with him with respect to the inability to provide a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro issue.
The issue is that the ratings/rankings aren't based on the sole criteria that the golf course presents a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro.
Frankly, I've always thought that the automatic response from some that tour pros "don't get" architecture is pretty hilarious. One should consider Tom Doak's apparent change of opinion on that score. It doesn't take a genius to realize if tour pros really didn't get architecture at all it would be pretty unlikely they would be capable of being tour pros. ;)
Would you name some tour pros other than Ben Crenshaw who have produced outstanding golf courses on their own ?
Then, would you name some tour pros who have produced mediocre to poor golf courses on their own or in conjunction with someone.
Then, would you relate the two categories as a ratio
Thanks
-
"Didn't you read the part about Seminole not providing a difficult test?"
Yes, I did and that's why I would like to hear him explain his opinions hole by hole about why he feels that way. I can't imagine anything more informative regarding his opinion that Seminole does not provide a difficult test than that.
Can you? ;)
I would like to see him do that on both courses because he mentioned Seminole and CPC.
-
Terry Lavin,
You should know that AM's original plan called for a tee on # 18 that was further back on a rock island. I think that configuration would have enhanced the value of the hole.
I would doubt that the CCC would allow that tee today, but, you never know.
I also don't know if CPC has any interest in constructing that tee and the method for getting to and from that tee.
-
"Didn't you read the part about Seminole not providing a difficult test?"
Yes, I did and that's why I would like to hear him explain his opinions hole by hole about why he feels that way. I can't imagine anything more informative regarding his opinion that Seminole does not provide a difficult test than that.
Can you? ;)
I would like to see him do that on both courses because he mentioned Seminole and CPC.
Tom Meeks already answered this for you, except he was referencing Merion, but, it applies to SGC and CPC as well.
-
Patrick:
I'm not talking about Tom Meeks or his opinion of Seminole or CPC, and either is Michael Whitaker and his friend the Tour pro talking about Tom Meeks' opinion of Seminole and CPC.
-
Terry Lavin,
You should know that AM's original plan called for a tee on # 18 that was further back on a rock island. I think that configuration would have enhanced the value of the hole.
I would doubt that the CCC would allow that tee today, but, you never know.
I also don't know if CPC has any interest in constructing that tee and the method for getting to and from that tee.
Pat,
That would surely help. As it is, the hole calls for a four-iron through the cypress goalposts, a ninety degree turn to the right and a wedge to an elevated green. Pretty Mickey Mouse stuff, especially for such an amazing place.
-
OK... here is the email I sent my friend and the response I got. Take it for what it's worth as this is all I will be able to get on this subject. He is not as fascinated with this Q&A as we are. ??? Feel free to comment on his opinions but, PLEASE, do not get petty. He only did this as a favor to me. Thanks.
EMAIL: Many of the conversation participants are of the opinion that a Tour pro is too focused on course length and that the fact that a hole might be too short for you does not mean it is a bad hole. For example, Tom Doak, said the following about Cypress Point:
"If it's the short par-4's your friend doesn't like, it's not holes 5 & 6 (those are short par-5's), but instead the 8th and 9th, which some people think are among the best holes on the planet.
I can understand a Tour pro not liking the 8th at Cypress Point. In theory, they are long enough to drive the green there, but the hole is blind from the tee and there's no way they could hold the green anyway, so the only real option for them is probably a 5-iron tee shot and a wedge. It's a much better hole for the members, and it is a crucial hole in the routing in order to get to #9, but it is probably overrated in itself because of the setting.
The ninth is just one of the best holes in the world. It's very short -- your friend could probably get home with a 3-wood -- but it's a frightening risk to attempt it because there are places around the green from which he might make six. Unlike the eighth, it's all in front of you, it's just about how much nerve you have. You can always play it with an iron and a wedge, and still the Tour players won't make 3 with any regularity."
Another person wondered the following: "Since he considered 17 and 18 at CPC as weak, how does he view # 17 at Wannamoissett ? Or, # 18 at Newport ?"
ANSWER: For starters, 17 at Wannamoisett is the ONLY par five on a Par 69 course that can't be more than 6800 yards, and even Par has won something like 95% of the Northeast Amateurs, one of the top events in the country. 18 at Newport is a fine hole. Wind is usually a factor, as well as a quick back to front green. As far as Cypress, all I'll say since I don't remember every hole (no shock) is that a course should impress you visually as much as anything and a large part of the course does. NO GREAT COURSE ends in such mediocre fashion. It's a cool place with some incredible views, some of the best holes I have ever seen, and an incomparable membership. But, it IS NOT the best golf course in the country, or the Peninsula for that matter. Spyglass has the same views and an awesome mix of holes, and is in MUCH better condition now than Cypress. Like I said, Seminole impressed me much more this last time but both courses are much more aura than impressive. Ratings people are scared to not give them what historians feel is their due. I fully understand Tom's take on a Tour player's mentality but I love golf holes that look good and are at least moderately challenging. Seminole has to get their greens running 14 and a 25mph wind to be challenging, and it is just that. Cypress needs a little wind and their greens to be perfect to play like it should. I like both places and courses very much, but don't think they belong in the category they are in. Winged Foot, Oakmont, Pine Valley, Shinnecock....these two don't compare to these.
-
Semionle greens running at 14? I thought there was only one course in the world who had the balls to pull that off. And that one course has to slow down the greens when the big boys come out to play. ??? ??? ??? ???
-
MW,
Thanks for going to this effort.
I think your buddie gave a very reasonable response there. I can't comment on the Monterey course comparisons, however I can say that Pine Valley and Shinnecock are also tremendously different animals on benign days as compared to days when the 'flag is up'.
There is an awful lot of emotion about the ranking process on here, as there is with anything that hits so close to home. I would say the fact that he (through you) took the ratings on directly is the cause for the negativity on this thread.
Seminole has 9 or 10 of what I would call world class holes. It also has one or two what I would call mediocre holes. The other 6 or 7 are very good and solid.
I also think this course represents one of the widest potential scoring spectrums in golf. That may be what he sees when he says the course depends on 14 feet greens and 25 MPH winds. In those conditions, par is a good score, even for him, while in a light breeze with toned down greens, it does become a birdie fest, which ain't always bad.
I'm not into trying to pin a course down to its deserved ranking, but I can say that Seminole is a course on which I'd love to play...probably more so than Winged Foot, which I love.
-
These guys really are different than you and me. I played Pebble, Spyglass and Pebble again a couple of years ago, and fell utterly in love with Pebble Beach. Spyglass left me unmoved.
-
Back to the topic, you persist in stating the premise that "It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions.
That's a joke.
He didn't have broad based opinions.
He had one opinion. And that opinion was that neither Seminole or CPC provided a difficult test to the PGA Tour Pro.
This is your quote. Are you saying that what you say is a joke? ;)
It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro."
Initially Michael said that his friend felt: "Bottom line... "greatness" is not just about length or difficulty of shot values for my friend. He thinks there are plenty of old "short" courses that are great."
NO !
That's not what he said initially.
I've re-posted his initial post in an attempt to refresh your memory.
Thanks for the refresher, although I had reread the initial post. Strike the word "initially". You're right it was in a later post that he posted the quote above.
So it seems his feeling that they are over-rated is not solely based on the difficulty of the test for a PGA Tour Pro.
No, you're incorrect.
Reread Michael's initial post.
I had and have. Sadly you're being semantic and tunnel-visioned to try to win your point
Why do you keep insisting he does?
Because I possess decent reading comprehension skills and you don't.
It seems your reading comprehension skills are limited to only his intial post. Do you not comprehend post #15 with the quote? Or is it just a matter of convenience to ignore it to try to win a point?
Further he described the shortcomings of CPC as related to 4 weak holes.
He labeled 6, not 4, holes as weak and claimed that 17 and 18 were amongst the worst.
Again you're reading comprehension seems to have failed you after the first post. Terry has now called 18 at CPC Mickey Mouse. Is it time to eviscerate him now?
I don't recall he said they were weak solely because they didn't challenge him as a Pro.
What do you recall ?
Apparently more than you do after post #1.
Seems likely that Michael's buddy will think twice about expressing an opinion on here, directly or indirectly, in the future. And over a topic as precisely subjective as rating courses.
;)
-
Some prefer blondes, some brunettes, some redheads - some older women, some tall women - whatever - you get the idea. Who knows why? Its just the way it is.....
To each his own - and to Michael Whitaker's friend - he has his preferences. More power to him.
The constructive portion of this discussion was interesting and worthwhile, as I have played neither golf course, but it ended awhile back. No one will change anyone elses mind now, or their preferences (regarding Seminole, Cypress Point, or women).
-
Patrick:
I'm not talking about Tom Meeks or his opinion of Seminole or CPC, and either is Michael Whitaker and his friend the Tour pro talking about Tom Meeks' opinion of Seminole and CPC.
What you don't understand is that Michael's friend, the PGA Tour Pro and Tom Meeks are in harmony on the issue.
You could call their views similar, if not congruent.
-
Terry Lavin,
What's interesting is that Seminole's orginal 18th hole was far less interesting than the current hole, which was redesigned by Dick Wilson.
Wilson moved the tee and the green.
# 18 at CPC is a bit of a let down, for the reasons that you and others have stated. But, had the tee been moved back, I think the hole would have benefited.
There's been a change in the culture of golf that places a greater emphasis on the 18th hole.
When match play reigned supreme, the 18th hole didn't have anywhere near the significance it carries today under the medal play format and mentality.
Today, there's a need to finish big or strong or both.
That wasn't the case during the "Golden Age"
So, you can't look at the design of a golden age golf course purely in the context of today's culture.
There are a good number of golden age golf courses that don't have a robust finishing hole, but, if the great majority of the golf at that course is being played at Match play, where's the rub ?
-
Byran Izatt,
THE relevant post is Michael's original one.
That's where he clearly states his friend's opinion.
That's the one where he clearly asks for comments.
Subsequent posts that attempt to alter the flavor of Michael's original post are of no interest to me.
He said what he said, his quote is clear.
As to Terry Lavin's description of # 18 at CPC, I too find the hole a bit of a let down, but, when one views the course in the context of its intended play and all 18 holes, calling it the most over-rated course he's ever played, with SIX of the worst holes you'll ever find on a good course is a very defiinative analysis, one which the golfing universe seems to disagree with.
If you choose to endorse his opinion, that CPC has six of the worst holes he's ever seen on a good golf course, and six average holes, go ahead, make my day.
It's an opinion of a myopic golfer, one that sees a golf course throught the narrowest of perspectives, that of his game, to the exclusion of everything else.
Tom Doak essentially called him a fool for rendering that opinion, but, you and everyone else supporting Michael's friend's opinion seemed to have ignored or pretended that Tom Doak didn't make those comments.
Comments that are so outrageous, that they validate Tom Doak's summation and suggestion.
I have no doubt that I'd have a great time with Michael's friend, on and off the golf course, as long as we didn't talk about GCA ;D
-
Michael Whittaker:
Thanks for posting your tour pro friend's "final" email response.
I think he's right on the money. But the guy is young, he's really good----it's a new day now with what's happening these days in his world---and guess what, it's probably not great for golf and it's probably worse for architecture.
I don't think Sam Snead or Ben Hogan would say about Seminole or CPC what he said about those courses but they didn't live or play in his day. :(
If one is going to compare those courses with what is happening today I guess one needs to ask how your tour pro friend would do against Snead or Hogan in their day on those courses or how they'd do on those courses if they played against him in his day.
Anything less probably isn't comparing apples to apples.
Like any golf course, ultimately it has to work well enough for the membership, but if a golf course is going to be seriously considered as one of the top courses in the land I can't see how it can avoid the opinon of golfer's like your friend, the tour pro----no matter which era it comes from.
-
In hindsight, I believe the only thing which made this thread really controversial was the declaration that Cypress Point had "six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course." I think it was ultimately retracted, but making such a large statement about a famous course will always get you in hot water here.
Personally, I was more troubled by the placing of Congressional in the young man's ranking of classic courses, and I made some assumptions about his interests and character because of that inclusion, which I probably should not have done.
-
Since I've moved across the swamp from Seminole my infatuation has risen exponentially and has now caused me to read all the old threads on the course. Im bumping this thread in particular as I found it to be a phenomenal read on several levels. First, there is some top notch discussion of architecture. Second, there is great debate among some great members of this board.
-
(I have not played Seminole, and have hardly even seen any photos of the course, so I won't comment on that part of the discussion.)
Early on in the thread, Tom said: "For 98% Cypress Point would be one of the 5-10 best courses in he world." Count me in that 98%. It is one of my handful of favorite places anywhere and I am extremely grateful to have played it.
However, I can understand MW's friend's perspective that the course is overrated--if only because so many consider Cypress as the single best course in the world. If people call it anything less, it would mean "overrated" by definition.
As I tried to articulate in my essay on Pacing a couple of months ago, the back nine in particular of CPC leaves something to be desired. There is one extremely challenging hole (16) and a number of drives-and-wedges--which were probably drives-and-short-irons back in the pre-Titanium and pre-Pro V1 days. In fact, I found the holes on the front nine much more interesting as golf holes, despite their inland location. 6-7-8-9 is an absolutely amazing stretch. As an aside, personally I loved 17 but I can understand the Tour pro's feeling that it is unsatisfying in some way...the trees in the middle of the fairway certainly create some discomfort on the tee.
Oakmont held my interest from the first tee shot to the last putt, precisely because the range of hole types is so expansive, all the way through the round. I'd put Oakmont in the top 2-3 courses I have played whereas Cypress doesn't quite climb that high.
Correct me if I am wrong--and I am sure this group will :D--but I think Mackenzie said something about a course being enjoyable for golfers of all skill levels...in my opinion this should include scratch or plus-handicaps AS WELL as the 36 HCP...even among Mackenzie's work in California, I do not think Cypress as a golf coursewould rate nearly as high as Pasatiempo on that criterion.
Clearly, however, it is one of the best, if not THE best golf experience in the world.
-
If someone condemned me to play Seminole or CPC, to the exclusion of every other course, for the rest of my life, it would be hard to imagine not being supremely happy and content while at the same time being adequately challenged.
And, if Tom Huckaby were in my group, I'm sure he'd be enraptured by the vistas, not to mention the prevailing winds ;D
-
I wonder how many other touring pro's agree with Michael's friend about Seminole and CPC?
-
I've only had the opportunity to walk CPC, but it still ranks number one for the most enjoyable 4 hours I've ever spent on a golf course.
We were like kids in a lolly shop, must have taken 200 plus photos and it was a privilege to have had that opportunity.
-
Now MW's friend is a major winner one wonders whether that strengthens his viewpoint to the wider GCA audience??
-
JC
An interesting thread resurrection....having only seen 1/2 of the equation I can't comment on the Ross connection.
That said - Mackenzie provides more than a golf course at Cypress he provides an education in design across the cliffs / dunes and woodlands.
-
It would be interesting to get his updated views given two more years experience in golf, life and gca study. Wonder how he likes The Old Course - a pretty easy test for the pros when the wind is down and very wide open, but certainly the "shot values" are there.
-
Correct me if I am wrong--and I am sure this group will :D--but I think Mackenzie said something about a course being enjoyable for golfers of all skill levels...in my opinion this should include scratch or plus-handicaps AS WELL as the 36 HCP...even among Mackenzie's work in California, I do not think Cypress as a golf coursewould rate nearly as high as Pasatiempo on that criterion.
This is an interesting point--whether or not Dr. MacKenzie said it. I would agree that Pasatiempo might be one of the best examples I've ever seen of a course that challenges the better player without overly burdening the weaker one. At the same time I think Cypress does a pretty darn good job of that as well. David, you mentioned Oakmont being in your top 2-3 and it sounds like you must be a strong player; I would argue that Cypress does a better job of being enjoyable for all levels than a course as difficult as Oakmont*. I can see there being two sides to the quandary, but it seems the question is whether it would be more enjoyable for the plus handicap to have a shot at a low number or for the high handicap to challege their game to the maximum. Generally, I think too many designers err on the side of excess difficulty, when the vast majority of golfers might enjoy something a bit more forgiving. Even as a single-digit handicap, my game can only take so much! Obviously there's an exception for courses used to hold major championships, but many of the new brutally difficult courses being built today won't ever host one.
*--I have not played Oakmont and am using it as an example of an exceedingly difficult golf course because it was also in your earlier post. But, I've never heard anyone claim that Oakmont was anything other than really tough so I think it is a reasonable example of my point.
-
The main point I take away from this, is that it is a myth that you can design a golf course that is "enjoyable" for a tour/plus player and a 36 handicapper.
The definition of enjoyable is so different for those polar opposite ends of the spectrum. The mind set of a tour/plus player is to always want the lowest possible score and by default probably hits it a mile and renders these shorter "great courses" (Cypress, Merion, etc) to driver-wedge affairs and thus that player thinks the course is "too easy" and therefore not great (like Oakmont, Shinnecock, etc). Where as the 36 handicap utterly adores these short great courses. I just don't see how you span the gap to be enjoyable for all skill levels when the definition of enjoyable is so different for the two ends of the spectrum.
I don't think Cypress is overrated (I haven't played Seminole) at all, but I think Shinnecock, Pine Valley, and Royal County Down are just better because you have to hit 3 irons.
-
The main point I take away from this, is that it is a myth that you can design a golf course that is "enjoyable" for a tour/plus player and a 36 handicapper.
The only change I'd make is lowering your 36 to maybe 12.Tour/plus players are playing a completely different game of golf.There just aren't many common denominators between the 2 groups.
-
Pat Mucci at his cantankerous best in this thread. :)
I have a friend who is a high level national Mid Am type player who felt the exact same way about CPC. Shot 68 the 1 time he played it. Liked it, but thought it was the most overrated course he had ever played, and unlike Mike's friend, is not a long player at all. Much preferred The Preserve, which will give most on this site heart pains.
Most of his golf is tournament golf, and he is the type of player that excels when Par is a good score. So that is what he likes. Loves Spyglass, loves Olympic. Views courses based in great part on shots that the course makes him hit, not Joe 12 handicap. Myopic, for sure. Wrong, maybe, but it's a big world..
-
It's not that big... :)
-
If someone condemned me to play Seminole or CPC, to the exclusion of every other course, for the rest of my life, it would be hard to imagine not being supremely happy and content while at the same time being adequately challenged.
And, if Tom Huckaby were in my group, I'm sure he'd be enraptured by the vistas, not to mention the prevailing winds ;D
Imagine my surprise, when reading about Seminole & Cypress Point, being reminded of the prevailing winds at Sand Hills.,,,,,
-
It's not that big... :)
;D LOL.
I agree George. But sometimes we forget how many people don't look at courses the way that many of us do on here. Also, opinions of those who may have played a great course only once. I have two other low handicapper friends that played at Merion. Loved the course, but thought the middle holes (7-13) were just OK. If they played there, say 5 times or more, I can guarantee that there would be a greater appreciation for those holes..
-
Sean:
The problem your tourney bud has is that he shoots a low number on a GIVEN day and then believes such a course -- when he shoot a low number -- is really no big deal and speaks less of the course in question.
The issue would be a return visit with pins tucked and possibly even the wind blowing a bit and then you see the whole nature of the design is about.
One time visits -- especially where low handicap types may shoot low -- tend to create the wide gulf in thinking that can often emerge.
Let me point point out that sometimes low handicap types may catch a course when the opposite wind is blowing and as a result may catch certain holes in certain ways for that GIVEN day and it may not reflect what the architect was thinking when prevailing wind patterns are present. The case in example for me that I just referenced was my visit to The Rawls Course when a freak northeast wind was blowing.
-
Sean:
The problem your tourney bud has is that he shoots a low number on a GIVEN day and then believes such a course -- when he shoot a low number -- is really no big deal and speaks less of the course in question.
The issue would be a return visit with pins tucked and possibly even the wind blowing a bit and then you see the whole nature of the design is about.
One time visits -- especially where low handicap types may shoot low -- tend to create the wide gulf in thinking that can often emerge.
Let me point point out that sometimes low handicap types may catch a course when the opposite wind is blowing and as a result may catch certain holes in certain ways for that GIVEN day and it may not reflect what the architect was thinking when prevailing wind patterns are present. The case in example for me that I just referenced was my visit to The Rawls Course when a freak northeast wind was blowing.
Gulp. I actually agree with everything you say. Don't tell anybody..
;)
-
I've not read back through all seven pages, but one of the factors in this discussion that wasn't discussed much is that Cypress Point is one of the very few classic courses which has resisted the idea of adding back tees for Tour pros. Merion, Shinnecock, and National have all succumbed ... but the Tour pro is still playing Cypress at 6,500 yards, just a couple of steps behind where the rest of us play. Crystal Downs is one of the few others I can think of which falls into that category.
Some will see this as a weakness, others as a strength; but it is mostly a comment on the widening gulf between Tour pros and normal players as the result of equipment changes. Hogan and Snead and Venturi found Cypress Point to be a classic; Nicklaus and Watson not as much; today's pros even less.
-
Tom:
The issue for many top tier players is that score is the ULTIMATE ingredient for them in determining what makes a course so great.
Unfortunately, when many top tier players play a CP they often see it when it plays much slower than it can be. You also have a situation whereby the facility doesn't seek to speed up the firmness beyond a certain point.
Tom, let me point out a NJ example of a comparable sorts to CP.
I've played Somerset Hills when it plays very slow and frankly it's just a very simple and predictable course when it plays that way. Totally unremarable in so many ways.
However ...
Have them firm up the place and now any one-foot putt is not an automatic.
Like I said at the outset the mindset of many top tier players is often not very deep in their overall thinking in terms of architectural elements that lie beyond the score mentality that far too often dominates their feelings about ANY course.
One other thing -- I've always believed that for any course to be considered GREAT it needs to succumb to the time when a player does play exceptionally well. Courses that fail to yield a low round to such actions are then, in my mind, just unreasonable in terms of what design should be about.
-
After playing Palmetto this fall, it makes sense that this tour pro would like it more than CP because the course plays much longer than its yardage, due to the majority of the approach shots being up hill.
-
Let me point out a NJ example of a comparable sorts to CP.
I've played Somerset Hills when it plays very slow and frankly it's just a very simple and predictable course when it plays that way. Totally unremarable in so many ways.
However ...
Have them firm up the place and now any one-foot putt is not an automatic.
Matt,
I can understand a course rising in esteem when firmed up, but it would have to affect every shot -- rolling drives through the fairway and into the rough, or rejecting mediocre shot to the green, etc. While I'm sure you weren't implying that speeding up the greens alone is enough to elevate a course's reputation, I'd almost view that as a negative -- endless putting from inside three feet doesn't float my boat.
-
Rick:
The speed of the course is from all elements together -- the amount of roll from a tee shot -- the firmness of the greens to approaches and then to the actual speed of the greens themselves.
I've played CP and SH when less than fast and it's clear they are easy marks for the top tier players but expose these same players to conditions that are 180 degrees different and the opinions do change.
The sad reality is that too many courses play way too slow and when you have short distances involved from say under 6,600 yards it's e-z for the highly skilled player to believe such layouts are way too e-z when the reality is that the overall slowness of the turf serves to minimize the architectural elements that are already present.
-
Someone invite me to play and I'll give my opinion. Available on short notice.
-
Both courses are very short for a Tour player. Heck, Claude Harmon shot 60 at Seminole nearly 50 years ago! And I think most Tour players would tell you that Cypress Point is no longer relevant for them.
The question is how much that has to do with whether or not they are great golf courses. A young Tour player is obviously biased in this regard, but he represents 0.001% of the golfing population. For 98% Cypress Point would be one of the 5-10 best courses in he world. It's really just an argument about how much importance we should attach to the other two percent.
I'd like to know which six holes are so bad at Cypress Point, though. Is he downgrading #5 and #6 because they're easily reachable? I can't count to six bad holes there. Maybe he confused it with Pebble Beach.
Well, I was just about to type all of the above, with trembling hands after reading the OP. But Tom Doak beat me to it. Like he said...
-
Now MW's friend is a major winner one wonders whether that strengthens his viewpoint to the wider GCA audience??
Mark - You've pegged the wrong pro. Lucas, while a good friend, was not the one who shared his thoughts with me about these courses.
-
This debate hinges on what must be an age old question; is greatness determined by the elite players or the punters? It seems to me that the opinions of both groups is more and more difficult to reconcile. That is if it ever was the case. I spose I am wondering how well these great classic really did accomodate all levels of players. Is it merely a myth? Perhaps far fewer accomplished this ideal status than we imagine. Looking at the scores of golden age comps would seem to suggest that the classic courses were damn difficult for pros so they must have been oh so difficult for the handicap player. So I reckon the question revolves around the idea of the high capper being able to get around quickly with some pride in place. I have long believed that the American courses of stature built in the 20s & 30s must have been monsters for the club player. Somewhere along the line expectations have shifted.
Perhaps it is time again to shift expecations for the best players and create a new pro par while at the same time revert back to a more generous par (something like the old bogey score) for the club player. I think the gap is that large to justify it and perhaps this will help stop the feeling that courses need to be toughened up. Of course, the low cappers would hate this idea because they would fall somewhere inbetween, but in truth, that is where they are now only it isn't spoken of much.
Ciao
-
Michael,
Apollogies to LG and yourself....you clearly mix with the best!
Mark
-
Michael,
Apollogies to LG and yourself....you clearly mix with the best!
Mark
No apology required... just didn't want Lucas to get misplaced credit for the comments within this thread.
I do mix with the best... especially my newfound friends in the UK, one of whom talked me into making one of the best golf decisions of my life, namely joining Royal Cinque Ports Golf Club. Thank you, Chappers!!!
-
Thanks to Gary Sato, I just got to play Seminole and I had played Cypress Point a long time ago (20 years or so). At the core of this debate is actually equipment and the spread in distances between recreational players and top players in my opinion ... and following that Seminole holds up better than Cypress Point depending on how far your hit the ball. For someone like me, Cypress Point is still the best course in the world of those that I have played or seen, and Seminole is high up in the upper echelon.
Let me elaborate on distance. I'm around 50 years old, rusty scratch player, drive around 270-275 yards, hit 8-iron 155 ish. Most of my recreational friends are around 10 handicap and drive around 220 yards and hit 8-iron 125 ish. Two people I play a lot of golf with on a relative basis are my nephew who is one of the top juniors in the world and a friend who is a mini-tour pro. They hit it 310 ish off the tee and 8 iron is 180 or so.
I haven't played CP in a long time, but I would think I would find it OK yardage wise and still great design-wise. Maybe play a little short. If I played Seminole from the 7,250 tees (we played from 6,700), I'd probably find it about right or slightly long.
For my recreational friends, CP would be a good distance, and we'd have to figure-out which tees they should play at Seminole.
However, for my nephew and mini-tour pro, Seminole would probably play short at 7,250 while CP they would find uninteresting on a lot of shots (based on previous comments at a few other courses.)
It's become harder to have more consensus on how a course stands because it seems the spread in distance from top players vs recreational players has increased so much.
-
Thanks to Gary Sato, I just got to play Seminole and I had played Cypress Point a long time ago (20 years or so). At the core of this debate is actually equipment and the spread in distances between recreational players and top players in my opinion ... and following that Seminole holds up better than Cypress Point depending on how far your hit the ball. For someone like me, Cypress Point is still the best course in the world of those that I have played or seen, and Seminole is high up in the upper echelon.
Let me elaborate on distance. I'm around 50 years old, rusty scratch player, drive around 270-275 yards, hit 8-iron 155 ish. Most of my recreational friends are around 10 handicap and drive around 220 yards and hit 8-iron 125 ish. Two people I play a lot of golf with on a relative basis are my nephew who is one of the top juniors in the world and a friend who is a mini-tour pro. They hit it 310 ish off the tee and 8 iron is 180 or so.
I haven't played CP in a long time, but I would think I would find it OK yardage wise and still great design-wise. Maybe play a little short. If I played Seminole from the 7,250 tees (we played from 6,700), I'd probably find it about right or slightly long.
For my recreational friends, CP would be a good distance, and we'd have to figure-out which tees they should play at Seminole.
However, for my nephew and mini-tour pro, Seminole would probably play short at 7,250 while CP they would find uninteresting on a lot of shots (based on previous comments at a few other courses.)
It's become harder to have more consensus on how a course stands because it seems the spread in distance from top players vs recreational players has increased so much.
Yet interestingly the manufacturers have hoodwinked the 10's (the majority) into thinking they're "having more fun" being 100 yards shorter off the tee behind their athletic buddies by convincing those same people to build hordes of tees-ironically to "play it forward" with all that fancy equipment their buddies smoke it by them with.
Watching Shell's Wonderful World of golf right now
MGGA (and do it in an hour less)
-
It seems sacrilegious to claim these icons are overrated, but like the 10 second barrier in the 100 meter dash, the 4 minute mile, a woman dunking the ball, 100 mph pitch, athletic accomplishments are evolving and can make some benchmarks obsolete for competition. I myself strongly believe the iconic courses don't have to host the best players in the world in competition to be the best. The 99% of the golfers in the world still relish them for their shot values and stern test. These great courses can always host women's competitions as well, if they want to stay with their original footprint (i.e. Chicago GC hosting the Sr. Women's Open).
Great tournament courses and great courses can be mutually exclusive. I'd much rather play the later and all of us at GCA will appreciate them regardless of if they host tournaments. The equipment has changed the goal posts as to what courses can host tournaments, however we must ensure that same standards exists for great courses.
-
In 2012 Bubba Watson, Ricky Fowler, Davis Love III and Nick Watney played CPC. All had won on tour by then, with 20+ victories between them. Bubba was the defending Masters champ.
Love shot 67, Watson 70, Watney 71, Fowler 73. That was on "a windless day, with soft greens," according to the article in Golf Mag.
A few quotes from the players...
Fowler: "I think it stands the test of time."
Watson: "my favorite course in the world. Who wouldn't want to play here every day for the rest of their life?"
Love, who hit lots of 2-irons and 3-woods off the tee: "Any MacKenzie course you have to think your way around it. This place is going to give you some birdies, obviously. But if you get out of position you can make a double bogey in a hurry."
-
In 2012 Bubba Watson, Ricky Fowler, Davis Love III and Nick Watney played CPC. All had won on tour by then, with 20+ victories between them. Bubba was the defending Masters champ.
Love shot 67, Watson 70, Watney 71, Fowler 73. That was on "a windless day, with soft greens," according to the article in Golf Mag.
A few quotes from the players...
Fowler: "I think it stands the test of time."
Watson: "my favorite course in the world. Who wouldn't want to play here every day for the rest of their life?"
Love, who hit lots of 2-irons and 3-woods off the tee: "Any MacKenzie course you have to think your way around it. This place is going to give you some birdies, obviously. But if you get out of position you can make a double bogey in a hurry."
Good info Jim. Probably won't happen in the future, but would be interesting to see what would happen at CP.
-
Perhaps you could just slap him upside the head for me.
Funniest thing I've read on GCA in a decade.
-
What a great old thread. I became immersed after reading just a couple of posts and went through all eleven pages. People may have been at odds over certain issues with people like Tom Paul, Wayne Morrison and Pat Mucci but the site has suffered from their absence.
-
Since this thread started I’ve had the pleasure of playing Cypress Point although sadly it was two days after the greens were punched and heavily sanded and our round took over 5 hours including a 4 group 45 minute wait on the 16th tee. For me the surprise of the round was the quality of the golf from 4-13, 14-17 matched my high expectations and 18 was a mystery to me and I’m sure many others. I’d love to play there again when the greens and the golfers are at the normal speed.
-
This thread highlights why I find golf course architecture such a multidimensional fascinating art form. With a very few exceptions, sports are contested on a standard or close to standard playing field. The sole competition and comparison is among the athletes with the playing field being largely irrelevant as a point of reference. When I played pick up basketball (a long time ago), I did not walk off wondering what MJ thought of the court. And I doubt he ever spent a minute thinking whether a particular court was overrated (fans and atmosphere may be a different story). Nor except perhaps in tennis where court surfaces vary to some extent, do we or commentators spend much time analyzing why one playing field is better or worse for a given competitor the way such analysis happens in golf. In golf, the playing field plays (no pun intended) an enormous and impactful role on how each and every player interacts with the game emotionally, competitively, and intellectually. I have not played Seminole but I did finagle my bucket list round at CPC. I too would want to hit the pro (wonder if he has played it again in the past decade) upside his head, but he is but one view from one perspective in an endlessly complex, nuanced, highly personal experience and exploration.
Ira
-
Since this thread started I’ve had the pleasure of playing Cypress Point although sadly it was two days after the greens were punched and heavily sanded and our round took over 5 hours including a 4 group 45 minute wait on the 16th tee. For me the surprise of the round was the quality of the golf from 4-13, 14-17 matched my high expectations and 18 was a mystery to me and I’m sure many others. I’d love to play there again when the greens and the golfers are at the normal speed.
Speed of the greens or the round will not be a problem at Seminole. I like the fact that they enforce their unofficial time par, 3:45, and are doing their part to MGGA.
-
Ira,
A little surprised you didn't mention Baseball as its probably the next closest major sport with varying fields of play.
The wall at Fenway
The short porch in right at Yankee stadium
The long outs at Minute Maid field with the elevated section in dead center.
Or even the massive foul territory in Oakland where you get extra outs defensively.
Not to mention the issues with playing at elevation in Colorado.
-
Kalen,
I had Baseball in mind when I said “close to standard”. The variations you mention do clearly affect play and probably how different players “rate” the stadiums. Our members would probably tell you that there is a big difference between playing American Football outdoors in Chicago in December and indoors the same week in Minnesota. [size=78%]However, t[/size][/size][size=78%]he variations and variables in golf course architecture are more numerous and both pronounced and nuanced which makes the interaction between player and playing field more complex and interesting.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Ira[/size]
-
Ira - which leads, I think, to a key question: by what framework/rationale could we say that the pro's subjective experience of gca, in this case of Seminole & Cypress, is any less valid than Tom D's, or yours? One answer is to say: 'well, the subjective experience is no less valid, but the expressed opinion is easily discounted (e.g. as an extreme outlier, or as a product of the .01% etc). But given that we're talking about an art-craft that, I'm told, is largely a matter of taste and that is not bound by firm rules or shaped by objective/never changing principles, that answer strikes me as unsatisfying.
P
-
Peter, to quote the great philosopher Woody Allen, all subjectivity is objective.
-
Peter,
Pat Mucci who left the board before I joined seemed to argue that magazine rankings are “objective.” For lots of reasons that have been articulated in multiple threads including this one, I would disagree. However, principled disagreements based on subjective perspective does not make every opinion equally valid. There clearly are distinctions among “heroic”, “strategic”, and “penal”. There also are clear differences between fast and firm and softer. I prefer as do most on GCA a combination of strategic and heroic on fast and firm. Such courses to me are more interesting and fun but still can provide plenty of challenge for the 98%. Certainly CPC nears the top of my list.
The pro who prompted this thread probably can articulate why a CPC or Seminole (which I have not played) are not as interesting or fun for him because he derives great pleasure from scoring being more difficult and perhaps the challenging fun of hitting difficult recovery shots.
So yes, our perspectives are subjective because the criterion we are using might vary. But so long as we can state and defend our positions, the debate is not unbounded. I am not a big fan of Congressional which the pro had on his list of favorites. I find it does not provide a lot of options and gets a bit boring even though there are some excellent holes. Maybe upon discussion the pro would get me to see the course differently or vice verse. Either way so long as we are open to listening to the reasons for our positions, we are going to have an enjoyable and educational debate.
What does not work is to say a course is great because most other people say it is. That is a cop out that avoids stating one’s underlying philosophy and one’s application of principles.
Ira
-
My comment may be dated. It’s been 10 years since I played CPC, and I played Seminole about 4 years ago. At 56 now, I’m from a different generation of players, but have been teaching some high level guys, and been involved peripherally a bit with this generation.
To me, CPC still seems to be a place pros want to play. Haven’t heard any player say it was a cool place. These guys overpower, by design every course they play, or at least atTempt to, but the guys I’ve listened to mostly seem to feel like CPC is a course to play. Fwiw