News:

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


Patrick_Mucci

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #50 on: August 31, 2004, 12:30:41 PM »
Shivas,
... when I'm calling the shots, we're trucking to the back every time and I don't care if the course is 7700 yards long.  I can handle that just fine (at least no less than I can handle 6700 -- 1000 yards makes almost no difference to me).  

New courses that I've played that are challenging and fun from the tips (in "stream-of-consciousness" order):

Hmmm.... let's see.....everything except easy courses!!  ...[/b][/i]

I don't think I got my facts wrong.

I think you're confused.

Your post to me is in direct conflict with your post to Tom Huckaby.

And, your collection of posts on this thread and many others prudently leads one to conclude that you're in the "length is the sole criteria camp"

Now you state that you don't play in medal competitions, don't post scores and don't have a handicap, yet you engage in matches for money against other golfers.

If you and Ran were to have a match on Pinehurst # 2, how would it be established ?

I seem to recall, on the first tee at GCGC, making an inquiry about the handicaps in the group, and that you volunteered a single digit number, but, perhaps my memory is fading.

You also told us that you prefer to break 80 from the back tees at Medinah, but, if you don't keep score, how would you determine that ?

And, how do you get satisfaction at finishing par, par, par at
#'s 16, 17 and 18 at Medinah, as you stated, if you don't keep score ?

Sounds like something is a fen in Denmark  ;D

Again, if you'll reread your post to Tom Huckaby, and your post to me, I think you'll see the conflict and contradictions in your own words.  And, those are the facts as you presented them  ;D
[/color]

David_Madison

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2004, 12:33:19 PM »
 A. G. Crockett:

I don't know that I'd select every Strantz courses, specifically because True Blue from the tips is a long course that requires length to effectively manage. I felt like I had to hammer the ball all day long just to survive. But I agree with your point that Tobacco Road and Caledonia do not present length as the major problem. At the same time, these two as well as the others certainly yield on a number of holes to effectively and accurately applied length.

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #52 on: August 31, 2004, 01:10:48 PM »
David,
Upon further review;

You're probably right about True Blue.  I've played it twice, neither from the tips, and it was all I wanted.  At 6400 and 6800, it was great golf; at 7062, maybe too much to be "fun".
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Gary_Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #53 on: August 31, 2004, 02:16:36 PM »
Pat Mucci,

You asked if I played ANGC.  I have not.  I saw it in person last spring for the first time.

However, I would consider this course FUN when played from either set of tees because:

- Lack of penal ("lost ball") hazards off the tee
- Relatively wide landing areas
- Wildly contoured greens
- History, tradition, yada yada yada

I certainly agree with you that the back tees at ANGC would be a big test.  My point is that the experience would be FUN, regardless of score.  You can swing away with the driver, find your ball, and hit it again.  No frustration of forced carries and lost balls.  Once around the green, you get to hit chips and putts that are much more interesting (and fun) than I see at No Name Municipal GC.

It's a different story if you define FUN as scoring well.  This might eliminate from consideration those courses with overly-long back tees.

Gary

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #54 on: August 31, 2004, 02:34:01 PM »
With my former employer, I had the opportunity to work at Cherry Valley Country Club in Belle Mead, NJ.  The course and club are designed for families.  I had many an opportunity to play golf and tee off at 5 PM (or maybe a little earlier) and walk 18 before it got dark. There was nothing more enjoyable than playing early in the evening from either the back or club tees.  The course lends itself to more of a ground game than flying it on to the green.  

I can picture it now in my mind; coming up #9 (a dogleg par 5  with the 3 shot approach over the corner of a lake) with the setting sun behind the clubhouse to the right of the green.

It doesn't get any better than that.

frank_D

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #55 on: August 31, 2004, 06:52:27 PM »
---A fun/sport rating......let's name it after you...'The Mucci Rating'

brother Wayne_Freedman

i couldn't agree more that ratings are a kinda silly form of entertainment - but i have since found out some courses lives can depend on them - so for economic reasons i guess they're required - like tracking the GNP someone must use that data although i've never myself met that person - and most people i ask who follow the daily stock market close really don't know other than it makes them feel informed

in the book "whose your caddie" by reilly - NICKLAUS is quoted as calling all course raters tasks a big ass-kissing excersize so he has never paid ratings any mind - but who knows

however, i would like to know more about certain courses, like that course in somewhere in Georgia that was featured on TV though, the one that had TOPLESS caddies, like exactly where it is and how do i get there !


Patrick_Mucci

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #56 on: August 31, 2004, 07:40:47 PM »
Gary Nelson,

I think you're confusing the THRILL of playing a unique and hallowed golf course with FUN from the back tees.

As to forced carries, I'd say # 5, # 10, # 13 and others require substantial carries to properly position your ball.

Those wildly contoured greens are no fun if you're in the wrong quadrant, or at the wrong recovery position, which will happen when you play the back tees and can't reach the greens in regulation.

Like the allure of a physically attractive woman, you may find the golf courses personality quite different when you get up close and personal.

Shivas,

Tell me that if you were 4 under par coming into the 17th hole at Medinah, and a late for a social engagement, that you'd skip the last two holes in order to be on time. ;D

I'll admit to you that if I was 6 or 8 under par heading into
# 17 at NGLA, whomever or whatever was waiting for me, would have to wait a little longer.  Come to think of it, if I was even par or ten over, they'd have to wait.

Gary_Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2004, 07:53:59 AM »
Pat,

Both NGLA and ANGC are long and difficult courses.  Both would be hard to score well from the tips.  What makes you say NGLA is challenging yet fun from the tips... and ANGC isn't?    You've played both these courses and I've played neither.

What am I missing here?  How do you define fun?

Gary

ForkaB

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2004, 08:03:52 AM »
Gary

NGLA is neither a long nor particularly "difficult" course-even from the "tips."  I do not doubt that it can be set up to challenge all but the top 1-2% of golfers through a combination of firm and fast maintenance and a plethora of "Sunday" pin positions, but the charm of the course is due to its fun quotient, not how "hard" it is or can be.

I can't speak for ANGC, having never played there, but I can't imagine how it would not be fun to play, regardless of actual difficulty.

Gary_Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #59 on: September 01, 2004, 09:25:17 AM »
Rich,

Perhaps this thread an excercise in finding the best "short" golf courses.  Ones that aren't overly long... even from the tips.  If that's the case, ANGC would be out.

My definition of "not-fun" courses would include those with too many long, forced carries which translates into a bunch of lost balls.

Fun (IMO) is being able to swing away on the tee while having to think about avoiding the bunkers, having an interesting and complex chip shot around the green, and having an interesting putt that tests my ability to read greens.  Of the courses I've seen, I thought that ANGC best fit my definition.  Fun, for me, doesn't always mean hitting every green in regulation or even scoring well.

Gary

Patrick_Mucci

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #60 on: September 01, 2004, 09:40:06 AM »
Gary Nelson,

How did you arrive at the conlcusion that both NGLA and ANGC are long and difficult courses ?

From the tips, I think you'd have far more fun at NGLA then you would at ANGC, they're as different as night and day.

If it's not fun for you to hit all 18 greens in regulation, or to score well, what are your goals when you play golf ?

To miss greens and see how well you chip ?

Wouldn't you test your green reading ability better by hitting all 18 greens in regulation, rather then chipping to them and then reading shorter putts ?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2004, 09:42:08 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Gary_Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #61 on: September 01, 2004, 10:28:44 AM »
Pat,

I assumed NGLA was long and difficult since everyone talks about it so much on this forum.  I've not played it so I don't know from experience.  I admitted this point in an earlier post of mine.

I still would like you to define fun... from the tips.  I put in my definition.  What's yours?

Gary

THuckaby2

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #62 on: September 01, 2004, 10:39:47 AM »
shivas:

Just to try and close the loop of the discussion between you and me here...

We remain very different.  You're lucky to have a group of friends you can play straight up or close thereto or god forbid actually GET shots - I don't have any of that.  You also have a much better history than me - you've shot many scores in the 60s in your life and at one time were competitively very tough, right?  Well I can count the rounds I've had in the 60's on one hand, and I've never been competitively all that great.  You think you suck now, because at one point you truly were very good, and relative to that time, well.. the realities of life don't allow you to be that good at a game which requires so much time to be that sharp, consistently.  Me?  Pin me down and I will admit that I am playing the best golf of my entire life, at least for stretches at a time when I can focus, these last two years.

So big differences in how we treat things.  I have no regular group with which to compete - at least not guys I don't have to give 10+ shots to, and you know how old that gets when money is involved... So I've become anti-competitive, when it comes to friends.  It's a lose-lose with them:  if I win, it's just because I'm better and they're pissed and I feel weird like I didn't give them enough shots... if they win, I'm pissed because it seems stupid to me to beat them by so much straight up and then have to give over money.

This colors my entire outlook on golf...

Then re difficulty and challenge in golf courses, well... I did way too much of that when I was young.  I don't need it any more.  I guess in some sense since I really am playing the best golf of my life, I should look for more challenge... But that's not me.  I'd like that skill level to translate to some success (score-wise and competitive-wise) before I give up on it and just hit shots for shots sake.  See, you have that in your history - I don't.  Once I have that, then hell yes, put me at the tips and let's see the fun shots.

TH

Patrick_Mucci

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #63 on: September 01, 2004, 11:01:13 AM »
Gary Nelson,

Not having to grind or seriously struggle on nearly every hole, in an attempt to make par, would be a cornerstone of my definition of fun.

I view fun on a golf course as enjoying the challenge.

Winged Foot West from the tips is not an enjoyable challenge for me.  Those who played in the "massacre at Winged Foot", the best players in the world, would probably agree with me.

THuckaby2

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #64 on: September 01, 2004, 11:09:39 AM »
Patrick:

Very interesting.  You've just described exactly how I feel about playing from the tips - exactly.  I can't imagine WFWest from the tips being "fun" as a steady diet.  I have had too much of grinding and struggle in golf, so I do that more when I HAVE TO than when I want to (ie in competitive situations).  Outside of that, give me a course where it isn't such a grind or struggle, and I will have the most fun.

That being said, it has to give sufficient challenge to be fun also, right?  But too much makes the fun harder to find.

It's interesting also, I do have exceptions to this, at courses that are somehow meant to be brutal.  So for the first and only time playing WFWest, I likely would find it fun, to see how bad I get beat up where the pros did, and get some satisfaction from the rare successful holes. The same goes for PGA West-Stadium, and a great course out here called Bayonet.  They are all meant to be brutally hard, and it's fun as a change of pace to tackle them and see what's what.

But none would be fun played regularly, from the tips.  The fun there is in the change of pace.

For regular golf, give me a fun sporting course like Valley Club, N. Berwick West links, Cruden Bay, Cypress Point, the list goes on and on (in terms of courses people here all know about).  All can be very tough given the "right" conditions, and none are ever too easy (at least not for me).  And given normal conditions, all do allow for success.

TH
« Last Edit: September 01, 2004, 11:10:56 AM by Tom Huckaby »

Gary_Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #65 on: September 01, 2004, 11:14:33 AM »
Pat,

Your original post on this thread asked which golf course were fun... but you limited the evaluation to the back tees.  Now you have refined your definition to a golf experience where you don't have to seriously struggle in your attempt to make par.   Does this now limit us to a selection of short courses?

ANGC isn't very long for Hank Kuene... but it is for me.  I suppose that "enjoying the challenge" requires selecting the proper tees for your ability.   If you are a short hitter who is forced to play the back tees and wants to have fun, you have to select a short golf course.  Have I got it now?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #66 on: September 01, 2004, 11:48:27 AM »
Your original post on this thread asked which golf course were fun... but you limited the evaluation to the back tees.  

Now you have refined your definition to a golf experience where you don't have to seriously struggle in your attempt to make par.

I didn't refine my definition, I merely addressed your question.
[/color]

Does this now limit us to a selection of short courses?
Not at all
[/color]

ANGC isn't very long for Hank Kuene... but it is for me.  I suppose that "enjoying the challenge" requires selecting the proper tees for your ability.   If you are a short hitter who is forced to play the back tees and wants to have fun, you have to select a short golf course.  Have I got it now?

NO
[/color]

Tom Huckaby,

I think you have to distinquish between the first time you play a golf course and playing it day in and day out.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2004, 11:50:31 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Kenny Lee Puckett

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #67 on: September 01, 2004, 11:49:57 AM »
Last Call?!?

But I just got here!!!...

To drag up an old cliche..."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  Otherwise we would all marry clones of Elle MacPherson/Claudia Schiffer/Charlize Theron.  (Hmmm, Maybe this is not a bad idea..."THIS...COULD...WORK!!!  - Dr FRAUNCKenstein in "Young Frankenstein").  In the movie "Demolition Man", Sandra Bullock informs Sylvester Stallone that "In 2012, it was decided that Taco Bell was the best restaurant.  Therefore, all restaurants are now Taco Bell's."  What a sad state of the world if golf courses had uniform dimensions and surfaces such basketball or Catherine Zeta-Jones was left wanting for attention...

Given the unique nature of the playing surface, the ranking of golf courses, IMHO, is a natural human response.  The rating process plays into "What was the most fun, best restaurant, vacation, job, teacher," etc. that you ever had?   Obviously, there are a variety of subjective viewpoints on "The Best" based upon the posts above.  Current raters determine best golf courses based upon the 10 point scale by judging a variety of factors:  Toughness, Length, Hazards, etc.  Fun has not been as highly regarded as these other factors for reasons that I will approach from my personal viewpoint below.

Here's my case for the status quo of keeping the current ratings system:

Golf, and all of the inner psychotic in us, has always been a challenge against one's self, as well as against the everchanging elements on the course.  Part of the challenge against one's self is the expectation of hitting a great to perfect shot each time, and the failure to do as often as one would like to.  Dealing with that disapointment, or exceeding one's abilities often reveals one's character due to the shot's result.  Frequently, the mental game clouds the approach to the next shot.  The architect has created a maze, a puzzle, and challenge to elicit those emotional responses.  Playing within one's abilities can also separate the low score from the trainwreck hole.  My principal ability is to hit drives over 300 yards.  Therefore, "I didn't fly 3,000 miles to lay up on every hole from the Whites!!!"

Difficulty should be the paramount factor in dictating a challenge and ranking courses.  To paraphrase Shivas, "What fun is it to beat up a weakling?  At least if I get the crap kicked out of me by a tough course, I can still enjoy the challenge of myself against the course, and the opportunity to beat my opponent(s)."  To back up my statement, I revert to the economic scale of supply and demand.  Pine Valley will never be lacking for tee times.  Easier courses in the area are being evaluated for potential home sites (Blue Heron Pines?).  To further emphasize the point, PVGC has broken with their tradition of a single set of tee-markers per day, and gone to three sets of tees.  I hope to be able to tackle the "Crump Tees" from the tips one day.  People looking for fun can play any set of tees that they would like, and we can even play a match at handicap from our respective handicap tables for those tees.

In today's equalitarian society where even Stanford University rounds up grades to make their undergraduates more attractive for advanced degree opportunities, the "Six year old birthday party mentality" prevails where "Everyone gets a present because they as soooo special."  Screw that!!!  There is no net division in the United States Open or The Open Championship.

Our handicap mentality plays into this mix.  In order to "Sell" tournaments to their membership, some club events have migrated towards one Gross/three Net prizes to encourage particpation from the membership.  I say, if you want to get a prize, work hard and improve your game.  I still play in these types of events because I enjoy playing with people outside of my "Par or Death" weekend morning foursomes.  But hasn't the Handicap allowance to compensate for weaker players to play against the strong "Dumbed Down" the game to the point of winning net prizes for beating one's handicap replaced the goal of shooting the lowest score?

To those who want to rate courses from the member's/white tees, be my guest.  NGLA will probably be a top 3 course again on this scale.  I love NGLA from as far back as possible.  (We've already hashed over the modern ball/equipment issue).  I would still drive the 2 1/2 hours to play N.G.L.A. from the forward tees, but it wouldn't be the same challenge.  The "Fun" rating will probably reward the "Playing within one's ability" more than other factors (Brains over brawn?).

Achievement is very satisfying and also used as a measure of success.  Let's not kid each other that shooting a 75 with an 8 handicap from 6,400 yards on a 70.4/128 is an achievement worthy of an 80 from the tips at Pine Valley or Pacific Dunes.

Feel free to tee off on me...

JWK
« Last Edit: September 01, 2004, 12:01:11 PM by James W. Keever »

THuckaby2

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #68 on: September 01, 2004, 11:57:55 AM »
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci
Tom Huckaby,

I think you have to distinquish between the first time you play a golf course and playing it day in and day out.
[quote

Oh absolutely - that's what I tried to say.  I just did want to make a point that even with OUR attitude (and I write that in caps because I do share this attitude with you, I think), a brutally hard course requiring grinding and struggle can still be fun, as a change of pace.

But not as a steady diet, for sure.

TH

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #69 on: September 01, 2004, 12:02:17 PM »
Pat,

It seems that your standard for FUN courses has a lot to do with length, or lack of it ... and that you are saying that pretty much any course with tees for today's tournament play is no fun because you [and I] have to grind way too much from those tees.

Again, you are falling into the trap of rating golf courses only from the back tees, although you're doing it precisely the opposite way that Shivas does:  he can't like them unless he DOES have to grind from the back tees.  To wit, Shoreacres v Medinah [see case file].

This is one of the burdens we face on every course we design ... whether or not to put in back tees for that 0.5% of long hitters.  If we don't, then the golf course had better have a lot of oceanfront to make up for it.  If we do put in those tees, though, I'm convinced there are a lot more golfers who resent it than who enjoy it.  The irony is that if we build the back tees those players resent, they won't go and play from the tees where they were more comfortable ... the ones they would have been happy with, if they were just the back tees!

THuckaby2

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #70 on: September 01, 2004, 12:12:33 PM »
TD:

That is one hell of a dilemma and I don't know how you can solve it.  SO many golfers just play the back tees always, or most often, simply out of ego.  And what sucks is SO many of those would have more fun - or at least get out of the course what is most relevant to their skill level - if they moved up a set.

I have to believe the shivases of the world are a tiny minority.  Not many golfers venture to the back tees simply because they want the most challenge, and can handle it... your 0.5% figure seems correct to me.  FAR too many golfers play the tips because their egos tell them to, or peer pressure does.  I must admit I succumb to the latter myself from time to time.... I just can't stand people playing tees longer than those I am playing.  It is a weakness.

So yep, you have the tough issue of whether to create those back tees or not... and it must be a VERY fair and open-minded developer indeed who would allow you to leave them out.  So you create them, intending them for the 0.5% who really get something out of them, and then they go and get used by more like 25%.

I have seen courses put up signs, or mark on the scorecard, intended handicap levels for intended tees... But I think that has the reverse effect than the intent far too often:  tell an ego-filled golfer his handicap isn't good enough to play a set of tees and he's gonna do it anyway, out of spite!

BTW, I don't think Patrick is rating courses only from the back tees.  He's just asking a question here as to what courses remain fun, even from the tips, for the most golfers.  I find that a very worthwhile and interesting question, because it is a rare course indeed that succeeds in this.

TH

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #71 on: September 01, 2004, 12:14:39 PM »
This topic is well covered, but I'll chime in.  Eventually I'll get a third star next to my name.

I have friends that are excellent players, who don't enjoy themselves unless the course setup is easy enough to allow good scoring.

I have friends that are excellent players, who seem to enjoy the most difficult holes.  They love the challenge of a backbreaking par 4.

This summer I've preferred playing my home course (Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow) from the back tees.  At 7,000 yards, I am required to use a wider variety of clubs to approach greens.  With modern equipment, short irons are used to approach on most par fours from the blue tees (6,500 yards).  For me, part of the enjoyment of golf is the chance to pull every club out of the bag a couple of times, and try to hit it well.

Pumpkin's main architectural weakness is the lack of fairway undulation. There are very few hilly lies to contend with for approach shots.

For me, the enjoyment in golf is being faced with a wide variety of shots: hilly, flat, long, short.  Choosing from the small sample of courses I have played, my favorites are Pasatiempo and Pacific Dunes, both from the back tees.  Most rounds I use every club in the bag, and nearly every shot after the tee shot requires more than just a good swing.  (I find that Pacific Dunes does not often require a fairway (5 or 7) wood.)

If I were a course rater, I'd play most courses from the championship tees.  I think courses look better from the back box.  I'm good enough so I don't get killed back there.   But it makes sense to me that the course rater with a 10 handicap should try a course from the second tees, and one with a 20 handicap play from the third set, and so on.

Great:

Pacific Dunes
Pasatiempo

Very Good (in order):

Bandon Dunes
San Francisco GC
Pumpkin Ridge - Ghost Creek
Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow
Lancaster GC (PA) is nice too.
Stanford GC

I've played Pebble and Spyglass, but it's been a while, so no opinion of those.

Overrated:

Old Portland clubs, such as Portland GC, Royal Oaks GC, and Waverley GC.  Eugene GC is nice, but still claustrophobic.  

THuckaby2

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #72 on: September 01, 2004, 12:18:03 PM »
JMK - that is great stuff and methinks you nailed the issues here.  I'd asbolutely agree that the key is VARIETY.  See, that is one of my complaints to shivas:  make the course too long and for me it's an endless parade of 2irons and 3woods, and that gets boring.  But you're right, make it too short, with no reasons for layups and the like, and the endless parade of wedges is equally boring.  So it's a very fine line, very tough to meet.

I like your list of courses that meet this standard also.  I concur with all of them, at least the ones I have played and know about (and that's most on your list).

TH
« Last Edit: September 01, 2004, 12:18:21 PM by Tom Huckaby »

Kenny Lee Puckett

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #73 on: September 01, 2004, 12:43:10 PM »
TD/TH -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trom TH's Post:

"TD:

That is one hell of a dilemma and I don't know how you can solve it.  SO many golfers just play the back tees always, or most often, simply out of ego.  And what sucks is SO many of those would have more fun - or at least get out of the course what is most relevant to their skill level - if they moved up a set.

I have to believe the shivases of the world are a tiny minority.  Not many golfers venture to the back tees simply because they want the most challenge, and can handle it... your 0.5% figure seems correct to me.  FAR too many golfers play the tips because their egos tell them to, or peer pressure does.  I must admit I succumb to the latter myself from time to time.... I just can't stand people playing tees longer than those I am playing.  It is a weakness.

So yep, you have the tough issue of whether to create those back tees or not... and it must be a VERY fair and open-minded developer indeed who would allow you to leave them out.  So you create them, intending them for the 0.5% who really get something out of them, and then they go and get used by more like 25%"

Question for the board:

How many "open-minded developers" have asked for a course with no "Tiger tees"?  "Make it 6,400 yards and low scoring fun for the 18 handicapper?"  (Side question - How many top-echelon artists would take such a project?)

I am not trying to be confrontational here, merely trying to get a better understanding of "The Market."

Golf is one of the few sports that enable the average players to compete in the "Cathedrals of their Game."  I probably won't get to face Pedro Martinez in Yankee Stadium in my lifetime, but I can go to Winged Foot West and play the course under virtually the same conditions that the best amateurs played in two weeks ago.  I get to play some Mondays at PGA TOUR courses that were left in the same set-up as the championship round the day before.  It is a better pleasure than the Wed. Pro-Am from the white markers - especially at Harbour Town when the set-up is at 5,900 yards!

I realize that the back tees are an ego trip for most.  So are double black diamond and off-piste ski slopes.  At least we don't risk too much bodily injury testing or game against the very best on the most challenging in golf.

JWK

p.s.  TD - Loved the Uber tee on 18 at PD!!!  Needed my caddie to find it - I like the fact that it's not publicized.  Thanks for that and all of the other back tees there!!!  (FYI/FWIW: 18th hole -  Day 1 - Killed a driver, purree'd a 2I, sweeted a 5I to 15 feet in a 10 MPH headwind.  Day 2 - Nuked driver, took out a satellite with a 6I, and flipped a wedge from 55 yrds with a 35MPH tailwind.  Same contrast on 13:  Day 1 - 9I/Day 2 - 3W.  Maximum fun from the max tees!!!  I have never hit the two-iron better because I have never been forced to use it so much!!!


THuckaby2

Re:New Golf Course Rankings
« Reply #74 on: September 01, 2004, 12:53:09 PM »
JWK:

Hell of a question.  The problem is that for every fair-minded, capable player like you who can handle the back tees and likes to go back there and do the equivalent of face Pedro's fastball, there are 25 who have that want, but don't really belong anywhere near there, because they fare so badly they end up slowing play for one and all, and then even in a situation where no one's around to slow down, well you get the issue of them disliking and not enjoying a course simply because in reality it is too long and hard for them, when they may well enjoy it and love it from a set or two up.

So it must be frustrating for an architect to have to deal with this - that's why I find TD's thoughts so intriguing.  I can see him asking in frustration "why build this set of tees that is going to do good for so few and bad for so many, not the least of which being me, if I care what people think of my work."

But I'm not sure that this matters enough to merit NOT building the tees, given how finite and binary that is.  It would suck to penalize guys like you and shivas just because there are so many ego-driven dorks.

Thus all the questions and so very few answers!

TH

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back