[Patrick_Mucci]

Keith,

So glad you posted.

Look at the minimum standard on # 3 of the 4th nine.
# 2 for that matter as well.
Those are pretty heroic forced carries for someone who can't hit their tee shot 66 yards from an elevated tee.

The 2nd and 3rd nine also have a number of "minimum standard" shots involving water.

And, if we travel down the street to ECW and Rock Spring, Crestmont and Essex Fells, we find more of the same.
The Knoll and Hackensack have more.

The ODG's were great designers, and, challenge was implicit in their design philosophy, not catering to the golfer who was incapable of a 66 yard carry from an elevated tee.

Speaking of limited carries from elevated tees, have you heard from Ran recently ?

Regarding Bunker removal, AWT, the expansion of the golfing spectrum, along with economic forces may have combined to accelerate that process

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

Could you direct me to passages in the WRITINGS of any (or all) of the designers that you mention which explicitly states that their rationale for certain design features was to establish any kind of “minimum standard?”   The features that we see on the ground seem to prove your point only circumstantially.  I am inclined to believe that this is your own conceptual construct, not one of these designers.  You mention Mackenzie, for example, yet General Principles 8 and 12 in The Spirit of St. Andrews would suggest that he actually frowned on testing weaker golfers with such objective dangers; an alternate route should always be provided.  In your world, however, such democratization makes for mediocre architecture.  See Royal Melbourne West for an example that does not have forced carries over cross bunkers or even any water hazards.  Mackenzie obviously broke his own principle(s) on any number of occasions, but my point is that in spite of what we see on the ground, I would think that that most designers (Crump excluded) were openly against such “minimum standards” as what you are supporting, and I am not convinced that they often made any mention of this concept.  Can you support your claim?  Alternatively, are we to understand Mackenzie’s writings, and potentially the writings of others, as empty rhetoric?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Could you direct me to passages in the WRITINGS of any (or all) of the designers that you mention which explicitly states that their rationale for certain design features was to establish any kind of “minimum standard?”

I can do better than that since "talk" and "writings" are cheap.
I can show you their deeds.
I can show you how they manifested their design philosophy in the products they produced.
That's the ultimate evidence.

The features that we see on the ground seem to prove your point only circumstantially. 

You'd have to be a moron to cling to that notion.
"in the ground" is the "ULTIMATE" proof

I am inclined to believe that this is your own conceptual construct, not one of these designers. 

So you would deny the physical, overwhelming body of evidence, the courses they built.

You mention Mackenzie, for example, yet General Principles 8 and 12 in The Spirit of St. Andrews would suggest that he actually frowned on testing weaker golfers with such objective dangers; an alternate route should always be provided. 

"ACTIONS" speak louder than words, and MacKenzie's action, as manifested in the philosophy he committed permanently into the ground, is undeniable.  He crafted "minimal standards" , unless you think the 15th and 16th holes at CPC were designed by someone else.

Face it, you can't stand that I'm right and you're wrong and that virtually every architect agrees with me based upon, not their words, but their actual deeds, memorialized by the products they put in the ground

In your world, however, such democratization makes for mediocre architecture.

"In my world" ?
How about in the world of every architect ?
As manifested by the products they produced, the courses and features they set, permanently, into the ground.

  See Royal Melbourne West for an example that does not have forced carries over cross bunkers or even any water hazards.

One course, versus hundreds of others.
How about Cypress Point and ANGC ?
how did MacKenzie do there ?
Did he craft any heroic carries ?   Any "minimum standards"
You're just arguing to argue, and that's OK, I feel your pain, but, you've allowed your desire to argue to override intelligent thought and to ignore  the huge body of physical evidence that defeats your argument

 Mackenzie obviously broke his own principle(s) on any number of occasions, but my point is that in spite of what we see on the ground, I would think that that most designers (Crump excluded) were openly against such “minimum standards” as what you are supporting, and I am not convinced that they often made any mention of this concept.

Let me see if understand your point.

If write that it's wrong to kill people, then go out and randomly shoot a dozen people, I should be judged by my writings, not by my deeds?  ?

Your absurd point is that we should ignore these enormous bodies of work, the ultimate product of their design philosophies, and look to their writings instead ?

That's the most ludicrous concept I've seen on this site in ages

Can you support your claim?

Of course I can.
I offer, as exhibit "A" thru "Z", the body of works of those architects.  Their design philosophy as manifested in the products they produced and memorialized in the ground.

Alternatively, are we to understand Mackenzie’s writings, and potentially the writings of others, as empty rhetoric?

ABSOLUTELY

"Do as I say, not as I do" has been around for a long time, and as always, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

Given your propensity towards historical investigation, and your ample participation on many of the historically situated threads on this discussion board, I find it curious that you are so dismissive of the written word in this case.  You rely so heavily on the written word elsewhere (especially primary sources such as correspondence), and have used it extensively to "prove" your points, but here you are the complete opposite.  How is the written word a valid defense in one circumstance, yet seriously flawed in another?  How do you come to terms with this methodological discrepancy?  Bear in mind that using evidence only at your convenience, or when it suits you is, as you like to say to others, disingenuous.

Ultimately, you have simply not convinced me that topshot bunkers, water hazards, or other features were conceived and implemented as tests of some "minimum standard."  This is not to say that they don't serve this function (that may well be the case), but you are yet to support this claim in any meaningful, METHODOLOGICALLY SOUND manner -- which would include writings, or recorded interviews with a designer explicitly stating that one of their missions, or charges, is to provided any sense of a "minimum performance standard."  I will be happy to concede to you your points should you produce this kind of documentation.  Thanks    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Given your propensity towards historical investigation, and your ample participation on many of the historically situated threads on this discussion board, I find it curious that you are so dismissive of the written word in this case.  


Steve,

What you fail to grasp, what you don't want to grasp is that the body of work produced by these architects is dismissive of their written word.

What do we judge people on ?   Their words or their deeds ?

The irrefutable evidence is in the ground, you just don't want to accept their deeds.

You rely so heavily on the written word elsewhere (especially primary sources such as correspondence), and have used it extensively to "prove" your points, but here you are the complete opposite. 

Because the living proof, the cold hard evidence, the courses they designed and built refute the written words you reference.

You're like a liberal juror, who's shown a video tape clearly identifying the murderer, in the act, relying on the accused's written statement that he didn't commit the crime.


How is the written word a valid defense in one circumstance, yet seriously flawed in another?  How do you come to terms with this methodological discrepancy?  Bear in mind that using evidence only at your convenience, or when it suits you is, as you like to say to others, disingenuous.

It's rather simple, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
Actions speak louder than words.
The finished product trumps the written word.

Even CBM said one thing and did another.
It wasn't uncommon.

You just can't get over and acknowledge that the finished product speaks volumes and carries far more weight than what the architect wrote.

Ultimately, you have simply not convinced me that topshot bunkers, water hazards, or other features were conceived and implemented as tests of some "minimum standard."  


I understand that you're in denial.
That you won't accept the cold, hard physical facts that are irrefutable evidence of the architect's design philosophy.

I really don't care if you're convinced or unconvinced as I view your position as one of pride and wanting to disagree with me rather than accept the huge body of empirical evidence that proves you wrong.

The products/features in the ground prove you wrong, but, you'd rather rely on a casual passage rather than the overwhelming body of physical evidence which cannot be refuted.

This is not to say that they don't serve this function (that may well be the case), but you are yet to support this claim in any meaningful, METHODOLOGICALLY SOUND manner -- which would include writings, or recorded interviews with a designer explicitly stating that one of their missions, or charges, is to provided any sense of a "minimum performance standard."

I did better than that.
I produced their actual body of work rather than hollow words.
Writings and interviews are meaningless, they're just words in comparison with deeds and physical evidence
I produced the body of their work which irrefutably proves my point.

I will be happy to concede to you your points should you produce this kind of documentation.  Thanks

I don't need your concession to validate my point.
The architects have validated my point, over and over and over again.
They've done so in the body of their work, the actual physical features and their juxtaposition to one another.
"minimal standards" are an inherent element in their design philosophy which manifests itself in the courses they designed/built.
You can't produce better evidence than the courses they built, and all the writing in the world won't undo their architectural deeds./products

But, tell me, I"m curious, were you once a member of the "flat earth" society ?   

[Greg Tallman]

Why are top shot bunkers cool yet forced carries poor design?

Perhaps I am generalizing the views of most on this site but given what I have read here over the years I would think I pose a valid question.  

[Jason Thurman]

Is a 66 yard forced carry "bad" design? 100 yards? 150? 200?

I'm not so sure where the cutoff is, but surely every course can't be expected to accommodate the player who can't carry it 66 yards, right?

When was the last time you played with someone who couldn't make that carry? In my experience, the 1 in 1500 player who can't carry it 66 yards isn't good enough to play by any semblance of the rules of golf and would just take a drop on the other side of the hazard anyways. This theoretical accommodation of such players is generally a waste of time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why are top shot bunkers cool yet forced carries poor design?

Greg,

Would you consider the forced carries crafted by Alister MacKenzie at # 15 and # 16 at Cypress Point poor design ?

How about the 9th at Yale ?

Who claimed that "top shot bunkers were cool, yet forced carries poor design" ?

Perhaps I am generalizing the views of most on this site but given what I have read here over the years I would think I pose a valid question.
I think you believe the question is valid because you believe your premise is valid, and I don't.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is a 66 yard forced carry "bad" design? 100 yards? 150? 200?

Jason,

I think so much depends upon the site and the architect's perspective in crafting the course.

One should look to Cypress Point, Yale, The Creek, Seminole and other great courses crafted by great architects and ask that question in the context cited above.

I'm not so sure where the cutoff is, but surely every course can't be expected to accommodate the player who can't carry it 66 yards, right?
Agreed, and, it's not just a 66 yard carry, it's a 66 yard carry from a slightly elevated tee.

When was the last time you played with someone who couldn't make that carry? In my experience, the 1 in 1500 player who can't carry it 66 yards isn't good enough to play by any semblance of the rules of golf and would just take a drop on the other side of the hazard anyways. This theoretical accommodation of such players is generally a waste of time.

Jason, it's clear, from the body of work produced by MacKenzie, Macdonald, Ross, Tillinghast, Crump, Wilson, Dye and many others that they didn't cater to or care about the golfer who couldn't carry their tee shot 66 yards from a slightly elevated tee.

The notion that architects need to accomodate that is absurd.
And, the proof of the pudding is the architects philosophy as memorialized by the designs they committed to, the designs they constructed in the ground.

[Greg Tallman]

Why are top shot bunkers cool yet forced carries poor design?

Greg,

Would you consider the forced carries crafted by Alister MacKenzie at # 15 and # 16 at Cypress Point poor design ?

How about the 9th at Yale ?

Who claimed that "top shot bunkers were cool, yet forced carries poor design" ?

Perhaps I am generalizing the views of most on this site but given what I have read here over the years I would think I pose a valid question.
I think you believe the question is valid because you believe your premise is valid, and I don't.
 

What is not valid oh learned one?

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

In spite of your own words, practice (or product, as you call it) does not exist in a vacuum.  Truly, in order for design philosophy to manifest itself, there must first be PHILOSOPHY.  Yet you consistently deny this fact.  You say that “writings and interviews are meaningless.”  This is also curious as you have accumulated over 27,300 posts over the years, each one using the written word to support an entirely theoretical position (and unless you have designed and built a golf course of which I am not aware, every bit of these posts represents written theory, not practice).  Further, if it fair to say that you have been participating on this site for 10 years, are we to believe that you have written, on average, nearly 7.5 posts per DAY for a decade when you are absolutely positive that the written word is meaningless?  If actions speak louder than words, then why have you spent so much time and effort writing?  Why aren’t you taking yourself to task and designing golf courses?  How can we take your words seriously any longer if you so adamantly refute the validity of the written word in the first place?

What if I were to tell you that MacKenzie’s 9th principle in The Spirit of St. Andrews states “There should be an infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes—that is, interesting brassie shots, iron shots, pitch and run up shots.”  This is entirely in keeping with a thread you initiated just last week with respect to how using all the clubs in one’s bag is a key to good design.  MacKenzie's words expressly serve your own purposes and beliefs.  Are you equally as dismissive of his writing in this situation?  Are these words still meaningless?  Is this theoretical concept invalid?

P.S.  –  In a different age, you too would likely have been a member of the “flat earth” society.  Remember what happened to Galileo when he tried to convince people that the earth revolved around the sun?  Prior to this, the best science of the time (i.e. Ptolemy, and others) mathematically proved that the earth was the center of the universe.  Everyone believed this; they had no legitimate reason to believe otherwise; the THEORY and PRACTICE of astronomy—as well as the heavy hand of the church—had confirmed what we know now to be a falsity.  I suspect that in a similar situation, with similar information at your disposal (ii.e. prior to Galileo and Copernicus), and with your life on the line, even you would have followed suit and accepted the "truth" of a geocentric universe.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In spite of your own words, practice (or product, as you call it) does not exist in a vacuum. 

The product is the golf course, a physical entity.
It and it alone represent the architect's design philosophy on that site.

Truly, in order for design philosophy to manifest itself, there must first be PHILOSOPHY. 

Not true.
The design philosophy and the product, the golf course can reveal themselves at the same time.

Yet you consistently deny this fact. 

It's not a fact.
It's just your opinion.

You say that “writings and interviews are meaningless.” 

That's not true, and that's a misrepresentation and a distortion of what I said, and you know that.
What I said was that writings and interviews on design philosophy are meaningless when the architect's ultimate product, the physical golf course contradicts those writings and interviews.  And, in MacKenzie's case, his writings and interviews were rendered meaningless by the creation of the 15th and 16th holes at CPC, where he clearly established "minimum standards"   

This is also curious as you have accumulated over 27,300 posts over the years, each one using the written word to support an entirely theoretical position (and unless you have designed and built a golf course of which I am not aware, every bit of these posts represents written theory, not practice). 

The above passage is totally irrelevant to this particular discussion.
I can understand your wanting to divert and deflect the issue at hand, but the 27,300 post preceeding this thread are not germane to this particular issue.   And, I've used far more than the written word.  Had you attended any of my GCA.com Gettogethers you'd have known that.

Further, if it fair to say that you have been participating on this site for 10 years, are we to believe that you have written, on average, nearly 7.5 posts per DAY for a decade when you are absolutely positive that the written word is meaningless? 

In the face of contradictory physical evidence, ABSOLUTELY

You're deviating from the issue at hand, and citing, in general, previous posts, that are irrelevant to this topic.

If actions speak louder than words, then why have you spent so much time and effort writing? 

For a while because I was physically incapacitated.
I also suffer from insomnia.
And have recently suffered a complex tear of my left Meniscus.

Why aren’t you taking yourself to task and designing golf courses? 
How can we take your words seriously any longer if you so adamantly refute the validity of the written word in the first place?

I have been involved in the design of a golf course.

When physical evidence proves the written word meaningless, you have to accept the physical evidence.
You can't bring yourself to accept the physical evidence, the ultimate arbiter, because it means that I'm right and you're wrong.
The physical evidence is so abundantly present, so voluminous, that only one blinded by their ambitions would continue to argue, as you have.
So, instead of remaining on topic, you seek to divert, deflect and obfuscate, because it's your only hope.
The physical evidence proves you wrong, over and over and over again.
 

What if I were to tell you that MacKenzie’s 9th principle in The Spirit of St. Andrews states “There should be an infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes—that is, interesting brassie shots, iron shots, pitch and run up shots.”  This is entirely in keeping with a thread you initiated just last week with respect to how using all the clubs in one’s bag is a key to good design.  MacKenzie's words expressly serve your own purposes and beliefs.  Are you equally as dismissive of his writing in this situation?  Are these words still meaningless?  Is this theoretical concept invalid?

MacKenzie contradicted his words when he crafted the 15th and 16th at Cypress Point, two holes that require a "minimum standard".
You can't accept that the physical evidence renders his writings on the topic null and void.
You can't stand that because it means that I'm right, supported by irrefutable physical evidence and you're wrong.
This has to be torture for you.
You're wrong, the world knows your wrong, MacKenzie knows your wrong, Ross, CBM and all the ODG's know you're wrong.
You're the only one in denial.
I feel your pain, your anguish, but, you're dead wrong on this topic........ and I'm right.
And, no amount of diversionary tactics on your part will change that.

P.S.  –  In a different age, you too would likely have been a member of the “flat earth” society.  Remember what happened to Galileo when he tried to convince people that the earth revolved around the sun?  Prior to this, the best science of the time (i.e. Ptolemy, and others) mathematically proved that the earth was the center of the universe.  Everyone believed this; they had no legitimate reason to believe otherwise; the THEORY and PRACTICE of astronomy—as well as the heavy hand of the church—had confirmed what we know now to be a falsity.  I suspect that in a similar situation, with similar information at your disposal (ii.e. prior to Galileo and Copernicus), and with your life on the line, even you would have followed suit and accepted the "truth" of a geocentric universe.

If you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a contrarian, not prone to follow a party line.
Do you know the year that the "flat earth" society disbanded and why ?

[Jason Thurman]

If we're assigning more validity to the writings of architects than to the courses they designed in establishing their philosophies, then Rees Jones is the father of modern minimalism.

An architect must be judged, first and foremost, by their work, just like the rest of us. If I rave about the importance of puncutality but show up late every day to my job, I get fired.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Steve can't accept that the golf course is the ultimate manifestation of the architect's design philosophy, and certainly not his writings, which are often contradictory, in both the written and physical form.

[Sean_A]

Often times, "the architect" of record is not the architect of particular features in question.  Therefore, comparing what he has written on the subject to what is in the ground can be misleading. 

I would also say that when archies come up with "rules" or ideal design concepts, these are guidelines, not set in stone commands.  There are always good and/or practical/technical reasons for "breaking" a rule.  And yes, we do have evidence of well known archies breaking their rules. 

I have heard it said that to break a rule one must be a good enough archie to create rules and that most archies are neither good enough nor pompous enough to create rules. 

Ciao 

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

We’re obviously not getting anywhere with this, so I am going to say my peace and be done with it:

I do not doubt that cross-bunkers, topshot bunkers, water hazards, or otherwise do exist in the world of golf.  Per your definition, these features are “minimum performance standards” that leave players no option but to negotiate them or suffer the consequences.  Whereas I must concede that they may serve that purpose, they seem to serve other purposes as well—including the notion of visual deception that was a key part of your initial post on this thread.  That said, it borders on being a post hoc logical fallacy to assume that because a feature serves the function of a minimum standard that it was consciously designed to do so.  Good design does not happen by accident; it is a deliberate, purposeful action.  Given the prolific writings of Ross, MacKenzie, etc., whereby they provided readers insight into a vast range of their opinions on the subject of design, one can reasonably expect that they would have mentioned such an important concept.  But this theory is absent from their writings, or at least you are unable, or unwilling, to cite it.  Ultimately, what you have not shown, and the only thing that I have asked you to show, is whether or not designers implemented these features in a conscious attempt to establish such standards.  

As a sidebar, I was/am being deliberately argumentative in this thread, mostly because I tend to disagree with your general tactics; your own confidence in your supposed authority gives the illusion of actual authority, which I do not believe always exists.  Also, telling people that they are wrong and that you are right (and being so proud of it) is rather childish.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Often times, "the architect" of record is not the architect of particular features in question.  Therefore, comparing what he has written on the subject to what is in the ground can be misleading. 

Sean,

Then will you tell us who's the architect of record on:

# 12 at ANGC
#.  9 at Yale
# 15 at CPC
# 16 at CPC
# 17 at TPC
#.  2 at Seminole
# 11 at Seminole
#.  7 at Seminole
#  10 at The Creek
#  11 at The Creek
#   3 at Plainfield
#.   8 at BPB
#.   1 at Ridgewood Center



I would also say that when archies come up with "rules" or ideal design concepts, these are guidelines, not set in stone commands.  There are always good and/or practical/technical reasons for "breaking" a rule.  And yes, we do have evidence of well known archies breaking their rules. 

I have heard it said that to break a rule one must be a good enough archie to create rules and that most archies are neither good enough nor pompous enough to create rules. 

Who said that ?
And from whom did you hear it ?

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, when did you last top a tee shot?

I haven't done so in 8 days!

Mike,

Sadly, you're stuck in a one dimensional mind set..

The reintroduction of a topshot bunker has visually shrunk the DZ, and created doubt in the golfer's mind.
A seemingly generous DZ now appears to be much more confining without physically altering the DZ

That's tremendous "bang" for your architectural "buck"

Wouldn't it be cheaper to plant a bush?

Is is possible that Ross' top shot bunkers are merely duded up borrow pits?

BTW, I absolutely LOVE top shot bunkers.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, when did you last top a tee shot?

I haven't done so in 8 days!

Mike,

Sadly, you're stuck in a one dimensional mind set..

The reintroduction of a topshot bunker has visually shrunk the DZ, and created doubt in the golfer's mind.
A seemingly generous DZ now appears to be much more confining without physically altering the DZ

That's tremendous "bang" for your architectural "buck"

Wouldn't it be cheaper to plant a bush?

That would be one huge bush.

Is is possible that Ross' top shot bunkers are merely duded up borrow pits?

Not at this course.
He had several, on the 5th and 7th holes, a wonderful par 4 and an uphill par 3.
When I can figure out how to post photos from historicaerials and other sources, I'll try to post them.

BTW, I absolutely LOVE top shot bunkers.

They sure get into people's heads, don't they.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

We’re obviously not getting anywhere with this, so I am going to say my peace and be done with it:

OK, but remember, the proof is in the pudding/tasting.
And in this case the pudding is/are the golf courses these fellows crafted.
That's the ultimate product of their design philosophy..... what they put into the ground.

I do not doubt that cross-bunkers, topshot bunkers, water hazards, or otherwise do exist in the world of golf.

That's a giant step for you.  

Per your definition, these features are “minimum performance standards” that leave players no option but to negotiate them or suffer the consequences.  

That's "A" definition.

Whereas I must concede that they may serve that purpose, they seem to serve other purposes as well—including the notion of visual deception that was a key part of your initial post on this thread.  

I never implied that they had a limited or singular purpose.
You may have inferred that, but, I definitely didn't imply same.
The visual factor is huge, as is the mental factor.
Then, there's the physical factor.
All three combine to make them special.

That said, it borders on being a post hoc logical fallacy to assume that because a feature serves the function of a minimum standard that it was consciously designed to do so.  

NO, NO, NO.
It is no fallacy.
When CBM designed the 9th at Yale, the intervening feature between tee and green, the pond, had that feature, the pond, function as a minimum standard.  And, that was a conscious decision.  As was the pond on # 12 at ANGC, the Pacific on # 15 and # 16 at CPC.
The architects were clearly aware of the function of the intervening feature, and that was to serve as a minimum standard on that hole.

Good design does not happen by accident; it is a deliberate, purposeful action.  

Now you're contradicting yourself, telling us that inserting a pond, stream or cross bunker is a deliberate, purposeful action, when in the paragraph above this one, you refute that notion.

Given the prolific writings of Ross, MacKenzie, etc., whereby they provided readers insight into a vast range of their opinions on the subject of design, one can reasonably expect that they would have mentioned such an important concept.  

Not really.
Especially when they wrote one thing and did the opposite in the field, on their courses they built.
Need I remind you of the specifics.  # 12 at ANGC, # 15 & 16 at CPC.  # 2, # 7, # 11 at Seminole, # 3 at Plainfield, # 9 at Yale.
The proof is in the pudding, in the physical properties of the features they crafted in the golf holes they designed and built.

But this theory is absent from their writings, or at least you are unable, or unwilling, to cite it.  Ultimately, what you have not shown, and the only thing that I have asked you to show, is whether or not designers implemented these features in a conscious attempt to establish such standards.
Steve, that's such bullshit and you know it.
Explain to us how AM's design and construction of the 12th at ANGC was anything but conscious.
Explain to us how AM's design and constructino of the 12th at ANGC didn't set a minimum standard "
Ditto, # 9 at Yale and CB, # 2, #7 & # 11 at Seminole and Ross and all the other physical examples I cited.

As a sidebar, I was/am being deliberately argumentative in this thread, mostly because I tend to disagree with your general tactics; your own confidence in your supposed authority gives the illusion of actual authority, which I do not believe always exists.

I really don't care.
I recognized that from the get go due to the absurdity of your position.
Unfortunately, you picked the wrong topic to argue on.
You're so out of touch, so wrong on this issue that it's obvious that your brain has been overridden by your emotions.
You're wrong on the issue and it gauls you that you've been proven wrong...........by me.
Into each life a little rain must fall, and, I feel your pain.

Also, telling people that they are wrong and that you are right (and being so proud of it) is rather childish.

It may be, but then again, you're wrong and I'm right.
AND, I feel childlishly happy about that.

[Will Lozier]

NO, NO, NO.
It is no fallacy.
When CBM designed the 9th at Yale, the intervening feature between tee and green, the pond, had that feature, the pond, function as a minimum standard.  And, that was a conscious decision.  As was the pond on # 12 at ANGC, the Pacific on # 15 and # 16 at CPC.
The architects were clearly aware of the function of the intervening feature, and that was to serve as a minimum standard on that hole.[/b][/size][/color]

Good design does not happen by accident; it is a deliberate, purposeful action.  

Now you're contradicting yourself, telling us that inserting a pond, stream or cross bunker is a deliberate, purposeful action, when in the paragraph above this one, you refute that notion.

Given the prolific writings of Ross, MacKenzie, etc., whereby they provided readers insight into a vast range of their opinions on the subject of design, one can reasonably expect that they would have mentioned such an important concept.  

Not really.
Especially when they wrote one thing and did the opposite in the field, on their courses they built.
Need I remind you of the specifics.  # 12 at ANGC, # 15 & 16 at CPC.  # 2, # 7, # 11 at Seminole, # 3 at Plainfield, # 9 at Yale.
The proof is in the pudding, in the physical properties of the features they crafted in the golf holes they designed and built.

Pat,

This is the first I've heard of a pond on #12 at ANGC!?  Are you wrong?

And how is the longest carry on #16 at Cypress or #12 at ANGC a "minimum standard" when there are shorter alternative ways to play each hole?  Furthermore, AM didn't exactly insert the Pacific between tee and green at Cypress on #15 or #16.  He instead found a great stretch of property and built the golf holes that were already there.  Those are exceptions to what he stated his philosophy to be...and there are always exceptions.  Especially when the ideas of offering heroic opportunities yet, also, alternative options for the weaker player aren't concurrently possible - like Yale's 9th.

I don't expect you to cite ANY GCA quotes, philosophies, writings in future when just one physical example contradicting said "words" exist.

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

NO, NO, NO.
It is no fallacy.
When CBM designed the 9th at Yale, the intervening feature between tee and green, the pond, had that feature, the pond, function as a minimum standard.  And, that was a conscious decision.  As was the pond on # 12 at ANGC, the Pacific on # 15 and # 16 at CPC.
The architects were clearly aware of the function of the intervening feature, and that was to serve as a minimum standard on that hole.[/b][/size][/color]

Good design does not happen by accident; it is a deliberate, purposeful action.  

Now you're contradicting yourself, telling us that inserting a pond, stream or cross bunker is a deliberate, purposeful action, when in the paragraph above this one, you refute that notion.

Given the prolific writings of Ross, MacKenzie, etc., whereby they provided readers insight into a vast range of their opinions on the subject of design, one can reasonably expect that they would have mentioned such an important concept.  

Not really.
Especially when they wrote one thing and did the opposite in the field, on their courses they built.
Need I remind you of the specifics.  # 12 at ANGC, # 15 & 16 at CPC.  # 2, # 7, # 11 at Seminole, # 3 at Plainfield, # 9 at Yale.
The proof is in the pudding, in the physical properties of the features they crafted in the golf holes they designed and built.

Pat,

This is the first I've heard of a pond on #12 at ANGC!?  Are you wrong?

No, Rae's Creek expands, both in front of #  12 and to the left of # 11 to form a pond

And how is the longest carry on #16 at Cypress or #12 at ANGC a "minimum standard" when there are shorter alternative ways to play each hole?  

Have you played those holes, and # 9 at Yale and # 2, 7 and 11 at Seminole ?
Please explain the alternate methods of play on each hole that you refer to.
Obviously you haven't played CPC as the alternate line of play still requires a minimum carry of note.

Furthermore, AM didn't exactly insert the Pacific between tee and green at Cypress on #15 or #16.  He instead found a great stretch of property and built the golf holes that were already there.  

That's one of the dumbest comments I've heard in a long while, especially since it's been stated that AM didn't craft the 16th hole.
Irrespective of whether a water feature is man made or natural, placing it between the tee and the green constitutes the creation of a minimum standard, a required carry that the architect intentionally designed and constructed

Those are exceptions to what he stated his philosophy to be...and there are always exceptions.  Especially when the ideas of offering heroic opportunities yet, also, alternative options for the weaker player aren't concurrently possible - like Yale's 9th.

When an architect repeatedly crafts minimum standards, in the form of carries, it ceases being a design exception and becomes his design philosophy.

On the course in question, Ross repeated his introduction of minimum standards on several occassions, whereby it became the norm rather than the exception

I don't expect you to cite ANY GCA quotes, philosophies, writings in future when just one physical example contradicting said "words" exist.
"ONE" physical example ?
I've cited a dozen and could go on to cite hundreds, starting as far back as 1899 with the second hole at GCGC, then on to 1907 and NGLA and Macdonald's written description of his Eden hole.

Hard to believe that Steve could successfully recruit another member of the flat earth society.

P.S.  Go to Google Earth and take a look at #  16 and tell us how one can take an alternate route and NOT have a required carry, a minimum standard

[Will Lozier]

NO, NO, NO.
It is no fallacy.
When CBM designed the 9th at Yale, the intervening feature between tee and green, the pond, had that feature, the pond, function as a minimum standard.  And, that was a conscious decision.  As was the pond on # 12 at ANGC, the Pacific on # 15 and # 16 at CPC.
The architects were clearly aware of the function of the intervening feature, and that was to serve as a minimum standard on that hole.[/b][/size][/color]

Good design does not happen by accident; it is a deliberate, purposeful action.  

Now you're contradicting yourself, telling us that inserting a pond, stream or cross bunker is a deliberate, purposeful action, when in the paragraph above this one, you refute that notion.

Given the prolific writings of Ross, MacKenzie, etc., whereby they provided readers insight into a vast range of their opinions on the subject of design, one can reasonably expect that they would have mentioned such an important concept.  

Not really.
Especially when they wrote one thing and did the opposite in the field, on their courses they built.
Need I remind you of the specifics.  # 12 at ANGC, # 15 & 16 at CPC.  # 2, # 7, # 11 at Seminole, # 3 at Plainfield, # 9 at Yale.
The proof is in the pudding, in the physical properties of the features they crafted in the golf holes they designed and built.

Pat,

This is the first I've heard of a pond on #12 at ANGC!?  Are you wrong?

No, Rae's Creek expands, both in front of #  12 and to the left of # 11 to form a pond

WRONG.  Rae's Creek is still a creek in front of #12 - the pond is ONLY to the left of #11.  A tributary of the CREEK runs through #13.  You really sound like an idiot when you claim that the club is incorrect.  Yes, it was once a wilder version before the pond was formed to the left of #11 in 1950 and a tributary along #13 was cut off creating the dry stream bed.  These changes were made to avoid the flooding that plagued that part of the course.

And how is the longest carry on #16 at Cypress or #12 at ANGC a "minimum standard" when there are shorter alternative ways to play each hole?  

Have you played those holes, and # 9 at Yale and # 2, 7 and 11 at Seminole ?
Please explain the alternate methods of play on each hole that you refer to.
Obviously you haven't played CPC as the alternate line of play still requires a minimum carry of note.

Obviously, you are WRONG AGAIN.  I have played Cypress - twice.  And, I am certain I could make a 5 on #16 with a wedge and putter by playing perpendicular to the line of play before hitting onto the DELIBERATELY PLACED FAIRWAY DESIGNED TO OFFER AN OPTION TO WEAKER OR OLDER PLAYERS LIKE YOURSELF.  I also think I could play it in less than 10 strokes with just a putter going along the pathway.  Of course you'll tell me I'm wrong but what's new.  #15 would be much tougher. - that doesn't make AM a hypocrite.  You certainly don't need to be able to carry the ball 66 yards to play #12 at ANGC.

And I've played Yale as well - can't argue with you there!  Certainly CBM decided that the weaker player should be screwed and that example alone MUST, at least in your mind, determine his ENTIRE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY of MINIMUM STANDARD.  Haven't been lucky enough to play Seminole but, again, a few examples - even though they don't appear to require much more than a 66-yard carry, if played to the edge of the hazard, then over - must PROVE THAT ROSS WAS A LIAR, THAT HIS WORDS MEAN NOTHING.

Furthermore, AM didn't exactly insert the Pacific between tee and green at Cypress on #15 or #16.  He instead found a great stretch of property and built the golf holes that were already there.  

That's one of the dumbest comments I've heard in a long while, especially since it's been stated that AM didn't craft the 16th hole. Irrespective of whether a water feature is man made or natural, placing it between the tee and the green constitutes the creation of a minimum standard, a required carry that the architect intentionally designed and constructed.

Dumb?  While Raynor may have already routed the hole, AM simply thought it should be a par 4!  Ms. Hollins thought otherwise.  Do you mean place the green and tee on opposite sides of the cove because I am pretty sure NO ONE placed the water where it is.

Those are exceptions to what he stated his philosophy to be...and there are always exceptions.  Especially when the ideas of offering heroic opportunities yet, also, alternative options for the weaker player aren't concurrently possible - like Yale's 9th.

When an architect repeatedly crafts minimum standards, in the form of carries, it ceases being a design exception and becomes his design philosophy.

On the course in question, Ross repeated his introduction of minimum standards on several occassions, whereby it became the norm rather than the exception.

These occasions (correct spelling) are the exception over his entire body of work.  Wait, do I need to define exception for you based on your previous use of the word?  You argue that the body of work of these architects, whose words you claim are meaningless, prove that they deliberately and regularly - again, over their entire body of work - made it a point to design minimum standards to penalize the weaker player?  Did they do this to purposely slow the game down, make weaker players dislike the game to stunt the growth of golf, or to challenge better players by making the DZ appear smaller?  Or all of the above.

I don't expect you to cite ANY GCA quotes, philosophies, writings in future when just one physical example contradicting said "words" exist.

"ONE" physical example ?
I've cited a dozen and could go on to cite hundreds, starting as far back as 1899 with the second hole at GCGC, then on to 1907 and NGLA and Macdonald's written description of his Eden hole.

Reread my statement Pat.  Maybe your eyesight combined with your lack of sleep mislead you.  But I'm not going to bother explained a simple statement to you.  

You can cite hundreds and, yet, there are tens of thousands of holes where your minimum standard argument fails.  Nobody has said that the words of these architects determined their final design on EVERY HOLE, just MOST.

Hard to believe that Steve could successfully recruit another member of the flat earth society.

The earth is flat?  Actually Steve sounds like the more intelligent, more informed, and mature individual here.  By a long shot.

P.S.  Go to Google Earth and take a look at #  16 and tell us how one can take an alternate route and NOT have a required carry, a minimum standard.

Just did...and having played the hole, twice, I've explained it clearly above.  

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

NO, NO, NO.
It is no fallacy.
When CBM designed the 9th at Yale, the intervening feature between tee and green, the pond, had that feature, the pond, function as a minimum standard.  And, that was a conscious decision.  As was the pond on # 12 at ANGC, the Pacific on # 15 and # 16 at CPC.
The architects were clearly aware of the function of the intervening feature, and that was to serve as a minimum standard on that hole.[/b][/size][/color]

Good design does not happen by accident; it is a deliberate, purposeful action.  

Now you're contradicting yourself, telling us that inserting a pond, stream or cross bunker is a deliberate, purposeful action, when in the paragraph above this one, you refute that notion.

Given the prolific writings of Ross, MacKenzie, etc., whereby they provided readers insight into a vast range of their opinions on the subject of design, one can reasonably expect that they would have mentioned such an important concept.  

Not really.
Especially when they wrote one thing and did the opposite in the field, on their courses they built.
Need I remind you of the specifics.  # 12 at ANGC, # 15 & 16 at CPC.  # 2, # 7, # 11 at Seminole, # 3 at Plainfield, # 9 at Yale.
The proof is in the pudding, in the physical properties of the features they crafted in the golf holes they designed and built.

Pat,

This is the first I've heard of a pond on #12 at ANGC!?  Are you wrong?

No, Rae's Creek expands, both in front of #  12 and to the left of # 11 to form a pond

WRONG.  Rae's Creek is still a creek in front of #12 - the pond is ONLY to the left of #11.  


Rae's Creek in front of # 12 is a pond, much like the pond fronting # 15.
There's a dam ESE of the 11th green that transforms the waterway in front of the 12th into a pond.

How many times have you played the hole and observed the waterway ?

A tributary of the CREEK runs through #13.  You really sound like an idiot when you claim that the club is incorrect.  Yes, it was once a wilder version before the pond was formed to the left of #11 in 1950 and a tributary along #13 was cut off creating the dry stream bed.  These changes were made to avoid the flooding that plagued that part of the course.

And how is the longest carry on #16 at Cypress or #12 at ANGC a "minimum standard" when there are shorter alternative ways to play each hole?  

Have you played those holes, and # 9 at Yale and # 2, 7 and 11 at Seminole ?
Please explain the alternate methods of play on each hole that you refer to.
Obviously you haven't played CPC as the alternate line of play still requires a minimum carry of note.

Obviously, you are WRONG AGAIN.  I have played Cypress - twice.  And, I am certain I could make a 5 on #16 with a wedge and putter by playing perpendicular to the line of play before hitting onto the DELIBERATELY PLACED FAIRWAY DESIGNED TO OFFER AN OPTION TO WEAKER OR OLDER PLAYERS LIKE YOURSELF.

You're the one who is dead wrong.
Whether the golfer goes for the green or the "bail out" fairway, a "minimum standard" carry is required.
Only a moron would claim otherwise.
Take another look at "Google Earth" and maybe it'll refresh your memory.

I also think I could play it in less than 10 strokes with just a putter going along the pathway.  Of course you'll tell me I'm wrong but what's new.  

Another moronic suggestion along with an inflated opinion of your game.
When's the last time an architect designed a golf hole with the explicit purpose of having golfers play the hole with a putter down the walking paths ?

#15 would be much tougher. - that doesn't make AM a hypocrite.  
You certainly don't need to be able to carry the ball 66 yards to play #12 at ANGC.

You sure do if you want to make a birdie and dramatically increase your chances for par.
Ditto # 16.

And I've played Yale as well - can't argue with you there!  Certainly CBM decided that the weaker player should be screwed and that example alone MUST, at least in your mind, determine his ENTIRE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY of MINIMUM STANDARD.  

How about # 10 and # 11 at The Creek ?  Do you think CBM intentionally required a "minimum standard" carry on those holes, or was that another anomaly ?

# 13 at NGLA ?
# 14 at NGLA
# 15 at NGLA
# 16 at NGLA

Or were these more anomalies ?

How about Fishers Island ?

More anomalies, or a clear pattern of design philosophy, not just requiring a "minimum standard" off the tee, but one's with dire consequences for failure.



Haven't been lucky enough to play Seminole but, again, a few examples - even though they don't appear to require much more than a 66-yard carry, if played to the edge of the hazard, then over

Why don't you tell us how to do that on # 2, 7 and 11, and especially on # 8 ?
Now, you're asking someone who can't hit a 66 yard tee shot, to precisely hit their wedge to a narrow, unkempt area between two waterways.
Are you really that obtuse ?

 - must PROVE THAT ROSS WAS A LIAR, THAT HIS WORDS MEAN NOTHING.[/color][/size]

Ross, like the other architects, probably wasn't smart enough to think of your putter strategy,

Furthermore, AM didn't exactly insert the Pacific between tee and green at Cypress on #15 or #16.  He instead found a great stretch of property and built the golf holes that were already there.  

That's one of the dumbest comments I've heard in a long while, especially since it's been stated that AM didn't craft the 16th hole. Irrespective of whether a water feature is man made or natural, placing it between the tee and the green constitutes the creation of a minimum standard, a required carry that the architect intentionally designed and constructed.

Dumb?  While Raynor may have already routed the hole, AM simply thought it should be a par 4!  Ms. Hollins thought otherwise.  Do you mean place the green and tee on opposite sides of the cove because I am pretty sure NO ONE placed the water where it is.

Irrespective of the author, the tee shot requires a "minimum standard"
AM knew that when he sited the tee and the green.
The golfer must choose either an heroic carry toward the green, or a lesser, "minimum standard" carry toward the "bail out" fairway.

Those are exceptions to what he stated his philosophy to be...and there are always exceptions.  Especially when the ideas of offering heroic opportunities yet, also, alternative options for the weaker player aren't concurrently possible - like Yale's 9th.

When an architect repeatedly crafts minimum standards, in the form of carries, it ceases being a design exception and becomes his design philosophy.

On the course in question, Ross repeated his introduction of minimum standards on several occassions, whereby it became the norm rather than the exception.

These occasions (correct spelling) are the exception over his entire body of work.  
[/color]

NO, they're not the exception, they're the RULE.
Almost every hole has a "minimum standard" carry from the tee in order for the golfer to reach the fairway.
That I cited some of the more severe carries doesn't alter the basic design philosophy expressed by every architect, namely, that there's a "minimum standard" carry as defined by that architect on that particular site and hole.

Did you happen to notice the 12th hole at MV today.


Wait, do I need to define exception for you based on your previous use of the word?  You argue that the body of work of these architects, whose words you claim are meaningless, prove that they deliberately and regularly - again, over their entire body of work - made it a point to design minimum standards to penalize the weaker player?  [/color][/size]


That's correct.

To repeat:

Almost every hole has a "minimum standard" carry from the tee in order for the golfer to reach the fairway.
That I cited some of the more severe carries doesn't alter the basic design philosophy expressed by every architect, namely, that there's a "minimum standard" carry as defined by that architect on that particular site and hole.



Did they do this to purposely slow the game down, make weaker players dislike the game to stunt the growth of golf, or to challenge better players by making the DZ appear smaller?  Or all of the above. [/color] [/size]

The do it to create a "minimum standard", with the variable being the degree of the consequences for failing to meet that challenge.

I don't expect you to cite ANY GCA quotes, philosophies, writings in future when just one physical example contradicting said "words" exist.

"ONE" physical example ?
I've cited a dozen and could go on to cite hundreds, starting as far back as 1899 with the second hole at GCGC, then on to 1907 and NGLA and Macdonald's written description of his Eden hole.

Reread my statement Pat.  Maybe your eyesight combined with your lack of sleep mislead you.  But I'm not going to bother explained a simple statement to you.  

You can cite hundreds and, yet, there are tens of thousands of holes where your minimum standard argument fails.  Nobody has said that the words of these architects determined their final design on EVERY HOLE, just MOST.

And on almost every one of those tens of thousands of holes, there's a minimum standard.
You just don't understand the concept of a "minimum standard" and that the consequences for failing to meet that "minimum standard" vary.

Hard to believe that Steve could successfully recruit another member of the flat earth society.

The earth is flat?  Actually Steve sounds like the more intelligent, more informed, and mature individual here.  By a long shot.

P.S.  Go to Google Earth and take a look at #  16 and tell us how one can take an alternate route and NOT have a required carry, a minimum standard.

Just did...and having played the hole, twice, I've explained it clearly above.
 

Then you must have been heavily self medicated or drinking in excess.
Only a MORON would insist that there's no "minimum standard" on the tee shot on # 16, irrespective of whether you're playing for the green or the "bail out" fairway.

You need a refresher course, look at "Google Earth" again and get back to us and tell us how the architect didn't design the hole without a "minimum standard" off the tee.

Oh, I forgot, MacKenzie, in addition to Ross, hadn't learned of your putter play down the walking path strategy.

Do you know of any architects that adopted that design concept ?
Could you name 5 courses where it's clearly a prudent choice for a "golfer"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()