or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Divot Master

Erik, You are correct and thorough in your analysis, although your sarcasm meter may be slightly out of calibration. As you noted, celebrity golf course architects without landscape architecture degrees or equivalent practical experience are unlikely to create a world class course, unless they surround themselves with expert advisers, engineers, and contractors, and they commit to LISTENING TO THEM. Tiger, with his career-long revolving door of managers, coaches, caddies,...
As an architect myself, I find the concept that "Tiger Woods the pro golfer is qualified to design a world class golf course" to be only slightly less ludicrous than the idea that "Jim Kelly the quarterback is qualified to design the new Buffalo Bills stadium."   Arnie, Jack, etc. all partnered with established architects for their early course efforts, most of which were still quite pedestrian layouts.  It will take many years of mediocre results before Tiger "designs"...
OP, could you please tell me which course this is on, SO I CAN AVOID IT!!!   IMHO, a course with holes as poorly designed as this one is not deserving of my business, when there are so many other well designed and reasonably priced courses in the Cleveland area.   Interior OB's have been discussed ad nauseum, and are nearly always a lousy solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.   As for answering your original question, you obviously are a student of equipment...
Not according to Yogi!
The first rule of putting:   99% of putts left short don't go in!
From a mathematical standpoint, 100% would be absolute: as fast and hard as you can possibly swing regardless of the results.  No competent pro would ever send you there.   From a more practical standpoint, I would think 100% could be defined by as fast and hard as you can swing without losing balance or risking injury.  Obviously, a 100% swing with proper contact will yield maximum (100%) distance.  But only the rare few can maintain any kind of swing consistency at...
Oakmont.  Although the course played me more than I played it.   Nailed the church pews on 3 and 4!   Made it extra fun to go back and watch the Women's Open there a few years ago.
Headed to Richmond VA on short notice, staying with non-golfers.  Any recommendations on places to play Sunday or Monday?  I prefer architecturally interesting layouts, in good condition.  Cost less important.  Played Royal New Kent last year and enjoyed it. How are the conditions there these days?   Thanks in advance for any good info.
I believe that the course architect's message to a golfer standing on this tee is that sometimes "short" holes are NOT birdie holes. In this case, a directionally accurate tee shot is required regardless of the club selected. Then a distance and directionally accurate second shot is required from an uphill lie, and where GPS and rangefinders are essentially useless in determining the effective distance to the pin due to the severe uphill. Then you need a healthy dose of...
 I'd been thinking the same thing, but don't know how to use the ruler thingy.  More likely that his shot drifted just a bit right and caught the "polar vortex" at about 280.  (Great name, by the way!) The fairways were soft enough that we weren't getting a whole lot of roll.
New Posts  All Forums: