or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › British Open Courses: Anyone Else Think They're Ugly, Boring, Ill-kept and Gimmicky?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

British Open Courses: Anyone Else Think They're Ugly, Boring, Ill-kept and Gimmicky? - Page 4

post #55 of 120

In.

post #56 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

...you remind me of a soccer fan who just watched a triple overtime soccer match that resulted in a "nil-nil" tie who describes that hours-long non-event fest as "Brilliant!!!" and who immediately labels anyone who disagrees as "ignorant of the game," which in my experience is what most soccer fans do when defending their sport.  

 

It's not possible to have a match go to "overtime" (extra time) and end in a tie (draw). The whole point of extra time is to determine a winner.

post #57 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

Then you're either ignorant or stupid about this particular topic. Take your pick - I don't care which. Because the conditions are not "poorly maintained."

 

Really??  I just tell a newbie that we treat other members of this site civily, and the site's founder calls me stupid or ignorant?  Seriously?  That sort of comment wouldn't be surprising for someone like Shorty who puts every last drop of effort into his attempts at being clever and does not understand the distinction between witty and snide.  You need to take a step back and understand that I'm talking about some golf courses, not your wife's looks or her faithfulness.  Having a difference of opinion on this subject shouldn't ruffle as many feathers as my comments seem to be doing with some of you British Open fans.

 

And you're plain wrong, in any event - a green that is partially brown is either not healthy and/or well-maintained, or is deliberately maintained in that fashion as some sort of anachronistic affectation.  Some varieties of tall grass that grow in the rough may get brownish at maturity, but the grass that is grown on greens should be green if healthy and watered properly.  Period.  The part of the course where the hole is located is not called a "brown," it's called a "green."  Most of the greens are predominantly green in color, so if some of it is green, it should all be green.  From what this layperson can see, it appears that they shaved some of these greens so tight that they damaged the grass; that would be consistent with the multiple player complaints about the extreme speed of the greens. 

 

This morning, there are large bare dirt patches - not brown grass, but bare DIRT patches - on the 2nd green.  Anyone trying to contend that is an adequately maintained green is so biased that he doesn't care about being honest.

 

They also showed a bit of Ernie Els' winning putt from the 2002 championship.  The green back then wasn't the mottley combination of green and earthtones that we're seeing this week, it was a solid green.  So unless some Muirfield or R&A official said "Let's get rid of this healthy looking turf and put in some type of grass that looks sickly," the grass on the greens is capable of looking like how a green should look, but those in charge of course conditions failed to bring the greens up to that condition this year.

 

The purists complain about the deliberately over-maintained American course - well aren't the Scottish links courses just as deliberately under-maintained?  If anything, the latter sorts of course maintenance is more of a phony affectation, in the 21st century, than the former.

 

Finally, as to your comments about the meaning of ignorance and my ignorance of the joys of playing a Scottish links course, I disagree.  The comments here talking about ignorance are not merely suggesting a lack of knowledge, familiarity or experience, but are intending, at least partially, as critical attacks against my judgment and sensibility.  Last time I checked personal familiarity with a sport is hardly a prerequisite for the sport to be considered worthy of merit - my 70 year-old mother-in-law, who knows the names of more Packers players than I do, would certainly disagree.  Since I've already stated that I do not enjoy playing links courses here in the U.S., why on earth would that change on the much uglier, browner and more difficult Scottish courses?  Do I have the skill, imagination, and confidence to play a Scottish links course "properly?"  I have no idea, quite possibly I don't.  But I rarely play well on courses that I find ugly or poorly maintained, so I think it would be extremely unlikely that playing any of those courses will change my view of them.

 

Just how long have you been watching golf?  Playing golf?  The Open courses change from year to year ACCORDING TO THE WEATHER.  They do very little irrigation there.  It's always been that way.  That IS links golf.  You take what the weather gives you.  It is NOT poor maintenance.  It is deliberately minimized maintenance.  I think it was in '93 at Royal St.Georges that the weather had been very dry and the rough didn't grow, so the scores were abnormally low.  This year the weather has been dry enough for firm conditions, but not so bad that the rough is wispy like it was in '93.  In my opinion, perfect.

 

Golf in the US would be a lot less expensive if courses would take a lesson from the Scots.  You don't need bluegrass and bent grass to play golf.  There are strains of buffalo grass which make great turf for golf courses and require half as much water to stay healthy.  You don't need to play from an overwatered sponge if you actually know how to make a golf swing.

post #58 of 120

For Wisguy (Click to show)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

I just tell a newbie that we treat other members of this site civily, and the site's founder calls me stupid or ignorant?

 

I'll type this calmly, as I do everything on the site, so read it as such: which of those statements is untrue? Because both must be untrue for my statement to be untrue.

 

You said the course was "poorly maintained." It is not. Ask anyone who knows anything about golf in Scotland, greenskeeping, etc. It's well maintained, and despite the use of words that typically indicate opinion like "poorly" or "well" it is a fact. So you're either ignorant or stupid. And I've said nothing that isn't perfectly civil.

 

Look up the definition of "ignorant." I'm guessing that's the better fit. But to cover all my bases, I had to add the "or."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Having a difference of opinion on this subject shouldn't ruffle as many feathers as my comments seem to be doing with some of you British Open fans.

 

All I ask is that you either have an informed opinion, or not say things that expose your ignorance, or if you still can't do those things, that you don't freak out when someone points it out. :-P

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

And you're plain wrong, in any event - a green that is partially brown is either not healthy and/or well-maintained, or is deliberately maintained in that fashion as some sort of anachronistic affectation.

 

I'm not wrong on this. Sorry. Some grasses are browner. It doesn't mean they're being poorly maintained.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

The part of the course where the hole is located is not called a "brown," it's called a "green."

 

They're greener than the surrounding area. And that's a curious way to go - all of Augusta is "green." The fairways are often greener than the "greens."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Most of the greens are predominantly green in color, so if some of it is green, it should all be green.

 

Nope. And yeah, I'm converting to shorthand now. Talk to some superintendents. You're wrong.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

This morning, there are large bare dirt patches - not brown grass, but bare DIRT patches - on the 2nd green.  Anyone trying to contend that is an adequately maintained green is so biased that he doesn't care about being honest.

 

Uhm, nope. Just watched Tiger play #2. No dirt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

They also showed a bit of Ernie Els' winning putt from the 2002 championship.  The green back then wasn't the mottley combination of green and earthtones that we're seeing this week, it was a solid green.

 

It rained a lot more then, and wasn't filmed in HD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

The purists complain about the deliberately over-maintained American course - well aren't the Scottish links courses just as deliberately under-maintained?  If anything, the latter sorts of course maintenance is more of a phony affectation, in the 21st century, than the former.

 

Who's to say they're "under"-maintained. That's your opinion. Most disagree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Finally, as to your comments about the meaning of ignorance and my ignorance of the joys of playing a Scottish links course

 

You're ignorant about what "poorly maintained" means in the context of Scottish links golf courses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

The comments here talking about ignorance are not merely suggesting a lack of knowledge, familiarity or experience, but are intending, at least partially, as critical attacks against my judgment and sensibility.

 

I can definitively state that they are not. They simply - my posts, anyway - speak to your lack of knowledge in the area.

 

That's what the word means. I make a point of using words that mean the proper thing. I'm kind of picky about it, truth be told. I am even cautious of connotative definitions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Last time I checked personal familiarity with a sport is hardly a prerequisite for the sport to be considered worthy of merit - my 70 year-old mother-in-law, who knows the names of more Packers players than I do, would certainly disagree.

 

So? Does that mean she could tell you whether a defensive scheme is likely to succeed against a particular team, or lead a team to the Super Bowl? No.

 

You're clearly ignorant about what "poorly maintained" is in terms of Scottish links golf courses. You can have an "opinion" about it all you want, but it's not wrong to point out that your opinion is not really based on a strong foundation. In other words, you lack knowledge.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Since I've already stated that I do not enjoy playing links courses here in the U.S., why on earth would that change on the much uglier, browner and more difficult Scottish courses?

 

Nobody's debating whether you enjoy playing on this kind of course or not. They're telling you that they're not "poorly maintained" and pointing out that you probably don't really know, because you haven't ever played a links course (there are very, very few in the U.S., true links courses, and you haven't played any of them.).

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

But I rarely play well on courses that I find ugly or poorly maintained, so I think it would be extremely unlikely that playing any of those courses will change my view of them.

 

They're not poorly maintained.

 

Now, I'd really hate to restrict someone from a thread they started, but it's a waste of time for you to not even understand what people who are responding to you are saying, and for you to keep saying that you hate poorly maintained golf courses.

 

We all do. We all hate playing on poorly maintained golf courses.

 

But the courses used to play the British Open are not poorly maintained golf courses.

post #59 of 120

It is too bad this thread tumbled down into the typical internet abyss.  It could have been a nice discussion.

 

I grew up on the ocean in Massachusetts.  I find dunes and landscape by the ocean beautiful.  I also love the mountains.  The desert can also have appeal.  Courses built in these different areas all have a different beauty to me.  That is the wonderful part about golf.  They can put courses in all kinds of nature.

 

I think the color of the grasses doesn't play well on TV, which is a shame.  I remember the US Open at Pebble that G-Mac won also had this look.  If we were there, I think it would look much nicer.

 

I was hoping for weather for this Open, but it isn't coming.

 

Wiseman can have his opinion.  I'm sure he knows that these links courses were actually sheep paths and not goat paths originally as well.

 

I would love to play on them.

post #60 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

We all do. We all hate playing on poorly maintained golf courses.

 

But the courses used to play the British Open are not poorly maintained golf courses.

 

Sums it up.

post #61 of 120

The links courses are not deliberately under-maintained they just let mother nature do her thing. In some open championships the course has been lush and green do to a rainy season. Obviously no one wants to put on dirt but on the other hand to many people cant play or think a course is awful if it has some brown grass. I don't know maybe its just me, but I would think most good players would rather play a dry fast course than a soft lush green "pretty" course.  

post #62 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post

The links courses are not deliberately under-maintained they just let mother nature do her thing. 

 

Same thing, I think.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post

Obviously no one wants to put on dirt but on the other hand to many people cant play or think a course is awful if it has some brown grass. 

 

I'm not sure what the point is here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post

I don't know maybe its just me, but I would think most good players would rather play a dry fast course than a soft lush green "pretty" course.  

 

Good players want to play courses that are properly maintained, be that dry and fast or lush and green. The maintenance should fit the course. Dry and fast just happens to match most links style courses.

post #63 of 120

The idea that the original poster described these courses as "featureless" is actually quite comical.

post #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

The idea that the original poster described these courses as "featureless" is actually quite comical.

 

Agreed. Tell anyone who's played the Road Hole that links courses are featureless.

post #65 of 120

You are some fella.

 

Funny how almost no one, alot experienced golfers etc. agrees with you.

 

The fact you think that a game of soccer or any other sport, can never have been good, because there was no goals, tells me you are a pretty one track thinker.

 

"urgh, the course looks bad, its got lots of bunkers, its not green enough, its bad"

post #66 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker View Post

You are some fella.

 

Funny how almost no one, alot experienced golfers etc. agrees with you.

 

The fact you think that a game of soccer or any other sport, can never have been good, because there was no goals, tells me you are a pretty one track thinker.

 

"urgh, the course looks bad, its got lots of bunkers, its not green enough, its bad"

 

Well, in his defense...soccer DOES blow ass...

post #67 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post


Good players want to play courses that are properly maintained, be that dry and fast or lush and green. The maintenance should fit the course. Dry and fast just happens to match most links style courses.

Who defines properly maintained? every course is different and have different budgets whats considered good conditions at some courses might be poor for another. And I stand by my statement that good golfers would rather play a firm fast course than a lush one.

post #68 of 120

Yeah what a sheep track.  I wonder why it's on the list for the Open anyways.

 

e3_rolleyes.gif

post #69 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post


Good players want to play courses that are properly maintained, be that dry and fast or lush and green. The maintenance should fit the course. Dry and fast just happens to match most links style courses.

Who defines properly maintained? every course is different and have different budgets whats considered good conditions at some courses might be poor for another. And I stand by my statement that good golfers would rather play a firm fast course than a lush one.

 

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm agreeing with you, for the most part. If I'm playing an extremely hilly course, I don't want dry and fast. If I'm playing a long, open course, I don't want lush and green. That's what I mean by proper maintenance.

post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

Well, in his defense...soccer DOES blow ass...

Most popular sport in the world.

 

I'm surprised you Americans don't like cricket, its got the same pace of play as American football and baseball. 

post #71 of 120

geauxforbroke my bad I did misunderstand you

post #72 of 120
Thread Starter 

Let me put this into perspective that I hope everyone can understand.  Let's say there's a new course in your state, one that billed itself as a world-class course and charged a premium over typical greens fees for the area and we discovered it featured the following conditions relative even to average area courses:  underwatered, dried-out fairways that are more brown in color than green and that produce a tuft of dust after every shot, plus greens that are 20, 30, even 50% brown in color, with some bare patches**.  Unless the course billed itself as the most authentic Scottish links-style course outside of Scotland, probably nearly person on this board would complain about the course conditions, if not to the pro shop, then at least to his playing partners or in an on-line comment or review.   No one had any problems acknowledging that two months ago at the Wells Fargo, the greens at Quail Hollow were in poor shape, yet no one seems to think the same for the relatively similar appearing greens at Muirfield this week.  For me, bad or dried-out conditions are bad or dried-out conditions, regardless of context and location.  I am very interested in many aspects of world history, and some sports history too, but for whatever reason, I care not a whit for ancient golf history, so the context of preserving the original game as it was played one or more centuries ago is meaningless to me.

 

However, for some, they are so enamored with the British Open and the original history of the game that they will adopt a double standard for course conditions, one for their typical courses in their home area, one for the British links courses.  So relative to typical conditions for the British Open, this year's Muirfield may be perfectly within the normal standards for a British Open.  If you want to have double standards on golf course conditions, fine.  That's your prerogative, no one is hurt by it like there may be with double standards on honesty, fidelity, drug use, violence, etc....  So we've established that there can be two sets of standards for course aesthetics and conditions and, as I acknowledged in my initial post, I recognize I am in the minority for not appreciating the double standard.  I started this post to satisfy my curiosity about how few or many people might agree with me, plus see if there was some extra information out there that would give me a better understanding and explanation for the love of the British links courses that has so far escaped me.  As suspected, a few people have similar opinions to mine, but I'm definitely in the minority.  And no one has convinced me that there's more to the appeal of these links courses than I originally thought.

 

Erik, at no point in this thread have I been deficient of knowledge of any aspect of this topic other than what I have indicated already, the lack of experience playing on one of these Scottish links courses.  However, that's no different than when you sit down in April and watch the Masters, since (I'm guessing) you haven't played Augusta and are ignorant of exactly what that course would be like to play.  That lack of familiarity does not prevent you from forming an opinion liking or disliking what you see on TV from Augusta National, so why should you feel it is different for someone who has watched British Opens on TV only and doesn't care for those courses?  You keep bandying about this "ignorance" term when all you really mean is that you are disagreeing strongly with my subjective opinion on the aesthetics and conditions of the typical British Open course. You have double standards on course conditions and I don't.  That doesn't make me ignorant and it doesn't make either of us right or wrong, contrary to what you almost keep saying.  We differ in opinion - the appropriate response is to accept that, not make veiled threats about locking the thread or worse.  I don't troll on this or any other website and I don't appreciate your implication that I'm headed in that direction merely because we have different tastes in golf courses.

 

To address Fourputt's point about decreased irrigation and costs, that may be true to a point, but I don't think it's a trend we'll see in the immediate future in the US unless there's another economic downturn.  Playing the Old Course (per Ask.com) is 130 pounds which is around $200US, so it's clearly a lot cheaper than Pebble Beach for tops-of-the-bucket-list courses.  But it's also a lot more expensive than any course I would typically play - it's over double the cost of several very well-maintained resort courses within an hour or two of my house  (however, based on market demand and the year-long waiting list, it's clearly not an unreasonable charge for the world's most famous course).  The problem is that very few businesses ever pass savings on to customers directly, so a hypothetical 40% savings on costs to a typical course we might play if they adopted a minimal watering policy  would likely not get passed on as a 40% reduction in greens fees and unless it was a wet season with all courses in good shape, a lot of golfers would probably pay maybe $10 more to play a course that they feel is in significantly better shape, everything else being relatively equal. 

 

Geauxforbroke - I'll confess that I genuinely AM ignorant of the fine details of soccer.  And I'd rather watch really bad golfers (i.e. ones even worse than myself) play on the brownest, most dried out links course in the world than watch the most skilled professional adults play soccer, which I find excruciating to watch for many, many reasons.  But I'll leave that for another discussion.

 

 

-----------------------

 

**  Maybe you didn't see the full green I was looking at this morning.  Or maybe there was a typo on the screen and ESPN showed two different greens at different times that were labeled the 2nd hole.  But absolutely, positively, there was a large bare patch - not just brown grass, a bare patch about the size of a typical kitchen table - on the green I saw labeled as the 2nd green and it would have been in the front left of the pin as one walks up the fairway toward the green.  There was at least one other bare patch on that green, too.  I saw this for two separate groups they showed on this green (I think Snedeker might have been in one of them) and I rewound it several times to double check.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › British Open Courses: Anyone Else Think They're Ugly, Boring, Ill-kept and Gimmicky?