Jump to content
IGNORED

General COVID-19 Topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mattm16 said:

You know, I don't appreciate being called ignorant, uneducated and a moron just because I have a different opinion than you.

1) Everyone is ignorant, since ignorance is the lack of knowledge. I am 100% ignorant in how viruses work. I know a small bit, but I don't know in detail enough to be able to speak on the subject. 

2) When the facts show it is much more beneficial and safe to get the vaccine, in terms of your own health and in terms of the health of others, there is not much worth in having this difference of opinion. To me, it feels like you and others just want to be contrarian. When the facts are known to be as such, then it is expected to get some negative feedback from those who are correct in this regard. Though, it is a bit harsh to call someone uneducated and a moron. But, I think it is stupid to not get the vaccine unless you have a medical reason to do so. 

2 hours ago, mattm16 said:

I was raised to respect a persons opinion and just because it differs than yours, doesn't mean the person is a moron or ignorant. 

Maybe not a moron, but definitely ignorant. 

Also, do you respect the opinion of deplorable people? Come on, respecting everyones opinion is just not good for society. That is saying you respect the opinion of people like who commit horrible atrocities. Their opinion is they should be able to do so with out repercussions or are justified due to their religious doctrine. How can you respect that. 

2 hours ago, mattm16 said:

It means they have a different opinion, and they have a right to that.  Wouldn't discussions be boring if everyone agreed with everyone in the discussion?  During those productive discussions, who says one person is right and one person is wrong?

We are not talking about subjects like, what is the greatest football team of all time. This is about the validity of the vaccine (which it works stupidly well), and its utility for the safety of oneself and society (which is very high). These are facts. To say that I should respect the opinion of someone who doesn't believe in these facts, or has the opinion that they should disregard the vaccine. Yea, I am not respecting that opinion. 

We are not talking about every discussion here. We are talking about this particular subject. So, don't try to generalize it. 

Here is the thing, the facts are pretty clear here. All you have to say is, "Well, if I didn't have a family who pressured me, I wouldn't take the vaccine." That isn't a valid opinion. It is not based on anything but your gut feeling.

It's like justifying that people who don't wear their seat belts are not idiots. They are 100% idiots for not wearing a seat belt. Seat belts reduce injuries and fatalities by over 55%. Not wearing a seat belt is just idiocy. 

2 hours ago, mattm16 said:

You have your opinion, and I have mine.  Just because I don't agree with you  doesn't mean I'm ignorant.  And you are not ignorant either.  Show some respect, man.

Well, the use of ignorant in this way is wrong. 

You know the facts of the vaccine (I presume) since you are responding to this thread. If not, then you are ignorant since you lack the knowledge of the vaccine. 

To have an opinion, not based on facts is to me idiotic. 

Oh, I am 100% ignorant in many subjects. One of my college professors said the first day, "You are all ignorant people". Then he described what ignorance means. I went from almost being pissed off to thinking he's right. I am an ignorant person. I lack knowledge. I am not all knowing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

1) Everyone is ignorant, since ignorance is the lack of knowledge. I am 100% ignorant in how viruses work. I know a small bit, but I don't know in detail enough to be able to speak on the subject. 

2) When the facts show it is much more beneficial and safe to get the vaccine, in terms of your own health and in terms of the health of others, there is not much worth in having this difference of opinion. To me, it feels like you and others just want to be contrarian. When the facts are known to be as such, then it is expected to get some negative feedback from those who are correct in this regard. Though, it is a bit harsh to call someone uneducated and a moron. But, I think it is stupid to not get the vaccine unless you have a medical reason to do so. 

Maybe not a moron, but definitely ignorant. 

Also, do you respect the opinion of deplorable people? Come on, respecting everyones opinion is just not good for society. That is saying you respect the opinion of people like who commit horrible atrocities. Their opinion is they should be able to do so with out repercussions or are justified due to their religious doctrine. How can you respect that. 

We are not talking about subjects like, what is the greatest football team of all time. This is about the validity of the vaccine (which it works stupidly well), and its utility for the safety of oneself and society (which is very high). These are facts. To say that I should respect the opinion of someone who doesn't believe in these facts, or has the opinion that they should disregard the vaccine. Yea, I am not respecting that opinion. 

We are not talking about every discussion here. We are talking about this particular subject. So, don't try to generalize it. 

Here is the thing, the facts are pretty clear here. All you have to say is, "Well, if I didn't have a family who pressured me, I wouldn't take the vaccine." That isn't a valid opinion. It is not based on anything but your gut feeling.

It's like justifying that people who don't wear their seat belts are not idiots. They are 100% idiots for not wearing a seat belt. Seat belts reduce injuries and fatalities by over 55%. Not wearing a seat belt is just idiocy. 

Well, the use of ignorant in this way is wrong. 

You know the facts of the vaccine (I presume) since you are responding to this thread. If not, then you are ignorant since you lack the knowledge of the vaccine. 

To have an opinion, not based on facts is to me idiotic. 

Oh, I am 100% ignorant in many subjects. One of my college professors said the first day, "You are all ignorant people". Then he described what ignorance means. I went from almost being pissed off to thinking he's right. I am an ignorant person. I lack knowledge. I am not all knowing.

 

1.  True.  Ignorance is the lack of understanding.  I agree with you.

2.  You think it is stupid to not get it.  I'm ok with that.  I think it is a waste of my time.  I have known people to get COVID.  They are fine.  And yes, I know everybody is different on the reaction.  I'm willing to accept the risk.  And yes, if I wasn't feeling pressure, I would not get it. 

So maybe I shouldn't be so general.  You are correct, I don't respect the opinion of deplorable people.  As long as it is not deplorable/against any kind of law.

We all have different opinions.  It really is ok.  No reason to get all up in arms about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mattm16 said:

I think it is a waste of my time

What facts do you have to support this.

1 minute ago, mattm16 said:

I have known people to get COVID.  They are fine.

There are people who are not fine. Don't judge what your outcome will be just because you only see the immediate people around you are fine. 

My aunt was close to being put on a ventilator, she was hospitalized. Yes she is OK now, but she was lucky. 

2 minutes ago, mattm16 said:

I'm willing to accept the risk.  And yes, if I wasn't feeling pressure, I would not get it. 

You are willing to accept the risk of being a carrier of the virus? You accept the possible harm you will cause to people around you? How selfish and cruel of you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, mattm16 said:

  I think it is a waste of my time.  I have known people to get COVID.  They are fine. 

I have known people, and I have known statistics, where people survive a really nasty car accident without wearing a seatbelt. But they are a very, very, very small percentage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
23 minutes ago, mattm16 said:

I have known people to get COVID.  They are fine.

I have known people that recover from cancer as well. These kind of comments are why other people are saying you are being kind of stupid in saying these kinds of things.

Again, it’s about more than you and your friends/family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

Even if you recover, long covid is no joke. I know some people who are experiencing the not pleasant after effects of getting covid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
2 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Even if you recover, long covid is no joke. I know some people who are experiencing the not pleasant after effects of getting covid.

Also true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Even if you recover, long covid is no joke. I know some people who are experiencing the not pleasant after effects of getting covid.

100%.

My wife works with a women who still has "brain fog" and severe fatigue almost half a year after recovering from Covid-19.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

59 minutes ago, iacas said:

I have known people that recover from cancer as well. These kind of comments are why other people are saying you are being kind of stupid in saying these kinds of things.

Again, it’s about more than you and your friends/family.

Remember,  I also said that I do understand that everyone is different.  Everyone will react differently.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattm16 said:

I think it is a waste of my time.  I have known people to get COVID.  They are fine.  And yes, I know everybody is different on the reaction.  I'm willing to accept the risk.  And yes, if I wasn't feeling pressure, I would not get it. 

This is a very selfish perspective. Whether to get vaccinated or not is not about personal risk. Saying that you think the vaccine is a waste of time is saying that you are okay transmitting a virus to others who may die from it.

The issue with coronavirus is not that it is extremely deadly, although it has still taken the lives of almost 600,000 Americans (more than WW1 and WW2 combined). Several members on this forum know people who have died from Covid-19.

The issue is the transmission rate, which masks, physical distancing, and vaccination all reduce, so that less people die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So everybody knows, because that is what the grand majority of the people that is on this forum wants to hear:  I did get the vaccine.  Not because I wanted to.  Because friends/family pressured me.  If they didn't, more than likely I wouldn't get it.

Also, if a person is worried about getting COVID, and they get the vaccine, the vaccine protects them, correct?  Then why should they be concerned if I didn't get the vaccine?  They are protected.

And if you would really know me, I am far from selfish.  One of my good friends at work think like you do, and he doesn't understand why I think I do about this.  But we are still friends.  It really is ok to have a different opinion.  And he will also say I am far from selfish.

I don't have facts to back up what I think.  I just think certain ways.  

Doesn't mean we cannot have fun on the golf course.  We just have different opinions.  That is all.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mattm16 said:

So everybody knows, because that is what the grand majority of the people that is on this forum wants to hear:  I did get the vaccine.  Not because I wanted to.  Because friends/family pressured me.  If they didn't, more than likely I wouldn't get it.

Also, if a person is worried about getting COVID, and they get the vaccine, the vaccine protects them, correct?  Then why should they be concerned if I didn't get the vaccine?  They are protected.

And if you would really know me, I am far from selfish.  One of my good friends at work think like you do, and he doesn't understand why I think I do about this.  But we are still friends.  It really is ok to have a different opinion.  And he will also say I am far from selfish.

I don't have facts to back up what I think.  I just think certain ways.  

Doesn't mean we cannot have fun on the golf course.  We just have different opinions.  That is all.  

You should give up the "opinion"  argument. The bottom line is this is not about opinions. It is about facts. Whoever taught you that you can have your own opinion did not explain to you the part about opinions do not overrule facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, mattm16 said:

I'm willing to accept the risk.

This is where the "selfish" accusations come from.  If a person is not vaccinated, they are something like 20 times as likely to contract the virus, so they are 20 times more likely to be an unwitting infection hazard to everyone around them.   This is round numbers, based on the vaccines being 95% effective.  Those "other people" haven't chosen to accept any risk, they have no way of knowing who's relatively safe, and who is relatively more dangerous.  Your choice increases their risk, without their consent, which does seem pretty self-centered..  And I know you've been vaccinated, so I mean the  generic "you."

In many ways this is like the second-hand smoke discussions, back when smoking indoors was a common thing.  I don't care if you accept the risks of smoking, that's not my problem.  But when you bring smoke into MY area, you're exposing me to those risks, without my consent.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

19 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This is where the "selfish" accusations come from.  If a person is not vaccinated, they are something like 20 times as likely to contract the virus, so they are 20 times more likely to be an unwitting infection hazard to everyone around them.   This is round numbers, based on the vaccines being 95% effective.  Those "other people" haven't chosen to accept any risk, they have no way of knowing who's relatively safe, and who is relatively more dangerous.  Your choice increases their risk, without their consent, which does seem pretty self-centered..  And I know you've been vaccinated, so I mean the  generic "you."

In many ways this is like the second-hand smoke discussions, back when smoking indoors was a common thing.  I don't care if you accept the risks of smoking, that's not my problem.  But when you bring smoke into MY area, you're exposing me to those risks, without my consent.  

But if the other people are so concerned, then they can willingly get vaccinated, correct?  At that point, the people who really want it have it and the others accept the risk.  

I think I read somewhere that the U.S is going to soon approach the plateau of people who want it and is willing to get it.  Not sure what the percentage is but if I remember correctly it is around 70% or less.  That means approximately 30% of the population is not willing to get it.  And it also means there are far more people that have the same opinion that I do that anyone wants to admit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)
4 minutes ago, mattm16 said:

But if the other people are so concerned, then they can willingly get vaccinated, correct?  At that point, the people who really want it have it and the others accept the risk.  

I think I read somewhere that the U.S is going to soon approach the plateau of people who want it and is willing to get it.  Not sure what the percentage is but if I remember correctly it is around 70% or less.  That means approximately 30% of the population is not willing to get it.  And it also means there are far more people that have the same opinion that I do that anyone wants to admit.

I'm not saying you're a troll, but sheesh man, you've got the troll technique down pat!  

If you don't use the word "opinion" again (related to Covid) I'll promise not to use the term "troll" again.

Hey, it's just my opinion...

Edited by Double Mocha Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
1 minute ago, mattm16 said:

But if the other people are so concerned, then they can willingly get vaccinated, correct?  At that point, the people who really want it have it and the others accept the risk.  

Even vaccinated people aren't without risk, the vaccine is not 100% effective.  So the anti-vax person still raises the risk for every single person he comes in contact with.  THAT is selfish.    

Another factor being discusses is that as long as there are people spreading infections, even though the rate is being decreased, the virus still has a chance to continue mutating.  So far the vaccines seem to be effective at combating the mutations, possibly at a lesser level of effectiveness.  We don't know if future mutations will be able to get past the vaccine, but its possible.  So the anti-vax folks will continue to cause an increased danger to everyone else from mutated viruses.    

9 minutes ago, mattm16 said:

That means approximately 30% of the population is not willing to get it.  And it also means there are far more people that have the same opinion that I do that anyone wants to admit.

I don't think anyone has any illusions about the size of the group of vaccine resisters.  I think the majority of us are concerned over the long-term effects that such a large percentage of anti-vaxers will have on the overall fight against this particular disease.

But as a resister, do you have a problem with private business insisting on proof of vaccination?  How about airline travel, will you accept the right of an airline to deny boarding to non-vax folks?  Restaurants, sporting events, concerts?  After all, some people make their choice to not get vaccinated.  Can a business make a choice to deny those people entry, based on the choice they've made?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, mattm16 said:

2.  You think it is stupid to not get it.  I'm ok with that.  I think it is a waste of my time.  I have known people to get COVID.  They are fine.  And yes, I know everybody is different on the reaction.  I'm willing to accept the risk.  And yes, if I wasn't feeling pressure, I would not get it.

Just because you aren’t aware of how selfish your attitude is doesn’t make you not selfish. This statement here is pure ignorance. I don’t care if this is your opinion…it’s ignorant because you don’t understand the importance of vaccination because you can’t think beyond yourself. 
The bold section is laughably ignorant to even the minimally  educated in public health.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

57 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I'm not saying you're a troll, but sheesh man, you've got the troll technique down pat!  

If you don't use the word "opinion" again (related to Covid) I'll promise not to use the term "troll" again.

Hey, it's just my opinion...

I'm not a troll.  However, I'm just saying what I think (better than opinion?).  There are people that did make the same comments (well, not exactly but if I remember right close enough) that are no longer communicating in this topic because it seems they were "chased" away for what they think.  The trucker dude, and David in Florida specifically I'm thinking of.

53 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Even vaccinated people aren't without risk, the vaccine is not 100% effective.  So the anti-vax person still raises the risk for every single person he comes in contact with.  THAT is selfish.    

Another factor being discusses is that as long as there are people spreading infections, even though the rate is being decreased, the virus still has a chance to continue mutating.  So far the vaccines seem to be effective at combating the mutations, possibly at a lesser level of effectiveness.  We don't know if future mutations will be able to get past the vaccine, but its possible.  So the anti-vax folks will continue to cause an increased danger to everyone else from mutated viruses.    

I don't think anyone has any illusions about the size of the group of vaccine resisters.  I think the majority of us are concerned over the long-term effects that such a large percentage of anti-vaxers will have on the overall fight against this particular disease.

But as a resister, do you have a problem with private business insisting on proof of vaccination?  How about airline travel, will you accept the right of an airline to deny boarding to non-vax folks?  Restaurants, sporting events, concerts?  After all, some people make their choice to not get vaccinated.  Can a business make a choice to deny those people entry, based on the choice they've made?

Yes, I do (it probably surprises people that I do).  It is their business, they can dictate how they want.  A person has a right to not get the vaccine, a business also has the right to deny  them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • It was a smashed 3-wood. Any other strike and I am at the bottom of the hill. It rewarded a great shot. 
    • I know your post was a few days ago, but one point to clarify (unless I misunderstood you): even if a person was previously infected, they should be vaccinated. From https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html  
    • So my list, in reverse order: Naga-Waukee War Memorial, 6.5 Naga-Waukee is a solid golf course that was fun to play, well kept, and had enough architectural integrity. Your interest is captured from the first hole right on through to the end, without a truly weak hole among them (with #11 being the worst, but still acceptable). The course allows and encourages you to move the ball both ways off the tee if you're up for it, it allows and hints at hitting different clubs off the tees and into the greens, with elevation changes both up and down. About the only thing some might complain about is that the 18th is a bit soft. I had about 55 yards in for my approach shot. Some people don't like that kind of thing; I don't mind. It's a half-par hole that may decide a match. Swap the 17th and the 18th and you may placate a few more people. The greens were good — they had enough variety of shape, size, and slope to stay relevant without being over the top or crazy. I wasn't really looking at this course as an architectural test, because it was my first round on non-muddy turf in about ten days given the rains we had in Erie the previous two weeks, but I was surprised at the challenge it presented while still being quite playable. A very, very good golf course that, were it in my area, I think I could play and enjoy all the time. @cipher should join. 😄 The Club at Lac la Belle, 7.0 Admittedly, I wasn't particularly invested in playing this round. It came at the end of a long week, and as we had seen the course the day before when we visited the putting course (which is fun, and which I wish more courses had, though maintenance might be a PITA), I had seen almost enough of what I wanted to see: winding fairways, tall fescue rough, bunkers, undulating greens. Parkland golf. Only the ninth hole is essentially untouched from what existed in the previous decade(s), with four completely new holes on completely newly owned property across the street. Apparently the course was often flooded, so they rebuilt the course higher up and in the process rebuilt almost every hole. Some shared similar green or tee sites, but many were totally new. Let's start with the positives. The course was in good shape. The greens played firm (I suspect they were still just year-old USGA spec greens, or at least new construction). The clubhouse and conditions and everything were nice. The negatives? It's parkland, target golf. It's long rough/fescue off the fairways. It's tall, mature trees. There really aren't very many options, and there aren't many real decisions to make. Hit it here, hit it there. The first four greens are a bit over the top. The second and third hole tee shots are, to borrow an architectural term, dumb. The second requires a hybrid or 4I through a chute of trees (hook is optional), while the third features a blind penalty area creeping in to the right-ward 80%. The fourth, a par three, has a green so over the top that almost all tee shots will end up in about four places, and if the holes are cut in about the same places, putting there will be pretty boring after a few rounds. The course wasn't tough to walk, but despite having rickshaws, the course wasn't the best for walking with a push cart because tall fescue often blocked direct paths from green to tee. A few of the holes were interesting, but none were really "wow, now that's cool" level. Lac la Belle isn't a bad course, but it's nowhere near a great one. Mammoth Dunes, 7.5 I'll let others talk about the scale and size of the place. It's right there in the name, so I'll skip talking about it, except to share some numbers about the first hole: the first fairway is 100 yards wide. The first green is 52 yards wide, and occupies about 14,000 square feet. That's 1/3 of an acre. I'll start with the main thing that knocks this down a bit from Sand Valley (and puts it below Lawsonia Links by a good bit): I didn't like the lack of separation in Mammoth Dunes. The first fairway lets you hit it anywhere in that 100 yards, and the first green, though yes it's more visible from high up on the right-hand side, also lets you hit it anywhere, from which the ball will tend to funnel toward the hole or the middle of the green. Ballstriking isn't rewarded (or punished) at quite the level I appreciate. Many players will shoot some of their best scores ever on Mammoth Dunes, which is great for a resort course — it's fun, it's different, it's BIG… — but it's not what I enjoy about golf. I don't need every good shot to be rewarded and every bad shot punished, but I want more separation between the quality and the result. This all made the architecture feel unimportant, and the results of both your decisions and your shots feel less important. Now, not every hole features this pattern, and let's bear in mind I still ranked this course as a 7.5. The second hole was great - a centerline bunker slightly offset to the left makes it appear as though a drive to the left in the narrower area is the preferred line, but that line blocks you out from seeing much of the green with a large dune to the left. The better line is to the right, and it still leaves a wedge in. Given the size of the greens, much of the "strategy," light as it may be at Mammoth Dunes, depends on the location of the flag on the green. Since it can literally be 100 feet from where it was the day before, the optimal way to play each hole can change each day. That can make a course more interesting, and Mammoth is not uninteresting. I just don't think it's nearly as "separation-friendly" as Sand Valley. Or Lawsonia. Or some other truly great 8.0-or-above type courses. Lawsonia Links, 8.5 I'm curious how a course like this, were it built today, would be received. In some ways, Langford and Moreau were Mike Strantz before Mike Strantz. When they weren't stealing boxcars from the local rail yard to build up green sites, they were using steam shovels in the days of horse-powered earth-moving equipment to really move some dirt around. Though they seemed to leave the general topography alone, they created some dramatic features with the mounds throughout the fairways and the green sites and surrounding features. The first time playing it presents a real strategic puzzle. You're constantly questioning your lines, and even with a rangefinder, you're sometimes still questioning lines when you're the third to play from the tee! Mounds from 8 to 20 feet high — some of which feature bunkers, some of which are just grass (and you often have no way of truly knowing which you're looking at) — play tricks on your eyes with depth. They obscure things beyond them, sometimes for 100+ yards. They offer aiming points. And they often appear to be much farther out than they are. The greens at Lawsonia require accuracy, but are still often large enough to allow you to play away from the worst "side" of the green. You'll have a long putt, and often one that will break 20% of the distance of the putt or more, but you can play safe. Or you can take on the hill and, occasionally, face a shot to a green that's ten feet above your head. The par threes are a bit of a mixed bag. I found the tenth to be a bit obnoxious - it was playing about 240 the day we played with tons of movement in the green. It's a tougher hole than many short par fours I've played. The other par threes, including the fourth, are solid. The par fives are great, with the exception of the 13th, which @DeadMan already talked about. Though, I will note that @saevel25 was able to get near the green in two, and keep his ball there. I don't think that hole is as bad as Daniel says it is, as I think sometimes you can have a bit of an exhilarating second shot in trying to get to within about 40 yards of the green to keep your ball up top… and if you're close, in waiting to see if it will stay there. The par fours are great. Though the first is blind, it's only blind once. The first green, even with a short iron in hand, serves as a good introduction to what L&M created at Lawsonia, as the left side falls down about 15 feet from the edge of the green at about a 60° slope. Other "blind" shots exist, but you're given a clue where to aim, and trust is important. Lawsonia will play very different in different winds. It pays to be a good putter, or to put yourself in good positions with uphill putts, as the greens, while not nearly as massive as Mammoth or even Sand Valley, have a good amount of moment to them. Despite the tenth being my least favorite hole on the course, the back nine is all played in one open area with tremendous views across the expanse. You can see (and hear) the travails of people six holes away from you, with holes playing up and down and across a valley with ripples and humps and bumps. On many of the holes, a strategy from the tee may be anything from 4I to driver. The eighth was a good example here, as you could cut a driver around the corner, lay out to the left with a 4I, or (as I did), hit a 3W to the right-center of the angled fairway (semi-blind as steam-shovel-built mounds partially obscure the view) to leave a partial wedge to the (again) perched green. How close to the flagstick do you aim when the hole is cut toward an edge? Lawsonia has remained a good challenge because of the design and architecture, as well as a few found yards here and there (like the 18th, where the back tees are 85 yards behind the next set forward). Sand Valley, 9.0 A grind in the best possible way from start to finish. I likened it to Oakmont in the sense that it's unrelenting and requires precision and focus for the entire 18 holes. You have some wider fairways, and around the greens you have a bunch of options on how to get the ball to the hole, but decisions are mentally taxing. And never-ending. The first hole is a bigger challenge than you may think at first, particularly if you choose to take an aggressive line. The second hole can punch you in the mouth quickly if you miss the green (particularly to the right). The third is a solid par three, the fourth a long and uphill par five. Five played 190 to an elevated, downhill green from the top of a dune that exposed you to the wind. Six has a hidden bunker that it takes knowledge to avoid, and five has a gash bunker crossing the fairway at a very oblique angle. All interesting, all different, and all to be played differently depending on the wind that day. On the sixth, for example, I hit 3W, PW one day from the back (Black) tees, then driver, 7I the next day from two tees forward (the "Sand" tees). On the 7th, I played it Driver, 5I, 5I the first day (Black), and driver, 6I, pitch the second day (Sand). As I'm not going to talk about every hole… I'll stop now. You'll hear a few times that Mammoth is concave and Sand Valley is convex, and that's generally true. Coore & Crenshaw let you make decisions, and if you pull off the shot, you'll be rewarded with better angles, better visibility, or an easier next shot (or putt). None of the putting greens felt unfair, but you could get out of position on them. There were places to miss, but you had to know where they were. Well above the hole was never among them, nor was well below the green staring up at a bunch of fescue grass. You could miss a tee shot, for example, a bit too far right, and still be in the fairway, but you may have a partially blind and/or tougher angle. The 17th has a reputation for being controversial, but I don't really see it. It's a blind, long, uphill par three… which plays down into a giant bowl. Get the ball anywhere in the bowl and you'll have a makable putt. The first time I played it I came up just shy of the green, then putted down into the bowl, used a backstop, and rolled the ball to two feet. The second time my ball stopped six inches from an ace to a completely different hole location. But… miss the bowl and you have to work. The 18th can be a bit gimmicky, what with the big slope and all — but it can also be a really fun way to finish your round. 16 is a bruiser… unless you can thread the needle a bit. Play right of the center bunker and you have a better view, but a longer shot. I hit 3I, Dan hit 8I into that green after similar length tee shots. Sand Valley, in contrast to Mammoth Dunes, offers a bunch of separation. The line between good and bad shots is very narrow, as are the results: good shots are rewarded, bad shots punished, often proportionately. There are options, and the wind plays a good role. The fairways are wide, but the optimal sides and angles are small. And yes, angles matter, because Sand Valley (and Mammoth Dunes), being on sand, will allow you to bounce and/or roll the ball onto greens and around the course. Tee shots will bound a bit, and roll out. Approaches can be played to release, if you like, though the greens will generally hold a well-struck high shot. Options abound… as does punishment for poor execution.
    • Ah, yes, great.  Haven't got to #19 and interpretations in my studies!  Thank you!! Hypothetically, if a player had this situation, and took an unplayable, and then dropped it in the wrong place (i.e. the fairway).  That's DQ yes? I guess it'd have to be, a serious breach, nothing else makes sense. I see it in 14.7b(1).  
    • Day 115 (7/30/21) - 9-hole league tonight. I hit really good drives, but didn't follow-up very well. Generally speaking, my short game was mediocre. Between my tennis elbow acting up and a bad scrape and bruise on my left wrist which I managed to do cleaning the garage today, I've decided to take the week off to heal, so my next entry will be starting over at 1 after league next Friday night.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. CrappyGolfer
      CrappyGolfer
      (68 years old)
    2. Jacob Vance
      Jacob Vance
      (25 years old)
    3. jax731
      jax731
      (54 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...