View Single Post
Old 09-19-2019, 07:24 PM
JTacoma03's Avatar
JTacoma03 JTacoma03 is offline
* Ace Member *
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Baton Rouge, LA and SF, CA
Years Playing: 10.7
Courses Played: 133
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,280
Niced 1,356 Times in 410 Posts

Originally Posted by fish58320 View Post
Of course YOU would turn it down...

Come on the pod soon!

Originally Posted by toddnick View Post
Well, I'm glad that I invited several comments...

And call me wrong for saying it...

But when I spend my money to spectate a tournament, I want a gorgeous (or mainly asthetically pleasing course (not just a spectator friendly or course that just tests skills)...that is my preference...

Vermont has this...Pittsburgh has this...and other places have this...but not USDGC...

Tradition is great and I understand the appeal...but I believe that USDGC isnt really worthy of a major (despite the great tounament logistics and crowd)...i believe that Smuggs would be a better site for a major than USDGC...and I've been to both...forgetting history, does anyone disagree that it is an equal or better test with a much more appealing set of courses?
I have no qualms with it being an aesthetic critique for a spectating experience (see more below).

...but are you honestly advocating that you put aesthetics above an experienced, skilled, and profitable event team that has a full scale distribution center a few miles away to use as home base? If that's your logic then Emporia should have never gotten all of those major bids either.

The USDGC is the only major that has never moved. I'm fine if we disagree on our assessments of the place, but it really seems like the argument you're articulating for it not being a Major is simply because you don't like the course as much. That's a pretty serious case of throwing baby out with the bathwater, not to mention Fox Run Meadows is a contemporary of Winthrop Gold in terms of design elements.

We do agree on FRM 5 course in the world in my book, and that place should host big events every single year.

Originally Posted by Ryan P. View Post
I think there's a distinction to be made within how we compare courses. Specifically, it is not fair to apply the artificial/natural distinction to the hole design/how the hole plays, but it is fair to apply the artificial/natural distinction to the aesthetics of holes.

Artificial vs. natural requirements shouldn't be a factor within the design of the holes. Any island hole, whether it is a natural island or an artificial one, is still an island; the hole plays the same either way.

However, if someone says that there is a difference aesthetically between natural vs. artificial obstacles, that's a fair critique. Some people may not care about this from an aesthetic standpoint, and that's fair too.
I'm 100% with you, and that's a great clarification to make. I have no issue with complaining about the aesthetics of a venue. Many places that we run big events in feel like "compromises" in various ways, so I get it when you compare to some of the courses, sights, vibes that you can go play with your buddies...tour events are more about the golf than the views.

When we're talking about tier status though, even as a media guy, I can't get behind a priority order that risks stability of the pro scene by over-indulging in aesthetics. I mean look at posts in this thread that want to rank and critique media companies (for no real purpose other than to make a list for the hell of it) can't please everybody aesthetically.

Last edited by JTacoma03; 09-19-2019 at 07:28 PM.
Reply With Quote