MM.
Statistics: Posted by Muscat Mike — Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:21 pm
]]>
Absolute genius with a golf club. Hogan said he was the best ball striker he had seen. Once putted into a bunker on the last hole of a tournament when leading by three to see if he could get up and down to win by one!
There's a video around somewhere with him hitting balls, very impressive. Worth watching for the golf nuts.
Cheers
Statistics: Posted by Grant Dodd — Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:33 pm
]]>
]]>
Saw him giving some of the Pro's some tips (Grant Waite (NZ) was one, hanging on every word) on the range at the Canadian Open at Angus Glen a couple of years back. He was the complete excentric almost in a trance like state. He was hitting balls with his driver and they were literally not moving outside a ten yard radius!! They were not going far, maybe 200 yards (180 meters) but dam straight.
Cheers
Elvis
Statistics: Posted by Elvispga — Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:34 pm
]]>
Muscat Mike wrote:
Hogan and Moe Norman are dead GG.
MM.
Ben Hogan is my sporting hero. Tiger's record in the majors (or anywhere else) still doesn't stack up against Hogan's.
Anyway, I thought Moe was famous for length, not direction?
cheers,
Graeme
Statistics: Posted by GraemeG — Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:22 pm
]]>
Hell, what would I know? I play on a course that was built in the 20's and has - mostly - changed very little since 1938! Not a challenge for pros anymore - at least the ones who can hit deadly straight...
cheers,
Graeme[/quote]
Hogan and Moe Norman are dead GG.
MM.
Statistics: Posted by Muscat Mike — Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:52 pm
]]>
Grant Dodd wrote: To my way of thinking, the very best courses( usually built by the greatest designers) rarely rely on artificial trickery to challenge the player, and their beauty and excellence are built on subtlety of design and sleight of hand.
Cheers
Cheers
Oh no! It comes down to terroir again.
But, as in winemaking, the greats like McKenzie and Ross can make even something quite manipulated look perfectly natural. Whereas other courses constructed out of nowhere, so to speak - the Vintage in the Hunter comes to mind - you get the impression that the computer design was imposed onto the landscape...Hell, what would I know? I play on a course that was built in the 20's and has - mostly - changed very little since 1938! Not a challenge for pros anymore - at least the ones who can hit deadly straight...
cheers,
Graeme
Statistics: Posted by GraemeG — Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:13 pm
]]>
Many designers like to have a style that differentiates them from the rest of the pack, almost a signature, if you will. Often the adherence to that style is a limitation in itself, ie; you have to follow the structure that you began with at a particular course, otherwise it begins to look like a dogs breakfast should you have change of heart.
I always try to be objective about these things, but at the same time, I've had the chance to play all over the world at many of the greatest courses, so I've got a pretty good bank of info on which to make comparisons. To my way of thinking, the very best courses( usually built by the greatest designers) rarely rely on artificial trickery to challenge the player, and their beauty and excellence are built on subtlety of design and sleight of hand.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of what they've done, but thats just my opinion. I heard last week that the club is going to tear up some of the new greens and re-do them. That would be a good thing, but a slap in the face for the architects of the design.
Cheers
Statistics: Posted by Grant Dodd — Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:26 am
]]>
Grant Dodd wrote:Steve,
I'm on the judging panel for Golf Digest's Top 100 courses, and whilst I won't speak for any of the other judges, I know there was a general feeling that the changes to the green designs were extravagant and out of character. The course is in great condition, just superb really, but there's no disguising the fact that a number of the new greens, especially 5, 14,15,17 &18, are of particularly poor design and detract from the overall quality.
Cheers
I'm on the judging panel for Golf Digest's Top 100 courses, and whilst I won't speak for any of the other judges, I know there was a general feeling that the changes to the green designs were extravagant and out of character. The course is in great condition, just superb really, but there's no disguising the fact that a number of the new greens, especially 5, 14,15,17 &18, are of particularly poor design and detract from the overall quality.
Cheers
Grant,
I guess we have 'ol one-eyed Jack to thank for this?
MM.
Statistics: Posted by Muscat Mike — Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:25 pm
]]>
I'm on the judging panel for Golf Digest's Top 100 courses, and whilst I won't speak for any of the other judges, I know there was a general feeling that the changes to the green designs were extravagant and out of character. The course is in great condition, just superb really, but there's no disguising the fact that a number of the new greens, especially 5, 14,15,17 &18, are of particularly poor design and detract from the overall quality.
Cheers
Statistics: Posted by Grant Dodd — Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:23 pm
]]>