Chuck my friend, thanks for the addition of information to the disctionary forum. I will follow the suggestion to contact Stancil for any information regarding the actual publishing of the disctionary. cheers
Hey chuck!, I spoke with you a couple of months ago regarding the design of a new course in billings, montana. we now have a bunch of extra land to use and was wondering what you think the priority is regarding a multi course site. one technical, one ridiculously huge?
I'm a strong backer of multiple tees. It doesn't make much sense that we've developed standards for different player skill levels and appropriate tees for them if those groups don't actually play them in competition. I can see the problem in regard to ratings. However, now that we combine scores from multiple rounds on the same layout, if only three players play a set of tees in each of two rounds, there will be six rounds for ratings which exceeds the 5 minimum.
As a case in point at 2007 Pro Worlds for "perception reasons" and simplicity we had the Open Women play the same Final 9 setup that was specifically designed for the Open Men to spread scores. It worked. At least one MPO had a different score than the others in the group on all 9 holes. However, on 5 of the 9 holes, all women had the same score. So, from a competitive standpoint, the Final 9 was weak for Open Women making it hard for the leader to screw up or a rival to catch her.
Chuck, I've dropped out of having anything to do with Texas States this year because of daily conflict with him about nearly everything.
One of our disagreements is about the course design. He is a big proponent of installing multiple tees for use by different divisions. I have argued to no avail that doing so will likely result in the lower divisions not having their rounds rated which seems like a really bad idea for an A-tier event. (We've never used multiple sets of tees previously.) Am I "full of it?"