OSU Scarlet restoration

[TEPaul]

".....unless, and one should never rule out ANY possibility, it was discovered that the site in question was a construction endeavor that would have been considered the Shadow Creek of its day, with no one around to chronicle its fabrication."

Paul:

If that's what Tom MacWood is saying or implying all we're doing is simply trying to get him to admit that or deny it instead of beating around the bush accusing us of bashing Donald Ross or accusing Pat of ranting and raving and knowing more about Seminole's topography than Ross.

If he is saying he thinks the entire site is flat or if he thinks that Ross may've created those two ridgelines why hasn't he or why doesn't he just come out and say so? That would've saved about five pages on this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What's wrong with you man ?

That was MacWood's desperate attempt to speculate on alternatives that would indicate that the land was flat.

He was so UNFAMILIAR with the site that he suggested that Ross built those massively huge ridges running through the property.

Brad Klein is his book, "Discovering Donald Ross"  indicates that the massive ridges predated Ross and that another architect wanted to excavate them at great expense.

All one has to do is look at the topo to see how the elevations extend beyond the property lines at Seminole to know that the predated Ross's arrival on the site.

Tom MacWood didn't perform his self proclaimed due diligence on Seminole, leaving me to supply him with the research data, the terra server topo, so, in an effort to defend his absurd position, the infallibility of Ross's ALLEGED statement that Seminole was FLAT, he created the "construction theory" that Ross might have built those massively huge ridges, the ones that extend far beyond Seminoles property lines.

And, Tom MacWood has never seen Seminole to see how absurd his position is.  He's up in his Ivory Tower in Ohio telling you, who's seen the property 1,000 times, that the golf course is FLAT, then 75 % flat, both of which are totally inaccurate.

Rather than admit he made a mistake, and move on, he continues to support and defend a statement which may be fictional, inaccurate or totally out of context.

With his intellectually dishonest logic he has to do this.
For to admit that Ross's statement is false or fabricated, casts doubt upon Ross's statement regarding Aronomink, because, Ross's alleged statement regarding Aronomink is what MacWood speculates, as proof positive, that Ross and Ross alone changed the configuration of the bunkering at Aronomink.

If he admits that the alleged quote from Ross regarding Seminole is false or fabricated, then he has to admit the same possibility with respect to Ross's alleged quote at Aronomink, and that undermines his speculative theory that he holds out as fact.

There's another issue involved.

Credibility.

Tom MacWood only accepts quotes as authentic if he presents them.  If others present them he questions their authenticity, and that's intellectually dishonest.

When Brad Klein, in his book, "Remembering Donald Ross" references 40 foot elevation differentials, Tom MacWood refutes his claim and states that they are only 25 feet high, based on his interpretation of the terra server topos that my superior research skills produced for him.

When I offer to make a wager on his 25 foot claim he remains silent.

Ross knew the site wasn't flat.
His detailed hole by hole designs show the elevation changes and his notes reference slopes.

Hence the alleged quote by Ross must be called into question with respect to it's accuracy and authenticy.
Tom MacWood can't see the logic in that because of the
"false in one, false in many" theory, and the damage it might do to his arguments relative to Aronomink, where he still doesn't know how the bunker configuration went from Point A to Point B.

[paul cowley]

...jeez guys, I have gone back to my previous post to add the proper emphasis........if Ross built those dunes he did a great job of tieing them in naturaly for about 5 to 10 miles north and south of the site.....carry on.

[wsmorrison]

"If you study Ross's master plan, and compare it to the course as built, you will find bunkers built that were not part of the plan (not a major departure)...difficult to say if it was something Ross altered on the ground or artistic liscence taken by the construction superviser TC Watson."

If you speculate that artistic license could have been taken by a Ross associate in south Florida, why not in eastern Pennsylvania?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE
This is what Pat said, "And, I"ve spent far more time on that land and am far more familiar with it than you and Ross combined."

I'm pretty sure neither Pat or you spent any time at the site PRIOR [/color]to the construction of Seminole.

What a brilliant statement.

What Tom MacWood continues to fail to understand is that one doesn't have to have visited the site prior to construction to be familiar with the topography of the land.

An inordinate number of personal observations combined with the review of topos reveal, as Paul Cowley pointed out, that the massive ridges extent far beyond the property line.

When one combines those FACTS with Brad Klein's comments in "Remembering Donald Ross, only a fool would continue to insist that Ross's alleged quote is accurate.

And, for Tom MacWood to NOW CLAIM that we're taking an EXTREME position in interpreting the quote is proof positive that he can't admit that he's wrong, that he's a fraud when he offers the alleged comment as The Gospel.

If anything, Tom MacWood has taken the extreme position, now claiming that the massive ridges that extend far beyond Seminole's property line were created by Ross, prior to construction on the golf course.  Is that the most absurd proposition that you've ever heard ?

This is an intellectually dishonest and fraudulent theory and as such MacWood's credibility continues to nose dive.

Tom MacWood failed to verify the accuracy of Ross's quote and held it out as irrefutable evidence to support his point, just like he held out Ross's alleged quote regarding Aronomink.  [/color]

If Ross says Seminole is an example of what can be done on flat or level land, I tend to believe him...after all looking at the topo map it appears a large percentage of the site still is relatively flat.

Tom MacWood, for the umpteenth time.
Ross did very little and certainly nothing unique architecturally on that portion of the site that's flat.

So we can better understand your erroneous position, first you said the land was FLAT, then you said the land was
75 % FLAT and now you're saying that a LARGE percentage of the golf course is RELATIVELY FLAT.

Could you quantify which percentage of the golf holes are flat ?

And, could you define what "relatively" means ?

You made a colossal blunder and now youi're trying to weasel, wiggle and worm your way out of it.
Try just saying that you were wrong, and Ross's quote isn't accurate.[/color]

If you wish, you (and Pat) can enterpret Ross's words in the most extreme way...I'm not sure why.

Neither TEPaul or myself are interpreting Ross's alleged quote in a most extreme way, YOU ARE.  TEPaul and myself are taking the quote at face value, word for word.
It's YOU who are SPECULATING as to what he meant..... if he ever uttered those words.[/color]

I tend to believe Ross was speaking of what he did on the flat ground between the two ridge lines, and in some cases perhaps near or adjacent the ridge line...like the 17th green for example,

That's pure speculation on your part.
And, he did nothing of consequence between the two elevated ridges.  If you were familiar with the property you'd know that, but, you aren't, so you continue to stumble along, hoping that one of your many absurd explanations will confirm the ridiculous notion that Seminole is FLAT.   IT"S NOT.[/color]

.... like the 17th green which appears to be created to be an extension of the primary dune.

The 17th green is NOT an extension of the eastern dune, which is not the primary dune..

AT THIS POINT THE ONLY TIME YOU'RE OPENING UP YOUR MOUTH IS TO CHANGE FEET.[/COLOR]

I know you are both long time Seminole golfers, and both are proud of your knowldege of this great course, but I'm not sure your experience and expertise are good reasons to go off the deep end....but whatever floats your boat.

Deep end ?  You must be delusional.
Supporting an alleged statement that Seminole is FLAT is going off the deep end.

TEPaul, I and others are just pointing out the absurdity of your contention that Seminole is FLAT, pre or post construction, and your failure to admit that Ross's alleged statement is false, fabricated or out of context.

If 1,000 golfers played Seminole, not one would say that the golf course is FLAT, as you insisted.  Or that it's 75 % FLAT, as you later insisted.  Now, you claim that a large percentage of it is RELATIVELY FLAT, without quantifying the percentage and without defining the term "relatively".

And still, you don't see the absurdity of your position and can't admit that you were wrong, and that Ross's alleged statement is either inaccurate, false, fabricated, out of context, or, all of the above.

And you call yourself an intellectually honest historical researcher ?[/color]  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"If you study Ross's master plan, and compare it to the course as built, you will find bunkers built that were not part of the plan (not a major departure)...difficult to say if it was something Ross altered on the ground or artistic liscence taken by the construction superviser TC Watson."

If you speculate that artistic license could have been taken by a Ross associate in south Florida, why not in eastern Pennsylvania?[/COLOR]

Wayne,

Because it undermines Tom MacWood's premise and conclusions.

Tom MacWood is consistently inconsistent.

Don't you know that the climate, including the legal climate, in Florida permits the taking of artistic license, but that the taking artistic license in Pennsylvania is prohibited by law ?

This is just what I stated in an earlier post.

Tom MacWood holds out his theories as The Gospel when it suits his position, but, when those same theories contradict his position on another matter, he discounts or dismisses them as speculate or wild theories.

I mentioned that McGovern may have taken artistic license on the bunkers at Aronomink and MacWood called that idea radical, rebelluous, rogue or demented.  But, look how conveniently he offers that notion at Seminole.

He's intellectually dishonest and a fraud.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

I don't know if I'd use the terms you are using, Pat.  But he sure is logically inconsistant and that ain't a good thing for an expert researcher.  It undermines the scientific method.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Macwood an expert researcher?  Is that why he thinks that Pat is Hamilton is LIRR?  Any expert researcher should be able to undergo and thrive under the scruitiny given by Pat and TEPaul.  

I am also a little nervous about any scientific method describing a golf course in Fla from an office in Ohio.

[wsmorrison]

"If you study Ross's master plan, and compare it to the course as built, you will find bunkers built that were not part of the plan (not a major departure)...difficult to say if it was something Ross altered on the ground or artistic liscence taken by the construction superviser TC Watson. "


"I have speculated that Ross allowed his main men (Hatch and McGovern) artistic liscence"

Why then can't the compartmentalization of single bunkers into multiple bunkers in the same location be artistic license that McGovern may have taken with Ross's general consent but not necessarily specific knowledge of?

I'm not saying this happened as there isn't any documentation to describe the departure from Ross's plans.  But it seems that you now are allowing the possiblility where before it did not seem to be the case.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne Morrison,

Now Tom MacWood is using HIS definition of artistic license to the exclusion of all others, to incorrectly quantify artistic license by degrees, as determined by him, as opposed to the definition provided in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

License:

1 a.     Permission to act
1 b.     Freedom of action

2 a.     A permission granted by competent authority to
          engage in a business or occupation or in an activity
          otherwise unlawful
2 b.     A document, plate or tag evidencing a license granted

3 a. Freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility
3 b.     Disregard for rules of personal conduct

4  
           Deviation from fact, form or rule by an artist or
           writer for the sake of effect gained.[/color]    

All of a sudden Tom MacWood proclaims that artistic license is restricted to finite limits.  Limits that he determines on work done on two golf courses circa 1929.  And, you'll notice, that his definition suits his position, whereas, the definition cited in the dictionary suits yours, mine, TEPaul's and everyone else's.

If that's not being intellectually dishonest, I don't know what is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne

Artistic liscence is not a methodical alteration of an entire 18.

Artistic lisence is changing the appearance of a bunker or a mound or adding a bunker or a mound beyond the plan.

Tom MacWood,

Here you are lecturing Wayne Morrison as to YOUR definition, and the meaning of the phrase "artistic license".

And when I provide the ACTUAL definition from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, you take issue with it and claim I'm parsing words.  

That's intellectually dishonest and one of the reasons I call you a fraud.

You chose a definition, an INCORRECT definition, to suit your position.  This is typical of your methods.

The FACTS are that your definition is WRONG, like almost everything else you've stated in this thread.

You know that taking "artistic license' isn't confined to a limit, or a degree as you fraudulently tried to insist, so why do you object to my correcting you with the FACTS as evidenced through Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary ?

You've been deceitful in this thread and continue with that practice in a desperate attempt to avoid having to state that you were wrong in supporting the alleged statement that Seminole is FLAT, and that Ross's alleged quote may be false, fabricated or taken out of context, which casts doubt upon his alleged quote regarding Aronomink, which in turn, undermines your position there as well. [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I'm not arguing the meaning of the phrase "artistic license", I'm merely correcting your erroneous interpretation and representation of the phrase to accurately reflect the definition as provided in the dictionary, and not the definition constructed by you for the express purpose of supporting your flawed conclusions.

My position is intellectually honest, yours isn't.

Please show me where Ross didn't say that the site was entirely FLAT.

When an alleged quote states that the land is FLAT
I interpret that to mean that the land is FLAT.

You obviously interpreted the alleged quote that Seminole is FLAT to mean 100 % FLAT, then you revised it to mean 75 % FLAT, then you revised it to mean the majority is relatively FLAT.

You made a colossal blunder because you failed to do your due diligence.  The historical research that you proclaim yourself an expert at.

Now, you speculate that the alleged quote was an innocent comment about steamshovels and the like.  Well, perhaps his alleged comment about Aronomink was an innocent comment about the general outcome of the golf course, having nothing to do with the bunkers.

You can't have it both ways.

"Artistic License' can't be taken in Florida to the exclusion of "Artistic License" being taken in Pennsylvania, and, interpreting an alleged quote about Seminole as an innocent comment can't be taken in the context of excluding his alleged quote about Aronomink as another innocent comment.

You can't have it both ways.  
Any attempt to do so reveals you as a fraud, not a legitimate historical researcher who can be objective.

You tend to draw your conclusions first and then undertake selective research to prove your point, dismissing, overlooking and hiding pertinent research that would undermine your predetermined conclusion.

That's not the method of a legitimate researcher.

What is truely mind boggling about your responses is that you can't see and comprehend the failings of your convoluted logic and your resultant flawed conclusions.  

And, that's truely sad.

[TEPaul]

A question to Tom MacWood from July 23;

"Are you questioning if the eastern and western ridgelines were there before Ross worked on that course? Are you suggesting you think it may be possible that Ross actually created those two significant elevation change ridgelines?

Tom:

Can you answer those questions?

[TEPaul]

"I'll save you time...yes they were obviously there prior to the course being built..."

Tom MacW:

Thank you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I've studied the topo map...

..... in fact 75% of the site is realtively flat. [/color]

Here's your direct quote, one of the many you seem to have forgotten.

Another example of where you attempt to weasel out of your own statements, changing your position as the mounting evidence reveals it as wrong.

Instead of claiming the land was 100 % FLAT you switched it to claiming that the land is 75 % flat.

You would subsequently, again, change your position to state that the majority of the site is relatively FLAT.

Now do you recall what you typed, or did I post your quote under your name ?[/color]

What were Ross's instructions for the material excavated from the lakes ?

This is your attempt, along with your references in posts #'s
203 and 247 relating to pre-construction photos, to insert YOUR absurd theory that Ross created these massively huge ridges running through the property, further evidence of your failure to admit you're wrong about your assertion and support of the claim that Seminole is FLAT,

And that everything Ross is alleged to have said is correct
........ if it supports your position.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

PM: Please show me where Ross didn't say that the site was entirely FLAT.

"In these days of steam shovels and modern improvements, it is possible to do wonderful things on FLAT, LEVEL COUNTRY[/color]. I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to lay out a course on LEVEL LAND.
The SEMINOLE course near Palm Beach IS AN EXAMPLE of what can be done with this TYPE of terrain.[/COLOR]
I don't say it is the best I have ever designed. Nevertheless, I like it very much."

TM: I don't read anything about the entire site being flat....do you?

Only a moron, or someone trying to protect their failure to research and their ignorance of the facts could interpret that quote as you have.  You continue to try to weasel your way out of your colossal blunder, but, you can't.[/color]

The only specific mention of Seminole is "The Seminole course near Palm Beach is an example of what can be done with this type [flat level] of terrain".

Correct if I'm wrong, the country between the two ridges is relatively flat or level. His seems to be a reasonable comment to me, but then again you probably ought to parse the meaning of every word.

How convenient of you to now acknowledge the two massive ridges that comprise most of the golf holes on the golf course, and then dismiss them as if they weren't part of the golf course, so that you could focus on the part of the land that is flat.  That's not parsing, that's weaseling, intellectually dishonest and fraudulent.

The ridges, the two primary components of the golf course aren't FLAT, nor is the golf course 75 % FLAT as YOU subsequently claimed when your support of the 100 % FLAT theory was blown out of the water.[/color]

PM: You obviously interpreted the alleged quote that Seminole is FLAT to mean 100 % FLAT, then you revised it to mean 75 % FLAT, then you revised it to mean the majority is relatively FLAT.

TM: Oh yes...that is obviously how I interpreted his comments (where did you read that...you are a creative reader no doubt). Do you ever tire of pulling these morcels out of your rear?

Just look at the quote you made which I just posted above this reply.  You made that comment and again, you're trying to weasel out of your own words by denying you ever said them.   You're intellectually dishonest and a fraud.[/color]

PM: Now, you speculate that the alleged quote was an innocent comment about steamshovels and the like.  Well, perhaps his alleged comment about Aronomink was an innocent comment about the general outcome of the golf course, having nothing to do with the bunkers.

TM: Yes. Most likely they were both innocent comments.
Now, you're changing your position again and finally agreeing with me.  You're making progress.[/color]

You have tendency to read some far-fetched hidden meaning into his words regarding two of his most famous (and proud) designs.

Hey, I'm not the one placing some far-fetched hidden meaning into his words,  when Ross allegedly stated that Seminole was FLAT, I interpreted FLAT TO MEAN FLAT.  
You were the one who stated that he didn't mean FLAT, that he meant something else.

First Ross's quote regarding Aronomink was put forth as The Gospel by you.  But now, you seem to agree that it may not have ever been made, altered out of context or just an innocent remark.  Again, you seem to be making progress.[/color]

Your strained reading: At Aronimink Ross was shocked and surprised by a golf course design he had no knowledge of.
I NEVER said that, that's a fabrication and flawed conclusion on your part[/color]

At Seminole you read Ross saying a site he was obviously intimately familar with being totally flat or level.
I never said that either.
Why do you find the need to lie ?  
To dishonestly portray someones viewpoint to conveniently suit your extreme and absurd positions ?

If you have any degree of honest reading comprehension skills, you would know that I questioned the accuracy of Ross's alleged quote from the get go, trying to point out to you that not everything you read is authentic.

That comments can be false, fabricated or taken out of context.  There is no way Ross could have characterized Seminole as FLAT, and thus his alleged statement must be viewed with enlightened suspicion, as must his quote regarding Aronomink.  The quote that's the linch pin to your agrument.[/color]

You would have to believe Ross was a clueless idiot to buy your extreme readings.

No, you're the clueless idiot who accepted the quote as The Gospel,  without doing your research.[/color]

Have you found where I said Seminole is FLAT yet? I'll take your inability to answer this straightforward question for the sixth or seventh time as a 'no'. Now that we have gotten that out-of-the-way, carry on with your Ross bashing.
Your blind support of Ross's alleged quote that Seminole is FLAT is sufficient evidence for me.
Then, when you changed your position and stated that Seminole is 75 % flat and that Ross probably or possibly constructed the massive ridges from excavations from the lakes was further evidence that you just didn't know what you were talking about and that you failed to do your homework.

Anyone who reads this thread, with the possible exception of yourself, knows that you supported Ross's statement, as The Gospel, and subsequently tried to weasel your way out of a factually wrong position.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE
The fact that you are supporting Pat's position that I said Seminole is FLAT tells me you haven't been following this thread too closely...which I don't blame you for.

I understand this thread is real long and you haven't read half of it (I haven't either), but the Seminole portion of the thread isn't nearly as long,

go back and read what I have written on the Seminole ridgelines and the anatomy of dune evolution.

YOU'RE A FRAUD.

You didn't know the first thing about the topography of Seminole until I supplied you with the terra server topo, which came deep into the debate regarding Seminole, long after you supported Ross's alleged quote as The Gospel.

You're a fraud who can't admit when he's made a mistake.
[/color]
I've answered your question numerous times.

I'll save you time...yes they were obviously there prior to the course being built...why?

Because you tried to maintain that Ross built them with the material excavated for the lakes.  Reread posts # 203 and
# 247 along with the post I previously quoted where you tried to link the excavated material with the elevation changes.

Rather than admit that you were wrong, you tried to weasel your way out of your absurd positions which you kept on re-inventing in a desperate attempt to avoid the truth, which was that you were wrong, oh excellent historical researcher.[/color]

[TEPaul]

 Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #317 on: July 22, 2005, 08:54:35 am »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 14 6:52pm Tom MacWood said;

“Pat
While you focus on what we don't know and your wacky theories and conjecture...let me list the facts, what we do know. Feel free to add any facts I leave out:

4. The golf course as built would often depart from the formal plan (see Seminole)”

Tom:

Would you explain what you mean by Seminole "as built" departing from the formal plan?

As far as I can see comparing Ross's Seminole plan to the course as built the only real differences appear to be on the 15th hole instead of mounds dividing the two fairways, bunkers were built in place of the mounds on the plan and it appears they forewent the diagonal cross bunkers on the beginning of the 16th fairway. Other than that the course "as built" appears to just about exactly match Ross's plans. It's nearly impossible to see but it may be that the very cool semi-circular melded tee for #1 and #10 was never built. I do know it was never there as long as I've know the golf course (about forty years.

Tom MacWood:

Again, what is it that you think departs at Semimole "as built" from the formal plan? Do you think it's something about the bunkering "as built" compared to the formal plan?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I'll summarize your colossal blunder in simple terms that you can understand.

I made a comment to Mike Cirba regarding the bunkers at Seminole.  That Ross built them as he found them, and that both types existed at Seminole.

You attempted to prove me wrong by citing Ross's alleged quote stating that the golf course was FLAT, thus both types couldn't be found.

I refuted that alleged quote and your blind support of it.

You continued to support the alleged quote that Seminole was FLAT until I supplied you with a topo clearly evidencing that Seminole was far from flat.

Then you changed your position to declare that Seminole was
75 % flat and that Ross  probably created the elevations, the massive ridges, with the material excavated from the lakes.

Then you changed your position to state that the majority of the site was relatively FLAT.

You also stated that the two massively huge ridges intersected each other, another totally false statement.

Then I pointed out that Ross's statement was either false, fabricated or taken out of context, just like Ross's statement regarding Aronomink.  And, as such, your conclusions relative to Aronomink, based on an equally questionable quote, had to be viewed with enlightened suspicion.

Then you declared that Seminole was built differently from Ross's detailed hole by hole designs.  Another absurd statement.  You stated that the foreman in charge took artistic license.  But, when Wayne Morrison stated that the same could be said of Aronomink, you denied it by trying to redefine the phrase "artistic license".

In every step of the way you've been dead wrong about Seminole, yet you continue to defend every one of your absurd statements relative to the golf course.'

The golf course is FLAT
The golf course is 75 % FLAT
The majority of the golf course is relatively FLAT
Ross built the elevations, the ridges.
Ross used the excavated material from the lakes to build the dunes
The high point on the property is 25 feet
The maximum elevation differential is 10-15 feet
The two massive ridges intersect on the site.
Ross performed massive earth moving in the FLAT section
Ross's foreman took artistic license at Seminole
Ross's foreman didn't take artistic license at Aronomink.
The as built at Seminole differs from Ross's detailed plans

Here's what you finally admited.

The massive ridges existed before Ross was on site.

ERGO, the land wasn't FLAT as you cited in Ross's alleged quote.

In summary, you made a colossal blunder.

And, you didn't have the strength of character to admit that you made a mistake.

Trying instead to desperately BS your way through the issues.

You failed, and you're a fraud.

And, I"m not angry in the least.
I'm disappointed that you were intellectually dishonest, couldn't admit that you made a mistake, and, made a fool out of yourself and your self proclaimed research expertise.

And the amazing thing about the discussion and your claims is that you've NEVER seen Seminole.

You're conclusions and your credibility have been exposed for what they are, flawed at best.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're wasting your time.

Tom MacWood is going to tell you that a blade of grass was out of place or that a bunker was an inch off the setback.

And, he'll base this on a single aerial from one angle, at one time of day, versus the detailed hole by hole designs.

Here's a guy maintaining that Ross's alleged quote was infallible until I supplied him the topos and he found out for himself that his absurd positions were wrong, yet he couldn't admit it, or that he failed to perform his due diligence BEFORE making his pronouncements.

He can't admit he made mistakes regarding Seminole, knowing that he made many, and that's just one of the reasons why he's intellectually dishonest and a fraud.

But, go ahead, let him offer you his expert opinion, the one that claimed that Seminole was FLAT, then 75 % FLAT and that Ross created those massive ridges with the material he excavated from the lakes.

He's the only one who insists that he didn't support Ross's alleged quote as being totally accurate.  He's a fraud.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Most of the differences are a minor departure...single bunkers instead of multiple bunkers or mulitple bunkers instead of single bunkers."

Tom:

That's certainly true. Other than the removal of the bunker scheme on #16 the plan and the course essentially match.

One thing that does not appear on Ross's plan is the fairly unique irrigation and drainage system of small creeks and drainage ditches on the course. It does appear on #14 but does not appear left of #2 or across and to the right of #9 which could be a reason #9's fairway was swung right somewhat from the plan.  

The explanation in Brad Klein's book of how Ross solved a potential water problem in the low level midsection of the property and how that related to Little Lake Worth to the south of the course seems to be a very good one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Water management in South Florida is a critical issue.

I'm not so sure that Ross devised the method outlined in Brad's book as that method has been widely used throughout South Florida through a vast network of canals, intake and out-fall pumps, and possibly other devices.

I believe that two local government agencies are specifically charged with water management in that area, the Lake Worth Water Management agency and the South Florida Water
Management Agency.

The area adjacent to and north of the 9th fairway was always a problem area until it was recently addressed.   I believe it's now used as an alternate practice area.

If you recall the pictures showing the effects of the heavy rains from the storms, it was mostly under water.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"If you recall the pictures showing the effects of the heavy rains from the storms, it was mostly under water."

Pat
I'm a little surprised such a hilly course was mostly underwater...my guess is about 75% was underwater.


I'm not surprised at your continuing pattern of intellectual dishonesty, you conveniently omitted the previous two sentences which referenced the area in question.  Let me cite them for you.

"The area adjacent to and north of the 9th fairway was always a problem area until it was recently addressed.
I believe it is now used as an alternative practice area."

If you ever saw Seminole, which you haven't, you would know what I was talking about.

It's amazing how you can be so wrong, so many times, and yet try to redouble your efforts in an attempt to validate the colossal blunder you made.

The golf course isn't FLAT as you maintained Tommy Boy.

You may recall that you cited Ross's allege quote to refute my statement on the bunkering at Seminole, then, when I countered and stated that Seminole wasn't FLAT, you countered by implying that Ross knew more about Seminole than I did, but, you were wrong on that count as well.

Seminole's golf course isn't FLAT and Seminole's golf course isn't 75 % FLAT as you insisted and continue to insist.
But, in reality, you wouldn't know that because you've never seen it.  I had forgotten for a second that you are the world's self proclaimed expert on golf courses that you've never seen.

Tell us again, about your contention that Ross created those two massive ridges that run through the golf course from the material he excavated from the lakes.  And then reconcile that contention with your subsequent admission that the massive ridges existed before Ross set foot on the property.

You're a fraud.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

"Here is the complete quote (July 18, reply 250)…I’m surprised you did not copy the complete quote in order to take it in full context.

“I've studied the topo map...like all built up sand bars [barrier islands] up and down the eastern seaboard, you will find a primary dune and a secondary dune...those are the ridges you are referring to."

Tom MacWood:

Out of context?? I doubt that.

You've studied the topo map??? Well whoop-dee-doo----so what?? While the geomorphology of the eastern and western ridgelines at Seminole may be interesting the discussion of how they came to be that way would probably only be interesting on a geomorphology website, not necessarily a golf course architecture website. The point is they're natural and not made by Ross or his architecture at Seminole.

The point is only that those ridgelines and their elevations were there a long long time BEFORE Donald Ross got to Seminole. That's pretty obvious to anyone who spends ten minutes at Seminole looking at the site of Seminole.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Who said the two ridges were created by Ross?"

Tom MacW:

I don't know. I don't know that you did say that and that's why I asked you if you said that. I'm not sure I saw that you said you did not think that. What I did see you say is that you studied the topo and determined that those ridgelines were some geomorphological occurence common to the coast of Florida. That's very true in some areas of the East Coast of Florida but it probably would've been a lot easier and more to the point if you just said you did not think Ross created those ridgelines.

"Hopefully you haven't been accepting Pat's disinformation campaign."

Tom:

I say what I think and obviously Pat says what he thinks. The point on this thread about what's natural topography and what isn't at Seminole is it's just patently obvious to anyone whose seen that golf course and who knows it well what the natural topographical situation is there on that site. It can get sort of frustrating when someone who's never been there starts telling those who've been there and know it so well what the situation is there, or to keep questioning what those who know it keep telling you.

I'm not sure that you ever actually did that though. What most of those ten or so pages of arguments are over the issue of the topography of Seminole are probably just bickering over semantics. That seems to be far too common on this website.

The best way to avoid all that, in my opinion, is when someone asks you something just say yes or no and give your reasons why you say yes or no instead of always answering someone's questions with only other questions.  

The reason all this discussion and arguing gets so drawn out, in my opinion, is because most of the time people aren't that interested in what someone else says informationally, they're more interested in proving the other wrong somehow---or appearing to do that, or appearing to prove themselves right at all costs even if they logically know they aren't right informationally or factually.