OSU Scarlet restoration

[TEPaul]

But the point of all this Seminole flat or not flat issue is Pat and I know precisely what is flat and what isn't flat and we also pretty much know what was flat before Ross got there and what wasn't. Anyone who sees Seminole can pretty much see that. It's just that obvious in the case of that golf course. To tell either of us otherwise, if that is or was in fact what you were doing is basically a waste of time and space on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE
Who said the two ridges were created by Ross?
YOU DID[/color]

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

Pat
“First you said that Seminole was FLAT.
Then you said that 75 % of the golf course was FLAT.”

Where did I say Seminole is FLAT...have you been able to find it yet.

Yes, I have.
Your continued insistance that Ross was correct in saying it was FLAT and that I was wrong in disagreeing with that position.[/color]





It appears more than the area near the 9th was affected.
Those photos depict the lowest points of the golf course.

But, I'm puzzled.  What are those green objects ?

If the golf course was FLAT, especially at its lowest point, why wouldn't everything be under water, like your theories.

Could you also point out if the location of the area adjacent to the 9th fairway is evidenced in the above photos you posted, and could you do it instantaneously to show us that you know what you're looking at and what you're talking about ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You have to understand that every time you or I ask Tom MacWood a question, he scurries to try to find the answer, because he doesn't know the answer at the time the question is asked, because he's totally unfamiliar with the golf course at Seminole.

Secondly, it's a flaw in his character, he can't admit when he's made a mistake, thus he tries to mount a paper tiger argument to support his flawed position and/or conclusions.

For him to support Ross's alleged quote that Seminole is FLAT is absurd.  As you said, anyone who's ever played the golf course knows how ridiculous that comment is.

And, for MacWood to put forth the theory that Ross created those massive ridges from the material he excavated from the lakes, was his desperate attempt at having to avoid the FACT that he was DEAD WRONG regarding Seminole.

He knows nothing about Seminole.
He knew even less when he quoted Ross.
The topo he studied was the one my superior research skills provided for him, subsequent to his allegations and implications.

During Coleman's when the greens at Seminole were stimping near 12 and good golfers were putting off of the greens, 30 yards down the slopes into the fairways, I don't think they thought that the golf course was FLAT.

Anyone who's been to Seminole can also tell you that Ross did next to nothing with the modern earth moving equipment, MacWood references, at Seminole, another notion MacWood erroneously clings to regarding the hole designs in the flat portion of the golf course.

He can't admit he was wrong and that he made a colossal blunder about Seminole.

He also can't admit that Ross's alleged quote, to which he clings to as infallible, might be false, fabricated or taken totally out of context, because that would mean that Ross's alleged quote regarding Aronomink might fall into the same category, further damaging and destroying his argument about Ross's direct involvement with the alteration of the bunkers at Aronomink.

And, he can't admit that Watson might have exercized "artistic license" but that McGovern couldn't, because that too, totally undermines and destroys his theories relating to Ross's direct involvement with the bunkering at Aronomink.

You have to understand that MacWood has far more to lose in this debate over Seminole than anyone.  For if he's recognized as being incorrect about Seminole, certainly his theories regarding Aronomink must be cast into doubt.

Hence he tries to convince you, me and others, that he's right about Seminole and that Ross's quote is accurate, beyond question and infallible, all of which aren't true.

What I've found most disturbing is his intellectual dishonesty.
Credible historic researchers are objective, he's incapable of being objective when his theories, ego and reputation are involved.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I agree with you regarding Ross's mental state.

Therefore, it's likely that Ross's alleged quote is false, fabricated, inaccurate, taken entirely out of context or a combination of the above.

This is why I admonished you not to accept alleged quotes and third party references as The Gospel.  Doing so can lead us to flawed conclusions, and that's not in anyone's best interest.  We should do our best to verify and confirm the facts, first, and conclude, subsequently.

[TEPaul]

"You have to understand that MacWood has far more to lose in this debate over Seminole than anyone.  For if he's recognized as being incorrect about Seminole, certainly his theories regarding Aronomink must be cast into doubt."

Pat:

Tom MacWood's "theories" about Aronimink, which is basically that he thinks the recent bunker project is a MISTAKE, is fine by me. Most of the reason I say that is he seems to be just about the only one who thinks that. And obviously for anyone who knows the course or is involved with it to understand he's never even seen it does lend a certain amount of incredulity to this situation and his opinion. John Goesslin said he thinks it would've been neat if they restored those multi-sets but he also said he sure doesn't feel what they did is a mistake. Mike Cirba apparently doesn't either. But even if all three thought it was a terrible mistake, which they don't, it really doesn't matter that much. All those who know the course and use it feel what was done was a success but maybe Tom MacWood thinks everyone else is some kind of architectural idiot. Feeling the bunkers that were done in the recent restoration were a success seems to be logical to me as what they did were Ross's own drawings. If someone feels creating Ross's Aronimink bunkers at Aronimink was a terrible mistake I'd have to wonder exactly what that person thinks of Donald Ross himself.  

[TEPaul]

"I then simply posted the quote from Ross in which he expressed his afinity for heavy equipment (Seminole being an example what could be done)."

Tom MacWood:

This is definitely something I do not know about Seminole but it could be part of the reason Ross may've mentioned the use of heavy equipment there.

We can ask Brad Klein what the meaning of his reference to Seminole really meant in his book and where he got the information but it seems that he was implying Ross may've used fill to raise the entire midsection (flat section) of Seminole which obviously was flat and basically still is---sans things like greens and some bunker surrounds. Why would Ross have possibly done that as Klein seems to imply? Simply because that flat area was only around two feet above sea level. He may've raised all that flat area a few feet more above sea level for obvious reasons even if the additional height was also flat.

God knows Gulf Stream G.C. probably wishes he'd done the same thing on holes that are along the inland waterway. Basically they're just too low and flood too often and remain softer for a longer time than the rest because of that.

BTW, at Indian Creek (a man-made island) Flynn came in there later and raised the entire golf course a minimum of two feet and a maximum of 35 feet. Why did he raise it a minimum of two feet? Probably for the same reason it would appear Ross may've done the same thing on the flat section of Seminole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The cost to elevate a golf course by two feet is tremendous.
In addition, where would the prefered soil or sand come from ?

Courses that excavated muck and marl to create fairways had ongoing problems with drainage and have undertaken removing that material, selectively, or globally, while others have attempted capping.  It remains a dilema for some clubs.

I believe some clubs in Florida have areas that are at or below the water table and/or sea level.  I'll look into it for you.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The cost to elevate a golf course by two feet is tremendous.
In addition, where would the prefered soil or sand come from?"

Well Pat, next time I see Howard Toomey or William Flynn I'll ask them where they got the fill to raise the entire course of Indian Creek a minimum of two feet and a maximum of about 35 feet.

Tremendously expensive? Perhaps it was but I have a feeling those who started Seminole were probably in the same financial league as those who started Indian Creek.

What I do think I know though is there was never a group of founding members anywhere who were in the same financial league as those who started The Creek Club. They ended up spending some serious money too to fix a hydrology mistake. They didn't like that at all and it created some pretty bitter feelings. Or maybe it was just C.B. who was bitter----again!  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding our post #390 be careful---you seem to be getting in over your head. If you start sinking and start thrashing around like you aren't I just may have to call you a fraud on here!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Therefore, it's likely that Ross's alleged quote is false, fabricated, inaccurate, taken entirely out of context or a combination of the above."

Pat
That's your opinion (interesting conjecture), which you are entitled to, but as far as I know yours is still an unsupportable opinion...not a fact.

Of course my opinion is supportable.  In FACT, it's irrefutable.

Seminole is not FLAT.

Topos, photos and personal exposure prove it's not FLAT,
Therefore, Ross's quote and your support of its accuracy are false.  That we know.  Whether it's fabricated or taken out of context, or both are open to discussion, but, my opinion on it not being accurate, it being false, is irrefutable.[/color]  

Do you think Ron Whitten fabricated the quote?
It's possible.
Any view you have on Whitten's receipt of the alleged quote is purely speculation on your part.[/color]

Ron Whitten is a respected historian and IMO he did not fabricate the quote or take the quote out of context or publish it inaccurately.

Of Course he did.
Seminole is NOT FLAT.
The alleged quote is inaccurate.  That's a FACT.
Whether he took it out of context, received tainted information or took artistic license is speculative at this point.

But, the one thing we do know is that the quote is inaccurate, totally false, and that's not open to debate.

Two people; two different opinions. You should stick to expressing your opinion and disagreeing, but stay away from admonishing those who have a different opinion.
That's where you're WRONG again.

Seminole is not FLAT.

I don't care if Whitten or anybody else made that claim, it's false, totally inaccurate.

So when someone offers their opinion, and the FACTS prove otherwise, and I support the position borne by the FACTS, my opinion is valid, the others invalid.

Unless of course, the FACTS are immaterial to you.

You did claim that you were a historical researcher didn't you ?
Hence, I would imagine that you're interested in the facts, not fantasy, heresay or lore.

Repeat after me.

Seminole is not FLAT, and anyone insisting it is, is WRONG

"This is definitely something I do not know about Seminole but it could be part of the reason Ross may've mentioned the use of heavy equipment there."

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

As far as Brad Klein or anyone else following this particular thread that's basically unimportant. It's about as unimportant as that on-going Aronimnk bunker project thread since only one person has been known to make any issue at all over that. What did or didn't not happen at Seminole is what's important, not this endless thread of mincing words over basically semantics.

Unless Ross did raise the level of that flat area in the middle of the course a couple of feet for drainage or flooding prevention reasons the amount of earth moved on that golf course was not that much compared to something like it's contemporary---eg Flynn's Indian Creek. Unless he raised that area up a couple of feet which would've been a pretty significant undertaking anyone can tell that the earth-moving to create the architecture of the course just wasn't all that much.

Of course if he'd actually created those two ridgelines that would've been an undertaking somewhat along the lines of the earth moving of about ten Lidos.

Go down there someday and you'll see how obvious the things we've been telling you really are.  

I never was a big supporter of Pat and others idea that one really needed to play a course or even in all wind and weather conditions or whatever to remark intelligently on the basics of it but I sure am a supporter of his contention that if anyone is going to say some of the things you have been about a couple of golf courses it really is pretty essential that you at least go and see them first.

Anything less than that if someone tries to get into the detials of a course the way you do will always stretch credulity to the limit, and rightly so.

[TEPaul]

"Do you think Ron Whitten fabricated the quote? Ron Whitten is a respected historian and IMO he did not fabricate the quote or take the quote out of context or publish it inaccurately."

A lot of people seem to have a lot of respect for Ron Whitten and I wouldn't disagree with that.

On "Golf Has Never Failed Me" I do have some issues, though. One might be led to believe the entire book is Ross's and it's anything but. Despite that or because of it I do have an issue with the book the way Whitten wrote it figuring out which words are Ross's and which are Whitten's. In the interest of simple reader clarity and historical accuracy I think Ron Whitten should've made that a whole lot more clear than he did.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I got to tell you pal that your incessant mention of who's a respected historian is basically your opinion not necessarily others and not because they don't know the details or the facts about something. Basically there seems to be a fair number of people on here and elsewhere who just don't look at the same set of facts or the same allotment of information the same way you seem to.

There seem to be so many things over the years with you on here that're probably of so much less importance than you seem to want to make them. Unfortunately you do get some assist from people like me and Pat who probably just ought to say we think some of the things you come up with are molehills made into mountains and just leave it at that.

I often think if some of these old architects you defend so dedicately could see the things you say about them and what they did and thought they'd probably just fall out laughing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
It is a fact that the quote was fabricated?

The quote is grossly inaccurate, false.
And all that really matters is that the FACTS contradict the quote.

Obviously it's either fabricated or taken out of context, and it doesn't matter which.

First you blindly clung to the quote as the Gospel,
Now you admit that it's incorrect, and are desperately trying to salvage some form of credibility by trying to determine if the alleged quote was fabricated or taken out of context.
But, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that the quote you hung your hat on was FALSE.[/color]

TE
Its common knowledge Whitten edited the manuscript...he certainly never hid that fact. It is my understanding most books are edited by someone other than the author. Whitten came on here and spoke about it. I don't recall you objecting at the time.

It doesn't matter who edited the books, they blew it as well.
The alleged quote is incorrect, false.

Just because two people were unfamiliar with the facts, three if you include yourself, shows you that you can't believe everything your read as being correct, infallible or even factual.[/color]

Any idea when Ross wrote the manuscript?

You're still making the assumption that he uttered those words, words contrary to the physical facts.p/b]

Many times these molehills are made into mountains by Pat and yourself. The never ending Aronimink issue is one example.

Pat's blow-up over a relatively benign quote by Ross is another.

Now you label it as a benign quote, still refusing to admit that it's highly unlikely that he ever uttered those words.

Yet, you chose to clling to another alleged Ross quote, which I challenged as well, that you offered as proof positive that Ross redesigned and supervised the construction of the bunkers at Aronomink.

You now dismiss his alleged quote as benign regarding Seminole and have also conceded that his quote regarding Aronomink was benign as well, undermining the linch pin of your argument regading the transition of the bunkers at Aronomink from Point A to Point B.

My admonition to you was to NOT believe everything you read, and to certainly not convey infallibility upon alleged quotes or third party references, and that before drawing conclusions, especially the flawed ones that you draw, as a self proclaimed historical researcher you have an obligation to investigate the comments to determine if they are factual, something you failed to do at Seminole and something I suspect you failed to do at Aronomink.

You're also quick to accept your theories or interpretation of perceived circumstances in a light that shines favorably upon you, but reflects poorly upon others.

Your comment that Watson took artistic license at Seminole but that McGovern didn't do so at Aronomink is a perfect example.

You don't know for a FACT what happened at either Seminole or Aronomink, yet you declare one way for Seminole and the exact opposite for Aronomink, solely on the basis that to do so only favors YOUR argument, and that's where you're intellectually dishonest, and a fraud.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Macwood,

That's not my opionion, it's a FACT.
The alleged quote is totally inaccurate.  That's a FACT
It's not true.  It's false.  That's a FACT


Hence, if it's not factual, it's either fabricated or taken out of context.

What other way would you describe or categorize the alleged quote ?  Fiction ?  Fantasy ?  Or, better yet, wishful thinking on your part.

You continue to cling to the quote, protecting it as if it had merit when it has none.   Seminole is NOT FLAT.
The alleged quote is false.

Only someone trying to perpetuate a fraud would continue to support it's authenticity and accuracy.

Come to grips with that and..... get over it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I have, but you refuse to believe it, just like you refused to believe that Seminole WASN"T FLAT.

If the statement is FACTUALLY incorrect, FALSE.
Logically, like night follows day, it has to be either FABRICATED or taken out of context.

There is no other alternative.

I've asked you to posit an alternative, but, you remain silent, indicating that you can't come up with any alternative viable explanations.

If I prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4, I don't have to disprove that
2 plus 2 equals 5, it's inherent in the facts and logic.

Come to grips with it. ........ get over it,  and,
admit that you were wrong and just didn't know what you were talking about.

[TEPaul]

"I can piss 2 feet 9 inches on a level ground........
Why is this thread still alive?"

redanman;

Because of posts like that.  

[TEPaul]

"The problem you have is your illogical reading of the quote has taken it completely out of context...which you have a tendancy to do that when you are entrenched in a awkward position...the wrong position."

Tom MacWood:

Really, why does this discussion of whether or not Seminole's site is now or was flat have to go on this long? Do you and Pat (and perhaps me) really disagree on what that site is now or looked like before Ross worked on it?

Ross's quote simply mentions working on level country. The mid-section of Seminole is 'level country' and it undeniably was that before Ross got there. The east and west sides of Seminole are not 'level county' and it obviously was not 'level country' before Ross got there.

Do you disagree with any of that? If you do, I'm afraid you just are wrong about what Seminole was and is and what Donald Ross meant to say about working on 'level country' there. There's no question in my mind at all that anyone who saw Seminole and its site, whether Donald Ross, Pat, me or even you would come to the same definite conclusion about that.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I have no idea if you ever said or implied on here that Seminole's site is or was entirely flat (and I'm most definitely not interested in going back through this thread and checking what it is you did say or implied about that). Obviously Pat thinks you did say or imply it was entirely flat. (Otherwise why did you intimate that Pat must know more about that site than Ross did? Again, for anyone who's seen Seminole, whether it be Ross, Pat, me or even you, it's patently obvious looking at it that all would come to the same consclusion).

What is obvious, though, is Ross's quote did not say it was entirely flat and it's completely obvious it's not entirely flat now nor was it before Ross got there.

What the hell else is there to discuss about this now?

[HamiltonBHearst]

TEPaul says

"again, for anyone who's seen Seminole, whether it be Ross, Pat, me or even you"

That's the problem. Macwood/Dugger has never seen Seminole and he was trying to distort one comment he found from Ross.  It was a good thing Mr. Mucci found this deception.

I am sure Seminole looks a lot different from Ohio than it does in person.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Obviously it's either fabricated or taken out of context, and it doesn't matter which."

Pat
If you can not document or prove that the quote was fabricated or taken out of context...which you haven't done (stating the course is not FLAT is not proving Ross's quote was fabricated)...yours is nothing more than personal opinion.
Let me see if I understand this.

You insist that Ross himself altered the designs of the bunkers at Aronomink, yet you have no proof.

You insist that his alleged statement relating to the finished product at Aronomink is the proof that he changed the design and oversaw construction of those bunkers, yet you have no proof.

If it is proven that 2 plus 2 equals 4, I don't need to disprove that 2 plus 2 equals any other number.

You just can't accept that you made a colossal blunder in blindly accepting an alleged quote that is factually wrong.
Ross's alleged quote says that Seminole is FLAT, LEVEL country, BUT, IT CLEARLY ISN'T.[/color]

The problem you have is your illogical reading of the quote has taken it completely out of context...

I didn't take anything out of context.

Ross's alleged quote, the one you blindly cling to, states that Seminole is on FLAT, LEVEL country, and, IT CLEARLY ISN'T.

I, and the rest of the world know what the word FLAT means, I, and the rest of the world know what the word LEVEL means,
And, I and the rest of the world know what the word COUNTRY means.

You're the only one who can't admit you were wrong at the start, and you're wrong now.

But, you blindly bought into that alleged quote without undertaking the necessary due diligence.   Hence your calling yourself a historical researcher is a fraud.[/color]

which you have a tendancy to do that when you are entrenched in a awkward position...the wrong position.  

My position is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
SEMINOLE IS NOT ON FLAT, LEVEL COUNTRY.

You're the FRAUD trying to perpetuate that myth.
You're the FRAUD trying to justify the awkward position you, the great, self proclaimed historical researcher, have put yourself in.

Seminole is NOT on FLAT, LEVEL COUNTRY.

The alleged quote is FALSE.

Hence, it must be fabricated or taken out of context because Ross was as familiar with the land the golf course was built on and he would NEVER state that that golf course was built on FLAT, LEVEL COUNTRY.

That you continue to defend your absurd position continues to undermine your diminishing credibility, and reveals you as a desperate individual trying to continue with your attempts to perpetuate a FRAUD.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"First of all the quote was initially used to illustrate Ross was not opposed to moving dirt, not to claim Seminole was FLAT. Second of all I do not read the quote as saying Seminole in 100% FLAT (as Pat does)."

Tom MacWood:

So what? I never saw anyone on here or anywhere else ever claim Ross was opposed to moving dirt if he thought it was benefical somehow. What does that have to do with bunkering, plans vs "as built" or before construction vs afterwards at Seminole, Aronimink or anywhere else Ross worked?

It still may be possible that Ross may've raised that flat land at Seminole some feet for obvious reasons. I don't know that he did but it sounds possible. If so he took up that originally flat central part of the course and raised it up so that it was still basically flat--just flat a bit higher off of what it was which according to Brad Klein was originally a mere two feet above sea level. To tell how flat the mid-section of the course is compared to the two natural ridgelines on the east and west you still need to go there and see it in person.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I have no interest in either going back to look or having you try to explain the chain of events about Seminole again. I don't want to have a multi-page discussion of what you said or didn't say. Ross maybe but not you. This Seminole argument has lasted about ten pages when it could've been over and done with in about six posts if questions were just answered simply instead of responding to questions with nothing but other questions or some seemingly off the point remark. I don't know that anyone even understands what the point was of you including Ross's Seminole quote and now I can't imagine who cares anymore.

[Kris Kerr]

redanman® (for Q)

---------------------
I can piss 2 feet 9 inches on a level ground........

...is that a FACT? or are you ALLEGING that? perpetrating a FRAUD?? Should we all BLINDLY BUY INTO THAT??
Is that further than Ross?

...

[TEPaul]

Kris Kerr:

Excellent questions. Do not let these people on here throw around these arbitrary remarks. What if he was on the first half of the 2nd hole of Seminole vs the second half of the 2nd hole. Is the ground level ground or is it not? Would that effect the length of the piss or would it not. If he actually gives us an answer does that mean he thinks he knows more about Seminole's site than Donald Ross did? People on here should not throw around arbitrary remarks like that.