News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


T_MacWood

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #125 on: July 28, 2005, 10:25:22 AM »




TE
If I'm not mistaken you said it was impossible to see anything of the 3rd hole from the 1st tee. Obviously this picture shows that it was possible...at least in 1929. Unfortunately the scan/copy I've posted is not of the best quality, but I think you can still see the sand in the bunkers on the third, which must be at least 600 yards in the distance...it would be difficult to see the sand from that distance if it were not flashed up the face.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2005, 10:36:12 AM by Tom MacWood »

Matt_Ward

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #126 on: July 28, 2005, 10:35:14 AM »
Tom MacWood:

I laugh out loud at your couch potato analysis. You play a smidgeon of the courses in the United States and then you blow smoke about how I am so incorrect.

Hello Tom -- anybody home?

You're the guy who proclaims the merits / lack thereof from aerials and the like. You're the guy who asks plenty of questions of others but for some strange and consistent reason you play the ultimate game of tap dance and avoid direct questions put to you anytime an issue of consequence is raised. Hey Tom -- dialogue works both ways.

I have had the opportunity to personally sample a good number of courses on a steady basis for roughly more than 25 years -- the great, good and inferior. It doesn't make my opinions right 100% of the time but I know I've tried to keep an open mind to all types of designs wherever they are located. It's given me the opportunity to see the growth of quality golf in areas previously underserved such as the Mountain Time Zone, the desert southwest and even in the State of Texas, to name just three areas.

Tom -- take off the headphones over your ears and the tape on your eyes because I'm the one, not just you, who has extolled the virtues of The Golf Club and Camargo and said that Double eagle is vastly overrated. I guess you must have forgotten -- how convenient and predictable.

Nice of you to throw the verbal darts. Do yourself and everyone else a favor Tom -- get off the couch and start to do the personal firsthand accounts of what a golf course is all about. When you do -- I'll respect you even more for what you have to say. End of story.

P.S. I have said on more than a few occasions the lacking elements of a number of Rees Jones courses. I have also pointed out those that have been well done. Ditto the nature of what is happening within modern golf design and the talented folks responsible for those layouts (see Black Mesa as one example).

T_MacWood

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #127 on: July 28, 2005, 11:18:05 AM »
"You're the guy who proclaims the merits / lack thereof from aerials and the like."

Matt
I believe you are confused. Illustrating changes and contrasting old arials and newly 'restored' courses is not judging the merits of a golf course.

"Do yourself and everyone else a favor Tom -- get off the couch and start to do the personal firsthand accounts of what a golf course is all about. When you do -- I'll respect you even more for what you have to say."

No doubt you do get around...I especially enjoy your reviews of the newest big sky extravaganza. It appears the thin air has impared your judgment.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #128 on: July 28, 2005, 11:31:52 AM »
Tom MacWood,

What bunkers on # 3 do you see depicted from the photo behind the 1st tee ?

Do you think they're the leftside, forward fairway bunkers on # 3 or the rightside fairway bunkers, or both ?

The angle of the bunkers on the ground level photo of # 3 don't seem to match the angles on bunkers on the aerial photo.

In addition, if you'll look at the terra server topo of the property, the 3rd green is in an area that could be described as a hollow, and thus, no green side bunkering would be visible.

I don't think you can draw prudent, concrete conclusions comparing two photos, taken 10 years apart, one a ground photo, the other an aerial photo.  I especially don't think any conclusions can be drawn until you overlay the aerial photo on a topo, that would provide you with the necessary elevation readings that in turn would determine visibility from various points.

T_MacWood

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #129 on: July 28, 2005, 12:25:46 PM »


"The angle of the bunkers on the ground level photo of # 3 don't seem to match the angles on bunkers on the aerial photo."

Pat
You don't think the angles match? They appear to match in my opinion.

Whatever the case, the point is the bunkers and sand faces can be seen from quite a distance.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2005, 12:30:31 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #130 on: July 28, 2005, 12:43:13 PM »
Tom MacWood,

10 years difference is too long a period to ignore.

You may not be looking at the same feature.

With respect to the angles, think about what you're saying.
The photo from behind the 1st tee shows what you claim are bunkers on # 3 as if they are played from the same angle as one would play hole # 1, yet, hole # 3 is on an entirely different angle from hole # 1, and it would seem likely that any bunkering on # 3 would be configured toward the golfer playing THAT hole, and not the first hole.

If you flashed sand, wouldn't you flash it toward the approaching golfer, rather than flash it to a right angle, toward the clubhouse  ?

I see your point, but, I'm having trouble with the angles, the elevations and the 10 year difference in the photos.

T_MacWood

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #131 on: July 28, 2005, 12:50:30 PM »
Pat
The first did not change. Everything appears to line up ten years later (draw a line from the tee through the base of the tree). And you are missing the main point...the sand is splashed up the face. The bunkers are at 45 degree angle.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2005, 12:53:37 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #132 on: July 28, 2005, 02:05:16 PM »
"TE
If I'm not mistaken you said it was impossible to see anything of the 3rd hole from the 1st tee. Obviously this picture shows that it was possible...at least in 1929. Unfortunately the scan/copy I've posted is not of the best quality, but I think you can still see the sand in the bunkers on the third, which must be at least 600 yards in the distance...it would be difficult to see the sand from that distance if it were not flashed up the face."

Tom MacWood:

Flashed faces is not what I was talking about. In Ross's instructions it seems pretty obvious to me and to Ron Prichard that Ross was not calling for totally sand flashed faces on that entire golf course. Naturally we expect you to disagree with that but that really doesn't matter much to any of us from where you sit out there in Ohio basically using this single on ground photo as your only evidence of that.

What I was saying to you about the third hole from the vantage of that first tee is you really can't see the third hole from that vantage in that photo or on the ground today. You can see only a single bunker placement on the third from that spot and only minimally as one can clearly see from that photo you posted again--eg there is no difference today vs back then. ;)  The way to tell is to simply stand on the same spot today from that photo was taken which of course you've never done. There were trees behind the first hole a few years ago making it obviously impossible to see the 3rd hole but they've all been removed and you can see the exact same vantage today as you can in that 1929 aerial. You can just barely make out about one bunker placement on that third hole today just as in that 1929 photo.

You may also think you can see flashed faced bunkers in that 1939 aerial that's 6,000 feet over the golf course. I'm afraid no one can tell the difference between flashed faced bunkers or partially grassed down bunker faces from that height directly over the golf course, not even you.  ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #133 on: July 28, 2005, 02:16:49 PM »
Pat
The first did not change. Everything appears to line up ten years later (draw a line from the tee through the base of the tree). And you are missing the main point...the sand is splashed up the face. The bunkers are at 45 degree angle.

If you're referencing the first hole, there's a reason for that.
The fairway is an inclined plane, rising sharply from beneath the tee to it's highest elevation behind the green.

If you're 20, 30 or 40 feet above a bunker it's always going to look like it's flashed to a greater degree than it appears from the ground, especially when you have such a steep fairway, like # 1.

The picture of # 1 was taken from a higher elevation than the tee, probably another 20 or so feet above it, thus accentuating what looks like flashed bunkers.

You really have to see the hole from the tee and down in the fairway to appreciate the elevation change, the perspective it provides and the view of the bunkers.

I believe the green and everything behind it is invisible from the begining of the fairway.

I thought you were referencing the bunkers beyond the 1st green.
[/color]


TEPaul

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #134 on: July 28, 2005, 02:18:13 PM »
"And you are missing the main point...the sand is splashed up the face. The bunkers are at 45 degree angle."

Tom MacWood:

I realize what you're saying. You said the same thing months ago. First of all the tee and behind it from where that photo was taken is considerably above those bunkers which logically shows a lot more sand than one sees when one is out on the fairway of that hole and somewhat level with those bunkers. The sand in the faces of those bunkers flashed up part way and from the top of the bunker surround the grass was brought down part way to the sand.

You said on one of these Aronimink bunker threads that you thought Ross was trying to do something special at Aronimink to try to better the "Philly School" flashed bunker sand faces of Merion East etc. I've never seen any evidence Ross was trying to do that at Aronimink.

And you should know that the flashed faced bunkers of Merion East were initially sand flashed all the way to the top of the bunker surround for perhaps 10-15 years before Valentine/Flynn started to let them grass down a good deal with lacy grass edges and capes and bays.

Ross's bunkers at Aronimink in his drawings and also on the course with those multi-set bunkers were never all sand-flashed all the way up as Merion East's once were. Some months ago you seemed to be implying that Aroninimink's were.

My point here is simply to tell you that you do not have sufficient evidence to say that.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #135 on: July 28, 2005, 02:21:37 PM »
If Aronimink still wanted to emulate the bunker style of their neighbors at Merion, all they'd have to do is let those grass faces grow to 18-24 inches or so.  ;)  ;D

A friend of mine who saw Merion for the first time last week thought they should be renamed "the gnarly nose hair of Merion"
« Last Edit: July 28, 2005, 02:23:16 PM by Mike Cirba »

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #136 on: July 28, 2005, 02:24:11 PM »
There was a thread on this forum a short time back featuring photographs of the Aronimink Golf Club.

What amazes me is the amount of discussion this club receives........on every other thread but that one. ???
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #137 on: July 28, 2005, 02:52:20 PM »
If Aronimink still wanted to emulate the bunker style of their neighbors at Merion, all they'd have to do is let those grass faces grow to 18-24 inches or so.  ;)  ;D

A friend of mine who saw Merion for the first time last week thought they should be renamed "the gnarly nose hair of Merion"

Mike,
They can disguise it all the nose hair they want, Those things are still jacuzzi pits as far as I'm concerned. ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #138 on: July 28, 2005, 03:12:02 PM »
Tommy,

I know the feeling and understand the club's motivation for growing those nose hairs.  Talk about being afraid to go to the barber lest one reveals the ugly pate underneath!!!  ;)


Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #139 on: July 28, 2005, 04:32:28 PM »
Hey, its no different then hiding symmetrical mounds in tall grasses. The shaping goes unnoticed but looks good to the unwashed masses. But underneth its all containment. Horrible man-made and controlling containment.

T_MacWood

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #140 on: July 28, 2005, 06:33:47 PM »
"What amazes me is the amount of discussion this club receives........on every other thread but that one."

Kirk
It is pretty bizarre how these threads all seem to morph into an Aronimink discussion. Unfortunately the Ohio State thread morphed into Aronimink thread as well. I'll try not to bite the next time Aronimink is brought into one of these discussions.  

"First of all the tee and behind it from where that photo was taken is considerably above those bunkers which logically shows a lot more sand than one sees when one is out on the fairway of that hole and somewhat level with those bunkers. The sand in the faces of those bunkers flashed up part way and from the top of the bunker surround the grass was brought down part way to the sand."

TE
IMO those bunkers in 1929 look nothing like the bunkers that Prichard built.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #141 on: July 29, 2005, 09:46:59 PM »

TE
IMO those bunkers in 1929 look nothing like the bunkers that Prichard built.

Have you seen a picture of them taken from the same elevation and the same angle ?
[/color]

Mike_Cirba

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #142 on: July 29, 2005, 09:57:45 PM »
Guys,

C'mon...if they were grassed faces in the old picture from the first tee, that would be pretty evident.

Even if the pic is taken from an elevation of 20 feet above the first tee it's not going to change the perspective significantly from that distance!

I can see someone saying it's tough to tell from the aerial, because you lose the longitudinal viewpoint, but those bunkers are almost at eye level from the pic above the first tee, as the first green is slightly higher than the tee...say by about 20 feet.  

We still don't know if that's what Ross wanted, but let's not pretend that's not what was built!
« Last Edit: July 29, 2005, 09:58:18 PM by Mike Cirba »

T_MacWood

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #143 on: July 29, 2005, 10:41:56 PM »
Every time I look at this photograph I am automatically drawn to the woman to the right of the tee...I want to roll down the hill with her!
« Last Edit: July 29, 2005, 10:49:57 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #144 on: July 29, 2005, 11:42:22 PM »
Lou Duran:

I don't know what to make of your comment "As to your P.S. BS".

Personally, I don't think many people are especially gifted when it comes to writing descriptions of golf courses......and I certainly don't have that gift.

Who does?

Ran's work on this site is some of the best I've seen. Tom Doak has an ability to sum up what is significant about a course. Jim Finegan has a wonderfully style, I think, a real talent for making one want "to make the journey". Though some people don't like it, I also was a fan of Dan Jenkins in "SI's Best 18".

But, the list of gifted writers isn't that long.

You brought up Matt Ward. Matt continues to make the mistake of suggesting "he knows more, because he has seen more".......always leaving me to wonder why anyone would say such a thing.

The truth is that very few people have seen many golf courses. That's why it is so important to be able to write well.......how else does one convey what stands out about a particular venue, what makes the course schedule.

That is the point David Moriarty is making. GCA is a discussion group. Writing skills are important. So is the ability/willingness to exchange ideas on the features of a golf course.

Chest beating "I know more....I've had more experiences" only serves to drag down the discussion.

Nobody learns anything.

Tim Weiman

Mike_Cirba

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #145 on: July 30, 2005, 02:35:58 PM »
Every time I look at this photograph I am automatically drawn to the woman to the right of the tee...I want to roll down the hill with her!

Tom,

Ok...now I know you've definitely been spending too much time researching this stuff!!!  ;)

It reminds me of a story a Mormon friend of mine told me once.  He lived in Salt Lake City, but having grown up in the Los Angeles area he was a bit more worldly and saltier than many of the other folks from that faith I met back then.  

Evidently, at the age of maturity (around 18) Mormons go on what is known as "Mission", where they are sent by church elders to various parts of the globe to try to spread the word of their church, do good deeds, and convert the locals.  My understanding is that there is a lot of political maneuvering in this process, with well-connected parishoners being sent to Mission in Paris, or London, while others not so fortunate might end up in Uganda, for instance.

Anyway, this friend of mine Steve, quite the handsome chap, gets sent to southern Chile.  That doesn't sound so bad on the face of it, but evidently it's close to Antarctica, extremely bitter cold, and quite mountainous.  

The women, more akin to our native Eskimo women in look, are valued for their size and strength, and have tough, leathery skin from days trying to move oxen ploughing the fields in the short growing season through bitter winds and high elevation direct sun.  They also tend to be on the...voluminous side.  

Well, our friend Steve had been in Chile for about six months, during which time, consistent with his mission, was unable to contact the outside world except through hand-written letters;  no computer, no phone, no female accompaniement.

So, one day, as Steve related it to me, he's sitting writing a letter watching some of the local women (known as Mamasans) in their big woolen coats and babushkas tending the field.  

And, as nature is wont to do, a familiar stirring begins, and he thinks to himself, "you know, they're not so bad".....  ;D

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #146 on: July 30, 2005, 02:38:57 PM »
Mike --I think there's a country song  that says something like "At the end of the night ALL the women look good"...

and I'm sure the women feel the same about us!
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

MarkT

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #147 on: July 30, 2005, 03:06:04 PM »
Mike --I think there's a country song  that says something like "At the end of the night ALL the women look good"...

and I'm sure the women feel the same about us!

I believe the lines is: "All the women get prettier at closing time".

T_MacWood

Re:Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?
« Reply #148 on: July 30, 2005, 10:56:12 PM »
Tom,

Ok...now I know you've definitely been spending too much time researching this stuff!!!  ;)



Mike
Actually I've made some progress....not long ago my focus was on courses groomed by sheep.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2005, 10:56:46 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back