What comes after "umpteeth"?
Patrick, let's get this straight once and for all, shall we? My FOCUS is not on any particular views - I just do notice them.
And Adam - you have this exactly backwards. It was ME - TOM HUCKABY - ME MYSELF AND I - who have always maintained that:
"When one is discussing the nuts and bolts of the GCA, beauty is just one of the factors."
It was ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, DEFINITELY, NOT PATRICK MUCCI.
Mucci has maintained for years on here that BEAUTY DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL. ZERO, NIL, NADA.
Perhaps the caps will make his finally sink in to one and all?
The man is clueless and soul-less on this point. You have no choice now but to agree with me as you cite time after time instances of beauty mattering (like the delayed gratification you feel on the 6th tee); and disagree with Mucci (who unless he completely changes his position now, must necessarily say that doesn't matter a bit).
And that's all I've ever argued on that general point. Not that beauty matters most, not that one ought to focus on it, not any degree to which it should matter; but just that it MATTERS AT ALL. That is DOES factor into the equation. Mucci tries time and time again to put words in my mouth; I correct him time and time again.
Because I 100%, COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY, agree with the following:
Great GCA is fortunate to marry the site's specific beauty, as it does at many points at PB. But it also does more than elevate one's spirit the way one who just walks around the Carmel Bay feels. Great GCA takes us on a journey.
Where you and I differ is that you found the old journey to be superior - I find the new journey, which was the architect's intent, to be superior. To me it's a simple difference of opinion at that point.
But Mucci would say, and has said many times in so many words, this:
Great GCA in no way cares about marrying the site's specific beauty.
And he would leave it at that. No part of beauty matters.
THAT'S my long-time difference of opinion with him. Understand now?
As for 5 old and new, it remains a difference of opinion between you and me. You liked the old journey, I felt the turn inland to be jarring. I understand the take of you and Geoffrey about teasing and then revealing, I just never felt it personally. For me it was tough to tease me about something staring me in the face for two holes (background of the approach into 3, entire right side of 4) and sitting right there plain as day as I walked off 4 green. But, to each his own for sure. And I too did not come to my conclusions lightly; as I fully understand you did not. Neither is right, neither is wrong, and this proves nothing regarding any general assessment of either of our knowledge on this subject.
But I guess it comes down more to this: you liked the old golf hole as a golf hole, I truly always thought it was the worst on the course, one I wanted to get over with quickly so I could get back to the fun mentally challenging shots, rather than this one-dimensional test of abilty to work the ball right to left at a very specific distance.
To me, the new 5 is more fun to play, it offers more shot options (because there was only one way to play the old 5, and even if the new 5 is wet, well one still can work the ball either way with no blocking, one can come in high or low - all things one couldn't do at all on the old 5); and yes, it is way more beautiful (and again, that's only one part of it, and a small one, and certainly NOT one I am hanging my hat on).
That's my take. I know you disagree. I respect that.
I just disagree as well.
Which to me is fair enough.