[TEPaul]

Pat:

Last time I checked the direction a hole faces in doesn't have a lot to do with its cuts and fills but maybe you never realized that!  

Or are you laboring under the impression that redans that face east all have natural landform greens because they face in that direction when any idiot with eyes can clearly see this one isn't?  

[TEPaul]

You know, it's amazing to say this but the Mountain Lake Redan that Wayne Morrison redesigned last night with photoshop just might be a better hole than the one that's there.  

Can you imagine the ball just slidding all over the place if you don't get it in the right place on the green?

One thing is for certain and that is Wayne's photoshop redesign without the bunkers looks about 500% more natural than what's there now.

Wayne, you may've found yourself another job. I think you should photoshop redesign all Macdonald/Raynor courses and remove all their geometric, highly engineered looking bunkers and bunker faces. I think you've done it buckeroo, you, on your own, can finally "naturalize" the entire National School, something that completely petulant curmudgeon Macdonald should have done almost a century ago!

You will be paid very handsomely for this. And while your at it tell all the clubs to give me just half the maintenance dollar savings! It's about time I stocked up with about 2,000 cases of really good red!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"There are two basically foolproof ways of determining exactly what they did there and how.

What are they?"

They would be a preconstruction topp map

You may recall, if you read "Scotland's Gift" carefully, that back in those days, topo's didn't exist in many areas, so I'm not so sure that a certified topo of Mountain Lake Golf Course existed in 1918 or earlier.[/color]

or basic architectural archaeology (coring down). Sub strata basically doesn't lie.

If the same(native) soil was used for grading and construction, coring might not reveal anything, and, it doesn't reveal when the work was done or who did it.[/color]

"This isn't any different than NGLA's Bottle Hole. I had to explain to you the details of how that was made and what it looked like out there before they built that hole.

And you were wrong on that hole as well.
You weren't even aware of the elevation change and slope between the left and right fairway.  I had to point out to you that the right fairway was well below the left fairway, and, less sloped, making the left fairway an ideal DZ to approach from."

What in the world are you talking about? Nobody's ever had to point out to me the difference in elevation between the right and left fairways on that hole. I first notice that back in 1958.

Then, you must have forgotten it by 1998.
You might not recall the discussion on the bottle hole where I had to point out the differences in the two fairways, in elevation and slope.[/color]

"As to the fill for the 8th green, both you and another individual were way off base on that as well.
You both insisted that the fill came from the right side of the 8th green, whereas I felt the fill came from the great depression in the 9th fairway.

A review of the 1938 aerial would seem to reinforce my theory while demolishing yours."

How in the world does the 1938 aerial reinforce that?

Look at the mature trees, well over 18 years of age.
If excavation took place at that location, mature trees couldn't exist only 18 years later.

The 1938 aerial provides some insight into the surrounding terrain.[/color]

The best way to figure out where the fill came from for that green is to simply walk around an area about 50-70 yards before and to the right of the green.

I've done that on more than a few occassions.[/color]

The way the land is reamed out in there compared to the grade farther out is totally obvious, particularly that massive depression which some think may've been a bunker but clearly never was.

The 1938 aerial shows that it WAS a large bunker.
What you fail to understand is that in order to produce the massive fill required, for not only the 8th green footpad, but, the land forming the 9th tee and the land left of the 8th green and 9th tee, there would have to be a meteor crater of ENORMOUS proportions.

Think of the size of the 8th green and 9th tee footpad.
NOW, invert that structure and tell me how deep, or how enormous the field of excavation would have to be in order to supply that much dirt.

Hint, it ain't found right and short of the 8th green.

It's in the swale on # 9.
That swale has an abrupt front and that's not natural.
That swale has the mass to produce the 8th green footpad.

So you can continue to believe that they dug to China with a small hole, or, you can see the light and realize that the fill came from the 9th fairway.[/color]


The dip in the middle of the 9th hole is probably an untouched natural swale.

With a steep man made front ?

Study the 1938 aerial and I think you'll conclude that the fill couldn't have come from right and short of the 8th green.

If you examine the area on foot, the 8th fairway rolls naturally down and into the woods without any massive excavation that would have been needed to create the enormous footpad required at # 8 green and surrounds, including # 9 tee.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You know, it's amazing to say this but the Mountain Lake Redan that Wayne Morrison redesigned last night with photoshop just might be a better hole than the one that's there.  

It's not amazing to say that ..... it's lunacy.[/color]

Can you imagine the ball just slidding all over the place if you don't get it in the right place on the green?

You're forgetting the aerial nature of the hole, the trajectory of the approach shot and the relationship of the trajectory to the terrain.

The only things that are sliding all over the place are your opinions and conclusions [/color]

One thing is for certain and that is Wayne's photoshop redesign without the bunkers looks about 500% more natural than what's there now.

That's what I stated earlier you BOZO.

That it was the configuration and location of the bunkers that was misleading you.

I asked for someone to remove the bunkers from the photo for the express purpose of trying to demonstrate that to you.

Let me ask you a serious question.

Has Coorshaw been dognapped ?

Please, pay the ransom and have him help you out.
You're lost without him.[/color]

[JESII]

This question may not belong on this specific "Template" thread, but I'm here now so I'm asking it...

I am not very experienced on the courses of The National School guys...I played Yale in a tournament 15 years ago and do not remember much of it vividly. I have not played any of the other highly regarded (or frequently discussed on here) "template" style courses...but these conversations about this style versus naturalism make me wonder...Is visual intimidation one of the key components of The National School style?

The sharp edges seem to make many of the same impressions that Pete Dye's courses do in the modern era.

[Kyle Harris]

I forgot I had this picture.



This is just to the right of the fairway approach to the 11th. I think it's VERY clear as to the nature of the fill work done on the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

They certainly seem to get your attention.

Whether the eye is inherently drawn to them, or notices them secondarily, in conjunction with the intended target is a good question.

I would imagine that penal features were meant to be seen as a red flag, a force/feature to be reconned with.

From a playing perspective, I'd have to say that intimidation, as one stands ready to hit their shot, is a big factor at many holes at NGLA and other works of CBM-SR-CB.

I certainly received that message on the 11th tee at Mountain Lake.

That bunker gained instant recognition and respect.

When Mike Sweeney hit into it,  he faced a steep bank of grass, ontop of which the green sat.

But, the insidious element was that despite appearances from the tee, the front of th green runs AWAY from the bunker, making it exceptionally difficult to get a recovering bunker shot anywhere close to a hole locatioin along the front edge of the green.

The tactical signals sent to the eye are not deceptive.
They warn of impending danger and the consequences of folly.

It's a hole where course management, along with the honest assessment of one's game, merge marvelously to form an exciting, fun challenge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Look at the left front bunker and imagine the pin cut to the left.

You can't run the ball to the hole since the orientation of the green and putting surface don't present a favorable alignment from the tee.

It's a scary shot by any standard.

[TEPaul]

"You may recall, if you read "Scotland's Gift" carefully, that back in those days, topo's didn't exist in many areas, so I'm not so sure that a certified topo of Mountain Lake Golf Course existed in 1918 or earlier."


Listen to me, Patrick. I didn't say a preconstruction topo map of Moutain Lake exists. I said IF IT DID EXIST it would prove what the preconstruction grades out there WERE. And then you could match them against the grades there now!

That essentially would prove what was done or not on that hole or do you believe that after spending a day at that course you know more about the way the pre-existing grades were back in 1915 than a surveyor who shot and recorded them on a topo map back in 1915 did?  

[TEPaul]

"JES II,
Look at the left front bunker and imagine the pin cut to the left.
You can't run the ball to the hole since the orientation of the green and putting surface don't present a favorable alignment from the tee."

Patrick:

I don't really know if it's possible for you to say more dumb and incorrect things about this hole.

You most certainly can get a ball to a pin along the left side. What in the world do you think that enormous ramp bank all along the right side is there for??

Matter of fact, when the Silva restoration was completed some of the members down there felt it had become TOO easy to get the ball down to the left.

I always thought I was joking about this deal of you being wrong 98% of the time but I think I need to reconsider. You're getting there pretty fast on Mountain Lake and this hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"You may recall, if you read "Scotland's Gift" carefully, that back in those days, topo's didn't exist in many areas, so I'm not so sure that a certified topo of Mountain Lake Golf Course existed in 1918 or earlier."


Listen to me, Patrick. I didn't say a preconstruction topo map of Moutain Lake exists. I said IF IT DID EXIST it would prove what the preconstruction grades out there WERE. And then you could match them against the grades there now!

But, if it doesn't exist, then your foolproof method isn't so foolproof.[/color]

That essentially would prove what was done or not on that hole or do you believe that after spending a day at that course you know more about the way the pre-existing grades were back in 1915 than a surveyor who shot and recorded them on a topo map back in 1915 did?

Your above statement makes the assumption that a topo was shot by a surveyor.  I submit that it's likely that one wasn't shot, and therefore, your foolproof method is anything but.[/color]  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"JES II,
Look at the left front bunker and imagine the pin cut to the left.
You can't run the ball to the hole since the orientation of the green and putting surface don't present a favorable alignment from the tee."

Patrick:

I don't really know if it's possible for you to say more dumb and incorrect things about this hole.

You most certainly can get a ball to a pin along the left side. What in the world do you think that enormous ramp bank all along the right side is there for??

Your resident expert Kyle Harris would seem to disagree with you.

You apparently can't relate the angle of attack from the tee into that ramp to the roll that would follow.[/color]

Matter of fact, when the Silva restoration was completed some of the members down there felt it had become TOO easy to get the ball down to the left.

Probably for a recovery if they bailed out to the right.

Take a look at the photo from the teeing area, look at Google Earth, and then tell me that the angle into the green is conducive to feeding the ball to the left of the green.[/color]

I always thought I was joking about this deal of you being wrong 98% of the time but I think I need to reconsider. You're getting there pretty fast on Mountain Lake and this hole.

JES II,

You have a distinct choice.  Pretend we're both caddying for you.
Whose analysis of the imcoming approach are you going to accept in preparation for your tee shot ? [/color]

[JESII]

Certainly not Kyle's...who apparently spends his time hiding behind the green text messaging his girlfriend...

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your reply #62 are you the same guy who's always saying one needs to see a course many times in many conditions to understand it well---a remark initially made by C.B. Macdonald?

Are you the same guy who tells everyone else that? I think you are as you've said it enough on here.

What do you think----that that advice applies to everyone but you?

I know that course better than you because I've been there more and played it more. And Kyle Harris without question knows the details of it a lot better than either of us.

So quit telling us what you think we don't know.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Regarding your reply #62 are you the same guy who's always saying one needs to see a course many times in many conditions to understand it well---a remark initially made by C.B. Macdonald?

I'm not passing on the "MERITS" of the hole.

I'm not discussing the merits of the hole in the context of C.B. MacDonald's remark on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift".[/color]

Are you the same guy who tells everyone else that?


I typically take exception to comments made on a hole, and especially play of a hole, when the commentator has NEVER seen the hole, never walked it or never played it.

Since it's unlikely to snow, or to go below freezing, creating frost in Lake Wales, I think CBM recognized the context in which his comment was made, as do I.  Apparently, you don't.

Since none of us have played Mountain Lake in every condition possible, NONE of us would be up to CBM's standards.[/color]

I think you are as you've said it enough on here.

What do you think----that that advice applies to everyone but you?

If you haven't seen or PLAYED a hole, I don't believe you're qualified to comment on the PLAY of the hole.

A perfect example is Wayno's comment about the front bunker on # 11 being flat.  It's not, it's sloped.
Wayne was deceived by one of the photos.
But, it's difficult to be deceived by photos when you have extremely recent experience with features/holes/courses[/color]

I know that course better than you because I've been there more and played it more.

The number of times you've been there, or played it, doesn't mean that you know the course better than me.

You may recall that the AWOL expert on Mountain Lake, a fellow who played it 20 to 30 times didn't even know what hole was depicted in John Mayhugh's photo of the 13th hole.

Repitition alone isn't a match for keen observatory skills

I would say, without fear of contradiction, that today, I know that course better than you do.[/color]

And Kyle Harris without question knows the details of it a lot better than either of us.

I would defer to Kyle's general knowledge of the golf course.
But, that doesn't mean that every comment he makes on the golf course is 100 % accurate, or the "gospel"[/color]

So quit telling us what you think we don't know.


NO, when you're wrong, you're wrong, irrespective of the number/amount of time you've spent on site.

I noticed that you never addressed the numerous questions I asked you.
Why is that ?

Could it be because the answers don't suit your purpose or your theories ?  ?  ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Like a lot of people on here I don't bother to answer many of your questions because many of them are either uninformed, pointless or just needlessly argumentative. Answering them becomes just a waste of time.

It's fine after spending a single day at Mountain Lake to self flatter yourself about how much you know about it but that won't fool many on here particularly the ones who know the course and its architectural evolution and history better than you do. It inevitably seems to be that way when you get on threads, it just turns into various arguments and not exactly a beneficial discussion and hopefully a better learning experience for such as you.

Such things as wasting a few pages to generate a $10,000 bet about an elevation change between two undefined points on a hole is a good example.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()