[Jim_Kennedy]

Or to write only with crayons.

 


Doug,
Pity the  color blind among us. 

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

You have not only intimated how the hole plays, you have explicitly stated how to play the hole.  In Reply #17, you write,

To the left to right golfer, this hole would bolster his confidence since he would be playing away from the trouble, versus someone whose shaped shot would be playing toward it.

This statement makes at least one assumption to which you don't honestly know is accurate from just looking at a photo, namely that there is actually "trouble" on the left side of the green.  Just because it LOOKS like “trouble,” can you unequivocally state that it actually IS “trouble”?  And even more curiously, in another post you suggest that the right side may actually be "trouble" as well (is a left-to-right player intimidated by this feature?) and in still another post, you state that the left side is not really "trouble" at all because it is, as you claim, "out of play."  How, exactly, do you know any of this for certain, never having been there?  Curious indeed.

[Bryan Izatt]

Steve,

Although you are right, you do know this is a lost cause, don't you?   


Patrick,

If I may, I'd like to correct one point:  the "fictitious" 30 mph winds were in reference to my hole and picture.  The wind is real on that hole.  Sadly, as all too often, you missed the point.

If I may also, I'd like to point out an error in one of the things you told me:

As an example, the visual of the clubhouse directly behind the 18th green at TOC doesn't affect me.

I'm happy to hear that that visual doesn't bother you, but I was wondering when they moved the clubhouse behind the 18th green at TOC.  When I was there last summer it was still behind the 1st tee as it always has been (way out of play).  Perhaps you should check your visual acuity for skewing.   

Anyway, t'is the season to be jolly.  It is a little worrisome though that instead of visions of sugar plums dancing in your head there seem to be visions of riding backwards in speeding trains in dense, impenetrable jungles.  Perhaps you should consult with Dr Katz.

Oh, and to clarify one other myth that you seem to be holding on to, I've never met Mike Cirba, on the PV tracks or anywhere else.

P.S.  I'll be passing through the neighbourhood again next Monday if you wanted to walk the line and see what it really looks like in winter.

 

[Josh Tarble]

I couldn't follow the rainbow discussion, so not quite sure what it said...but I think this hole probably plays FAR easier than it looks.  First off, Dye is a master at making holes look much different than they actually play and second, it seems like their is plenty of bailout room that all assists the golfer possibly even similar to a redan on steroids.

That being said, I would definitely nominate it to be included in the "Most Intimidating Par 3" thread that was earlier this year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You have not only intimated how the hole plays, you have explicitly stated how to play the hole.  In Reply #17, you write,

To the left to right golfer, this hole would bolster his confidence since he would be playing away from the trouble, versus someone whose shaped shot would be playing toward it.

Steve, that's more than a little disingenuous of you.
You deliberately left out the sentence that preceeded the sentence you quoted above, a critical sentence that provides context.
In addition, you left out the prior exchange leading up to those sentences, which provides additional context.

So, let me quote what you intentionally left out in a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.

"Some holes appeal to the golfers eye, based upon the way he shapes his shots.
To the left to right golfer, this hole would bolster his confidence since he would be playing away from the trouble, versus someone whose shaped shot would be playing toward it.


Now that exchange was preceeded by the following exchange between Bryan and myself.

Bryan asked: Of course, who wouldn't be uncomfortable when faced with these kind of holes?

To which I responded:
A left to right golfer


That was then followed by:

Some holes appeal to the golfers eye, based upon the way he shapes his shots.
To the left to right golfer, this hole would bolster his confidence since he would be playing away from the trouble, versus someone whose shaped shot would be playing toward it.

I don't mind your challenging me on issues, but do it with some degree of intellectual honesty rather than using incomplete quotes and/or quotes taken out of context.   And, the statement is generic and applicable to any situation where trouble is on one side of a green and the golfer's normal shot plays away from that trouble, be it with a fade or draw.
[/color]

This statement makes at least one assumption to which you don't honestly know is accurate from just looking at a photo, namely that there is actually "trouble" on the left side of the green.  

Just because it LOOKS like “trouble,” can you unequivocally state that it actually IS “trouble”?  


Yes, I can.
I think I'm amply qualified and capable of identifying and classifying tall rough on a slope of 30-45 degrees to a blind putting surface as "trouble"

And even more curiously, in another post you suggest that the right side may actually be "trouble" as well (is a left-to-right player intimidated by this feature?)

Once again, in your haste and zeal to TRY to prove me wrong, you've misrepresented what I stated.
So, again, I'll quote the passage in the interest of intellectual honesty.

Jason Topp made the following statement:

Visually I would want to bail out right but the recovery is probably more reasonable from the left.


I responded by ASKING him the following question:


Jason, you wouldn't find recovering from the right, to a left side hole location frightening ?
[/color]

and in still another post, you state that the left side is not really "trouble" at all because it is, as you claim, "out of play."  

Steve, this is embarrassing, I thought you were a stand up guy, not prone to misrepresentation and outright lies.

So that you can't further misrepresent my typed words, here's what I said:

On the picture I posted, the vast falloff seems to divert your focus from the target, to the left and to the back of the target even though those areas aren't in play.


So, here's the picture.

Look behind the green, doesn't the back drop behind the green out to the horizon divert your focus from the flag ?
How about the steep falloff, left of the green and golfer, does that divert your focus from the flag ?

Are you telling us that your focus isn't diverted from the flag, that your focus is riveted to the flag to the exclusion of everything else ?

Try being honest with your response.

[/color]

How, exactly, do you know any of this for certain, never having been there?  Curious indeed.

I know this based upon the size of the trees and the fact that you can't see their base behind the green and you can see the steep slope left of the green with the heavy rough.

Don't you see it, or is your vision riveted on something else ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

Although you are right, you do know this is a lost cause, don't you?   

No, he's not "right", and he deliberately misrepresented the facts.

Patrick,

If I may, I'd like to correct one point:  the "fictitious" 30 mph winds were in reference to my hole and picture. 
The wind is real on that hole.  Sadly, as all too often, you missed the point.

Probably because you weren't clear in your reference.

If I may also, I'd like to point out an error in one of the things you told me:

As an example, the visual of the clubhouse directly behind the 18th green at TOC doesn't affect me.

I'm happy to hear that that visual doesn't bother you, but I was wondering when they moved the clubhouse behind the 18th green at TOC.  When I was there last summer it was still behind the 1st tee as it always has been (way out of play).  Perhaps you should check your visual acuity for skewing.   

I can see why you'd say that, afterall the perspective/visual of the green when you've duck hooked your tee shot short of the road differs substantially from your perspective when you've bombed your driver down the right side of the hole, downwind, especially when the hole is cut on the left side of the green.  So, from your drive and perspective, the clubhouse was probably too far left to be seen, but, from my drive and perspective it was right behind the flag/green.

Anyway, t'is the season to be jolly.  It is a little worrisome though that instead of visions of sugar plums dancing in your head there seem to be visions of riding backwards in speeding trains in dense, impenetrable jungles.  Perhaps you should consult with Dr Katz.

Especially when heading Eastbound at 60+mph in the morning when the sun doesn't come up so early.

Oh, and to clarify one other myth that you seem to be holding on to, I've never met Mike Cirba, on the PV tracks or anywhere else.
I'm fairly sure that Mike told me his visit walking the tracks coincided with yours.
Maybe you thought the guy walking nearby was a hobo.
Didn't you post or send me pictures of your visit to the tracks.

P.S.  I'll be passing through the neighbourhood again next Monday if you wanted to walk the line and see what it really looks like in winter.

I"ve been seeing that view for about 50 years and would you believe that the landform refuses to move and that the pine trees refuse to shed their needles.

I have a great idea for you.
When you drive down East Atlantic Ave, and you come to the end of the road, right next to the gate for PV.
Back your car onto the tracks so that you're facing West.
Then, drive forward for about 200 yards.
Then, stop, put it into reverse and floor it until your doing 60+mph and then take photos facing South as you're flying by the 18th, 17th and 14th holes.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Damn, how could I not have understood that you meant you drove the 18th at TOC so that the clubhouse was the backdrop for your second shot (BTW, this is "you" that you were talking about, wasn't it.  Not some hypothetical golfer)?  I guess it must have looked like this for you.




And now that we're totally off the subject of your thread, how about all those "deciduous" trees at "Pine" Valley.  Pretty transparent in winter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I'm glad you showed the photos of the cleared areas on the golf course.

Would you show # 3170 and # 3281 which reflects what the areas removed from the playing corridors look like or do you prefer to continue to try to mislead by posting select photos.

Why don't you also post the pictures you took from the tracks, the ones where the intervening landform prevents any view of the golf course.

Complete honesty and disclosure is the best policy....... No ?

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty on account of removing text and ideas from their original context are interesting, particularly because this thread is predicated on an image that was borrowed from a completely different conversation, which effectively removed it from its original context.  Thus, if this is indeed an offense, you could be indicted as well.  You should also be aware of the fact that the frame of a given photograph is carefully composed, consciously including certain portions of the scene and deliberately excluding others.  By its nature, a photographic image de-contextualizes a scene and thus has the power to deceive.  Do your eyes allow you to view scenes as rectangles constrained to mathematical proportions?  Typical human vision certainly does not.  It is not fixed at one vantage point, as a photo would have you believe, but is instead fluid.  Let me refer you to an article entitled  “Scopic Regimes of Modernity” by Martin Jay.  Ultimately, it is odd that you can also be so sure of yourself with the meaning of this image given what has been necessarily excluded from the frame (i.e. its lack of context and its inherent deception) and given that you have openly stated in previous threads that you don’t make judgments on golf courses, food, or women (among other things, perhaps?) based solely on photographs – you prefer to experience them in the flesh before you can make assessments.

Beyond this, however, another issue might be that your opening post is ineffective.  The concepts are too theoretical - too subjective - for real discussion.  Yet, despite this high level of theory and subjectivity, three of your four questions are deliberately written to elicit only binary responses: “yes” or “no.”  They seek objective truth in ideas that simply cannot be reduced to such terms (can you honestly expect to tell people they are right or wrong in how they feel?).  Thus, I have no ambitions of trying to prove you wrong.  Rather, I know that that neither you, nor myself, nor anyone else, can ever be proven right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty on account of removing text and ideas from their original context are interesting, particularly because this thread is predicated on an image that was borrowed from a completely different conversation, which effectively removed it from its original context.

Steve, now you're being even more intellectually dishonest.

The photo I posted, wasn't taken out of context, I didn't photoshop elements of that photo like you photoshoped my quote.



Thus, if this is indeed an offense, you could be indicted as well. 

Not even close, I didn't photo shop and misrepresent what was in the photo, which is what you did with my quote.

You should also be aware of the fact that the frame of a given photograph is carefully composed, consciously including certain portions of the scene and deliberately excluding others.

Steve, the photo I posted was identical in nature.
You're misquoting me was a deliberate attempt to mislead, misrepresent, a culpable act of intellectual dishonesty and you know it and you know that I know that you know it. 

By its nature, a photographic image de-contextualizes a scene and thus has the power to deceive. 

Neither the original poster or myself, altered the picture with the intent to deceive, but, that can't be said of you.
You intentionally altered the text for the explicit purpose to deceive, and that's intellectually dishonest.

Do your eyes allow you to view scenes as rectangles constrained to mathematical proportions?  Typical human vision certainly does not.  It is not fixed at one vantage point, as a photo would have you believe, but is instead fluid.  Let me refer you to an article entitled  “Scopic Regimes of Modernity” by Martin Jay.  Ultimately, it is odd that you can also be so sure of yourself with the meaning of this image given what has been necessarily excluded from the frame (i.e. its lack of context and its inherent deception) and given that you have openly stated in previous threads that you don’t make judgments on golf courses, food, or women (among other things, perhaps?) based solely on photographs – you prefer to experience them in the flesh before you can make assessments.

You can spout all the bullshit you want in an attempt to cover up your deliberate attempts to deceive and mislead, it won't change the fact that you were intellectually dishonest.

Beyond this, however, another issue might be that your opening post is ineffective.  The concepts are too theoretical - too subjective - for real discussion.  Yet, despite this high level of theory and subjectivity, three of your four questions are deliberately written to elicit only binary responses: “yes” or “no.”  They seek objective truth in ideas that simply cannot be reduced to such terms (can you honestly expect to tell people they are right or wrong in how they feel?).  Thus, I have no ambitions of trying to prove you wrong.  Rather, I know that that neither you, nor myself, nor anyone else, can ever be proven right.

Not true in this case.
You deliberately altered the text when you quoted me, that's a fact and no amount of B.S. from you will change that.
It's obvious to everyone that you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself.
You were intellectually dishonest and that's unfortunate, I had expected more from you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()