News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2013, 02:16:24 PM »
@125 acres / course, that's like 5,500 acres of golf holes. Even if you subscribe to the theory of "monkeys at a drafting table" there had to have been some gems in that lot. Throw in the soil and climate and it's hard to think otherwise.

Tommy, welcome to GCA. For a newbie you sure seem to know a lot of stuff!
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2013, 03:46:48 PM »
Thank you Coordinates!  (Somewhere in Virginia or China)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2013, 04:13:13 PM »
Tommy,

While going through and cleaning out my golfbag today I came across some scorecards and a yardage book from Wilshire, a course I played for the first time a few months ago, and really, really liked it.

You made a comment that really resonated with me.

the quirky natural feel of golf was being experienced out here at the next level,

Wilshire, LACC, Bel Air and Rancho Santa Fe certainly give you that feel.
It's a unique blend of golf on unusual terrain, terrain not found back East.

I'm always fascinated by those old black and whites of Wilshire, LACC, Bel Air, Rancho Santa Fe and others.

Any additional information and photos on Wilshire would be appreciated.
I found it to be a unique, quirky course that's alot of fun to play, day in and day out.

Thanks

« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 04:16:37 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2013, 04:31:53 PM »
Tommy,

While going through and cleaning out my golfbag today I came across some scorecards and a yardage book from Wilshire, a course I played for the first time a few months ago, and really, really liked it.

You made a comment that really resonated with me.

the quirky natural feel of golf was being experienced out here at the next level,

Wilshire, LACC, Bel Air and Rancho Santa Fe certainly give you that feel.
It's a unique blend of golf on unusual terrain, terrain not found back East.

I'm always fascinated by those old black and whites of Wilshire, LACC, Bel Air, Rancho Santa Fe and others.

Any additional information and photos on Wilshire would be appreciated.
I found it to be a unique, quirky course that's alot of fun to play, day in and day out.

Thanks



Patrick, have you been to the Valley Club and Pasatiempo?  (I figure you've been to Cypress Point).  Those West Coast Mackenzie masterpieces make wonderful use of the natural terrain and features such as the creeks at Santa Barbara and the barrancas at Santa Cruz.  

One of the negatives about some of the LA courses is how they have "managed" the natural washes and arroyos by filling in or grassing them.  See the barrancas at Riviera with their kikuyu bottoms for an example.  
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 04:42:18 PM by Bill_McBride »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2013, 04:36:57 PM »
One of the negatives about some of the LA courses have "managed" the natural washes and arroyos by filling in or grassing them.  See the barrancas at Riviera with their kikuyu bottoms for an example. 

That's one of the reasons I referenced the "lack of water availability," earlier in the thread.  A lot of the work that's been done was to harness drainage water ... either to prevent washouts, or collect it for irrigation purposes.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2013, 05:03:26 PM »


Patrick, have you been to the Valley Club and Pasatiempo?  (I figure you've been to Cypress Point).  Those West Coast Mackenzie masterpieces make wonderful use of the natural terrain and features such as the creeks at Santa Barbara and the barrancas at Santa Cruz.  

Bill,

I've played the Valley Club and am hoping to play Pasatiempo this May


One of the negatives about some of the LA courses is how they have "managed" the natural washes and arroyos by filling in or grassing them.  See the barrancas at Riviera with their kikuyu bottoms for an example.  


Could that be to further prevent erosion ?

« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 05:05:49 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2013, 05:15:00 PM »

The real reason is that there a not a bunch of well heeled, affluent, schmoozers like you Patrick that belong to the website out here on the left coast that can report on the old and renowned; and the best and new.

One only has to look at this reply/post to answer the question as to why the site has deteriorated.
It's posts like these that dilute the quality and integrity of the discussions.



Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2013, 05:17:32 PM »
Tommy & Pete,

Do you have any early photos of Rancho Santa Fe ?

Pete, your link didn't reference Rancho Santa Fe, it was another thread instead.

Could you repost.

Thanks

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2013, 05:39:27 PM »
There's a short book (pamphlet?) that was published by the Santa Fe Railway in 1900 in connection with a tour of California by Willie Smith and David Bell.  I'm sure the Emperor is aware of this work, but thought I'd bring it to the attention of anyone else interested in the roots of golf in California.

The book has a brief description and some blurry photos (and in some cases a routing map) of courses in the following locations:

Coronado (Coronado GC, San Diego CC)
Santa Catalina (Santa Catalina Golf Links)
Riverside (Rubidoux, Riverside Golf and Polo Club, Pachappa Club)
Redlands (La Cosa Noma Hotel Course, Redlands CC)
Redondo (Redondo Beach CC)
Los Angeles (LACC)
Santa Monica (Ocean Park links, Santa Monica GC)
Pasadena (Hotel Green, Pasadena CC)
Santa Barbara (CC of Santa Barbara)
Del Monte (Hotel Del Monte)
Burlingame and San Rafael (Burlingame Club, San Rafael GC)
Oakland (Oakland GC)

Its not an exhaustive list, more of a highlight of the better courses from that time.

The booklet contains the following excerpt:

"Golf as a game has a firmer hold on the West than the East.  This is because it is something that can be taken up by the average business man, played during his leisure time, and without the necessity of keeping in the fine physical condition essential to more rapid games.  It will not die out, because it is a reasonable means of giving such men exercise in the open air under the most favorable conditions."




"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2013, 05:50:54 PM »
Sven,

1900 would seem to be prior to some of the courses you listed being built.

LACC wasn't built until 1911.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2013, 06:17:32 PM »
Pat:

The first iteration of LACC was built c. 1898.  The club moved and the old grounds were taken over by Westmoorland CC.

Sven
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2013, 06:19:10 PM »


Patrick, have you been to the Valley Club and Pasatiempo?  (I figure you've been to Cypress Point).  Those West Coast Mackenzie masterpieces make wonderful use of the natural terrain and features such as the creeks at Santa Barbara and the barrancas at Santa Cruz.  

Bill,

I've played the Valley Club and am hoping to play Pasatiempo this May


One of the negatives about some of the LA courses is how they have "managed" the natural washes and arroyos by filling in or grassing them.  See the barrancas at Riviera with their kikuyu bottoms for an example.  


Could that be to further prevent erosion ?


Most likely so.  Since there's no groundwater in Los Angeles and rainfall is sparse, when there's a lot of rain in a short period it can create torrents.    It's too bad, because photos of the original washes are terrific.  

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2013, 08:33:31 PM »

One of the negatives about some of the LA courses is how they have "managed" the natural washes and arroyos by filling in or grassing them.  See the barrancas at Riviera with their kikuyu bottoms for an example.  

What they have done at Riviera with the barranca is embarrassing  Looking at the blimp shots the barranca running across the 1st and 11th is now nothing more that a slight dip. 

I left out in the Amy Alcott interview how when she first started playing Riv in the 70's it was a rushing torrent and how deep it use to be.   Now the rumor is the owners are going to fill it in saying it only penalizes bad golfers.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2013, 12:11:32 AM »

The real reason is that there a not a bunch of well heeled, affluent, schmoozers like you Patrick that belong to the website out here on the left coast that can report on the old and renowned; and the best and new.

One only has to look at this reply/post to answer the question as to why the site has deteriorated.
It's posts like these that dilute the quality and integrity of the discussions.



Sorry Patrick, but that was just stating a fact, with perhaps a poor attempt at humor in referring to you as a schmoozer. In Portland for example, we don't have posters that belong to or have a high degree of access to Portland Golf Club and Waverly that could be reported on. Bill McBride had a "national" membership a Columbia Edgewater, and could report on it, but has dropped that for a few years since the economy went bad. But, yet we hear from you right coasters about members or access at Merion, Garden City, Winged Foot, etc. You yourself have quite good access to many clubs that our members on the left coast can only dream about having access to. If you are dismayed that we don't report on second tier clubs and courses out in the Pacific northwest than I think you are wrong. Many have been reported on, had photo tours, and often get recommended to people inquiring about traveling to Bandon. You yourself have gotten friends on Portland Golf Club and Waverly. Why don't you discuss? ;)


"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2013, 12:40:58 AM »
There's a short book (pamphlet?) that was published by the Santa Fe Railway in 1900 in connection with a tour of California by Willie Smith and David Bell.  I'm sure the Emperor is aware of this work, but thought I'd bring it to the attention of anyone else interested in the roots of golf in California.

The book has a brief description and some blurry photos (and in some cases a routing map) of courses in the following locations:

Coronado (Coronado GC, San Diego CC)
Santa Catalina (Santa Catalina Golf Links)
Riverside (Rubidoux, Riverside Golf and Polo Club, Pachappa Club)
Redlands (La Cosa Noma Hotel Course, Redlands CC)
Redondo (Redondo Beach CC)
Los Angeles (LACC)
Santa Monica (Ocean Park links, Santa Monica GC)
Pasadena (Hotel Green, Pasadena CC)
Santa Barbara (CC of Santa Barbara)
Del Monte (Hotel Del Monte)
Burlingame and San Rafael (Burlingame Club, San Rafael GC)
Oakland (Oakland GC)

Its not an exhaustive list, more of a highlight of the better courses from that time.

The booklet contains the following excerpt:

"Golf as a game has a firmer hold on the West than the East.  This is because it is something that can be taken up by the average business man, played during his leisure time, and without the necessity of keeping in the fine physical condition essential to more rapid games.  It will not die out, because it is a reasonable means of giving such men exercise in the open air under the most favorable conditions."

Sven,
Yes, thanks! I m aware of the pamphlet and it answered a lot of questions when the Seagle Library first went digital (thanks USGA!).

LACC got it s start at the corner of Pico and Alvarado on the parcel of land that is now known as the famed Alvarado Terrace district. It has on the property some of the most glorious Victorian homes that can be found in Los Angeles and was the site of the original Los Angeles Golf Club aka The Los Angeles Country Club back in the late 1890's. The course was laid out with tomato soup cans for golf holes on sand greens; Edward Tufts, completely addicted to golf by this point; had almost entirely given up playing Tennis--his original sport of choice.

With Security Bank Presdent, Joseph Sartori acting as the financial guru of this group, the need to find a bigger parcel down the street became evident and so was born LACC's Convent Links (It was located right next door to a convent). That site quickly proved to be problematic and the purchase of a vast parcel with a creek running trough it was bought at the corner of Pico and Western. This is the club which David Bell and Willie Smith played at during their Santa Fe Railroad tour.

What I think Pat was referring to was the date golf started being played at the current site of The Los Angeles Country Club. Originally, the course was laid out by Ed Tufts, Joesph Sartori and Norman Macbeth. Soon after, the need for a more thorough design was observed and the hiring of Herbert Fowler took place with a transplanted Pennsylvanian name George C. Thomas Jr. overseeing construction of the course. By 1928, Thomas had redesign North and was in the middle of redesigning the South at the time of his death.







Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2013, 12:50:44 AM »
Patrick:

Also, as you know, the impressive lineup of courses above is a good match for the area from New York to Philadelphia -- and not the whole east coast.  There are 2x or 3x as many great courses to talk about in the East as in the West.  The reasons for this are the population distribution of the country in 1925, and, water availability.

Actually, I think the Midwest is more under-rated in terms of exposure on Golf Club Atlas.  There are never any threads about the courses in Detroit and Cleveland and Columbus and Pittsburgh, and it's pretty much fly-over country for the PGA Tour now, too.

Tom, I'd like for you to get back to the subject at hand. This isn't about you and your courses. Its about quality and quantity which I agree with the Quantity. I don't think your fully aware of the Quality. You brought it up, so lets talk about it!

First off, weren't you the guy that once said on this very website that there were only so many courses worthy of restoration?  Odd, I seem to remember you saying that, so for all of those great golf courses on the Eastern seaboard, are they not worthy? From the sounds of it, you really think they are! (Which I'm inclined to agree with you!)

Now, being that I love New York, Philadelphia and Connecticut, Westchester, Long Island down into Jersey (and relax pardoners (Matt Ward Pardners.) I'm not going to forget Joisie!) but that call to arms to see those courses in the 1980's is what inspired me to learn further. Learn by actually getting out of the car and seeing the entire course, and not just a few holes and then walking away and saying "5."  No, Golf Courses and their architecture mean a lot more then that to me and I know you know that! But what's bewildering to me is that your ready to discount so many California courses when the very natural environment which you strive to represent in your own work--the use of it, your failing to realize that the California Dynamic (along with the Australian because what was going on down there was going on up here!) was at the very pivotal moment of Golf Architecture Excellence--THE GOLDEN AGE of Golf Course Architecture for which the subject had reached its most pivotal moment of intellect with a whole list of knowledgable people that followed it.

I'm going to list the names of people concerned with golf courses and their architecture at that time period of the 1920's on the West Coast

At the same time, I'd like you to list they greats on the East Coast and once we get these lists complete, then I'll show you my point. Its not quantity, but even better quality because the Art of Golf Course design and construction was at full speed and the majority of it was all going down on the West Coast and down in Australia.

My list of guys on the West Coast that either designed, worked on or had influence in the direction of Golf Course Architecture and the California Dynamic of the 1920's. There are more then likely some I'm forgetting, but non-the-less, here is my list. (those with asterisks represent those who actually designed at least one golf course):

• Edward Tufts*
• John Duncan Dunn*
• Norman Macbeth*
• William Watson*
• George O'Neill*
• Jack Croke*
• William Park Bell*
• Captain George C. Thomas Jr.*
• Joe Mayo (Superintendent and Construction Manager at Pebble Beach)
• Jack Neville*
• Douglas Grant*
• Herbert Fowler*
• Walter Travis (Probably turned it around for us here in the Sun)
• Robert Wiles Hunter*
• Max Behr*
• Dr. Alister MacKenzie*
• A.W. Tillinghast*
• Donald Ross*(Tried but was still despondent over the death of his wife Janet)
• H. Chandler Egan*
• Vernon Macan*
• Stanley Thompson*
• Sam Whiting*
• Jack Fleming (Superintendent and Construction Manager for Hunter)
• A. Herbert Wilson (Behr Associate)
• Bill Johnson*  (Bell Associate and superintendent in his own right.)
• Bob Baldock Sr.* (Bell Associate)
• Paddy Cole (MacKenzie & Hunter& Egan Associate)

I Might be missing a guy or two--definitely some that Tull can add here also, but now I'd like you to add your list Tom, of architects and other important personnel working on the East Coast that did the same in the 1920's.

Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2013, 12:57:26 AM »
Well, I can stop scanning the background and spectators for a Tommy sighting, and just watch the golf... since he is posting on GCA.com at present!!!!  ;D :o 8)

Dick, I hope you and Jo are well!

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2013, 01:46:32 AM »
I am sure that Ran and Ben are happy to have Tommy back on GCA  even if it is for just a few hours more.

People just don't understand sometimes how much information is out there for people to consume.

I spent an evening with Sean Tully in San Diego last week browsing over a very interesting book detailing the architecture of the Chicago area back in the early 1900's.  I could have traded stories with Sean for hours.  It started with a stick routing detailing cross bunkers located 150 -200 yards of the tee right in the line of flight.  Are discussion expanded to routings done by some of the most respected designers of that era.  Some really fascinating routings and a bunch of duds in my honest opnion.

I was amazed how 100's of  pages of written and sketched diagrams could paint a picture of how qucikly golf course architetcure was evolving at that time in history. 



Tommy is just one of those guys consuming every ounce of information that he can lay his hands on.  We are lucky to have people like Tommy and Sean willing to delve back into history

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2013, 02:46:54 AM »
Many of us old dogs know of Tommy's incredible encyclopedic knowledge of GCA, history, and all the theoretical schools of design and characteristics of various era.  While he has not confined himself to his west coast home base (from Washington State to San Diego and a bit over the border) he has also undertaken to learn and share information he had pursued relentlessly, east coast and the 'old sod'.  No doubt about it, Tommy has one of the deepest knowlege bases on the subject of any person alive.  But, his curiosity also includes learning so many 'back stories' by putting together snipits of articles that lend to understanding the personality of the many historical people that were involved within the golf industry expansion in the golden age.  It is as if Tommy knew some of those cats, who had actually died years before Tommy was born.  

I think Tommy is a freak, in that he must have a large frontal cortex of deep crevice dimensions to be able to retain as much detail about GCA and its historical minutia as he does.  That is only equalled by the size of his balls.   ::) :o ;D

The thing about his balls is that Tommy don't give a shit who you are or what position or situation you are in, he goes up to all folks of all stripes and 'engages' them with genuine curiosity.  That showed itself to us (wife and I visiting with him) where Tommy just tools around L.A. and all surrounds ( a very big place) like he is the Mayor (or actually - Emperor) and literally stops here and there, and folks just pop out of the woodwork and say, "hey Tommy, how ya doin?"  He then learns everything that person has to know, and takes his leave with that person feeling like, wow...  I just met the Emperor!  :o  

But even more freaky, is Tommy isn't confined in his encyclopedic retention of just GCA and related topics.  He goes about as deep in knowledge of aspects of music culture, or wine, or electrical work.  Did I mention hot rods and motor sports?  

Tommy, you freak!  Spend more time on here, if only to balance out what has become east coast centric Mucciland, and represent the west coast topics that seem to have fallen off the radar.  You and about 10 other west coasters have gone missing, and it ain't the same without youse.  8)
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 01:59:22 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2013, 03:01:46 AM »
My apologies to the spell checkers.
I meant -   Our discussion

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #45 on: February 17, 2013, 03:15:07 AM »
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2013, 04:24:41 AM »
I think we do talk a ton about left hand golf courses.  Its just that the same ones are brought up over and over.  Much is the same for the right hand courses with some recent additions of lesser name courses in the past couple of years. 

Pat mentioned Wilshire.  While I had heard of the course I had no idea of its quality til I saw photo tour on Tommy's site.  For me it looks like one of the most interesting courses in California. 

Tom D - here is a thread on a few Detroit area courses.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53933.0.html

Part of the problem with trying to go off the beaten path on this site is so few people will have played the courses and often times very few people are really interested in 2nd tier courses.  This site and many of the prime members are primarily about 1st tier courses. Its a great shame, but in a big way mag lists drive this sort of behaviour of searching out big guns.   

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2013, 08:39:58 AM »
Its about quality and quantity which I agree with the Quantity. I don't think your fully aware of the Quality. You brought it up, so lets talk about it!

First off, weren't you the guy that once said on this very website that there were only so many courses worthy of restoration?  Odd, I seem to remember you saying that, so for all of those great golf courses on the Eastern seaboard, are they not worthy? From the sounds of it, you really think they are! (Which I'm inclined to agree with you!)


Tommy:

I still don't think there are hundreds of courses worth restoring.  What's driving the restoration industry is desperation, on the part of many out-of-work architects, and vanity, on the part of many club members [WE have a DONALD ROSS course, too!].

I do think it's important to have a handful of examples of each architect's best work.  It's too bad that so many of the guys whose names you listed have had all of their work destroyed, and it's too bad that hardly anyone is out there trying to restore the best of it.  I've been to Woodland Hills and Palos Verdes CC, for example, and if they were once great courses, they've done a great job of hiding it between then and now ... neither would even get a 5 in The Confidential Guide today.

If there was such a great legacy of golf architectural thought out west, I can't quite understand how all you enlightened west-coasters allowed it to be lost after the Depression, but that's another story.  I do think you're "reaching" a little bit, if you are listing the name of Paddy Cole [a young Irish bunker-builder] as a great mind of design.  There are probably dozens of guys who worked on building all those courses in the East who knew as much about design as Paddy Cole did -- but their names were never even mentioned out East, so I can't provide a comparable list to what you've given.  But here are some of the guys who actually built courses in the first three decades out East:

Donald Ross and his associates (Ellis Maples, George McGovern, Orrin Smith, Walter Hatch, etc.)
C.B. Macdonald and his associates (Seth Raynor, Charles Banks)
A.W. Tillinghast
George C. Thomas (though he did only the one course out East)
Harry Colt
Hugh Alison
Alister MacKenzie
Perry Maxwell (and the Wood Brothers who built his courses)
George Crump
Herbert Leeds
William Fownes (and his superintendent)
Hugh Wilson
William Flynn (and his young associate, Dick Wilson)
Fred Hood
John Duncan Dunn
Walter Travis
Devereux Emmet
Wayne Stiles
John Van Kleek
Willie Park, Jr.
Robert White (one of Tom MacWood's faves - I have no clue if he designed anything or not)
Herbert Strong

I think this is really beside the point, though.  What matters is the courses that got in the ground, not who built them.  When you concentrate on who built them, you're projecting about the quality of the work, unless you've got the pictures to prove it.

Just curious -- of all the NLE courses you listed, which of them do you think might have got a 7 or higher in The Confidential Guide if I'd seen them in their heyday?


Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2013, 09:11:53 AM »
Tom,

+ HCC Tippet, designer of original Montauk Downs and La Gorce.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is there so little discussion on
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2013, 09:15:14 AM »
Tommy,

While you are gracing us with your presence, perhaps you can enlighten us travelling snobs as to which courses between LA and the Mexican border other than Barona Creek that we should make a special effort to see?
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak