[TEPaul]

I am angling to get Pat to take me to a membership meeting or a meeting with some committee up there so I can have a chat with them. Of course, I'm going as Paul Thomas because when one enters a significant golf club mentioning Golfclubatlas.com can be the kiss of death sometimes.

But I'm angling to go there and lay some "Walter Travis restoration" friendly persuasion on them.

Tom:

Have you ever been to the GCGC?

[T_MacWood]

No. You'll uncover that when you read page two of this thread....I don't think you'll ever get to the part about Travis and Emmet, and your logic for reestablishing Travis based on your interpretation of their sexual preferences. They will have capitulated by then.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

With all the aspersions you have cast on poor Dev E, aren't you just a bit nervous in casting yourself as from the city of "brotherly love?"

[TEPaul]

"No. You'll uncover that when you read page two of this thread....I don't think you'll ever get to the part about Travis and Emmet, and your logic for reestablishing Travis based on your interpretation of their sexual preferences. They will have capitulated by then."

Tom:

'No' what?

I'm not sure I know what you mean that they will have capitulated by then. Capitulated what or to what?

As for my logic on the sexual preferences of Travis and Emmet and what that will mean in a restoration context, I just might drop that part but on the other hand maybe not---I hear some of those New York fellas at GCGC have a pretty interesting sense of humor.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
With all the aspersions you have cast on poor Dev E, aren't you just a bit nervous in casting yourself as from the city of "brotherly love?"

Rich:

Not really. As dour as Philadelphia can be sometimes this town really does have a pretty good sense of humor sometimes and most here seem to look at the term "brotherly love" in the more bibical sense anyway.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Your method is to somehow get a decision to remove the pond first and then decide what's best to put in its place.

That is absolutely incorrect.
I didn't bring up the 16th hole or the pond, the club did.
The club/green committee made it an agenda item for discussion.

As such that is/was the issue on the table that had to be dealt with.

Your notion, to avoid that issue, when it was the sole issue on the table wouldn't be prudent.  Nor would it be prudent to divert the focus of the issue on the table.

This thread is immense and I don't know how many times I've said it to you but I think you fellas at GCGC who are trying to get this hole restored are going about it backwards with the membership!

The club/green committee brought up the issue of the pond on # 16, and only the pond.  Restoration of the entire hole was not an item for consideration.  You have to stick to the issue at hand, and not divert or dilute the focus by bringing up collateral or peripheral issues that only complicate things

A single specific issue was brought up for discussion, why confuse the issue by expanding it exponentially ?

The other issues can be discussed subsequently

[TEPaul]

"That is absolutely incorrect.
I didn't bring up the 16th hole or the pond, the club did.
The club/green committee made it an agenda item for discussion.
As such that is/was the issue on the table that had to be dealt with."

Pat:

Come on, you know what I mean. You're on the green committee aren't you? Don't you have anything to say about what the agenda will be, the items on it or what goes on the table for discussion?

What if the club/green committee tried to create an agenda with the ONLY issue being to go out and shoot someone and they put that on the table for only a yes or no vote. And I told you maybe you should recommend they think a bit more first about that being the only issue for a yes or no vote? Would you still tell me that would be a collateral issue that was diverting attention from the issue on the table?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I am not on the green committee.

I think that may have a material impact on your last post.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're not on the green committee? Well, sh...and a thousand damns, I thought you were. You were on the green committee, though, weren't you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

YES.

[TEPaul]

Pat or rgkeller:

How far is it to carry the ball from the tips past that last bunker on the right side of the fairway (last in the original set of four and now three)? Is that last bunker on the right side now in the rough or still somewhat inside the fairway line? Trying to scale the thing with a ruler off the computer I make it somewhere around 200yds.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't know the exact yardage, but unless you have a cold, damp, good wind in your face, they don't effect the lower handicap players.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Is that last bunker on the right still within the fairway line and is it a bunker a golfer might fly the ball directly over due to the right to left tilt of the fairway? And also does it really matter much when approaching that green if your approach is from the right side of the fairway or the left side? In other words how much do those right greenside bunkers and the right to left tilt of the green complicate an approach from the right of the fairway as opposed to the left of the fairway?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

At one time, when I thought it might make sense to add a replicate bunker further out, I knew the exact carries for each of those bunkers.

The right side of the fairway has a slight cant, the cant increases as you move toward the left rough.

You question on the approach depends on the golfer.

Some prefer visibility, so, for them the right side, where the green and alley of approach is more visible, might be better for them.

Shorter hitters are probably better off on the right side, if they can get there because their approach can be lower, or along the ground, whereas an approach from the left must have a significant aerial component.

My recollection, not to be counted on today, is that the forward right bunkers are in the rough and gradually emerge from the rough as you move away from the tee.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In that case would it not be an excellent idea--and a restoration one at that to at least get those right side fairway bunkers back inside the fairway line and carry that fairway line past them to the right? That way, at least for the shorter hitter they would need to be challenged (carried over) for the player to get the best angle into that green which you say some (possbly shorter hitter) feel is the best angle into that green. We should all know by now that bunkering to be challenged (carried) to an ideal landing area is the best and most effective kind of strategic bunkering to have.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()