[Pete Lavallee]

So far no one has really answered George's question. As resident of America's Finest City for the last 15 years I'll take a stab at it. The terrain that both golf courses sit on is very flat, falling gently towards the bluffs and the sea. There were no interesting topographical spots to locate the greens on, so 36 pushup greensites were constructed; most probably to assist with drainage. The site consists of heavy red clay with a 6 inch layer of topsoil spred over it. The original greens all had a distinct back to front slope, with the rear of the green about 5 feet above the fairway and the entrance level with it. When pressed for an example of  a golf course where one had to control his spin rate on iron shots, Jeff Sluman nominated Torrey, indicating that a hard spinning shot would back right off most of the greens there. There were vitually no internal contours or tiers on any of the original greens, however the exteme back to front slope made for huge breaking sidehill putts.

When Rees was brought in for the redesign he stated that with todays cultivars and green speeds if he retained the original contours Pros would putt the ball right off the green. So what he did in the redesign was to build up the front of the greens to only be about 1 foot lower than the backs. Almost every green is divided into 3 distinct sections by ridges. Within that section the green is very flat, to accomadate the high sppeds anticipated at the 2008 Open. If you're putting from the wrong section to the pin you can expect a challanging putt as you negociate the ridge which seperates you from the section with the hole. So the greens at the South course are now harder to get close to hole on, because your trying to hit a 10 yard circle instead of a 30 yard one. However once your in the right section the putts rarely break more than a few inches, and you won't encounter any really scary downhill putts. The sad part of all this is that the greens were flattened because they were going to be so fast, but because the sod used for the rebuild (Dec. 2001) had a severe thatch problem the greens at the South course are the slowest and poorest putting surfaces by far in San Diego County. They have been this way for 2 years now and the management has not been willing to aggessively attack the situation through multiple aerations, for fear of alienating the tourists who are now paying upwards of $125 for a round at Torrey South. A redesign for the North is scheduled for Sept. of 2004, just after the Junior World Tournament. The management says that the subbase has been exhausted of nutrients and therefore must be rebuilt. I find this rather hard to believe and think it's just to back their plan for Rees to redo the course and justify the accompanying rate increase that will surely follow.  

[SL_Solow]

As a midwesterner who played the course both before (circa 1990) and after (last October) the changes I can unequivocally state my opinion that the course is much improved.  I can believe that the infrastructure changes were significant as the  salutory effects on conditioning are quite evident.  I also believe that the bunkering and greens complexes are better, although at the time I played them they were both slow and bumpy so that I could not get a fair read on the amount of contour.  Nonetheless, I would not classify them as "flat".  I agree that most of the contour is caused by  prevailing slope and there are not many internal contours.  I contrast this with some older courses which have significant general contours to encourage surface drainage while also containing numerous subtle breaks within the general slope thereby increasing difficulty and interest.  While some greens have been moved closer to the cliffs, I share some of the disappointment in the routing.  There just isn't too much of interest here for me.  Its a good golf course and I enjoyed it.  The setting is beautiful and looks particularly great right now.  However I wouldn't make a special trip to play it, too much sameness in the holes.  For me, the fact that they're holding an Open, while interesting, does not add anything to the architecture or experience.  Off topic, I was put up at the lodge and it is great without being "over the top."

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, Pete & Shel, as well as the others who addressed the original question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If that's what you take away from my posts, fine. All too often people defend all architects with "He just gave the client what he wanted" or "He's just giving the people what they want." Well, boring greens are not what I want and I'm not afraid to say it, no matter what you & Pat say.

How can you draw the conclusion that the greens at Torrey Pines are boring if you've never seen them, either pre or post renovation work ?


If they're not boring, great, so much the better for everyone who golfs there.

But, you've implied that they are, and therein lies the fault with you initial and subsequent posts.  You made derogatory statements in your opening post, and continue to make them
despite never having seen the greens.

When I challenged you, as you have done to me on numerous occaassions, you got all high and mighty, with righteous indignation, saying that I attacked you personally, that I insulted you, HOGWASH.

I challenged your conclusions, and I challenged the validity of your comments absent any factual, first hand information.

SPDB gave me a hard time on the NGLA tree clearing thread, but I didn't view his interogation as a personal attack, he wanted me to state that I had seen the work and I chose to be coy, causing him to challenge me even more.  I didn't whine and complain that he had insulted me or personally attacked me.  I eventually provided him with the information he wanted, and the issue was settled.

If you're going to hold yourself up as being above reproach when you make statements about golf courses you've never set foot on, you're in for a bumpy flight.

If you're not willing to make a post and take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

As I watch today, I continue to be impressed with the greens that are perched near the cliffs. I saw Pernice (I think) hit a little bump & run at a skyline green that looked pretty damn cool. Also, as I type this,

Jesper is next to the 4th green on the SC and it looks to have to contour -

but he just hit his greenside recovery & it didn't do much. Neither did the putt.

Make up your mind, are they boring or do they have contour ?

[Brian Phillips]

Pat,

You are really taking the piss now..

George just asked a simple question, nothing else and all you have done is question him back...

Can you not just say...no I don't think they are?

Oh..by the way the greens at Augusta don't look flat when the ball rolls and rolls and rolls on tv....unless the have produced some sort of slow motion video just for Norway....

George didn't imply anything...he just asked...give him a bit of credit...this is George not someone else that we know...

Brian

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian Phillips,

Okay.

[SPDB]

Bottom line, this is a website devoted to discussion, not a kitchen. There is no need to turn up the heat.

Pat - characterizing george's innocent comments as reckless and derogatory is entirely too self-serving, even for you. Call off your dogs. George asked a legitimate question in his first post. You have a habit of asking questions in your threads as well. HOwever, as best as I can tell and contrary to your practice, George was actually looking for answers, and not soliciting responses to summarily shoot down.

As far as the NGLA thread. I'll concede that i was trying to pin you down, but that is only because you castigate people for expressing opinions about something without first seeing it. I still suspect that you hadn't seen the NGLA tree clearing before starting that thread, notwithstanding your later posts to the contrary. You called it "rumor" (which you subsequently attributed to me), made several inconsistent posts about the extent of the work, before finally conceding that you were "uncertain."

Frankly, I didn't care that you hadn't been there, or that it was something you merely were told rather than had seen for yourself. I was only trying to illustrate what a waste of time it is to call people out for indiscretions you yourself take.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Bottom line, this is a website devoted to discussion, not a kitchen. There is no need to turn up the heat.

Pat - characterizing george's innocent comments as reckless and derogatory is entirely too self-serving, even for you. Call off your dogs. George asked a legitimate question in his first post.

How do you know what his motives in posting were ?

You have a habit of asking questions in your threads as well. HOwever, as best as I can tell and contrary to your practice, George was actually looking for answers, and not soliciting responses to summarily shoot down.

If he was looking for answers, why did he make the statements he made in the initial and subsequent posts, especially when the question asked implied that the greens at Torrey Pines were the most boring in American golf, or did you miss that part

As far as the NGLA thread. I'll concede that i was trying to pin you down, but that is only because you castigate people for expressing opinions about something without first seeing it. I still suspect that you hadn't seen the NGLA tree clearing before starting that thread, notwithstanding your later posts to the contrary.

You're wrong again, which is becoming habitual

You called it "rumor" (which you subsequently attributed to me), made several inconsistent posts about the extent of the work, before finally conceding that you were "uncertain."

You're wrong again, and, I stated, "that rumors had it", and I never attributed those rumors to you.  
Nothing was inconsistent about my posts,
you tried to challenge me, and your assumptions and facts were wrong.  You can admit that you were wrong, can't you ?  
The trees are gone

Frankly, I didn't care that you hadn't been there, or that it was something you merely were told rather than had seen for yourself. I was only trying to illustrate what a waste of time it is to call people out for indiscretions you yourself take.

It was no indescretion, I've seen NGLA pre and post tree removal.  George claimed the greens at Torrey Pines were boring, yet he had never actually seen them pre or post renovation work.
I'd say that that's a significant difference.

[SPDB]

Just so the record is clear:

Here's our colloquy:

You:

Rumor has it that the interior of the golf course at NGLA has but two specimen trees left standing.

Me:

P.S. which 2 trees? Is the tall one on 8 gone?

Your response:

# 2 and # 15 are the lone holes with specimen trees left on what would be deemed the interior of the property.

You [incorporating my questions]:

Have they eliminated all trees behind 1 and to the left of 2 (i.e. opening up view across 17 tee 16 to 15 and beyond?

I'm not certain, but that was my understanding

Are there no more trees behind #7 and to the left of #8?

NO, they're all gone, no trees between # 8 and # 11

You again, unprompted

SPDB,

The Specimen tree on the 8th tee remains.

Me:

what's rumor, and what can you personally verify (and how?)

You:

There is no rumor, as you allege.

If this is not the model of inconsistency
1. Saying that  you're "uncertain, but it was your "understanding", when you've allegedly seen it yourself.
2. Saying there are no trees on 8, and then later saying there are

and misrepresentation - starting the thread saying there is a "rumor," and then when I ask what is rumor and what is fact, claiming that the rumor is my allegation.

then the words inconsistency and misrepresentation have acquired new meanings.

[SPDB]

unfortunately, I think you are viewing George's post through your own prism. You see most people when they ask questions aren't asserting facts, masquerading as rhetorical questions.  

[Jeff Fortson]

Patrick Mucci wrote:

"How do you know what his motives in posting were ?


Mr. Mucci, I read what you thought George's motives were, so why question someone else's assumptions?  


Jeff F.

[George Pazin]

Well, Pat, I had enough time to reflect that I can now laugh at your most recent posts.

I didn't imply anything - I outright asked if TP has the 36 most boring greens. I complimented Rees on moving some of the greens to the cliffs and then stated my disdain for boring greens.

What did I offer as evidence? As everyone else but you was able to comprehend, I offered the very few putts that I saw on TV that broke any significant amount. I assumed (maybe I was wrong in this, though the laws of physics tend to be fairly universal) that if I hit the same putts as the big boys, I would observe the limited amount of break. Perhaps in person it would appear greater. I never once implied that the greens were boring - I asked if they were the most boring of any 36 hole complex in America (actually, to be fair, this was definitely implied - I asked if they were the 36 most boring greens in America, not if they were part of the complex with the most boring 36 greens - there is a subtle distinction here that I do not expect you to understand, since you have failed to understand the incredibly simple and basic question that I have asked).

For you to state that you addressed for question and I can't take your rebuttal - well, that's an outright bold faced lie that I'll leave others to notice. You'll notice that I didn't react poorly at all when Lou and others offered contrary evidence. I accepted their opinions as informed ones and didn't attempt to infer their agendas or cast aspersions on their motives.

If you think that you addressed my comments without simply attacking me personally, well, again, I'll leave that to everyone else to determine. To me, it's a joke. You asked me about AWT's greens at BB and I responded that I had not been there nor TP N&S. I plainly stated that my observation was based on watching the putts on TV the broke very little, at least in my 7 years of experience playing golf.

You were the one that stated I had some sort of agenda against Rees, when I outright stated that I didn't know if the greens were the result of the original architect, some random super or Rees or whoever.

You are the one who felt the need to climb up on the pedastal and tell me that I should think twice before I hit the post button. I never said the same to you, in spite of the fact that this advice applies more to you than ANYONE on the site, with the notable exceptions of JakaB and Tuco. To your credit, they are generally more personally rude than you.

For you to twist things around and state that I was the one who couldn't take the heat when you "rebutted" my comments (which were in fact a question), well, again, I'll leave that up to everyone else to decide. I could offer to everyone the fact that I accepted the word of Lou, Matt, Tommy, Pete L, SL Solow, etc., without objecting to their style of personally slandering me, but that would insult the intelligence of the many readers out there who can see the evidence plainly for themselves.

Ironically enough, quite a few people have IM'd me privately in support of my case on this thread. I told most or all of them that I've met you in person and you're a great guy who has a lot to offer. It's a shame this doesn't come across on the site, because you so often choose to attack the messenger rather than the message. I guess in some part of your mind you feel as though you do actually address content rather than attacking posters, but the truth is rather evident to everyone else (again except JakaB). I'm not the first to be at the receiving end of your interrogation, nor will I likely be the last. But who knows, maybe I will. Nothing's impossible, I guess.

All in all, I was completely disgusted by your display earlier in the day. Now I just think it's pathetic. The fact that you can't even admit how you mistakenly misinterpreted my opening question and remarks, and chose to try to twist things around so that I'm the bad guy who can't take criticism, while I have done so willingly with the several people on this thread who have specifically addressed my opening question, is just downright sad. It's apparent to pretty much everyone else here on the site, except JakaB apparently.

Oh well, tomorrow is another day. Hopefully you will seriously reflect on what has transpired and maybe try to do better next time.

But I don't hold out much hope. And in the end, that's probably the saddest statement of them all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I don't consider the tree on the 8th tee to be an internal tree.

If you walk the 7th fairway that tree is merely an extension of the tree line from the woods on the right.  And, if you are walking in the 8th fairway and look back, that tree blends in with the tree line, as opposed to sitting out by itself.

Since I never recalled any trees behind # 1 except for one large aiming tree, I wasn't sure, because I wasn't sure if there were ever any trees behind # 1.  Behind # 1 is # 2 tee and behind # 2 tee is the steep drop off to the employee dormitory, so I had no clue with respect with what you were talking about, hence I made the statement that I wasn't certain.  The large, lone tree short and left of # 17 green is gone, but, there were never any trees to the left of that because a pond is in that location, hence, I don't believe you knew what you were talking about when you referenced trees behind # 1, over to # 17.

You also alluded to trees behind # 2 green and there were never any trees behind # 2 green

There is nothing inconsistent in my posts, only in your understanding of where the trees actually existed.

You were in denial when I indicated that NGLA had embarked upon a substantial tree clearing project and continued to challenge the fact that it's mostly completed.

In the context of the exchange, since you denied my first hand knowledge of the project, one could say that you were in the rumor camp, refusing to acknowledge my word.

I could also mention the rumors about Bayberry/Sebonic, and then I could tell you what's happening there.  Just because I've seen it and am privy to some information about Bayberry/Sebonic doesn't mean that the rumors aren't floating around about it.

George Pazin,

First of all, you've done the same thing to me, time and time again, so please, stop with the righteous indignation.

Secondly, show me where I attacked you personally.

Thirdly, you're not the only one who gets IM's supporting their position.

When you indicated, after your initial post, that you had never actually seen the greens at Torrey Pines, I thought the title of your post was taking a shot at Torrey Pines and the work there, and inflamatory.

If you don't think the question, "Are the 36 greens at Torrey Pines the most boring greens in American golf" implies that you think they are, or might be, then you're not dealing with reality.  Or maybe, it's too subtle for me to grasp, right ?

I guess watching TV and looking at pictures is a genuine substitute for actually being on site when making a critical evaluation of a golf course or its features.  Especially when your views of the greens are limited to those that the director/producer chooses to televise, and not all 36 greens as you referenced.  So, if you haven't seen all 36 greens, how do you make your all encompassing statement about all of the greens at Torrey Pines ?

You say now, after I questioned your initial post, that you were just asking a question about the greens at Torrey Pines, If so, why add the qualifying statement, "are they the most boring greens in American golf' ?  That connotes that you've made a qualitative and comparitive judgement that they are boring, and you did so without ever having seen any of them.

That just doesn't seem as innocent as you'd like others to think.  Maybe it's too subtle for me.

When watching TV ANGC looks flat, and when you see it in person, it's quite the opposite, the elevation changes are dramatic.

By the way, it would seem to some observers, that I'm being personally attacked.  I wonder what JakaB would say ?

[Dan Kelly]

George Pazin,

Nice try, Sisyphus!

Best regards,
Dan

[HamiltonBHearst]

I do not want to get dragged into this thing or tom macwood will start accusing me of being LIRR?  Anyway, Mr. Mucci has a style that forces one to question their own preconceived notions and prejudices. so what.  I took your post title to be a bash on the greens and Rees and rather than turning into a Rees bash fest it has turned personal.  

Perhaps "what do the greens play like at TP".  After discussion perhaps it would be appropriate to ask your original question.  I too have enjoyed the more recent answers from those who have actually played the course.

You state you have met Mr. Mucci and he is a gentleman.  that should be enough.  I do believe posting that you have received many IM's from others in support is wrong, because when you state "I told most or all of them I met you  in person and you are a great guy".

That to me is a backdoor way of saying others think you are a jerk Mr. Mucci, by implying that has been the tone of the IM's and that you have to "calm them down"

[JakaB]

By the way, it would seem to some observers, that I'm being personally attacked.  I wonder what JakaB would say ?

Pat,

Considering that George thinks the statement "Does Torrey Pines possess the most boring 36 greens in American golf?" is a simple question and not an attack on the course or its architect.  I would say no you have not been personally attacked...I

[T_MacWood]

George
Well said...its too bad it couldn't have ended there. Maybe Ran can errase the following posts (including my own) and it can end on a gentlemanly note.

Pat/LIRR/ Hambone/Len Itnes
Nice try.

[Lou_Duran]

How can criticism of an object without qualification or explanation not be taken as criticism toward its creator?  I take George at his word that he was not picking on Rees Jones, but I can certainly see how other people may see it as that.

What is the purspose of criticism?  If it is of the constructive variety, it would be to change future behavior and outcomes.  An inanimate object will not change on its own.  So in effect, can it not be inferred that what is being said is: "Rees Jones just spent over $3MM on 18 holes and he built the flatest, most boring greens in the .....?".

This is not what George meant, but on a site where we quite frequently take pot shots at various leading people, it is not hard to understand the reaction.  It is best not to take things personal which do not neatly fit our belief system.  I guess that we all need to think a bit more before we write, or maybe better yet, to cut each other a little slack.

Jak,

I totally disagree with your take about the contributions a consumer can make to a producer.   I don't know your architect "friend", but I do hope that he does keep his mind open to suggestions from people who've played the game for a long time, have seen many courses throughout the world, and are well-read.  Unless he is a golf god, he may learn something.  I like to think that some value can be added by this site beyond just keeping a bunch of fat white guys with too much time on their hands entertained when it is too cold outside.  

[Sven Bergstrøm]

Nøt feel bäd Geørgie. Me think Pätrick hæd as thick as dä iceberg føund inda øne øur Swedskee fiørds.

Keep up dä good vørdee Geørgie. It hælthy thræd häd best intenshunee until dä Mucci-biäs tuk root.

[JakaB]

If John Daly goes on to win today will it help prove Torrey is only long, long, long and nothing much else....I know he won at TOC but you guys have always had a way of dismissing BO winners as not worthy.

[Brian Phillips]

JakaB,

I watched John Daly play the back nine on the tv last night and thought not only was he long but he was also straight.  The other thing that struck me was his short game.  His pitching, chipping and putting were fantastic...so I don't agree with you...

Brian.

[JakaB]

Look at all the new Torrey threads peaking their heads out since Daly won....you guys just can't stand it...This was the greatest regular tour event in quite some time....what was missing..you tell me.  That 73rd green wasn't boring at all...huh George...

[JakaB]

Mike,

I would expect a little stronger sarcastdar from a New Yorker...

[JakaB]

I would like to know how the course could have been any different to make it any more entertaining...the one thing I can think of is summer time conditioning.   I only saw a couple of holes because I had the good sense to play golf today...but how about the flow of the scoring...how about the recovery shots...how about seeing the pros hit long irons into greens....how about those missed putts on the 73rd green....how about that 12th hole played from 477 when they still have a 505 tee.   I thought the swasbuckling nature of the score flow was augustaesque....Was I the only person watching the tournament that everytime a putt broke out of the hole thought of this thread...did George ever say if he only meant boring to play and not boring to watch....oh, I forgot he is only qualified to comment on watching...was anybody bored today...I don't think so.

[CHrisB]

JakaB,
I thought the course proved its worth as a championship venue today. After watching play at the 18th today, I'm no longer convinced that it will be a poor U.S. Open finishing hole, especially when the rough grows and missing the fairway means a much tougher task to get a reasonable 3rd shot in. I'm wondering if the USGA will cut down the grass in front of the 18th green or leave it as rough. Same for holes like #3 and #14 left and behind.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()