Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on January 28, 2008, 10:16:24 PM
-
With its low lying terrain, high water table and heavy rains does Raynor's style, especially his constructed style, with elevated footpads for tees and greens, provide the ideal functionality required by that environment ?
Wouldn't courses that embraced and hugged the natural terrain perish when exposed to those elements, over time ?
-
From what I can tell, Clifton, Lee, and Garl are the ideal designers for Florida. Otherwise, why would every other course be designed by these 3? ??? :P
-
Pete Dye is another worthy candidate, no (e.g. Sawgrass Stadiu )? Dick Wilson certainly popularized the idea of digging lakes and using the collected soil to build up playing surfaces in that region (to my knowledge... I've never been to Florida).
-
Pat,
How many different threads are you going to start to promote the work of Raynor? Railroad beds? Flat land? Mountain Lake?
Was he the ideal architect for the flat lands of Florida? Of course not, he was one of many.
Too bad you could not see what Flynn did at Boca Raton South. That land had no more than 10 feet of elevation change. Flynn used sandy waste areas, mounds, wide fairways and wind to create the angles necessary for strategic design and interest. I'll show you the drawings and photographs someday.
You can see what Flynn did at Indian Creek, though the bunker maintenance varies from Flynn's initial style. Why don't you go over there and check it out. That was built on perfectly flat ground on a man-made island 3' above sea level. You will be interested to see how Flynn's greens were built and how he literally shaped the land so that every contour is by design.
Have you considered the amount of top-dressing courses get over the decades, particularly given the grasses used in the south? I wonder how much elevation has been added over the years.
Boca Raton South 8th
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2058/2227830775_6d2ccd2b74.jpg)
Boca Raton South 9th
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2227830787_203fc28c96.jpg)
Boca Raton South 15th
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2151/2228623290_3afef44980.jpg)
-
Interesting question. After playing Mountain Lake I wondered why there weren't more Raynor courses in Florida. The engineered style certainly does seem to fit the land an architect generally has to work with. Ideal architect, though? There probably is no such thing.
Mr. Morrison
Does Raynor's work need promotion? I realize that his style is not for everyone, but it deserves as much discussion as this Flynn guy you're always talking about ;).
-
John,
I was remarking on Pat starting 3 threads on the first page extolling Raynor. I don't think Raynor's work needs promotion either, it is highly regarded and acclaimed on this site. I think Raynor deserves a great deal of discussion. Unfortunately, too often it is the same party line without criticism or in-depth observations. The same can be said for MacKenzie. This site seems to have a biased view of a number of architects. If others present a different view, it is bound to be assailed.
Given that this thread asks the question whether or not Raynor was the ideal architect for flat Florida (I agree with you that there is no such thing) it seems reasonable to demonstrate, with examples of other architects, that he cannot be considered the ideal. The notion itself is flawed and I was simply presenting evidence to support that.
I wish everyone would not hold over me bringing Flynn into discussions where appropriate as if it is a passionate push for Flynn's acceptance. I know him best, few know him at all. It isn't a blind love by any means that I introduce him into various discussions. Does Phil get criticized for bringing Tillinghast into discussions? I don't have as broad an understanding of architecture as some do on this site. Certainly not to the extent I have in depth as I do with Flynn. If I think Flynn relates to a subject, I bring him up as a scarce resource. Would you rather I didn't?
Wayne
-
My vote would go to Mackenzie or Colt as the ideal candidates for places in the world where sand is the predominate native soil, because their bunkering was built to look like the grass is exposed to underlying sand.
As far engineering for the elements goes, I would have to agree that Seth Raynor was very talented in that discipline. But I saw an old Alison drainage schematic last week that was very sophisticated. These guys knew what they were doing when it came to drainage.
-
John,
I was remarking on Pat starting 3 threads on the first page extolling Raynor. I don't think Raynor's work needs promotion either, it is highly regarded and acclaimed on this site. I think Raynor deserves a great deal of discussion. Unfortunately, too often it is the same party line without criticism or in-depth observations. The same can be said for MacKenzie. This site seems to have a biased view of a number of architects. If others present a different view, it is bound to be assailed.
Given that this thread asks the question whether or not Raynor was the ideal architect for flat Florida (I agree with you that there is no such thing) it seems reasonable to demonstrate, with examples of other architects, that he cannot be considered the ideal. The notion itself is flawed and I was simply presenting evidence to support that.
I wish everyone would not hold over me bringing Flynn into discussions where appropriate as if it is a passionate push for Flynn's acceptance. I know him best, few know him at all. It isn't a blind love by any means that I introduce him into various discussions. Does Phil get criticized for bringing Tillinghast into discussions? I don't have as broad an understanding of architecture as some do on this site. Certainly not to the extent I have in depth as I do with Flynn. If I think Flynn relates to a subject, I bring him up as a scarce resource. Would you rather I didn't?
Wayne
I don't see anything wrong with starting three separate threads related to the same architect if each focuses on a different aspect of his work. That way each topic gets individual attention, but the approach would probably work better if the threads were spaced out a bit more.
Just joking around with you about Flynn. Obviously you are very passionate about his work. If you feel he's under-appreciated, it may simply be attributed to many of us having less familiarity with his courses. I've primarily seen his work in photos and television (Shinnecock is amazing). From what I've read, it seems that the greatness of his architecture is best realized from playing the courses. More subtle isn't bad, but it is harder to talk about.
-
I'm sorry, John. I didn't mean to implicate you in my gripe. I knew you were kidding by the emoticon. I was responding to others that often cite my passion for Flynn as a bit blinding. 8)
-
Bradley Anderson,
Interestingly enough, as we were exiting the 13th green, one of our group, a Floridian, commented on the red clay soil that was between # 13 green and # 14 tee.
As you ride from the Florida Turnpike, West on SR 60, you can almost see the curvature of the earth, it's so flat.
But, as you approach Lake Wales, you can see the terrain begin to rise.
I don't know the soil composition at Mountain Lake, but, I'd imagine there would have to be a good amount of clay to hold the water in those elevated ponds and lakes.
-
Bradley Anderson,
Interestingly enough, as we were exiting the 13th green, one of our group, a Floridian, commented on the red clay soil that was between # 13 green and # 14 tee.
As you ride from the Florida Turnpike, West on SR 60, you can almost see the curvature of the earth, it's so flat.
But, as you approach Lake Wales, you can see the terrain begin to rise.
I don't know the soil composition at Mountain Lake, but, I'd imagine there would have to be a good amount of clay to hold the water in those elevated ponds and lakes.
I noticed that red clay too. Wasn't expecting it in Florida.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mountain%20lake/13tee.jpg)
-
Sorry Patrick. I shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions.
The course doesn't look too flat in the above photo. It looks like it has just the right amount of movement for drainage, and it looks ideally suited to building shadowy bunkers at or just below grade, with greens that keep close to grade also. My favorite kind of golf course.
So I will switch my vote to Walter Travis if that's ok?
O.T. sorry if this is offensive to anyone, but is the whole red clay thing in some way associated with the term red neck?
-
Sorry Patrick. I shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions.
The course doesn't look too flat in the above photo. It looks like it has just the right amount of movement for drainage, and it looks ideally suited to building shadowy bunkers at or just below grade, with greens that keep close to grade also. My favorite kind of golf course.
So I will switch my vote to Walter Travis if that's ok?
O.T. sorry if this is offensive to anyone, but is the whole red clay thing in some way associated with the term red neck?
I grew up in KY. I've always heard that redneck originally described a person who was burned or heavily tanned from farm or other outdoor work. Just a way of distinguishing poor working class people from our more genteel southern brethren.
-
That "red clay" is strictly on the maintenance road leading from the shop between 7 and 16, behind the 15th green, in front of the 14th, along the right side of 13 and down the 12th hole. It's also not red clay, but a different type of sand.
Having dug many irrigation holes during the course of my time there, the soil is primarily sand based.
Mountain Lake isn't flat at all. From the highest point on the course (the first green) to the lowest point (the basin below the 12th tee) there is 60 foot elevation change and the adjoining Bok Tower is located on the highest point in Peninsular Florida.
Nearby Lekarica has even more elevation chages. The ponds are controlled with pumps that pump water into the ponds for irrigation from the surrounding orange groves, which are owned by the corporation as well. In fact, there were many issues with sand in the water destroying the rotors of the pump for a time.
-
Bradley:
About the etymology of the term "redneck" John Mayhugh is exactly right.
-
Bradley:
About the etymology of the term "redneck: John Mayhugh is exactly right.
Etymology is the current front-runner for GCA word of the day.
-
Kyle:
It doesn't matter if Mountain Lake and its part of Florida is not flat as Patrick has now been there and he thinks it's flat so I doubt there's much of anything those who know the area well and who tell him it's not flat can do to convince him otherwise.
-
I got an email yesterday (that many of you have probably seen) offering all kinds of interesting etymologies of terms I never knew. I'll try to find it and put some on here.
-
Kyle:
It doesn't matter if Mountain Lake and its part of Florida is not flat as Patrick has now been there and he thinks it's flat so I doubt there's much of anything those who know the area well and who tell him it's not flat can do to convince him otherwise.
I'm anticipating this response and have begun to count up the amount of time I've spent there.
I never worked less than 40 hours in one week from November 2006 until the end of May 2007, except for the week I spent in Pennsylvania.
That week in PA was also the only time I spent longer than two days away from Mountain Lake during that time frame.
Oh yeah, my first day off was Christmas Day 2006.
If anyone wants to say that's red clay, I'll just tell them I got the spray rig filled with 150 gallons of rinsate stuck in the "red clay" just off the right side of the picture of 13 John Mayhugh posted. It hadn't rained for about two weeks at that time.
;)
Of course, this all goes to naught if they flattened the place during that week I spent in PA.
-
I got an email yesterday (that many of you have probably seen) offering all kinds of interesting etymologies I never knew of various terms.
"In the 1400's a law was set forth in England that a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. Hence we have "the rule of thumb"
-
If we assume that Raynor was the ideal architect for south Florida, any thoughts about whether or not Raynor himself (or the men who hired him) were thinking in those terms? In other words, was Raynor's "Florida style" intentional and based on a sound understanding of the land's demands/requirements, or was it a happy accident? And either way, does anyone think this does (or should) make a difference in this discussion?
Peter
-
You know what, Peter, with all this discussion lately about naturalism vs Raynor's engineered and artifical looking architecture and all these people on here wildly divided in their thinking of Raynor architecture all the way from highly engineered looking to actually natural looking that Raynor might just have the last laugh here.
It just may be, depending on how clever he really was, that he was intentionally doing something that might be accurately termed "Rorschach Architecture".
In other words, it was a form of architecture where different people would see vastly different things while looking at the very same thing. Or even when one person saw one thing, for instance real naturalism, and then blinked and looked again and the same thing could appear highly engineered and artifical. And then, blink again, and...... ;)
Perhaps Raynor appreciated better than any architect that some people are primarily right brained and some people are primarily left brained, while some, who mighty be called "the fortunate few", such as myself, actually use their whole brain all the time! Well, maybe not all the time but most of the time! ;)
-
It doesn't matter if Mountain Lake and its part of Florida is not flat as Patrick has now been there and he thinks it's flat so I doubt there's much of anything those who know the area well and who tell him it's not flat can do to convince him otherwise.
I don't know TE, this looks pretty flat to me.
[/color]
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mountain%20lake/13tee.jpg)
What do you think ?
AND, I never said that Mountain Lake was FLAT.
Here's my opening post on this thread.
Was Raynor the ideal architect for flat South/Central Florida ?
« on: Yesterday at 10:16:24pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With its low lying terrain, high water table and heavy rains does Raynor's style, especially his constructed style, with elevated footpads for tees and greens, provide the ideal functionality required by that environment ?
Wouldn't courses that embraced and hugged the natural terrain perish when exposed to those elements, over time ?
Would you cite where I stated that Mountain Lake was flat ?
Absent your citation, would you admit that:
1 You can't read
2 You can read, but, you can't comprehend
Thanks[/color]
-
Pat,
The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet. The green is also one of the most contoured and extreme from front right to back left with a height difference about almost 8 feet.
The flattest holes on the property are the 4th,5th, and 17th, with the latter two being Par 3s.
-
TEP
If you are into etymology you should become a student of Marina. She is a Russian born philologist and does a video on youtube 3 times a week.
check out an episode :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SoDOiaMWQBY
or her website: www.hotforwords.com
-
If we assume that Raynor was the ideal architect for south Florida, any thoughts about whether or not Raynor himself (or the men who hired him) were thinking in those terms?
In other words, was Raynor's "Florida style" intentional and based on a sound understanding of the land's demands/requirements, or was it a happy accident?
Peter,
Seth Raynor graduated from Princeton with a degree in Civil Engineering and Geodesy so I don't think his sound understanding of the land's demands/requirements was an accident, happy or otherwise.
CBM praised Raynor's many abilities to the Nth degree.[/color]
And either way, does anyone think this does (or should) make a difference in this discussion?
Of course it does.
Raynor was a bright, well educated individual with degrees in Civil Engineering and Geodesy. A talented surveyor tutored under the man who's recognized as the father of American architecture.
"When it came to accurate surveying, contours, plastic relief models of the land, DRAINING, piping water in quantity over the entire course, wells and pumps, and in many instances clearing the land of forests, eradicating stones, finally resulting in the preparing the course for seeding, he had NO PEER".
"He was a world builder."
His understanding of civil engineering was critical in designing and building courses in less than ideal locations.
He didn't have to hire or rely on others for that area of expertise.
HE WAS THE MAN.[/color]
-
"In the 1400's a law was set forth in England that a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. Hence we have "the rule of thumb"
TEP
I found a video of Marina (hotforwords) refuting this notion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaFBs3FHNEQ
-
Pat,
The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet.
Kyle, there is no 10 foot elevation change from that tee to the bunker.[/color]
The green is also one of the most contoured and extreme from front right to back left with a height difference about almost 8 feet.
The green is set up on a footpad, not at grade level at the mid-point.[/color]
The flattest holes on the property are the 4th,5th, and 17th, with the latter two being Par 3s.
So, you don't consider the 7th a flat hole ?
The 6th ? from the tee to the LZ to the green ?[/color]
-
TE, Patrick - thanks :)
I should've edited that post a little. It asked what I meant to ask, but I could've been clearer on this one point, i.e.
Since Raynor also utilized his "constructed style, with elevated footpads for tees and greens" on courses that weren't on south Florida flatlands, it seems fair to ask: what came first, the style or the flatlands?
I won't go so far as to say that The Man WAS The Style. Well, maybe I will say it, but only to ask of which architect(s) that wasn't the case.
Peter
-
having played MLake 10 to 15 times more than our resident expert PM...I have to agree with Kyle on his analysis....funny how one weekend spent in the Colony House makes you a Raynor/MLake expert?? ::)
-
Pat,
The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet.
Kyle, there is no 10 foot elevation change from that tee to the bunker.[/color]
The green is also one of the most contoured and extreme from front right to back left with a height difference about almost 8 feet.
The green is set up on a footpad, not at grade level at the mid-point.[/color]
The flattest holes on the property are the 4th,5th, and 17th, with the latter two being Par 3s.
So, you don't consider the 7th a flat hole ?
The 6th ? from the tee to the LZ to the green ?[/color]
You're kidding, right?
7 is flat, add it to the list as I forgot.
Everything, I just won't bother. I'll get the topo, Silva's master plan copies and other data I collected there over the course of my employment tomorrow.
-
having played MLake 10 to 15 times more than our resident expert PM...I have to agree with Kyle on his analysis....funny how one weekend spent in the Colony House makes you a Raynor/MLake expert?? ::)
Michael,
Chances are that I was a Raynor fan long before you were born.
My experience with and knowledge of Raynor courses was established long before I set foot on Mountain Lake.
I'll offer you the same challenge that I offered that Idiot-Savant, TEPaul.
Would you cite for me, anywhere on this thread, where I said that Mountain Lake was flat ?
Absent your ability to present that citation I suggest you enroll in a reading comprehension course. If you live near TEPaul, I'm sure that you can get a discount for multiple enrollment.[/color]
-
MLake expert PM....I never said you said that MLake was flat...my comment was solely based on your challenge to KHarris' analysis of that particular hole....you are wrong...no matter how much green ink you use will not make you right...end of lesson!
-
MLake expert PM....I never said you said that MLake was flat...my comment was solely based on your challenge to KHarris' analysis of that particular hole....you are wrong...no matter how much green ink you use will not make you right...end of lesson!
If I'm wrong then you shouldn't mind wagering on the elevation change of 10 feet that Kyle claims between the forward tee on # 13 and the approach to the fairway bunker.
To make sure that GCA.com benefits, the loser will make a contribution equal to the amount chosen.
What would you like to bet ?
And, how did I disagree with Kyle's analysis of # 13 other than the elevation change between the forward tee and the fairway bunker ?
Since you claim I'm wrong, let's double the bet.
And, don't wimp out and IM or email Kyle for the topo's.
Make the bet PROMPTLY, based on your claim in reply # 29.
-
careful there Pat.....just which "fairway bunker" are EACH of you referrencing?...you both may be/are correct....depending.....
-
Having spent a lifetime of playing golf in the flatlands of the Southeastern US, I would postulate that Ross designed for the terrain more effectively than anyone. I have noticed his influence on most of the lesser known architects of the region. I would say Cobb, Lee, Cupp and most of the regional architects took Ross into their designs more than any of the other golden agers.
Raynor may have conjoured a few greensites in Lake Wales, but Ross was the master of the push up green in the Southeastern US.
-
MLake expert PM....I never said you said that MLake was flat...my comment was solely based on your challenge to KHarris' analysis of that particular hole....you are wrong...no matter how much green ink you use will not make you right...end of lesson!
If I'm wrong then you shouldn't mind wagering on the elevation change of 10 feet that Kyle claims between the forward tee on # 13 and the approach to the fairway bunker.
To make sure that GCA.com benefits, the loser will make a contribution equal to the amount chosen.
What would you like to bet ?
And, how did I disagree with Kyle's analysis of # 13 other than the elevation change between the forward tee and the fairway bunker ?
Since you claim I'm wrong, let's double the bet.
And, don't wimp out and IM or email Kyle for the topo's.
Make the bet PROMPTLY, based on your claim in reply # 29.
Pat,
I was referring to the L-shaped Blue tee that John Mayhugh was standing on when he took that picture, I'll discount the black tee as it was built on a pad. I was also referring to the middle bunker, left edge where it meets the fairway again, which is near the turn point of the hole. I suppose I should have said "carry the middle bunker." That's a very broad and general slope. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
The low point on the hole is right in front of the green, and that was what I was referencing in regard to the overall elevation change. The green is built up, as you say but is also one of the more severely contoured greens on the course in terms of delta.
Coincidentally, this might be my favorite hole in golf, so far. I have to get to work, but this afternoon I can provide an in-depth analysis of the hole and the dozens of options that are available to the golfer from day to day. There really is no vantage point from which a photographer can capture the true nature of the hole, however, John's picture does illuminate one very important aspect the golfer must face - obfuscation.
More later. Work now. :(
-
Kyle,
I really liked the sequence of the holes.
The stretch of par 4's, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 brought nice variety in terms of length and turns.
# 12, "blind", a long uphill then downhill par 4 with an extremely unique green and surrounds.
# 13, "fade, a medium length dogleg right with a unique green
and surrounds
# 14, "draw", a medium length dogleg left with a neat
hogback spined green and surrounds
# 15, "punchbowl, a short hole where the location of the hole
dictates the position of the drive to a unusual
punchbowl green
# 16 "carry", a long par 4 with a neat array of fairway
bunkers, then down to another unique green.
I thought # 18 was a terrific finishing hole, one requiring ALL good shots in order to make par or better, with a very unique green
While the design style would seem unmistakable, the variety in the holes is quite interesting.
It's a very, very sporty golf course.
John Cullum,
I wish that I had been able to visit Lake Wales Golf Club to see how Ross built his green sites at a course just a short distance from Mountain Lake. I wonder how much Ross is left on the golf course.
Perhaps Kyle or others have played it and can comment.
Supposedly, there was another course built nearby that was intended to compete with Mountain Lake and Lake Wales in terms of quality of design. Is anyone familiar with it ?
At Seminole, Ross put 10/11 of his greens on the two ridges/dunes and elevated the remaining 8/7 in the flats.
-
"Etymology is the current front-runner for GCA word of the day."
I have been trying to work in the word Epistemology here - the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge. Now there's a word for you.
How does a GCAer know what we he knows? Through the reliability of the senses, the law of noncontradiction, the analogical use of language, and the law of verification. Put all those together, together, and we have found the truth. And this thread is perfect example of the process.
-
Patrick:
Did you know Raynor's 15th green at Mountain Lake was the prototype for the wonderful 6th green at The Creek Club? What did you think of it? ???
-
The other period course in Lake Wales is Lekarica, by Stiles and VanKleek. I have yet to play it but I have driven through the development. It is terribly kept unfortunately.
The home at the entrance rivals anything inside the gate at Mountain Lake
-
MLake expert PM.....if you want to go down the bet road, leave GCA out of it. I want YOUR $$$.....and I don't bet or get out of bed unless we are talking 5 figures....so put your 401K where your mouth is.
Now what hole are you claiming doesn't have the elevation change that Kyle challenged you on....just so we have your facts straight for all to see.
-
Pat, I find the sand ridges of central Florida perfect for his style. ML does not have to be wet. They water it to the extreme at the moment for reasons I do not understand. It plays firm and fast when maintained properly. There is a good bit of movement to the land from Ocala to below Lake Wales. I am sadened at how many poor sites were selected when good ones are there to be had. It has a lot to do with where the population is though.
-
Patrick:
You're the guy who likes to quote Macdonald's remark that one needs to play a course and such in all kinds of winds and weather and conditions to understand it.
So, if you really believe that you should subscribe to that notion yourself when some of these people who have a ton more experience at Mountain Lake than you do tell you a few things about the course you don't seem so willing, at first, to agree with! ;)
Understanding NGLA is understanding NGLA----unfortunately noone can exactly translate that into understanding Mountain Lake as well after seeing it once. Same half the architectural team but two different places and two different golf courses, PAL! ;)
-
MLake expert PM.....if you want to go down the bet road, leave GCA out of it. I want YOUR $$$.....and I don't bet or get out of bed unless we are talking 5 figures....so put your 401K where your mouth is.
Consider it done.
[/color]
Now what hole are you claiming doesn't have the elevation change that Kyle challenged you on....just so we have your facts straight for all to see.
Interesting that you'd bet $ 10,000 + and not know what the bet is, perhaps that's an indication of my chances of collecting.
I stated what the bet was, previously, but, to make it cyrstal clear, it's that the elevation change from the front tee to the nearest bunker ISN'T 10 feet as Kyle claimed.
The picture below shows the area in question.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mountain%20lake/13tee.jpg)
Get a cashier's check in the amount of $ 10,000 payable to me, I'll get one payable to you, we'll send them to Ran for safe keeping, until the elevation differential is determined.
Is that OK with you ?[/color]
-
Patrick:
Let me ask you a simple question:
Are you under some impression that you know and understand the nuances of Mountain Lake after seeing it once as well as a guy like Kyle Harris understands it?
-
Patrick:
Let me ask you a simple question:
Are you under some impression that you know and understand the nuances of Mountain Lake after seeing it once as well as a guy like Kyle Harris understands it?
TEPaul,
To answer your question, why don't you reread what Kyle has written and then reread what I've written and tell me where we disagree.
If you'd like to jump on the bet I have with Mike Christensen, I'd be happy to have you make a visit to the vault, in fact, I'd be happy to accompany you when you make the withdrawal.
-
Patrick:
You're the guy who likes to quote Macdonald's remark that one needs to play a course and such in all kinds of winds and weather and conditions to understand it.
So, if you really believe that you should subscribe to that notion yourself when some of these people who have a ton more experience at Mountain Lake than you do tell you a few things about the course you don't seem so willing, at first, to agree with! ;)
Feel free to jump on the wagering band wagon.
Kyle's statement that there's a 10 foot elevation change between the front tee and the front of the nearest bunker is FLAT out wrong.
But, because you feel he has more experience, you're claiming that he must be right.
You've claimed to be an excellent analyzer of photos, LOOK at this picture and then tell me that you believe that the elevation change between the front tee and the nearest bunker is 10 feet. Tell me that Kyle is RIGHT, or tell me that you agree with me and that Kyle is WRONG.
[/color]
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mountain%20lake/13tee.jpg)[
Understanding NGLA is understanding NGLA----unfortunately noone can exactly translate that into understanding Mountain Lake as well after seeing it once.
Baloney, or Bolagna, how ever you want it.
I understand that there's NOT a 10 foot elevation change between that tee and the nearest bunker, and I didn't have to spend 16 years living on the site to observe, analyze and conclude that.[/color]
Same half the architectural team but two different places and two different golf courses, PAL! ;)
I never would have known that if you hadn't told me.[/color]
-
Just wanted to preserve Kyle's quote so that there can be no questions or reneging on the bet with Mike Christensen and TEPaul.
Pat,
The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet. The green is also one of the most contoured and extreme from front right to back left with a height difference about almost 8 feet.
The flattest holes on the property are the 4th,5th, and 17th, with the latter two being Par 3s.
-
MLake expert PM....you still have not mentioned the hole you are claiming you are correct on. You have talked about multiple holes on this thread.......I know what hole # Kyle was talking about...what hole are you talking about?? Is that too much to ask?? I want to make sure you have no wiggle room...
I am presuming it is hole #13....and Kyle's analysis is spot on..in every thread he has made concerning JMayhugh's pic....having driven that green and made eagle (from the back tee), I KNOW the elevation change on that hole. You obviously do not..
And Ran will hold nothing....everyone is honorable here...at least I hope they are.....
-
Pat,
A few points of clarification. Please read my above post #36 made this morning at 5:30 I clarified my parameters. Please note that I made no specific reference to which tee I was referring nor the part of the bunker to which I was referring and I apologize. I was not being vague on purpose. Post #36 on this thread should clarify. You preserved my quote, tell me where I was specific in it. Post #36 is.
None of the tees pictured are the forward tee on that hole, nor is the tee shown in the picture the one to which I was referring. The forward tee is about 30 yards in front of, and 30 yards left of the white tee shown in the picture, presenting a much different angle to the lesser skilled player.
I should let you know that my analysis comes not from that picture, but from the nature of my work during the course of my 7 month employment and internship at Mountain Lake. I've spent more time at Mountain Lake than most of the members who post on GCA, I'm sure. In fact, I've just received my W-2, and based on my pay rate, that is over 1,000 hours in 2007.
Why do you think I'm wrong?
From the picture, can you tell how much distance is between the middle bunker and the bunker on the left? What the elevation change between those two bunkers is?
If you guys are serious about this infantile betting, then fine. Pat, you've already skewed the parameters before asking me to clarify. Nowhere did I state in the quote you preserved as to my reference frames.
-
A few points of clarification.
Please read my above post #36 made this morning at 5:30 I clarified my parameters.
Kyle, your post # 36 is irrelevant to my bet with Mike Christensen.
I made a post, # 22, which included a picture from # 13 tee, in which I stated that the picture looked pretty flat to me.
In your post # 23 you stated that there was a 10 foot elevation change between the tee and the bunkers.
I disputed the 10 foot elevation change from that tee to the bunker.
Michael Christensen, a Mountain Lake expert, supported your position that a 10 foot differential existed.
And that is the basis for the wager.
I'm not interested in subsequent clarifications on your part, they're not germane to the bet, which was based solely on posts # 22, # 23 and # 27[/color]
Please note that I made no specific reference to which tee I was referring nor the part of the bunker to which I was referring and I apologize.
Kyle, I reposted the original picture, you referenced the tee and bunker in that picture, and that picture is the basis of the wager.[/color]
I was not being vague on purpose.
I understand that.
[/color]
Post #36 on this thread should clarify.
I'm not interested in clarification, I'm only interested in the posts germane to the wager, posts # 22, # 23 and # 27.[/color]
You preserved my quote, tell me where I was specific in it.
You reference the tee, clearly visible in the picture and the bunker clearly visible in the picture. That's pretty clear.
Stop trying to give Michael Christensen wiggle room, he's a big boy, remember, he only gets out of bed for 5 figure wagers.[/color]
Post #36 is.
Immaterial to the wager[/color]
None of the tees pictured are the forward tee on that hole, nor is the tee shown in the picture the one to which I was referring.
Kyle, a picture was posted of a tee, then rough, then fairway then bunkers. You said "from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet". You weren't referencing phantom tees or bunkers.
The photo is exhibit "A", It was the photo that I commented on when I said, "THIS looks pretty flat to me", referencing the photo I reposted. I wasn't referencing phantom tees or bunkers, I was referencing the tee and bunker/s in the photo.[/color]
The forward tee is about 30 yards in front of, and 30 yards left of the white tee shown in the picture, presenting a much different angle to the lesser skilled player.
Again, I'm not interested in what's NOT in the photo.
I'm only interested in what's IN the photo, that was the basis of my comment that, "this looks pretty flat to me"
When you stated that there's a 10 foot elevation change between THE tee, the clear reference is to the tee in the photo, not an invisible tee.[/color]
I should let you know that my analysis comes not from that picture, but from the nature of my work during the course of my 7 month employment and internship at Mountain Lake.
Again, not to be impolite, but, I don't care about the basis of your analysis. I only care about the land pictured in the photo, THE TEE and the bunker/s. Having traversed that land twice, less than three days prior to making my post, and being completely sober from that point in time to current date, I'm content to rely on my powers of observation and stand by my statement that there is NOT a 10 foot elevation change between THE tee and the bunker.[/color]
I've spent more time at Mountain Lake than most of the members who post on GCA, I'm sure. In fact, I've just received my W-2, and based on my pay rate, that is over 1,000 hours in 2007.
Kyle, I suspect that you didn't mean what you posted with respect to that photo, be it through oversight or different points of reference, but, I'm only interested in the photo and the points of measurement, THE tee and the bunker.
You may know what you meant, but, I know what I meant, and I was crystal clear in my remark that there is NOT a 10 foot elevation differential between the forward tee in the photo and the bunker.
If Mike Christensen wants to be a wise guy and a gambler, let him fend for himself, without benefit of you clarifying what you meant but didn't post prior to post # 27.[/color]
Why do you think I'm wrong?
It doesn't matter WHY I think you're wrong[/color]
From the picture, can you tell how much distance is between the middle bunker and the bunker on the left? What the elevation change between those two bunkers is?
I'm not interested in those distances, they're irrelevant to the wager.
Do you know Michael Christensen ?
Did you work with him or are you friendly with him ?[/color]
If you guys are serious about this infantile betting, then fine. Pat, you've already skewed the parameters before asking me to clarify.
It's not important if you clarify, it's after the fact.
The only posts that form the basis of the wager are posts # 22, # 23 and # 27. Anything posted after post # 27 is irrelevant to the wager.[/color]
Nowhere did I state in the quote you preserved as to my reference frames.
Of course you did.
The reference frame is the PHOTO, and your reference to the TEE. A tee in the photo, not an invisible tee or a tee on another hole. Same with the bunkers. This is between Michael and myself, and I was crystal clear, AND, I clearly defined the wager for him when he asked me to.
It's my defining of the wager that's the critical issue, not your subsequent attempts at clarification of what you MEANT to state but DIDN'T.
This wager doesn't concern you. Please refrain from commenting further since the perameters of the wager were clearly established in PRINT in post # 44.
Thanks[/color]
-
TEPaul,
"To answer your question, why don't you reread what Kyle has written and then reread what I've written and tell me where we disagree.
If you'd like to jump on the bet I have with Mike Christensen, I'd be happy to have you make a visit to the vault, in fact, I'd be happy to accompany you when you make the withdrawal."
Patrick:
It would seem you disagree on the difference in elevation on areas and architectural features on the 13th hole, or do you think you and Kyle Harris are in agreement on that?
I have no interest in some wager but I would be interested in the difference in elevation of the areas mentioned.
I'd be willing to accept the elevation information on a topo map. How about you? ;)
-
I have met Kyle once...at the Dixie Cup this year.
admit you are wrong PM...we are not going off a picture...we are going off what is real....I knew you would try to weasle your way out of this...you are being shown the fraud you are.
Check mate green ink professor....
-
Dear Pat and Michael -
I think it would be exciting to see 10 grand change hands, but Kyle is correct - wagering on a difference in elevation between an area (teeing ground) and a line segment (front of bunker) is meaningless.
You need to agree on a point on the teeing ground and a point on the bunker. I have some current high resolution aerials of Mountain Lake if you need assistance.
-
Michael:
They don't need an aerial, they need a topographical survey map. Of course if the survey map says there is a 10 foot elevation change between that tee and whatever point out on the hole they're talking about, Patrick Mucci will probably say his eye is more accurate than a surveyor's map. ;)
I think most of us know that even when Patrick realizes he's wrong about something he's totally incapable of admitting it and most of us should know, by this point, that Patrick is wrong approximately 98% of the time.
When Patrick is actually right about something it probably should be referred to on here as "A Black Swan Event"---eg a random and unlikely event.
-
I have met Kyle once...at the Dixie Cup this year.
admit you are wrong PM...
If I'm so wrong I'm sure you wouldn't mind doubling the bet ?And, since you're such a big gambler and odds maker, I'm sure you'd be glad to give me 4-1 odds, seeing as how you're so sure that I'm so wrong.[/color]
we are not going off a picture...
Of course we're not.
The picture merely establishes the reference points for the measurement, the forward tee in the picture and the front bunker. Stop focusing on the pretty pictures and read the words that accompany them.[/color]
we are going off what is real....
That's correct, that's what I stated.
That the elevation differential between the front tee pictured and the near bunker isn't 10 feet, which you claim it is.[/color]
I knew you would try to weasle your way out of this
I don't consider doubling the bet weaseling out of anything.
I was crystal clear on my position and the bet. You're the one who can't read and/or comprehend.
All you had to do was have someone read posts # 22, # 23, # 27 and # 44 and you would have had a clear understanding of the issue and the bet.
Now, do we have a bet or are you going to sneak away with your tail between your leg and your other foot in your mouth ?
[/color]
...you are being shown the fraud you are.
We'll see who's the fraud and who's the fool.
Just make your check out big shot.[/color]
Check mate green ink professor....
For you my arrogant friend ;D[/color]
-
TE Paul nailed this on the head......his last post(s) have shown what a jack in the box MLake expert PM is......
and itt would be great for GCA ratings if I did increase the wager...but there is an inherent problem...YOU PM keep changing the parameters....you will always move the line so it can be blurred in your favor...Kyle has expressed his view, I backed him up (from my experience of playing 10 to 15 times more than you have at MLake).....nothing has changed except the fact you want to measure elevation from the front tee, or the middle of the front tee, or the front right corner of the men's tee..etc, etc,etc...
It is obvious you are setting yourself up not to pay...no matter how much evidence is produced to contradict your contradiction of Kyle....it has now become a complete waste of time
You are a GCA bully...98% of the people are afraid to take a position counter to yours....I am one of the 2% and happily will take you on when you are dead wrong
-
You know, there's a damn fine golf hole being blatantly neglected here.
The 13th at Mountain Lake is a case study in visual deception, lines of charm and play strategy on every shot in a variety of conditions....
-
Michael Christensen:
You know Pat Mucci really isn't a bully at all but apparently his mouth and his typing fingers are.
You know what I mean, I'm sure. It's one of those Dr Strangelove kind of things where the poor guy thinks one thing but he just can't help his arm giving a "Heil Hitler" salute no matter how hard he tries to grab it and reign it in.
-
"The 13th at Mountain Lake is a case study in visual deception, lines of charm and play strategy on every shot in a variety of conditions...."
Yes it is Kyle. That tee shot is one of the best "low profile" visual deception I've ever seen and on the second shot there's just so many interesting things you can do. That kind of approach design is just another good reasons that course needs to use as much consistent firm and fast as they possibly can. That kind of thing is the "Klieg" lights on that architecture.
-
"The 13th at Mountain Lake is a case study in visual deception, lines of charm and play strategy on every shot in a variety of conditions...."
Yes it is Kyle. That tee shot is one of the best "low profile" visual deception I've ever seen and on the second shot there's just so many interesting things you can do. That kind of approach design is just another good reasons that course needs to use as much consistent firm and fast as they possibly can. That kind of thing is the "Klieg" lights on that architecture.
One of the great things about the hole is that even the long hitter is confounded by angles and hazards. A carry of around 250 yards from the back tee will find rough or bunkers through the fairway unless the drive is aimed at the Palm Tree to the right of all the fairway bunkers visible in the picture from John Mayhugh. It can be very confusing for the golfer to have to aim all the way down the rough to an invisible fairway and right of all visual clues as to the direction of the hole, even with experience.
Furthermore, the left fairway bunker is approx. 50 yards from the center fairway bunker, though they can appear next to each other. In fact, those bunkers flank the widest part of the fairway and the left fairway bunker is THROUGH the fairway further down the hole.
All that and we haven't even discussed the approach, the potential bail out points, the short game options around the green, or the putting itself...
The hole has stood the test of techonology very well, and I would argue that today's equipment offers the golfer more options than ever.
-
I am quite pleased to report that I experienced play of the very hole in the company of Pat Mucci. A delightful experience, and I will be surprised if that hole proves to drop 10 feet from front tee to bunker, no matter what a topo map shows.
-
I am quite pleased to report that I experienced play of the very hole in the company of Pat Mucci. A delightful experience, and I will be surprised if that hole proves to drop 10 feet from front tee to bunker, no matter what a topo map shows.
From the White Tee in the picture to the bunker is 6 feet as per Pat's criteria (which were not mine in my original statement).
Put it to bed, gentlemen.
-
TE Paul nailed this on the head......his last post(s) have shown what a jack in the box MLake expert PM is......
Michael Christensen,
You should know that as TEPaul's legal guardian he does bear some resentment toward me, especially at months end when I refuse to approve expenditures and/or release funds.[/color]
and itt would be great for GCA ratings if I did increase the wager...but there is an inherent problem...YOU PM keep changing the parameters....
I haven't changed the perameters.
Haven't you been reading each post ? ...... carefully ?
Here's the quote in post # 44 where I outlined the perameters. What changes are you referencing ?
Or, are you just looking to escape your arrogant impetuosity ?
I stated what the bet was, previously, but, to make it cyrstal clear, it's that the elevation change from the front tee to the nearest bunker ISN'T 10 feet as Kyle claimed.
The picture below shows the area in question.
[/b][/color]
you will always move the line so it can be blurred in your favor...
But the line hasn't moved, it's been rock steady, crystal clear from the outset. See replies # 22, # 23, # 27 and # 44.
The only thing that's moved is your confidence.
You're waivering, hedging and dodging as the moment of truth approaches[/color]
Kyle has expressed his view, I backed him up
Right, and I challenged Kyle's view and accepted your bet.
Hence, you shouldn't have any trouble ponying up the 10K.
Kyle was wrong about the elevation change between the forward tee pictured and the front of the nearest bunker, and so are you. So stop making excuses and dancing around the issue and get the check.[/color]
(from my experience of playing 10 to 15 times more than you have at MLake).....
It's obvious that your powers of observation and understanding of spacial relationships aren't as keen as mine, or, alternatively, you should give me 10-1 or 15-1 odds, since you have so much more experience and are such an expert on the lay of the land from that tee to the nearest bunker.
Stop backing away from the bet and pony up.[/color]
nothing has changed except the fact you want to measure elevation from the front tee, or the middle of the front tee, or the front right corner of the men's tee..etc, etc,etc...
Well, a few things have changed.
BUT... not the perameters of the bet.
Posts # 22, # 23, # 27 and # 44 are crystal clear as to what the reference and measuring points are. NOTHING about those points and posts has changed. Feel free to reread them as often as you like. They don't change.
With respect to change as it applies to you, your arrogance has taken quite a blow, causing you to waiver and attempt to weasel your way out of a bet that was made crystal clear in a number of posts.
As to the other things that have changed,
Members have contacted me and stated that there is NO 10 foot elevation change between those two points, and, that I made a great bet.
They also stated that you'd never pay off, which is something I knew from the outset.[/color]
It is obvious you are setting yourself up not to pay...no matter how much evidence is produced to contradict your contradiction of Kyle....
What evidence ? Could you repost it ? I must have missed it.
Not one iota of evidence has been presented/produced that refutes my position. So where's this evidence you allude to, in your dilusional head ?
And now ....... are you sitting down ?
Kyle Harris agrees with me.
Now, you're out there on a limb all by yourself, bigshot.
[/color]
it has now become a complete waste of time
I, and others, knew you'd resort to that tactic.
That you'd renege on the bet.
Only a moron would claim that there's a 10 foot elevation differential between the tee in the photo and the front of the nearest bunker.
And, only a horse's ass would claim tht he's such a big shot that he won't get out of bed for less than $ 10,000.[/color]
You are a GCA bully...98% of the people are afraid to take a position counter to yours....I am one of the 2% and happily will take you on when you are dead wrong.
You're a schmuck, coward, phony and a blowhard.
(see, I can name call too ;D)
You claim that you're taking me on while you're running away from the bet as fast as you can.
The betting window will remain perpetually open for you.
Let me know when you have the courage of your convictions and want to take it.
[/color]
-
Pat,
For the last time, and don't tell me it's irrelevant because it's not and NOT ONE OF YOU asked me for clarification before making assumptions as to what I meant.
What you assumed about my statement and what I meant were two different things.
Michael is out of line by patronizing you with "Mr. ML Expert," but DO NOT say that I was wrong because you interpreted what I said differently than how I meant it.
This could have all been avoided if either of you had the decency to ask me more specifically like Scott Wood did.
-
Kyle,
And when I post a photo and state that the land in the photo looks flat to me, don't tell me about elevation changes not depicted or evidenced in the photo.
The area IN the photo, NOT areas outside of the photo was the SOLE focus of my comment.
This looks flat to me, and having walked it twice in less than three days since making that observation, I stand by my observation and my remark.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mountain%20lake/13tee.jpg)
That other sections of the property not depicted in the photo have elevation changes, small or large, has NO relevance with respect to my comment that specifically referenced the above photo and the land depicted in it.
Wayno,
What do you think of Raynor's flat bottomed bunkers when the floor of the bunker can be seen from 150-200+ yards ? ;D
-
Pat,
You're being incredibly obtuse. I wasn't even looking at the photo when I made my first comment. I was TALKING ABOUT THE HOLE.
You brought the photo in, not me.
Drop it. This ego clash bullshit is exactly why scotch pines get planted in the dumbest of places on golf courses and green contours are allowed to be softened with speeds run amok.
Two people have personal differences and use the golf course (and those employed to maintain it) as their pawns to prove who and what is right. In the end, only the golf course suffers.
This discussion is a microcosm - you and Michael have your differences and discussion of a world class golf hole suffers as a result.
-
I love Pat, but I've been party to this kind of wager before.
The fluid criteria play.
In what has to be one of the longer running wagers on GCA, I
once bet Patrick that #6 at The Creek was not a skyline green. He took the bet, but magically the bet somehow morphed from what is there today to what was there when the hole was designed, and what was "intended" by CBM/Raynor.
It's happened here too. A generic observation by Kyle Harris about distance from "the tee" to the bunkers in the picture
somehow morphed into specific measurements from the front
of the tee pictured to the first bunker. This specificity
was only supplied by Patrick, not Kyle, as he's protested here on this thread.
Hand it to him. He's crafty. Don't play mumblety peg with him
- he'll steal your leg.
-
Pat,
You're being incredibly obtuse. I wasn't even looking at the photo when I made my first comment. I was TALKING ABOUT THE HOLE.
I wouldn't know that.
I can't read your mind, I can only read what you type.[/color]
You brought the photo in, not me.
That's correct, in reply # 22 I reintroduced the photo.
But, in reply # 23 you commented on it.
This is what you posted in reply # 23, which followed my posting of the picture in reply # 22.
[/color]
The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and [size=4x]from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet. [/size]
When you made that statement on the heels of a photo depicting the 13th tee and the fairway bunkers on # 13, any prudent person would inextricably connect that which appears in the photo with your comments relative to the tee and the bunker which are in the photo.[/color]
Drop it. This ego clash bullshit is exactly why scotch pines get planted in the dumbest of places on golf courses and green contours are allowed to be softened with speeds run amok.
I've NEVER understood the rationale behind planting Scotch Pines.[/color]
Two people have personal differences and use the golf course (and those employed to maintain it) as their pawns to prove who and what is right.
I don't have any personal differences with Michael Christensen, I don't even know him, so this isn't a tug of war over the golf course, employees or architects.
However, I'd like to meet someone who doesn't get out of bed for less than $ 10,000. I knew a woman like that years ago, when I was young, but, I couldn't afford her.
This is merely a debate about elevation changes from the 13th tee in the photo to the nearest bunker in the fairway with some colorful language and descriptions thrown in.[/color]
In the end, only the golf course suffers.
I don't see how ML is going to suffer because Michael and I disagree on the elevation change between the reference points cited.[/color]
This discussion is a microcosm - you and Michael have your differences and discussion of a world class golf hole suffers as a result.
That's absurd.
I don't have any differences with Michael, I don't even know him.
As to world class golf holes, I believe I was the one who started an abundant number of threads on Mountain Lake and a number of its holes. Mountain Lake is a golf course that I greatly enjoyed.[/color]
SPDB,
I'll give you $ 1,000 of the $ 10,000, without any admission of agreement.
-
Kyle
Please help clear up the existence of the red clay. I noticed that immediately and commented to Jeff Goldman about it. Are you saying they brought red clay in to build the road, or is it just a very isolated patch and the road happens to be there?
-
someone finally cleared up the whole issue...as Kyle said "Pat brought the picture in, not me"........EXACTLY! I know Kyle doesn't want to be the arbiter between right and wrong, so I feel for him
I was talking about the hole too.......NOT THE F'N pic.....but I guess your one weekend there makes you king and all the rest of us pawns......
Now I need to get to bed, as I have an early flight to the city of brotherly love in the AM...going to see my beloved Orange get crushed by Nova on Sat.....maybe you can take Acela Express down to Philly and TE can arrange for a duel at Gulph Mills! ;D
-
Kyle
Please help clear up the existence of the red clay. I noticed that immediately and commented to Jeff Goldman about it. Are you saying they brought red clay in to build the road, or is it just a very isolated patch and the road happens to be there?
Where?
Most of the maintenance road is actually a red sand. I don't know of any spots on the golf course that are red clay so I'd imagine any red clay is just for the maintenance road.
-
someone finally cleared up the whole issue...as Kyle said "Pat brought the picture in, not me"........EXACTLY! I know Kyle doesn't want to be the arbiter between right and wrong, so I feel for him
You're wrong again.
John Mayhugh first introduced the picture, not me.
I merely commented, when looking at the photo, that, "....this looks pretty flat to me."[/color]
I was talking about the hole too.......NOT THE F'N pic.....
That's a cop out and you know it.
And, it's absolutely not true, both you and Kyle were referencing the elevation change between the tee and the bunker. How many times do I have to quote what was stated ?
Here it is again.
The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and [size=4x]from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet.[/size]
Then, you said, "--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
having played MLake 10 to 15 times more than our resident expert PM...I have to agree with Kyle on his analysis.
The points of reference are clear, from the tee to the bunkers. The elevation change is clear, 10 feet.
So don't give us this absurd nonsense that you were talking about the hole.[/color]
but I guess your one weekend there makes you king and all the rest of us pawns......
Here's the really funny part.
You claim to having played ML 10-15 times more than I have.
Here's your quote:
having played MLake 10 to 15 times more than our resident expert PM...
So, you've played ML 20 or 30 times, YET, you didn't even recognize the hole in the photo. You're some expert.
As I said in an earlier post, it's apparent that my powers of observation are much keener than yours. Here's your quote:
[size=4x]Now what hole are you claiming doesn't have the elevation change that Kyle challenged you on[/size]....just so we have your facts straight for all to see.
You're some expert on ML. You didn't even know what hole was depicted in that photo. You didn't even know what hole John Mayhugh had posted in his photo, which hole I reposted in the photo and which hole Kyle was referencing , so don't tell us that you were talking about the hole, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HOLE IT WAS.
It's apparent that I could fly over ML at 35,000 feet and have a better recollection and understanding of the architecture than you.[/color]
Now I need to get to bed, as I have an early flight to the city of brotherly love in the AM...going to see my beloved Orange get crushed by Nova on Sat.....maybe you can take Acela Express down to Philly and TE can arrange for a duel at Gulph Mills! ;D
I knew you'd run away from the bet, I just didn't know you'd fly out of town so quickly.
I spoke to TEPaul at length yesterday.
You know, end of the month accounting and the like.
Even TEPaul, who needs his faithful companion and guide dog Coorshaw to lead him around golf courses, knew that there was NO 10 foot elevation change between the tee and the bunker. AND, TEPaul knew it was the 13th hole, a hole that you're apparently unfamiliar with.
Perhaps you skipped it on all of those 20-30 rounds you played at ML
Wear a long coat to the Syracuse vs Villanova game.
You wouldn't want the fans to see the tail between your legs.
[/color]
-
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/74/204377967_5afd0ffcc0_b.jpg)
13th at Mountain Lake, July 2006.
-
"Even TEPaul, who needs his faithful companion and guide dog Coorshaw to lead him around golf courses, knew that there was NO 10 foot elevation change between the tee and the bunker.
Pat:
No I didn't. I don't know whether it's 10 feet less or 10 feet more or 50 feet up or down either way. Anyone who needs Coorshaw to get around a golf course can't really tell things like that. I can ask him what he thinks about that elevation change but every time I try to discuss architecture with the dog his ears droop and he gets that sad look in his eyes.
As for the elevation change bet I'd just go with a topo survey map of the exact areas if they're agree on.