News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ian_L

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Double Hazards
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2008, 03:17:50 PM »
I don't think the bunker is even necessary.  The slope there is so steep that nobody would want the ball that far below his feet, especially into a green like that.  I like how the trees  were in 1930: just enough to keep the golfer from easily cutting the corner.

Rich Goodale

Re: Double Hazards
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2008, 04:56:35 PM »
That tree is new, I think, and pretty much out of play on the hole.  My guess is they are trying to protect the cars on Alameda des Pulgas from snap hooks.  I might be there in a few weeks to check it out.

Rich

PS--those comparison aerials are great!  What is scary to me is that when I first played the course (1965) it was closer in time to the course opening than to today.  It's a shame they didn't include the 1930 aerial as to what 3 and 4 used to look like before they were butchered in the last 30 or so years.... :'(

Rich

In my research I contacted Whitter College about some aerials and in discussing some aerials they mentioned that they had an aerial that was misslabled. I asked about some of the features in the photo and was able to say that it was Stanford. That was well over a year ago, so this was new to them. The historian there had been searching for the aerials for a number of years and was very happy to finally have them. I still need to go over there and see the course for the first time.

Tully

I'll be there October 9 and thinking about playing in the morning.  Want to join in if I can get a time?

Rich

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back