Pat
Are you testing me?

Absolutely.

You continually make wild statements and draw false conclusions about Hollywood.  You post two photos of #7 taken some time ago, and a recent photo of # 7, presenting the issue as if the golf course just prior to Rees's project looked like it did in the B&W photos, photos which already reflect changes to the golf course.  

Then when asked to post of photo of # 7 just prior ot Rees, you post a photo from an angle that doesn't show the bunkering you complained about, and you post it in black and white.  That's disengenuous and intellectually dishonest and you know it.

Answer the questions, don't avoid them.

You're the research expert, you know the answers but don't want to respond in an honest fashion because those answers defeat your argument.  You would have the viewers believe that the golf course looked as Travis left it, just before Rees undertook his project, when nothing could be further from the truth.  

Had you ever personally seen how the golf course looked immediately prior to Rees's project ?[/color]

The Travis course had love grass, in fact Dick Wilson liked it so much he took some of it to Deepdale. I don't like the grass they have on the course today, it must be a different strain because it doesn't look like any love grass I have seen (or anything like the grass in old photos)...IMO it looks stupid and unnatural....poodle-like. Don't tell me Rees planted it.
This is exactly what I mean.  You're dishonest.

You show a picture, and say that this is how # 7 looked prior to Rees, and now you insinuate that Rees planted the grass, knowing full well that he didn't.  But tell me Tom, when was it planted, and by whom ?[/color=green]

Are these questions designed to trip me up or rehabilitate your floundering Rees apologizing stance?

No, they're meant to expose you for being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Show a picture of # 7 from the same angle just prior to Rees's project and let the viewers see what had already happened to # 7 before Rees set foot on the property.

Again, which members at Hollywood support your view of restoring the golf course as Travis left it ?

And, what's the date on the second B&W, and who altered the golf course as evidenced in that picture, when compared to the first B&W one ?

If you don't know the answers to the questions I asked, just say so.  And, if you do know the answers, post them.
Stop ducking the questions, especially when you know that your answers, your own admissions will undermine your position.

Try being honest and fair, it's not that hard.[/color]

What are you trying to prove with these constant demands that I come up with more pictures...why don't you send to me some pictures...I'll post them? Or why don't just make your point, whatever it is, about the 7th and Rees' involvement? Did he restore the hole to Travis's original character? Did he leave his own stylistic mark on the hole?

Tom, they're not demands. They're questions, requests and statements, the answers to which will reveal how intellectually dishonest you've been regarding Hollywood and Rees's work there.

You know my point and so does everybody else.

Why, when cornered, do you always try to weasel out of your predicament, one you put yourself into with outrageous claims false conclusions and presentations, and half truths, by deflecting the issue, avoiding the questions, and changing the subject.

Try being honest with everyone, including yourself.[/color]  

You are correct about the course being altered long before Rees arrived, there is no disputing that...in your opinion is that a good reason for you defensive stance and excusing his recent transgressions?

Be specific Tom, what transgressions ?
Could you identify them on a hole by hole, feature by feature basis ?
And, don't go back 70 years, go back to just prior to Rees's work, to what the golf course looked and played like.[/color]

I'm quite sure Emmett would have rather fancied the sharply upward-rising protrusions bulging forth, exploding in torrents of architectural bliss.  

Jason;

Sorry, I couldn't resist!  
 

Pat
I always enjoy it when you engage your schizophrenic friend.

The betting window remains perpetually open.
And, the odds remain extremely high.
As does the minimum bet.

This is one of the problems you have,
Your research is good, your conclusions flawed.

I have never personally communicated with HBH and don't know who he is, although I could hazard a guess or two.

Last night I gave some additional thought to your question on Seawane, which was framed in the context of the pictures that were posted.  To be honest, the work, as presented in the pictures did look ..... radical.

As I commented, I would like to see the completed work for myself, and I'd like to learn, preferably through documentation, what the membership wanted to accomplish.
It appears evident that restoration was not their goal.

As you know, I prefer restoration, in concept, but, I'm not a member, and I'd hazard a guess that I'd be in the great minority if I were a member and advocated a true restoration.

I've notice more and more clubs that restore certain features and then alter others.

When I first came on to this site I advocated clubs getting second and third opinions, just like we do for our own good health.  Recently, I advocated eliminating compensation based on project costs.  I think, between the two, that you'd come closer to restorations then alterations, but, then again, if the membership wants to alter or disfigure their golf course, I may not agree with it, but, they're going to do what THEY want.  I've seen it recently at my home club in NJ.  We should have restored our 15th hole, which was ruined years ago.
Instead, we're altering it, probably for the better, but a return to the original would have been so much better.  

Members today, are so far removed from their golf course's origins, that the original course has no architectural relevance.  You may not want to hear that, but, that's been the case in the majority of situations I've been privy to.
One can only hope that the compromises being made will include restoration efforts on some of the holes that were altered since inception.

If you understood how these project come into being, it would help you understand why changes are made and why restoration isn't the goal of every golf course, classic or modern.[/color]