OSU Scarlet restoration

« **Reply #200 on:** July 19, 2005, 10:04:33 PM »

Tom,

I understand what you're saying and know that the parties involved did their due diligence, but I do agree with Tom MacWood on one point.

I believe that too many architects doing Ross restorations tend to create the stereotypical "Ross bunker", whether that was historically the case or not. I think that's Tom's principal beef, and I have to say that personally, I've yet to see any Ross restoration where this wasn't done.

From a maintenace standpoint, a cost standpoint, and a perception and "selling" standpoint, that might be the easiest route, but since we do tend to get into the details of aesthetics and such on this board, I think Tom is within his rights to point out the fact that this is sometimes not historically accurate.

« **Reply #201 on:** July 19, 2005, 10:38:44 PM »

Mike Cirba said;

"Tom,
I understand what you're saying and know that the parties involved did their due diligence, but I do agree with Tom MacWood on one point.
I believe that too many architects doing Ross restorations tend to create the stereotypical "Ross bunker", whether that was historically the case or not. I think that's Tom's principal beef, and I have to say that personally, I've yet to see any Ross restoration where this wasn't done."

MikeC:

I agree with you, and although you may think it very strange of me to say at this point, I agree with Tom MacWood on that point too, and I always have.

There are, however, a whole bunch of real ironies interweaving through all of this, in my opinion.

Here's what I think some of them are;

1. I believe the reason Tom MacWood has this beef about the stereotyping of Ross bunkering in restoration projects today is the same beef he has with standardizing in other art forms particularly if that standardizing or stereotyping in any way perverts or minimizes regionalism or regional and individual expression in an art form such as golf course architecture, building architecture etc. This is why I believe he's a proponent of regional expression by Ross regional foremen such as Hatch and McGovern. I believe this is the very same reason he's such a proponent of the philosophy and principles of the Arts and Crafts Movement, the underlying theme of which was regional expression, even if as a counter-point to the dehumanizing effects of something like the "worker dehumanization" of the Industrial Age.

2. Tom MacWood seems to be so fixated that restoration projects should adhere to total restoration such as "as built" and almost a total aesthetic match to what once was. This is ironic to me because if he believes that regional expression was the essence of some of those courses back then by Hatch or McGovern or even with the individual expression of the manual labor of the crews of those foreman he should also appreciate that Ron Prichard firmly believes that he should afford the crews and particularly the shapers he uses to do restorations today the same individual artistic expression.

If someone feels that regional or individual expression was so important back then, I see no reason he should not think it just as important today!

« **Reply #202 on:** July 19, 2005, 11:03:52 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on July 19, 2005, 10:04:33 PM

I believe that too many architects doing Ross restorations tend to create the stereotypical "Ross bunker", whether that was historically the case or not.

Can you provide some specific examples instead of making a general, blanket statement ?

Ross cited about 9 variations of his mound and bunker styles, hence I believe it's common knowledge that there wasn't a sole Ross bunker style.[/color]

I think that's Tom's principal beef, and I have to say that personally, I've yet to see any Ross restoration where this wasn't done.

Ross's detailed schematics which encompass bunker design, together with his construction instructions for the bunkers at Aronomink are clear and not open to debate.

If the bunkers at Aronomink were rebuilt to his detailed design plans and written instructions, how can you say that his bunker work wasn't properly executed ?[/color]

From a maintenace standpoint, a cost standpoint, and a perception and "selling" standpoint, that might be the easiest route, but since we do tend to get into the details of aesthetics and such on this board, I think Tom is within his rights to point out the fact that this is sometimes not historically accurate.

What's not historically accurate is MacWood's insistance that Ross deviated from his detailed design plans, including written instructions, with respect to how we wanted the bunkers at Aronomink.

I've pointed out time and time again, that today, noone, including Tom MacWood, knows how the bunkers went from Point A, Ross's detailed design plans, complete with instructions, to Point B, the finished product. Any viewpoint on the transition from Point A to Point B is pure speculation.

So, why would you want bunkers rebuilt that differ from Ross's personal detailed plans and written instructions.

In light of the Jeffersonville issue, it may be that the finished bunkers at Aronomink are the product of one person, McGovern, but, that too is strictly speculation.

Absent proof to the contrary, Aronomink rebuilt their bunkers as Ross had always intended them, whether MacWood or you agree with it, it was THE PRUDENT DECISION AT THE TIME[/color]

« **Reply #203 on:** July 19, 2005, 11:53:36 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on July 19, 2005, 07:21:24 PM

Regarding my claim that Seminole is FLAT, you've got me confused with Ross again....

No I don't.
You postured that Seminole was FLAT and cited an ALLEGED QUOTE from DJR as proof positive. BUT, the facts are that Seminole is far from flat, it's quite hilly given its location, despite what Ross is alleged to have said and what you have blindly and ardently insisted. Seminole isn't FLAT.

What you fail to see in your blind acceptance of alleged quotes from the horse's mouth, is their inaccuracy.
It's possible that Ross wasn't talking about Seminole, but, another Florida golf course, or, that his comment was taken out of context, or completely misunderstood.

It's obvious that the FACTS don't support the alleged quote.
And, it's obvious that the quote is flawed in one form or another.

Yet, you insist on blindly supporting the quote as if it was the gospel.

Now, I want you to take a quantum leap from your Ivory Tower.

Did it ever dawn on you, that perhaps Ross's alleged quote regarding Aronomink might be flawed as well ?

When you cite a quote you offer it as irrefutable, yet when others cite quotes, you call into question its veracity.

And yet, you don't see the hypocrisy, the intellectucal dishonesty and the fraud in your arrogant perspectives on third party references.[/color]

remember he was the one who liked to work on flat ground, and he was one who said his work at Seminole was an example of what could be done on FLAT ground.

Technically he did not directly say Seminole was FLAT.

Technically, Only a moron could interpret his words as you have.
He ALLEGEDLY stated that Seminole was FLAT, LEVEL.
And you blindly and ardently defended that statement despite never having seen Seminole, which is downright hilly for Southern Florida
Go back and re-read the alleged quote and your defense of same.

What he did on the flat ground at Seminole was NO BIG DEAL.
It's what he did with the routing and hole designs on the holes with elevations that's the genius of the golf course.

But, again, you wouldn't know that because you've never seen the golf course, despite posturing yourself as an expert on Ross and Seminole.[/color]

And by the way he is dead...all your rants regarding Seminole are falling deaf ears.

I'm not concerned with Ross being dead.
I"m concerned with you being dead between the ears.

First you said that Seminole was FLAT.
Then you said that 75 % of the golf course was FLAT

You're DEAD WRONG on both accounts.

What this should teach you is that your research isn't always intellectually honest. You never bothered to view the topos until I supplied you with them. And, even in the face of the topos showing dramatic elevations, you clung to the bogus quote you cited as the gospel.

That should tell you that not everything you read is accurate.
And, that you should seek confirming facts BEFORE drawing conclusions and posturing them as irrefutable evidence.[/color]

I know you can't help yourself, and feel compelled to attack me for Ross's comments...obviously some kind frustration that has built up or perhaps you are constepated. The strange thing is his comments are relatively benign if you ask me. What did he say that is so insensing to you? All he said the new heavy equipment gave him the ability to do more creating on flat or level ground, at that his work at Seminole was an example of what could be done on that kind of terrain.

Tom, let me try to explain this to you again.
The work on the flat holes at Seminole is no big deal, and, he didn't need modern earthmoving equipment to accomplish the design and construction of holes # 1, 8,9 and 10.

The genius of Seminole is the use of the elevations, which are quite dramatic.

But, more importantly, his alleged quote reflects how alleged comments can be taken out of context, incorrect, distorted, fabricated or embellished to suit one's purpose.

Seminole isn't FLAT, it's far from it.
So his ALLEGED statement is highly erroneous.
Thus, other statements, allegedly attributed to him might fall into the same categories.
But, YOU have a tendency to present YOUR quotes from various sources as irrefutable, while dismissing or demeaning other poster's quotes from various sources in the same breath.

You can't have it both ways.

When I state, "false in one, false in many", it should register with you that perhaps quotes or references you cite should be verified before offering them up as proof positive that your position is the ONLY legitimate position being presented.[/color]

He didn't say the entire site was flat.

Yes Tom, he implied that the entire site was FLAT, and you declared that it must be so, because Ross allegedly stated so.
Then, after viewing the topo which I supplied you, you declared that the golf course was 75 % FLAT, which is also wrong.

You've never seen the site.
TEPaul and I have played it hundreds of times over the last 40 years, yet, you declare yourself to be an expert on Seminole and the work that Ross did there.[/color]

While there are two natural dune lines, a large portion of the site is flat.

I don't call four holes a large portion of the site.
You keep on defending your absurd position because you can't admit that you're wrong, Ross's alleged quote is wrong and your reliance on it as gospel is wrong.[/color]

Why is it beyond your comprehension that he did some creating on the flat portion of the site.

Because I've seen it a hundred times or more and you've NEVER seen what he did there.[/color]

We know he created a number of large water hazards on the flats...

I believe you'll find that waterways that flowed south already existed when he arrived at the site.[/color]

we're still trying to determine what he did with the excess material.

No Tom, you're trying to create a diversion, an issue where none exists to cover your colossal blunder whereby you stridently maintained that Seminole is FLAT, together with your blind acceptance of Ross's ALLEGED quote to that effect.[/color]

Now you've got poor Don Herdrich piling on. I'm not sure what Don's problem is....although we do know he is a big fan of Jim Fazio.

So, his being a fan of Jim Fazio disqualifies him from reading this thread ? It disqualifies him from being an impartial observer ? It disqualifies him from having an opinion ?
Even if it disagrees with yours ? Or mine ?

And you don't see your blatant ARROGANCE ?[/color]

« **Reply #204 on:** July 20, 2005, 07:34:32 AM »

"What is your opinion of the water hazards he created on 'the flat holes'....did Ross utilize them well?"

Pat:

My suggestion to you for a response to this question is to simply refer the questioner to the section on the "water works" at Seminole in Brad Klein's book (it's quite a comprehensive description) and be done with it. Otherwise this thread will be at 15 pages by Friday.

« **Reply #205 on:** July 20, 2005, 08:32:51 AM »

TEPaul,

Now Tom MacWood is stating that Ross never MEANT that Seminole was FLAT, that it was a benign statement by Ross and only indicative of a small portion of the golf course.

And, that his staunch, if not BLIND, support of the alleged statement that Seminole was FLAT, never happened.

Tom MacWood offered up the quote as FACT.
As irrefutable evidence that Seminole is FLAT, despite the fact that Tom MacWood has never seen Seminole, and only an uninformed fool would describe the golf course as FLAT.

But, because the quote is alleged to be from Ross, MacWood claimed it to be infallible. And, this is his problem.

He deems his reference material as the gospel, and discards anyone else's reference material as invalid, or questionable at best. Hence, this SHOULD be a good lesson for him with respect to accepting alleged quotes as irrefutably correct.
However, I doubt that he'll see the error of his ways.

He's like the man who's wrong on an issue, yet redoubles their effort to try to show that they are right.

You've played Seminole hundreds of times.
Can you imagine anyone, including Ray Charles, claiming that the golf course was flat ?

The approach shots into holes # 2 and # 11 are two of the most elevated approach shots you'll ever hit, and the views from the 4th green, the 7th and 12th tee, situated high above the golf course in front of you, are some of the most impressive views in all of Florida, not to mention the views from the 17th and 18th tees.

Now that Tom MacWood has re-interpreted Ross's remark about Seminole, perhaps he should reflect and reassess Ross's alleged remark about Aronomink.

Or, does he offer Ross's comments as being 100 % accurate, in words, intent and context ?

First he tells us that Ross said that Aronomink was a championship course, that it exceeded his expectations, and that that statement is proof positive that Ross and Ross alone reconfigured the bunkers at Aronomink, deviating from his detailed hole by hole design plans.

When questioned about other possibilities, MacWood dismisses them, stating that Ross must have reconfigured them because he praised the finished product.
A rather gratuitous leap of faith, if not logic.

Yet, when it comes to Ross's alleged comment about Seminole, first he offers it up as irrefutable. Then, when it's clearly demonstrated that the alleged comment is inaccurate, or false, he sloughs it off, claiming it was a benign comment.
Then he states that the quote isn't what Ross really meant.

Yet, he continues to discount or dismiss the possibility that Ross's alleged comment about Aronomink might be more of the same, a benign, general comment taken out of context.
And that it offers NO PROOF that Ross reconfigured the bunkers at Aronomink, deviating from his own detailed design plans and written instructions.

That he continued to claim that Seminole was FLAT, in the face or irrefutable evidence to the contrary, indicates that he can't admit when he's wrong.

It's also indicative of his failure to VERIFY reference material, choosing to offer up his research as THE WORD on any subject.

Anyone who plays that golf course recognizes in an instant, or at least by the approach shot on # 2, that the golf course is far from FLAT.

MacWood's research is flawed. His methods are flawed and therefore some of his conclusions are flawed.

It's been my observation that he reaches his conclusions first, and then selectively researches the subject to support his position, to the exclusion of reporting information that differs from his conclusion. And, that's intellectually dishonest and makes him and his research a fraud.

He claims that Aronomink and Ron Prichard didn't do enough research yet he offers his views on Seminole without doing one iota of research on the golf course. I had to do his research for him and provide him with the terra server topo.
And, even then, in the face of irrefutable evidence that Seminole wasn't FLAT, he still tried to claim that it was FLAT, because, amongst other reasons, it was in Florida, and Ross is alleged to have said so.

One would think that he would at least abide by the research standards that he demands of others.

Can you imagine stating that Seminole is a FLAT golf course ?
You'd have to be an uninformed moron to buy into that statement, but, as P.T Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute", and I guess it was Tom MacWood's time.

« **Reply #206 on:** July 20, 2005, 09:38:29 AM »

"TEPaul,
Now Tom MacWood is stating that Ross never MEANT that Seminole was FLAT, that it was a benign statement by Ross and only indicative of a small portion of the golf course.
And, that his staunch, if not BLIND, support of the alleged statement that Seminole was FLAT, never happened."

Well then, Pat, it would seem that your "mission impossible" has been successfully accomplished---eg getting Tom MacWood to admit he was wrong!

The fact that he now denies ever saying that Seminole is flat should in no way be looked upon by you as a partial victory!

But speaking of Seminole, maybe we can now all argue over the nature of the rather unique "water works" of Seminole by Ross.

Or, I have another Seminole issue perhaps we can all create another dozen page thread over---eg either how much redesign Dick Wilson actually did there or perhaps the nature of the greens of Seminole and how much they've changed over the years and exactly why.

On the latter note, I have a really funny story for you that's fresh off the presses.

Last week I played in a member/guest tournament at which Pete Dye was the guest partner of the president of the golf club.

Pete has never been at a loss for strong opinions (Alice either, for that matter) on certain aspects of Seminole and its architectural history and last week was no exception.

It was good to see both Pete and Alice again and I watched him regale people in the tournament with all kinds of stories. I sidled up to him when he was regaling the team we'd just played with and another very tall man. That ended his story to them and he told me a whole bunch of stories I'd never heard about why he loved my old man so much.

Later the guys we'd played told me that Pete when introduced to that very tall man was told the tall man belonged to Seminole. At that point Pete told the tall man that Seminole's greens are probably the worst in the world and that Ross never built any of them with 3 and 4 percent back to front grades---eg more like 1 and 2 percent back to front grades.

Pete has always had strong opinions on some aspects of Seminole (Pete belongs to the club too). I'm not sure where exactly Pete ever got any of his information or ideas about Seminole but I've sure wondered about the accuracy of some of them for years. Not being all that sure of the history and evolution of the architecture of Seminole, I was considering telling Pete that he might be full of shit but for some reason decided not to do so.

I have told Pete that his video analysis of the greenspeed of Oakmont back in the 1960s may be partially full of shit and the reasons why, and I told that to him again last week.

Pete's the greatest, though---defiinitly never at a loss for strong and diverse opinions.

So maybe we can have a dozen page thread between Tom MacWood and others arguing about how Seminole's greens really were originally built and both if or how and why they've evolved to the state they are now in leading a Pete Dye to announce to a member they are the world's worst greens!

« **Reply #207 on:** July 20, 2005, 10:28:20 AM »

"Your friend has a problem confusing yours truly with Donald Ross."

Tom:

Wow. Now that's a statement that could be good for a 20 page thread between the two of you. I certainly don't think Pat Mucci confuses you with Donald Ross. His only issue with you seems to be that you sometimes seem to take some of Ross's comments to odd extremes and some odd interpretations.

"He believes you are Max Behr...the boxer."

I am. I'm also a reincarnation of Max Behr the golfer, golf writer and golf philosopher with a reincarnation of some of the pugnacity of Max Behr the boxer, as well as some reincarnation of some of the duffusness of Max Behr Jr, the boxer's son, the character actor on the Beverly Hills Hillbillies. The boxer's son Max Behr Jr and I also always shared a strong lustfulness towards that incredibly nubile blonde young thing in the cut-off jeans and poka dot blouse known as Daisy Mae. Both of us have pretty much been trying to nail her for about forty years but as most know Daisy Mae is an exceptionally fast runner!

« **Reply #208 on:** July 20, 2005, 11:10:55 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on July 13, 2005, 06:46:06 PM

PM: “This is why you have to be careful about giving irrefutable credibility to everything you read. Seminole is FAR from flat, level country. It's downright hilly for Florida, with substantial elevation changes throughout the property.”
[/color]
TM: I’m certain you know the property far better than Ross did and I’m certain you are more capable of comparing sites than Ross.

What was the land like at Seminole when Ross began,
is it possible that any of those undulations were created by Ross ?

I think your own words betray your OLD and NEW claims.

In your above quote you try to claim that Ross created the undulations at Seminole. This shows a complete lack of familiarity with the site. 40 foot high, MASSIVE ridges running through the property aren't simple undulations. And, to say that he created them is preposterous, a colossal blunder on your part as you continued to insist that the golf course was FLAT and that perhaps Ross created the elevations, or undulations as you called them.

So, don't give us this nonsense that you didn't claim the golf course was FLAT. You bought into Ross's alleged statement hook, line and sinker, without even bothering to research the issue to see how wrong you were.

But, more importantly, this calls into question the accuracy of quotes attributed to Ross. And your tendency to present any reference material as infalible while any evidence presented by others is deemed questionable.

Your research is flawed, your conclusions erroneous and you're a fraud if you posture yourself as a historical researcher.

His hole by hole plans show the elevation changes and direction and his notes recognize the slopes on the property.
In case you don't know it, slopes indicate elevation changes, which indicates that the property isn't FLAT, as you insisted.[/color]

First you claim Ross was wrong to build the course with clusters. color=green]

NO, I never said that. Again, that's another of your dishonest comments.

I said, we don't know how the bunker got built as they did,
we don't know how they went from Point A to Point B.[/color]

Then you claim he was disingenuous when he spoke about the course.

NO, I said that we don't know the context in which the alleged remark was made. And that includes being PC or PR.[/color]

Now you tell him he is off the mark when talking about the site of one of his great designs.

Off the mark is KIND.
The alleged statement is FALSE, totally inaccurate.
Seminole is not FLAT.
The genius of the design is Ross's use of the enormous elevation changes that you failed to acknowledge the existance of.[/color]

You’re like all the rest of the Ross bashers!

To repeat, I'm not bashing Ross, I'm bashing you.
You failed to do your vaunted research and blindly argued that Seminole was FLAT. Basing your entire argument on an obviously, erroneous quote, allegedly attributed to Ross.

Yet, you cling to his alleged quote regarding the final product at Aronomink as proof positive that Ross altered the bunkers that he designed, in the construction process.
Yet, you don't have one shred of evidence to support that, unless you want to claim that Seminole is FLAT[/color]

« **Reply #209 on:** July 20, 2005, 11:57:08 AM »

Tom MacWood said to Pat:

"You’re like all the rest of the Ross bashers!"

Pat said to Tom MacWood;

"To repeat, I'm not bashing Ross, I'm bashing you."

After following this dialogue between Tom MacWood and Pat Mucci, that would seem to be a whole accurate statement on Pat's part!

« **Reply #210 on:** July 20, 2005, 12:23:08 PM »

TMac,

Give Scarlet a chance. At least wait until it is finished and you've played it before you go into mourning. You can always play from the shorter tees, and you have never been overly impressed with the bunkering and green design. So, for some of us it may be a great opportunity foregone (to finish the MacKenzie routing with corresponding features), but if it is better than before is that bad?

As to your comments about raters, do you think that it may have been a bit beneath you? I am not going to pile on a la Pat Mucci, but if that is truly your view, it is rather condescending. Don't you think?

BTW, how much did you push to become involved? I can't see Nicklaus summarily turning down the insights of the club historian.

I did not see the MacKenzie course map in the clubhouse. I asked in the pro shop and was told that it hasn't been up for a few years. Perhaps I did not communicate clearly.

As to how one could take a large map which may or may not have been drawn to scale and come up with a bunkering scheme reminiscent of what the Doctor intended, I am not sure that such a prescient designer exists. Not only would the bunkers have to be repositioned for length added over the past 60 years, but their depth would have to be guessed, and their location relative to the turn of the fairways readjusted. Perhaps it would be more honest just to remove the MacKenzie label and accord the course whatever honors it inherently deserves.

BTW, let's call a truce on the alleged vertically challenged Seminole. It is not fitting for such erudite gentlemen to be haggling like a bunch of old spinsters.

Why not start a new post, perhaps on how Rove and Bush are conspiring with the Saudi royal family to keep the price of oil artificially high so as to benefit their greedy, mega-rich multinational corporate sponsors. Alternatively, there must be something else to be said regarding how technology is ruining the game (as our handicaps continue to soar). Has Rees Jones or Tom Fazio been taken to task here in the last month? P.S.- I loved Victoria National.

« **Reply #211 on:** July 20, 2005, 12:29:44 PM »

Again, forgive my interruption.

Let's say that it's true that Ross made the comment saying that work he did at Seminole showed what could be done on flat ground.

Let's also say that it's true that there are massive dunes running through that property.

In an additional admission, let's take as fact the statement made in Mr. Morrissett's essay on Seminole that "The course occupies a flat-bottomed bowl set between a high ridge of dunes to the west and the dunes along the Atlantic Ocean to the east...Somehow Ross managed to have 14 holes touch these two lines of dunes (the 1st, 8th, 9th and 10th do not).

Could it possibly be that Ross's comments were not intended to characterize the course as a whole, but are reflective of the work he performed on the 1st, 8th, 9th, and 10th holes that do not touch the dunes? Would it be accurate to say that those four holes are on "flat" ground? Does the work that Ross did on those four holes merit the comment that he made regarding his work on flat ground at that site?

I have NOT played the course. I am not alleging that the course is "flat." I am bashing no one.

« **Reply #212 on:** July 20, 2005, 01:29:22 PM »

Kirk:

Every thing you said in that post is completely logical. I just can't imagine why this issue has gone on so long.

Any of us who know Seminole and most certainly including its architect, Donald Ross, have eyes and can clearly see that the raw site of Seminole is not entirely flat although the middle section of the course that's contained within the massive eastern and western ridgelines is flat.

I also cannot see the point of Tom MacWood's question or why he would even think to ask if the 2nd green, for instance, was man-made of natural as to its elevation. Anyone who's ever seen Seminole or that green can tell that green is sited about half-way up that massive western ridgeline that forms the entire western side of the golf course.

« **Reply #213 on:** July 20, 2005, 01:58:51 PM »

It's easy to know why Tom Macwood would ask such a question, he is sitting home in Ohio trying to mischaracterize the statements of Pat Mucci.

« **Reply #214 on:** July 20, 2005, 02:07:46 PM »

TMac,

I believe that the "original" MacKenzie map of the courses had Scarlet at a bit over 6,700 yards. When I played it last, some 7 years ago, it was over 7,100. Even before the current work, holes like #11 had been lengthened, and I understand that the course was stretched to over 7,200 yards. I imagine that if you want the course to play as MacKenzie intended, that some movement toward the greens would be required in some instances.

I reviewed a copy of the map in Doak's book, and I did not get the impression that this incorporated a final bunkering scheme. I know that MacKenzie was sympathetic to cost of maintenance issues, and did not overload his courses with gratuitous bunkers. However, the Scarlet map appears to be a preliminary conceptual drawing, not only by the relatively few bunkers it shows, but also by their location (too close or too far from the tees, some a distance from the greens).

Perhaps Tom Doak can chime in on this specific issue.

« **Reply #215 on:** July 20, 2005, 08:28:57 PM »

TMac,

Since MacKenzie did not often spend a great deal of time on site, specially those away from CA, I assumed that he would have left fairly extensive plans, drawings, diagrams, etc. for the contractor to build the course had he been fully paid. I don't know how the course could have been built in a MacKenzie style, at least at that time, solely from the map we are referring to. Perhaps Doak or DeVries could do it today, but it would be no more than an interpretation of a variation on a theme.

At ANGC, it is my understanding that MacKenzie was around for much of the construction and left a close colleague (was it Ms. Hollins?) to oversee the completion of the work. Also, one should not underestimate the roles of Jones and and the meticulous Roberts in finishing the course.

Does MacKenzie have a style that is often repeated in his courses? Or is his genious primarily in the site selection and routing, with great communication skills which helped the on site people finish out a course with some outstanding features? Were his greens and surrounds really so devilish when they were maintained at 5 or 6? Even in his greens, there appears to be considerable variance from course to course, with Pasatiempo probably being the most difficult, and Valley and Meadow more tame.

« **Reply #216 on:** July 20, 2005, 09:05:08 PM »

Kirk:

I don't think one would call the western ridge at Seminole a "dune" that is or was anything like the dune ridge that is the eastern ridge-line of Seminole that boarders the ocean.

« **Reply #217 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:04:00 PM »

"I don't know. Pasatiempo is definitely more contoured than CPC. Crystal Downs is wild."

Tom MacW:

Have you ever seen Crystal Downs? And if so, how do you know those greens aren't Perry Maxwell?

Whose the King of all great putting greens? Perry Maxwell, of course! Compared to him Alister MacKenzie was like a two year old in a sandbox with #2 in his diapers!

« **Reply #218 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:07:25 PM »

TEPaul

I am still waiting for Mr. Macwood to answer the very important questions that Pat Mucci asked. He has showed that he can misinterpret Ross now we are going to sick him on Perry Maxwell?

« **Reply #219 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:17:41 PM »

TMac,

I've played the Jockey Club, and the greens there are not terribly undulating as at ANGC, or diffiicult to read a la Pasatiempo. The breaks were more apparent and the older strain of bermuda was maintained at slower speeds.

BTW, a couple of knowledgeable Michiganders have told me that Crystal Downs greens are Maxwell. I look forward to playing that course some day (as well as the U of M course) and see whether it resembles CPC, Valley, Meadow, and Pasa more than Prairie Dunes, Southern Hills, Colonial, and Dornick Hills.

« **Reply #220 on:** July 21, 2005, 03:59:23 PM »

" Its ashame they've dug up his work (Perry Maxwell) here at OSU."

Tom MacW:

Why have you fixated on what you call a mistake in Aronimink's bunker project that's inherently so trivial when OSU which is right in your neighborhood and which you know so well seems to be incapable of doing anything except making mistakes?

« **Reply #221 on:** July 21, 2005, 06:29:13 PM »

TMac,

Undulating in comparison to Scarlet (not MacKenzie greens), sure (though #s 13 and 16 have plenty of movement to them). The Jockey Club Colorada course is on a flat as a pancake site. The greens are pushed-up and some have considerable contouring. Perhaps these types of greens on level ground gives the appearance of being more undulating than they really are. Of the MacKenzie courses I've played or seen in person, the greens at JC-C are in the middle of the pack. I will say that the green complexes and angling of the fairways are this course's strength. But if Nicklaus modeled the JC-C greens for Scarlet, I doubt that you would be satisfied. I did visit Montevideo, but ran out of time to see his renovation work there. As I recall, that course is in fairly hilly terrain. Perhaps K.B. Moran can chime in. I think that he's done quite a bit of work in that part of the country.

« **Reply #222 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:32:21 PM »

Kirk Gill,

The alleged quote by Ross is clear.

MacWood offered it up as evidence that Seminole is FLAT, which it isn't.

You're interpretation of Ross's alleged statement, is just that, an interpretation, as is Tom MacWoods thrice revised interpretation.

There's a more important issue, which Tom MacWood refuses to understand because it undermines his arguments relative to Aronomink.

And that is, that you can't accept alleged quotes as the Gospel.

Ross's quote that Seminole is FLAT couldn't have been made by Ross, as it was quoted by MacWood. Ross referenced slopes so he knew it wasn't FLAT, and anybody who's ever seen the golf course knows that it's FAR from FLAT.

Calling that alleged quote into question, and categorizing it as absurd is important.

So when Tom MacWood alleges that Ross's alleged comment about the superiority of the finished product at Aronomink is proof positive that Ross himself redesigned and rebuilt the bunkers, prudent people must look at his conclusion with ENLIGHTENED SUSPICION.

Ross may have never spoken the exact words in both quotes.
And, the context of his comments might be substantively different.

The critical point is that ALLEGED quotes must not be accepted as infallible or even authentic, and certainly they can't be used to certify a questionable conclusion.

Tom MacWood,

You can look at all the pictures, maps and diagrams you want. Seminole is downright hilly for southern Florida.

And, the second hole is a natural hole that flows from the tee to a green elevated HIGH above the fairway.

As to MORE OF your flawed conclusions, look at the time that Hamilton B Hearst made his post. Then ask TEPaul and Fred Ruttenberg where I was at 2:07 this afternoon.

But, the betting window remains open, and, I'll increase both the odds and the minimum bet just for you.

Once again, your research and your conclusions are flawed.

Tell me how # 12 and # 13 at Seminole are FLAT holes.

« **Reply #223 on:** July 22, 2005, 12:17:18 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on July 21, 2005, 03:27:30 PM

Hambone/Pat/LIRR
What question would that be...I stopped reading Pat's posts about four or five rants ago.

Unless they have wireless internet access near Mullen, Nebraska, Pat and HBH cannot be the same fellow. Mr. Hearst posted while the SH field trip was progress. I think Shivas was the one who pointed that out at the time.

« **Reply #224 on:** July 22, 2005, 08:54:35 AM »

On July 14 6:52pm Tom MacWood said;

“Pat
While you focus on what we don't know and your wacky theories and conjecture...let me list the facts, what we do know. Feel free to add any facts I leave out:

4. The golf course as built would often depart from the formal plan (see Seminole)”

Tom:

Would you explain what you mean by Seminole "as built" departing from the formal plan?

As far as I can see comparing Ross's Seminole plan to the course as built the only real differences appear to be on the 15th hole instead of mounds dividing the two fairways, bunkers were built in place of the mounds on the plan and it appears they forewent the diagonal cross bunkers on the beginning of the 16th fairway. Other than that the course "as built" appears to just about exactly match Ross's plans. It's nearly impossible to see but it may be that the very cool semi-circular melded tee for #1 and #10 was never built. I do know it was never there as long as I've know the golf course (about forty years).

News:

Mike_Cirba

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Lou_Duran

Kirk Gill

TEPaul

HamiltonBHearst

Lou_Duran

Lou_Duran

TEPaul

TEPaul

HamiltonBHearst

Lou_Duran

TEPaul

Lou_Duran

Patrick_Mucci

Kevin_Reilly

TEPaul