Pebble Beach No. 5 (Old and New)

« **Reply #225 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:32:37 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci_Jr on February 19, 2007, 09:58:49 AM

Kevin Reilly,

Tom Huckaby has never let the facts influence his position or the outcome of the debate.

I wonder how he would handle peak high tide when no beach was visible.

I also wonder why CPC doesn't mark the top of the cliff with a hazard line, especially to speed up play and avoid the liability of someone falling while trying to retrieve a ball or play a shot.

Kevin:

Patrick Mucci has never failed to question trivialities when he doesn't really know the facts and someone else does. And I also wonder why he is worried about "facts." Let's remember, my point was that a similarity between the two golf holes was "lost ball potential long and left." Patrick stated that can NEVER happen at CPC 16. Given the local rule - which he didn't recall - of course one can plainly see that I remain right and Patrick is 100% wrong. Sure I was wrong about one of the details as to WHY one can get a lost ball long and left, but my point remains correct and his denial of such is flatly wrong.
But of course he will never admit that. But we know better.

BTW, I sincerely doubt the ocean EVER gets high enough long and left of 16 such that no beach is visible. But even at those rare times, there's still the matter of the cliff-edge where one could lose a ball. I'd venture to say that even at very very rare times one would still hit a provisional on shots that disappear over the edge.

And Patrick, interesting too that you would wonder why they do it this way, as I have. Dare I say again it's an odd situation, as I've tried to explain to you many times?

« **Reply #226 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:36:21 AM »

So OK, if you are man enough to accept it, let's move this to the theoretical. I firmly believe I have things exactly right about the two golf holes we've discussed so far, but for whatever reason I see you'll never believe it, so what the hell.

Here's a re-phrasing of the question I asked a few posts ago, which I ask again, to try and gain a better understanding of how you see the golf world.

Let''s discuss two hypothetical golf holes.

The similarities are:

1) 200+ yard carry over water to go straight at the green
2) Bailout area left; strategic choice available to go left if one can't make the carry
3) Both the tee box and green are elevated to some extent
4) Mounded behind the green on both.
5) Water is in play short of the green, to the right of the green and long and right of the green on both.
6) At least one greenside bunker exists at each.
7) Lost ball potential long and left at both holes.
8 ) Unpredictable and sometimes fierce winds at each hole.

Note the differences would be only this:

- all carry over water for all layups at Hole A; carry over water for 95% of layups utilized at Hole B, but a possibility for a 70 yard chip followed by a 130 yard carry over water.

- slightly higher raised tee and green at Hole A.

- more bunkers surrounding green at Hole A.

- potentional for lost ball in water hazard long and left at Hole A, but the vast majority of the time if one goes that direction it will be lost ball (stroke and distance) or unplayable due to an odd local rule in play.

And that's it.

In that scenario what would make one the superior golf hole? Just the small differences? If so, fair enough. But on a further theoretical level, would the beauty of the surrounds - which you'll note I haven't mentioned - play any role at all? And if so, is it only the beauty lying within the bounds of the golf course that matters?

[/color]

Note questioning the facts is not allowed. These are the facts for our two hypothetical golf holes. Will you answer?

« **Reply #227 on:** February 19, 2007, 10:31:48 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 18, 2007, 11:51:36 AM

Re CPC, I am very very surprised you didn't notice this "the ocean is played as part of the course" rule.

Now I'd call you a liar or question your motives like you constantly do to me, but no, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It is very strange though... you are the only person I've ever talked to who's played CPC and failed to notice it.

Sadly I can't point you to exactly where it's posted as I don't recall with absolute certainty; I do believe it's both on the scorecard and on signs.

Did you ever stop to consider that when I played CPC, that wasn't the local rule ?[/color]

In any case, care to take a stab at correcting my overall impression of your understanding of how scenic beauty fits in, or not, as one plays golf?

Scenic beauty, as opposed to beauty, that occurs beyond the confines of the golf course is of no consequence when it comes to evaluating the architecture and playability of a hole or a golf course. It's extraneous icing on the cake and not part of the inherent architectural values contained within the holes.

I've said that 100 times, but, you've yet to acknowledge it.[/color]

I posted that a few posts back... I would be interested in your corrections. If I do have that wrong, perhaps we need not have these continued arguments.

I enjoy the arguments, they give me something to do when snow's on the ground, it's 10 degrees out and the wind is blowing at 20 mph. What's your excuse, you live in California [/color]

« **Reply #228 on:** February 19, 2007, 10:42:01 PM »

Patrick:

That local rule has existed for a long time, as far as I know. I'd love for Mr. Huntley to confirm or deny. But yes, it is indeed possible that it wasn't in play when you played CPC. But of course that also means you're relying on photos alone for one course, and memories of a long time ago for the other - as opposed to me, who's played the first course and knows the surrounding area very well, and has played the second course far more recently than you. We'll let the jury decide who's more credible.

But as for this:

Scenic beauty, as opposed to beauty, that occurs beyond the confines of the golf course is of no consequence when it comes to evaluating the architecture and playability of a hole or a golf course. It's extraneous icing on the cake and not part of the inherent architectural values contained within the holes.

Thank you for finally getting down to brass tacks and at least sort of answering my questions. No, you haven't done so 100 times, but no matter, I'll take it now. In any case this once again crystallizes our differences, as I don't see giant walls a bit off shore at CPC, or at any other course for that matter. By my take, it you can see it, it counts. And I've explained countless times before how Tom Doak agrees with this, as have several others: that is, one of the functions of good design is to maximize views when they are available. These views do not stop at the edge of the golf course.

In any case, what's also become clear is that would seem to be our only big difference, believe it or not - so this has been a worthwhile exercise. See, as I explained in my quick, non-stalling, no diversionary tactics answer to your question about Garden City, I too believe these scenic views are just the icing on the cake one way or the other. I just do believe that if a cake has icing, you don't scrape it off before eating it.

In any case, I too enjoy these arguments. My excuse, especially with our fine weather lately? It's called three kids, one of whom is 6 months old.

« **Reply #229 on:** February 19, 2007, 10:53:56 PM »

Tom and Patrick,

Quote from PM....."Did you ever stop to consider that when I played CPC, that wasn't the local rule ?"

I have spoken to a few denizens of club who have been members for fifty years or more and they assure me, that it was indeed, the rule.

I cannot argue with them as I have no idea if they are correct or not, but as I want to play there next week I am not about to scupper my eighteen holes and a good lunch.

Bob

« **Reply #230 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:01:08 AM »

Bob:

Thanks. 'Tis odd that our friend missed this... but anyway your post did give me a smile.

« **Reply #231 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:08:34 AM »

I think I'm beginning to realize how you guys must have felt in the early going of those Merion threads...

here's to hoping you all are a bit smarter than we all...

« **Reply #232 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:14:56 AM »

Quote from: JES II on February 20, 2007, 10:08:34 AM

I think I'm beginning to realize how you guys must have felt in the early going of those Merion threads...

here's to hoping you all are a bit smarter than we all...

Well, if "smarter" means less vitriol, arguing with a smile rather than wanting to kill each other, and hopefully knowing when to finally quit... well then perhaps we are. Methinks this thread is dead.

« **Reply #233 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:22:13 AM »

So what you're saying is it took Mr. Huntly two brief sentences to do what you could not in 6 1/2 pages...get Mucci to eat his shoe, that is...

« **Reply #234 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:26:41 AM »

Quote from: JES II on February 20, 2007, 10:22:13 AM

So what you're saying is it took Mr. Huntly two brief sentences to do what you could not in 6 1/2 pages...get Mucci to eat his shoe, that is...

Oh no, read Patrick's most recent post here... I know that was his way of declaring peace... as he completely avoided adding another color to my technicolor post prior, and just focused on the large issues, with a friendly jab. But yes, having a better authority arrive might indeed help maintain that peace, that's for sure.

« **Reply #235 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:39:02 AM »

Right you are...well done.

« **Reply #236 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:39:11 AM »

Bob Huntley,

One year, over the summer, I excavated and extended a lake/pond, leaving an island with trees on it near one end.

In December of that same year, a 20 year member asked me how I got the trees on the island. When I told them that they were always there, he claimed he had been a member for 20+ years and could assure me that they hadn't been there. He never noticed the extension of the lake/pond.

Another member who advised me not to move a certain stand of trees, never noticed their departure, and yet another member claimed that a feature that was recently inserted had been there ever since he was a member, some 20+ years ago.

I believe I still have the scorecards from my original visit 30+ years ago. When I return, I'll look for them and post them if I find them.

Tom Huckaby,

The Google aerial photos and tilted photos of # 18 at Delta View and # 16 at CPC are more than adequate in comparing the physical characteristics, the configuration of both holes.

Rather than icing on the cake, let me substitute "window dressing" as it's more appropriate with respect to my perspective.

You continue to focus on features beyond the confines of the golf course. My focus is on the golf course.
Your focus has nothing to do with the architecture and play of the hole, my focus has everything to do with the architecture and play of the hole.

I would imagine that Old Head ranks as your # 1 golf course in the world.

I must have missed your answer to the GCGC question, under what post # can I find it.

If, as you state, architects try to find the best views possible when designing a golf course, and golfers want the best views possible, why don't architects clear all the land of trees to open up ALL of the views and why have clubs planted trees lining both sides of the holes and the area behind the greens for the last 70+ years ?

« **Reply #237 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:42:32 AM »

Sully: I guess I was wrong about peace being declared.

Patrick:

I'd kinda rather maintain the peace as this has gone on nauseatingly too long as it is. So just let me correct a few things, and can we perhaps leave it be?

1. I do not "focus" on on features outside the confines of the golf course; I just acknowledge they exist and have a role. I've corrected you on this dozens of times and I must say it is frustrating you keep coming back with this same exact mischaracterization. I absolutely do believe that "the architecture and play of the hole" is the most important aspect of any assessment. I'd just include scenic views under the term "architecture" - as I believe you would - with our only difference being you claim these end at the edge of the course, I don't make that distinction. This is indeed how you continually mischaracterize my position. Please stop.

2. Architects do what they can to maximize views. Obviously many times trees cannot be taken down.

3. Here is my response to your question about Garden City. Thanks for taking the time to read my posts.

Now as for the rest, yes I would call that hole less meritorious than a similar hole with a beautiful view behind. It still is likely a great golf hole... the lack of beauty behind does not take that away... I just do believe a similar golf hole with beauty behind would give more joy to the player, so it seems very logical to me to say it would be more meritorious. And I believe most golfers are with me on this. I doubt many golfers find zero value in beauty outside the bounds of the course but directly in view, as you do.

From reply #216

TH

« **Reply #238 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:44:08 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 19, 2007, 11:36:21 AM

Let''s discuss two hypothetical golf holes.
The similarities are:

1) 200+ yard carry over water to go straight at the green
2) Bailout area left; strategic choice available to go left if one can't make the carry
3) Both the tee box and green are elevated to some extent
4) Mounded behind the green on both.
5) Water is in play short of the green, to the right of the green and long and right of the green on both.
6) At least one greenside bunker exists at each.
7) Lost ball potential long and left at both holes.
8 ) Unpredictable and sometimes fierce winds at each hole.

Note the differences would be only this:

- all carry over water for all layups at Hole A; carry over water for 95% of layups utilized at Hole B, but a possibility for a 70 yard chip followed by a 130 yard carry over water.

- slightly higher raised tee and green at Hole A.

- more bunkers surrounding green at Hole A.

- potentional for lost ball in water hazard long and left at Hole A, but the vast majority of the time if one goes that direction it will be lost ball (stroke and distance) or unplayable due to an odd local rule in play.

In that scenario what would make one the superior golf hole? Just the small differences? If so, fair enough. But on a further theoretical level, would the beauty of the surrounds - which you'll note I haven't mentioned - play any role at all? And if so, is it only the beauty lying within the bounds of the golf course that matters?[/color]

Note questioning the facts is not allowed. These are the facts for our two hypothetical golf holes.

Will you answer?

YES.

Here's my answer:

They're not remotely the same holes.

And, there's no water long on # 18 at Delta View, and there's no water long and right at Delta View. Unless, someone has tampered with these pictures.

« **Reply #239 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:51:32 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci_Jr on February 20, 2007, 10:44:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 19, 2007, 11:36:21 AM

Let''s discuss two hypothetical golf holes.
The similarities are:

1) 200+ yard carry over water to go straight at the green
2) Bailout area left; strategic choice available to go left if one can't make the carry
3) Both the tee box and green are elevated to some extent
4) Mounded behind the green on both.
5) Water is in play short of the green, to the right of the green and long and right of the green on both.
6) At least one greenside bunker exists at each.
7) Lost ball potential long and left at both holes.
8 ) Unpredictable and sometimes fierce winds at each hole.

Note the differences would be only this:

- all carry over water for all layups at Hole A; carry over water for 95% of layups utilized at Hole B, but a possibility for a 70 yard chip followed by a 130 yard carry over water.

- slightly higher raised tee and green at Hole A.

- more bunkers surrounding green at Hole A.

- potentional for lost ball in water hazard long and left at Hole A, but the vast majority of the time if one goes that direction it will be lost ball (stroke and distance) or unplayable due to an odd local rule in play.

In that scenario what would make one the superior golf hole? Just the small differences? If so, fair enough. But on a further theoretical level, would the beauty of the surrounds - which you'll note I haven't mentioned - play any role at all? And if so, is it only the beauty lying within the bounds of the golf course that matters?[/color]

Note questioning the facts is not allowed. These are the facts for our two hypothetical golf holes.

Will you answer?

YES.

Here's my answer:

They're not remotely the same holes.

And, there's no water long on # 18 at Delta View, and there's no water long and right at Delta View. Unless, someone has tampered with these pictures.

Nice dodge. In the interest of peace I'll let you have it. It would be interesting if you attempted to actually answer my questions based on the hypothetical golf holes, but I no longer care.

However, to correct you once again, by "long and right" I meant the parts of the water extending to the right and a little past the green at each hypothetical golf hole. They are very similar in that respect.

But since you want to relate this to certain aerial photos, well... you'll notice there is no water directly long at either of them - not that can possibly be reached anyway.

No further comments, in the interest of peace and ending this. But that's up to you at this point.

TH

« **Reply #240 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:58:11 AM »

Boy,

I'm getting whiplash trying to keep track of this one...so now it's Mucci winning an argument about a hole he has never seen...do I have this right?

« **Reply #241 on:** February 20, 2007, 11:01:10 AM »

Quote from: JES II on February 20, 2007, 10:58:11 AM

Boy,

I'm getting whiplash trying to keep track of this one...so now it's Mucci winning an argument about a hole he has never seen...do I have this right?

Yep. He has indeed never seen one of the holes in question, I've played both multiple times. The very man who's given others major crap about relying on photos is doing so himself with me... Sigh...

So perhaps you can understand my frustration. But I am trying to keep the peace.....

« **Reply #242 on:** February 20, 2007, 11:07:16 AM »

Understand your frustration...

The only reason I've been on this ride for 7 pages is because I've been in similar situations...it's priceless.

Edward Norton has a great movie on DVD now called THE ILLUSIONIST, Patrick is better.

I say throw peace out the window and get nasty...we all know you have it in you...somewhere deep...

« **Reply #243 on:** February 20, 2007, 11:11:52 AM »

Quote from: JES II on February 20, 2007, 11:07:16 AM

Understand your frustration...

The only reason I've been on this ride for 7 pages is because I've been in similar situations...it's priceless.

Edward Norton has a great movie on DVD now called THE ILLUSIONIST, Patrick is better.

I say throw peace out the window and get nasty...we all know you have it in you...somewhere deep...

Oh you have me read correctly.... you should see some of these posts before I go back and edit.

I am getting tired of this, however. More importantly, outside of his mischaracterizations of my take on the overall, I think we've gone as far as we can go with the specific. But that's up to him... he can keep arguing details about something I've moved past.... all I have left for him is really a hypothetical he's dodged... and if he wants to dodge it, than that's fine with me. Our only real difference on the overall is indeed that he claims views stop at the edge of the golf course, and I disagree with that. That has been a learning for me as prior to this thread I really didn't think he valued views all that much even within the golf course...

TH

« **Reply #244 on:** February 20, 2007, 11:52:56 AM »

You held out longer than me Tom,

After the 18th time of going back and forth with Patrick, I realized his position was not going to change, and thats that. But yes he still has dodged the main question of this whole post.

I guess for now, we can keep the thread going by always insisting on getting the last word in.

I think Pat really could have won this arguement had he used this one killer argument that is really the primary issue here. The water in front of DV 18 is fresh water, while the water that fronts CPC is salt water...Patrick would have slayed us with that one

« **Reply #245 on:** February 20, 2007, 12:00:00 PM »

Quote from: Kalen Braley on February 20, 2007, 11:52:56 AM

You held out longer than me Tom,

After the 18th time of going back and forth with Patrick, I realized his position was not going to change, and thats that. But yes he still has dodged the main question of this whole post.

I guess for now, we can keep the thread going by always insisting on getting the last word in.

I think Pat really could have won this arguement had he used this one killer argument that is really the primary issue here. The water in front of DV 18 is fresh water, while the water that fronts CPC is salt water...Patrick would have slayed us with that one

Mucho audible yuks.

Actually I gave him a very credible out about 5 pages ago... all he really has to mention are the views, and he can keep such "inside the course", even managing to save face by giving me crap for focusing on what he finds silly - views extending outward from the course. Just say that's the main difference and this thread ends. Why he was unwilling to do that remains a mystery... but perhaps not, as he has proven time and again he doesn't read my posts anyway. But here's a test of that... let's see if he responds.... Notre Dame sucks and Jimmy Clausen is totally overrated but still they manage to get a #10 recruiting class even with the high academic standards they must overcome... must be a miracle... Now if I know Patrick he will not let that comment lie. But this is a test once again of whether he reads my posts.

« **Reply #246 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:39:55 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 20, 2007, 11:01:10 AM

Quote from: JES II on February 20, 2007, 10:58:11 AM

I'm getting whiplash trying to keep track of this one...so now it's Mucci winning an argument about a hole he has never seen...do I have this right?

Yep. He has indeed never seen one of the holes in question, I've played both multiple times. The very man who's given others major crap about relying on photos is doing so himself with me... Sigh...

The issue isn't about the play of the hole, it's about the comparison of the topography and configuration of two holes.

The above photos, and you can tilt them on Google Earth, tell you all you need to know. The holes aren't similar.

And, lest you not be diverted from the core issue, Huckaby's claim is that the only difference in the two holes are the views presented by both, a preposterous claim.

JES II,

If after looking at the Google Earth aerials, you feel that both holes are very similar in topography, features and configuration, TEPaul has ample room for you at HappyDale Farms.[/color]

« **Reply #247 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:19:46 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci_Jr on February 21, 2007, 08:39:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 20, 2007, 11:01:10 AM
Quote from: JES II on February 20, 2007, 10:58:11 AM

I'm getting whiplash trying to keep track of this one...so now it's Mucci winning an argument about a hole he has never seen...do I have this right?

Yep. He has indeed never seen one of the holes in question, I've played both multiple times. The very man who's given others major crap about relying on photos is doing so himself with me... Sigh...

The issue isn't about the play of the hole, it's about the comparison of the topography and configuration of two holes.[/color]

This, from Patrick "the play is all that matters and all else is window dressing "Mucci??? My my but you are a bedrock of inconsistency. But thank you for FINALLY seeing the light here. Yes, it's not about the play of the hole - although that is remarkably similar. The issue here is the topography and configuration indeed - and the beauty that lies therein. That's why CPC 16 is great and 18 DV only difficult. Thank you for FINALLY conceding defeat. I feel vindicated - and here people say you never admit you're wrong.
[/color]

This thread can now mercifully end. Mucci has finally seen the light.

« **Reply #248 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:49:06 AM »

Pat,

I'm not interested in weighing to this lovers quarrel between you and Mr. Huckaby, but from each individual players perspective the two holes appear to be quite similar in playability. Just look at it in one players view. The choices and risks are going to be very similar. The very shortest of hitters might see it as a three shot hole, and for them, and only them is the direction of the first shot different. You and I are going to atempt to hit the green across a body of water to a similarly oriented green.

« **Reply #249 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:55:31 AM »

Sully: of course you can see that, and I can see that, and Kalen can see that, and Kevin can see that, and anyone with half a brain can see that.... and it's especially evident when one plays each golf hole....

And all we ever asked is that being the case, why is one hole great and the other not. Rather than simply saying at the start it's because of the differences in topography (which I would include to mean the beauty therein), Mucci went on for 6 pages arguing the details, including those about a hole he's never seen. Pretty amazing, huh?

My this could have ended simply and quickly.....

But I'm glad it has. He has finally conceded defeat.*

TH

*of course I don't believe this. The day he concedes anything will be the day the Irish win a football championship again. But it is fun how he's come around to seeing the light, perhaps unwittingly.

News:

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Tom Huckaby

Bob_Huntley

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

Kalen Braley

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby