Summer In Monterey

« **Reply #25 on:** August 15, 2006, 11:23:26 AM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on August 15, 2006, 09:54:27 AM

I have this vision in my mind of that flotilla of golf carts driving through a bunker at #18, circumnavigating the Lodge, hopping onto the 17 Mile Drive admidst much honking and fist-shaking from the tourists, Clinton giving them all the finger and then swerving down to the first tee at Spyglass.
RHIP: Rank hath its privileges!

Bill, sorry to say, Clinton could not have been more gracious. However, your description is right on target for the current occupant in the House of White.

« **Reply #26 on:** August 15, 2006, 11:38:46 AM »

I have been in the same room as President Clinton twice, and both times you can feel the electricity that is like no other. The man has great charisma that just takes over a room.

The first time I was in college and he was speaking at a small auditorium. He was still in office at the time and I was lucky enough to grab two tickets for my best friend and I. We all went up front after he was done speaking and my friend yelled out "Mr. President it's a DAMM pleasure" He stuck his hand out and Clinton grabbed it with a big smile. Two days later the picture of my friend reaching his arm out to Clinton and Clinton grabbing it is in the New York times. Great moment.

The second time was in Vegas of all places. I'm at the Nines Steakhouse in the Palms and its Halloween weekend. Dennis Rodman is there, so is Vince Neal with his GORGEOUS wife and celebrities are abound. We're eating dinner and all of the sudden people start to stand up an clap, and we're thinking who's hear now, sure enough its President Clinton, walks into a standing ovation for a dinner party, sans Hillary but with Joe Maloof, President of the Palms.

Incidentally, I did meet the elder Bush once in my life and it was at the Presidents Cup. I was watching Davis Love tee off and I look next to me and who's standing there watching him tee off as well but President Bush, that was more of a "this is kind of strange moment"

« **Reply #27 on:** August 15, 2006, 11:46:46 AM »

Jason,

Thanks for the recollections. I've met President Clinton on three occassions, and he is everything you stated. I'll stop here with the praises, as I'm sure it's getting too deep for our Republican friends.

My apologies to them if they feel we are off topic.

« **Reply #28 on:** August 15, 2006, 01:45:04 PM »

Quote from: Rick Shefchik on August 14, 2006, 07:08:50 PM

Every time I see a photo of that oft-photographed hole at MPCC, my overriding thought is: it's too busy.

I think it looks like a fantastic golf course. But on this particular hole, there is so much going on -- rocks, roads, paths, bunkers with grass islands -- that distracts my eye from what is obviously a fantastic view of the ocean. In this case, is more actually less, or am I off my nut?

Rick,
I think you are completely on your nut about the busy look of the hole. But I believe that Strantz was employing his favorite "Mackenzieism" in this instance by making the hole appear very difficult when there is, in fact, plenty of short grass to be had for a reasonably well-struck shot.

Certainly opinions may vary about the aethetic value (I personally think Strantz produced the most-visually stunning courses of all... I'm sure others will contest), but I think his "looks hard, plays easy(ish)" modality is something that most if not all GCA enthusiasts would buy in to.

« **Reply #29 on:** August 15, 2006, 02:02:41 PM »

Tom, I must have looked at the wrong date on your MPCC pictures. As for Clinton's game, I can also tell that he had a very rough time on 8 and 9. He put at least one ball in the water on 8 and it took him 2 shots to get out of the left side fairway bunker at 9 and then he appeared to be hacking it around in the kikuyu. By the time we moved up 11, he was off to 17. Oddly enough, the crowds apparently didn't stick around for my momentous arrival at 18.

« **Reply #30 on:** August 15, 2006, 02:17:44 PM »

Kyle - did you see my reply to Rick? Go back to page one if not. That pic really does not accurately portray how the golf hole looks or plays - in fact it distorts it greatly.

TH

« **Reply #31 on:** August 15, 2006, 05:50:18 PM »

Apologies for anyone who thought my earlier comment was sarcastic. I truly appreciate everyone who shares their adventures here --- especially when there are pictures included --- even better when it's the Monterey area.

As some of you know, Monterey is my mecca (old Fort Ord brat) and I'm finally coming home!

So, please, keep up the great work! I really love the stories.

My apologies if I made anyone look bad or caused hard feelings.

« **Reply #32 on:** August 15, 2006, 06:05:58 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Henderson on August 15, 2006, 01:45:04 PM

I think you are completely on your nut about the busy look of the hole. But I believe that Strantz was employing his favorite "Mackenzieism" in this instance by making the hole appear very difficult when there is, in fact, plenty of short grass to be had for a reasonably well-struck shot.

Although the photo may look "busy", all the rock outcroppings, I believe, are natural and not manufactured (other than a flat teeing ground).

« **Reply #33 on:** August 15, 2006, 06:10:34 PM »

That they are, oh great one.

But would you concur with my take that that pic distorts the reality of the golf hole? Standing on that rocky perch tee, I sure don't see all those rocks... or at least not nearly as prominently as the picture shows... you're up above them...

TH

« **Reply #34 on:** August 15, 2006, 07:45:38 PM »

Quote from: Mike Benham on August 15, 2006, 06:05:58 PM

Quote from: Kyle Henderson on August 15, 2006, 01:45:04 PM
I think you are completely on your nut about the busy look of the hole. But I believe that Strantz was employing his favorite "Mackenzieism" in this instance by making the hole appear very difficult when there is, in fact, plenty of short grass to be had for a reasonably well-struck shot.

Although the photo may look "busy", all the rock outcroppings, I believe, are natural and not manufactured (other than a flat teeing ground).

Tom,

Having never played the MPCC Shore course, I certainly can't comment on how busy it appears aside from what I see in the pictures. I speak more from my experiences playing the par 3s at Tobacco Road and Tot Hill Farm where the busy appearance added to the experience. Tot Hill #3 is probably my favorite example of this concept (I still need to invest some time in learning how to post pics).

Mike, I certainly am not implying that Strantz heavily manufactured the busy look. I am, in fact, very impressed by the way he tends to use the natural features and some selective shaping to make massive greens and fairways difficult to gauge and easy to second guess. I think the sandy waste areas, diagonal sightlines, trees, etc. play more of a role in the busy appearance of the photos than the rocks.

« **Reply #35 on:** August 15, 2006, 09:32:44 PM »

Knowing you're talking to Tom H and not Tom Z, just let me add, since I was the photographer, that the idea was to take the photo on a downward angle, and thereby eliminating as much of the gray sky as possible.

I only mention this as the skewing of the elements of the hole are the focal point of the disscussion.

« **Reply #36 on:** August 15, 2006, 09:45:40 PM »

Rick Shefchik,

I'd agree with you.
The numerous boulders detract from a panorama that bears little or no resemblence to the look they present.

Roads can't always be avoided, but, boulders can be covered or moved.

Tom, Bob & Tom,

Are the boulders isolated to one hole or to one section of the golf course ?

« **Reply #37 on:** August 15, 2006, 10:49:37 PM »

Let me see if I can help in this way... Some of my other photos of the MPCC Shore Course. Huck or Bob would need to correctly identify the holes that I was unable to.

From the 2nd shot on the par 5 1st hole.

The par 3 3rd

Bob with an adroit and accurate pitch shot.

The Par5 6th

tom

« **Reply #38 on:** August 16, 2006, 10:50:27 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 15, 2006, 09:45:40 PM

Rick Shefchik,

I'd agree with you.
The numerous boulders detract from a panorama that bears little or no resemblence to the look they present.

Roads can't always be avoided, but, boulders can be covered or moved.

Tom, Bob & Tom,

Are the boulders isolated to one hole or to one section of the golf course ?

YOU OF ALL PEOPLE! Judging based on pictures? I am shocked.

Once again, the boulders do NOT make this golf hole look "busy" in person - the photo skews the panorama considerably. They are below you and you look right over them.

This is a banner day - Pat Mucci judging based on pictures. I'd advise you to wait and play the course before you make these pronouncements, but nah... who would ever say such a thing?

As for boulders, they exist, they were there always, they in no way detract from the experience on this golf course.

TH

« **Reply #39 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:09:21 AM »

Some of the nit-picking going on, is the quintessential argument of the forest and the trees. If the course is the forest, and this hole a tree, some are choosing to look at a few ornaments on the tree rather than the tree itself.

I would say that some are straining their gray matter as they view a photo of only partial look at the hole. Again, the boulders only add to the luster of the view, not detract from it.

Next, I fully expect someone to ask if there is too much water adjoining the course.

« **Reply #40 on:** August 16, 2006, 04:08:35 PM »

At the risk of being accused of suggesting changes to a hole based on a photo (although I have played it a few times) or to suggest that there are sunny and warm days on the Monterey Peninsula during the summer months, I present this photo of the oft-discussed hole at MPCC Shore ...

No photoshop needed and all the clutter gone ...

And, there is as much shore fronting the MPCC Shore as there is Lake at Olympic Lake ....

« **Reply #41 on:** August 16, 2006, 04:12:44 PM »

Love it.

For Peter McKnight - notice the red shirt, and the logo thereon.

GO GUNNERS!

« **Reply #42 on:** August 16, 2006, 04:50:23 PM »

Another summer pic, 19 years in the future:

« **Reply #43 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:21:09 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on August 16, 2006, 10:50:27 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 15, 2006, 09:45:40 PM
Rick Shefchik,

I'd agree with you.
The numerous boulders detract from a panorama that bears little or no resemblence to the look they present.

Roads can't always be avoided, but, boulders can be covered or moved.

Tom, Bob & Tom,

Are the boulders isolated to one hole or to one section of the golf course ?

YOU OF ALL PEOPLE! Judging based on pictures? I am shocked.

Once again, the boulders do NOT make this golf hole look "busy" in person - the photo skews the panorama considerably. They are below you and you look right over them.

This is a banner day - Pat Mucci judging based on pictures. I'd advise you to wait and play the course before you make these pronouncements, but nah... who would ever say such a thing?

As for boulders, they exist, they were there always, they in no way detract from the experience on this golf course.

Like the ill fated defense offered by the husband caught in bed with another woman by his wife, "honey, who are you going to believe, ME, or your eyes ? I'm going to believe my eyes.

Those boulders are highly visible.

The question isn't how the hole plays, it's about what the eye sees, and the eyes see boulders.

And, I haven't made any judgements about the hole.
I've merely stated an obvious fact.
It's your zest to find a chink in the armor that's led you to jump to false conclusions.

How does the photo skew the panorama ?
The contrast between the boulders in the foreground and the land in the backround, sans boulders, is undeniable.

Or, are you led to and from the tee with your eyes closed by a member of the ground crew ?

As much as you'll offer your denial, it can't alter the FACT that the boulders are in plain sight.

If you'd read the rest of my post you'd see that I asked questions pertinent to the issue, prior to making any judgements about the apparent conflict between the links like land and the boulder strewn land.[/color]

« **Reply #44 on:** August 17, 2006, 07:58:47 AM »

Why the heck is Huckaby a guest again?

Is this some mad scheme to hide your extreme post counts?

« **Reply #45 on:** August 17, 2006, 10:12:43 AM »

Craig:

I'm back. Tommy was nice enough to reinstate me after apparently I inadvertently deleted myself! There's something in profile where you can do this... I must have accidentally hit it myself. But in case anyone does want to reset their post count, well... I'm now an expert at how to do so.

Patrick:

Come on my friend, you cannot have your cake and eat it too like this. Either it's OK to judge golf holes by photos or it's not. I'm fine if you want to look at that photo and say it's too busy - that photo certainly would suggest such. But I am here to tell you - and I'd guess the many here who've played MPCC-Shore would agree - that the photo does greatly skew the perspective, as I have explained already. From the back tees perched in the rocks, those boulders are below you and your eye goes right over them. From the lower tees, they are beside and behind you. They really don't matter much at all.

But if you want to make judgments based on photos, that's perfectly fine with me. Just understand that I am now going to be a watchdog all over your ass and the next time you give anyone an ounce of hard time about doing the same, the retribution will be swift and sure.

TH

ps - pretty bold for a first post, huh?

« **Reply #46 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:00:45 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on August 17, 2006, 10:12:43 AM

Come on my friend, you cannot have your cake and eat it too like this. Either it's OK to judge golf holes by photos or it's not.

I NEVER judged the golf hole.
You keep inserting into the issue far more than I stated.
[/color]

I'm fine if you want to look at that photo and say it's too busy - that photo certainly would suggest such.
That's what I said.
I'm glad you finally saw the light and now agree with me.[/color]

But I am here to tell you - and I'd guess the many here who've played MPCC-Shore would agree - that the photo does greatly skew the perspective, as I have explained already. From the back tees perched in the rocks, those boulders are below you and your eye goes right over them. From the lower tees, they are beside and behind you. They really don't matter much at all.

I never said that they mattered in the play of the hole.

I also asked if the boulders were isolated to one hole or one area, and, to date, I don't think anyone answered that question in detail.[/color]

But if you want to make judgments based on photos, that's perfectly fine with me. Just understand that I am now going to be a watchdog all over your ass and the next time you give anyone an ounce of hard time about doing the same, the retribution will be swift and sure.

That's OK with me.
But, I made no judgement on the hole or on the play of the hole, that was solely your misinterpretation.

And, If I err, I would expect you to point it out and offer the counter argument. That's in part, what this site is about, discussion and debate.

I learned that from the Master Debater, TEPaul [/color]

« **Reply #47 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:16:13 PM »

Patrick:

You're not going to get away with mincing
words this time.

I never stated anywhere that you judged
the play of the golf hole. We are talking
about the LOOK.

You made a judgment on the LOOK of the golf
hole based on a photo. A judgment that I have
no doubt you would see as incorrect if and when
you saw this golf hole in person - for reasons
I've stated twice now.

So you tell me - are we allowed to judge based
on photos, or not? Obviously one cannot and should
not judge how a golf hole plays simply based on photos.
Seems to me though that since
this one proves that even the LOOK can get
distorted, we ought to be careful with that as well.

A great man once advised me I simply can't tell the huge
elevation changes at Augusta based on the photos, that
such photos - and TV coverage - does tend to flatten
things.

I am just surprised the same man doesn't see the same
reasoning here.

And btw, Tom Zeni did answer your question, with photos.
But do those count or not?

I'm here to tell you that you are seeing the majority
of the boulders on the golf course in this one photo.
There are others strewn about, but they are mostly
collected near this tee, the green prior, and the area
below this tee. If you see the course in person, you
quickly see why - this is a large rocky outcropping.

TH

« **Reply #48 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:18:21 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 17, 2006, 12:00:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on August 17, 2006, 10:12:43 AM

I also asked if the boulders were isolated to one hole or one area, and, to date, I don't think anyone answered that question in detail.[/b][/color]

Pat,

Not to say that we are like Maine, but you will find boulders and rocks scattered all over the place.

I think Tom Zeni and Tom H., were being magnanimous when they denied that the 11th hole looked busy, but in all honesty the plethora of tees, the waste areas and rock surrounds make it so. However, the sheer joy of being on an elevated tee, whose size is as that of a good size SUV, with a drop off in front, to a diabolical green 180 yds away with a mile of ocean-front in sight, more than makes up for its deficiencies.

Bob

ps. In case you have not heard, did I tell you I aced it at one time.

« **Reply #49 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:25:58 PM »

Bob:

When you say the look is "busy", I can live with that
if you mean busier than say #2 MPCC Shore, where the look
is only grass and trees. But as you say, the positives
outweigh the negatives to a large extent. And I will take
to my GRAVE the fact that these photos distort what
one actually sees from the tee. Would you not agree that
standing on the back tee, perched in the rocks,
one looks right over these things these guys are finding
make the hole look "busy"? And that on the lower tee,
you're already past them?

In any case, the bottom line was these guys were treating
this like some sort of overall negative, which is FAR from
true. And they were basing it on a photo which truly does
distort things. Wouldn't you agree?

As for boulders strewn about, well... perhaps I don't focus
on such things, but I really think the vast majority are
located within 100 yards of this tee. Oh there are other
rocks, for sure... but not the boulders these naysayers
seem to decry. Correct?

TH

ps - you ACED that hole? I hadn't heard...

News:

Tom Zeni

Jason Mandel

Tom Zeni

Kyle Henderson

Mike Hoak

Tom Huckaby

Nick Church

Mike Benham

Tom Huckaby

Kyle Henderson

Tom Zeni

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Zeni

Tom Huckaby

Tom Zeni

Mike Benham

Tom Huckaby

Scott_Burroughs

Patrick_Mucci

Craig Van Egmond

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Bob_Huntley

Tom Huckaby