Was Raynor the ideal architect for flat South/Central Florida ?

« **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:30:58 PM »

Quote from: Peter Pallotta on January 29, 2008, 04:57:16 PM

If we assume that Raynor was the ideal architect for south Florida, any thoughts about whether or not Raynor himself (or the men who hired him) were thinking in those terms?

In other words, was Raynor's "Florida style" intentional and based on a sound understanding of the land's demands/requirements, or was it a happy accident?

Peter,

Seth Raynor graduated from Princeton with a degree in Civil Engineering and Geodesy so I don't think his sound understanding of the land's demands/requirements was an accident, happy or otherwise.

CBM praised Raynor's many abilities to the Nth degree.[/color]

And either way, does anyone think this does (or should) make a difference in this discussion?

Of course it does.
Raynor was a bright, well educated individual with degrees in Civil Engineering and Geodesy. A talented surveyor tutored under the man who's recognized as the father of American architecture.

"When it came to accurate surveying, contours, plastic relief models of the land, DRAINING, piping water in quantity over the entire course, wells and pumps, and in many instances clearing the land of forests, eradicating stones, finally resulting in the preparing the course for seeding, he had NO PEER".

"He was a world builder."

His understanding of civil engineering was critical in designing and building courses in less than ideal locations.

He didn't have to hire or rely on others for that area of expertise.

HE WAS THE MAN.[/color]

« **Reply #26 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:31:20 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 29, 2008, 04:51:22 PM

"In the 1400's a law was set forth in England that a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. Hence we have "the rule of thumb"

TEP

I found a video of Marina (hotforwords) refuting this notion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaFBs3FHNEQ

« **Reply #27 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:57:29 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Harris on January 29, 2008, 08:13:12 PM

Pat,

The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet.

Kyle, there is no 10 foot elevation change from that tee to the bunker.[/color]

The green is also one of the most contoured and extreme from front right to back left with a height difference about almost 8 feet.

The green is set up on a footpad, not at grade level at the mid-point.[/color]

The flattest holes on the property are the 4th,5th, and 17th, with the latter two being Par 3s.

So, you don't consider the 7th a flat hole ?

The 6th ? from the tee to the LZ to the green ?[/color]

« **Reply #28 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:05:16 PM »

TE, Patrick - thanks

I should've edited that post a little. It asked what I meant to ask, but I could've been clearer on this one point, i.e.

Since Raynor also utilized his "constructed style, with elevated footpads for tees and greens" on courses that weren't on south Florida flatlands, it seems fair to ask: what came first, the style or the flatlands?

I won't go so far as to say that The Man WAS The Style. Well, maybe I will say it, but only to ask of which architect(s) that wasn't the case.

Peter

« **Reply #29 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:27:41 PM »

having played MLake 10 to 15 times more than our resident expert PM...I have to agree with Kyle on his analysis....funny how one weekend spent in the Colony House makes you a Raynor/MLake expert??

« **Reply #30 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:41:29 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 29, 2008, 08:57:29 PM

Quote from: Kyle Harris on January 29, 2008, 08:13:12 PM
Pat,

The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet.

Kyle, there is no 10 foot elevation change from that tee to the bunker.[/color]

The green is also one of the most contoured and extreme from front right to back left with a height difference about almost 8 feet.

The green is set up on a footpad, not at grade level at the mid-point.[/color]

The flattest holes on the property are the 4th,5th, and 17th, with the latter two being Par 3s.

So, you don't consider the 7th a flat hole ?

The 6th ? from the tee to the LZ to the green ?[/color]

You're kidding, right?

7 is flat, add it to the list as I forgot.

Everything, I just won't bother. I'll get the topo, Silva's master plan copies and other data I collected there over the course of my employment tomorrow.

« **Reply #31 on:** January 29, 2008, 10:25:17 PM »

Quote from: Michael Christensen on January 29, 2008, 09:27:41 PM

having played MLake 10 to 15 times more than our resident expert PM...I have to agree with Kyle on his analysis....funny how one weekend spent in the Colony House makes you a Raynor/MLake expert??

Michael,

Chances are that I was a Raynor fan long before you were born.

My experience with and knowledge of Raynor courses was established long before I set foot on Mountain Lake.

I'll offer you the same challenge that I offered that Idiot-Savant, TEPaul.

Would you cite for me, anywhere on this thread, where I said that Mountain Lake was flat ?

Absent your ability to present that citation I suggest you enroll in a reading comprehension course. If you live near TEPaul, I'm sure that you can get a discount for multiple enrollment.[/color]

« **Reply #32 on:** January 29, 2008, 10:27:53 PM »

MLake expert PM....I never said you said that MLake was flat...my comment was solely based on your challenge to KHarris' analysis of that particular hole....you are wrong...no matter how much green ink you use will not make you right...end of lesson!

« **Reply #33 on:** January 29, 2008, 10:34:23 PM »

Quote from: Michael Christensen on January 29, 2008, 10:27:53 PM

MLake expert PM....I never said you said that MLake was flat...my comment was solely based on your challenge to KHarris' analysis of that particular hole....you are wrong...no matter how much green ink you use will not make you right...end of lesson!

If I'm wrong then you shouldn't mind wagering on the elevation change of 10 feet that Kyle claims between the forward tee on # 13 and the approach to the fairway bunker.

To make sure that GCA.com benefits, the loser will make a contribution equal to the amount chosen.

What would you like to bet ?

And, how did I disagree with Kyle's analysis of # 13 other than the elevation change between the forward tee and the fairway bunker ?

Since you claim I'm wrong, let's double the bet.

And, don't wimp out and IM or email Kyle for the topo's.
Make the bet PROMPTLY, based on your claim in reply # 29.

« **Reply #34 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:08:33 PM »

careful there Pat.....just which "fairway bunker" are EACH of you referrencing?...you both may be/are correct....depending.....

« **Reply #35 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:17:40 PM »

Having spent a lifetime of playing golf in the flatlands of the Southeastern US, I would postulate that Ross designed for the terrain more effectively than anyone. I have noticed his influence on most of the lesser known architects of the region. I would say Cobb, Lee, Cupp and most of the regional architects took Ross into their designs more than any of the other golden agers.

Raynor may have conjoured a few greensites in Lake Wales, but Ross was the master of the push up green in the Southeastern US.

« **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2008, 05:35:27 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 29, 2008, 10:34:23 PM

Quote from: Michael Christensen on January 29, 2008, 10:27:53 PM

MLake expert PM....I never said you said that MLake was flat...my comment was solely based on your challenge to KHarris' analysis of that particular hole....you are wrong...no matter how much green ink you use will not make you right...end of lesson!

If I'm wrong then you shouldn't mind wagering on the elevation change of 10 feet that Kyle claims between the forward tee on # 13 and the approach to the fairway bunker.

To make sure that GCA.com benefits, the loser will make a contribution equal to the amount chosen.

What would you like to bet ?

And, how did I disagree with Kyle's analysis of # 13 other than the elevation change between the forward tee and the fairway bunker ?

Since you claim I'm wrong, let's double the bet.

And, don't wimp out and IM or email Kyle for the topo's.
Make the bet PROMPTLY, based on your claim in reply # 29.

Pat,

I was referring to the L-shaped Blue tee that John Mayhugh was standing on when he took that picture, I'll discount the black tee as it was built on a pad. I was also referring to the middle bunker, left edge where it meets the fairway again, which is near the turn point of the hole. I suppose I should have said "carry the middle bunker." That's a very broad and general slope. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

The low point on the hole is right in front of the green, and that was what I was referencing in regard to the overall elevation change. The green is built up, as you say but is also one of the more severely contoured greens on the course in terms of delta.

Coincidentally, this might be my favorite hole in golf, so far. I have to get to work, but this afternoon I can provide an in-depth analysis of the hole and the dozens of options that are available to the golfer from day to day. There really is no vantage point from which a photographer can capture the true nature of the hole, however, John's picture does illuminate one very important aspect the golfer must face - obfuscation.

More later. Work now.

« **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:06:36 AM »

Kyle,

I really liked the sequence of the holes.

The stretch of par 4's, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 brought nice variety in terms of length and turns.

# 12, "blind", a long uphill then downhill par 4 with an extremely unique green and surrounds.

# 13, "fade, a medium length dogleg right with a unique green
and surrounds

# 14, "draw", a medium length dogleg left with a neat
hogback spined green and surrounds

# 15, "punchbowl, a short hole where the location of the hole
dictates the position of the drive to a unusual
punchbowl green

# 16 "carry", a long par 4 with a neat array of fairway
bunkers, then down to another unique green.

I thought # 18 was a terrific finishing hole, one requiring ALL good shots in order to make par or better, with a very unique green

While the design style would seem unmistakable, the variety in the holes is quite interesting.

It's a very, very sporty golf course.

John Cullum,

I wish that I had been able to visit Lake Wales Golf Club to see how Ross built his green sites at a course just a short distance from Mountain Lake. I wonder how much Ross is left on the golf course.

Perhaps Kyle or others have played it and can comment.

Supposedly, there was another course built nearby that was intended to compete with Mountain Lake and Lake Wales in terms of quality of design. Is anyone familiar with it ?

At Seminole, Ross put 10/11 of his greens on the two ridges/dunes and elevated the remaining 8/7 in the flats.

« **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:09:30 AM »

"Etymology is the current front-runner for GCA word of the day."

I have been trying to work in the word Epistemology here - the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge. Now there's a word for you.

How does a GCAer know what we he knows? Through the reliability of the senses, the law of noncontradiction, the analogical use of language, and the law of verification. Put all those together, together, and we have found the truth. And this thread is perfect example of the process.

« **Reply #39 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:57:36 AM »

Patrick:

Did you know Raynor's 15th green at Mountain Lake was the prototype for the wonderful 6th green at The Creek Club? What did you think of it?

« **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:18:23 PM »

The other period course in Lake Wales is Lekarica, by Stiles and VanKleek. I have yet to play it but I have driven through the development. It is terribly kept unfortunately.

The home at the entrance rivals anything inside the gate at Mountain Lake

« **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2008, 04:02:22 PM »

MLake expert PM.....if you want to go down the bet road, leave GCA out of it. I want YOUR $$$.....and I don't bet or get out of bed unless we are talking 5 figures....so put your 401K where your mouth is.

Now what hole are you claiming doesn't have the elevation change that Kyle challenged you on....just so we have your facts straight for all to see.

« **Reply #42 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:54:48 PM »

Pat, I find the sand ridges of central Florida perfect for his style. ML does not have to be wet. They water it to the extreme at the moment for reasons I do not understand. It plays firm and fast when maintained properly. There is a good bit of movement to the land from Ocala to below Lake Wales. I am sadened at how many poor sites were selected when good ones are there to be had. It has a lot to do with where the population is though.

« **Reply #43 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:01:53 PM »

Patrick:

You're the guy who likes to quote Macdonald's remark that one needs to play a course and such in all kinds of winds and weather and conditions to understand it.

So, if you really believe that you should subscribe to that notion yourself when some of these people who have a ton more experience at Mountain Lake than you do tell you a few things about the course you don't seem so willing, at first, to agree with!

Understanding NGLA is understanding NGLA----unfortunately noone can exactly translate that into understanding Mountain Lake as well after seeing it once. Same half the architectural team but two different places and two different golf courses, PAL!

« **Reply #44 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:04:50 PM »

Quote from: Michael Christensen on January 30, 2008, 04:02:22 PM

MLake expert PM.....if you want to go down the bet road, leave GCA out of it. I want YOUR $$$.....and I don't bet or get out of bed unless we are talking 5 figures....so put your 401K where your mouth is.

Consider it done.

[/color]

Now what hole are you claiming doesn't have the elevation change that Kyle challenged you on....just so we have your facts straight for all to see.

Interesting that you'd bet $ 10,000 + and not know what the bet is, perhaps that's an indication of my chances of collecting.

I stated what the bet was, previously, but, to make it cyrstal clear, it's that the elevation change from the front tee to the nearest bunker ISN'T 10 feet as Kyle claimed.

The picture below shows the area in question.

Get a cashier's check in the amount of $ 10,000 payable to me, I'll get one payable to you, we'll send them to Ran for safe keeping, until the elevation differential is determined.

Is that OK with you ?[/color]

« **Reply #45 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:08:26 PM »

Patrick:

Let me ask you a simple question:

Are you under some impression that you know and understand the nuances of Mountain Lake after seeing it once as well as a guy like Kyle Harris understands it?

« **Reply #46 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:12:28 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 30, 2008, 08:08:26 PM

Patrick:

Let me ask you a simple question:

Are you under some impression that you know and understand the nuances of Mountain Lake after seeing it once as well as a guy like Kyle Harris understands it?

TEPaul,

To answer your question, why don't you reread what Kyle has written and then reread what I've written and tell me where we disagree.

If you'd like to jump on the bet I have with Mike Christensen, I'd be happy to have you make a visit to the vault, in fact, I'd be happy to accompany you when you make the withdrawal.

« **Reply #47 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:22:50 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 30, 2008, 08:01:53 PM

Patrick:

You're the guy who likes to quote Macdonald's remark that one needs to play a course and such in all kinds of winds and weather and conditions to understand it.

So, if you really believe that you should subscribe to that notion yourself when some of these people who have a ton more experience at Mountain Lake than you do tell you a few things about the course you don't seem so willing, at first, to agree with!

Feel free to jump on the wagering band wagon.

Kyle's statement that there's a 10 foot elevation change between the front tee and the front of the nearest bunker is FLAT out wrong.

But, because you feel he has more experience, you're claiming that he must be right.

You've claimed to be an excellent analyzer of photos, LOOK at this picture and then tell me that you believe that the elevation change between the front tee and the nearest bunker is 10 feet. Tell me that Kyle is RIGHT, or tell me that you agree with me and that Kyle is WRONG.
[/color]
[

Understanding NGLA is understanding NGLA----unfortunately noone can exactly translate that into understanding Mountain Lake as well after seeing it once.

Baloney, or Bolagna, how ever you want it.

I understand that there's NOT a 10 foot elevation change between that tee and the nearest bunker, and I didn't have to spend 16 years living on the site to observe, analyze and conclude that.[/color]

Same half the architectural team but two different places and two different golf courses, PAL!

I never would have known that if you hadn't told me.[/color]

« **Reply #48 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:24:14 PM »

Just wanted to preserve Kyle's quote so that there can be no questions or reneging on the bet with Mike Christensen and TEPaul.

Quote from: Kyle Harris on January 29, 2008, 08:13:12 PM

Pat,

The elevation change from tee to green on that hole is about 25 feet and from the tee to the bunkers about 10 feet. The green is also one of the most contoured and extreme from front right to back left with a height difference about almost 8 feet.

The flattest holes on the property are the 4th,5th, and 17th, with the latter two being Par 3s.

« **Reply #49 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:31:49 PM »

MLake expert PM....you still have not mentioned the hole you are claiming you are correct on. You have talked about multiple holes on this thread.......I know what hole # Kyle was talking about...what hole are you talking about?? Is that too much to ask?? I want to make sure you have no wiggle room...

I am presuming it is hole #13....and Kyle's analysis is spot on..in every thread he has made concerning JMayhugh's pic....having driven that green and made eagle (from the back tee), I KNOW the elevation change on that hole. You obviously do not..

And Ran will hold nothing....everyone is honorable here...at least I hope they are.....

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Mike McGuire

Patrick_Mucci

Peter Pallotta

Michael Christensen

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Michael Christensen

Patrick_Mucci

scott_wood

John_Cullum

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Bradley Anderson

TEPaul

John_Cullum

Michael Christensen

Tiger_Bernhardt

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Michael Christensen