Renovations at Seawane/Holes 7 -9

« **Reply #50 on:** November 21, 2004, 08:06:58 PM »

Mr. Cirba

Why don't you give us your top fifty before you ask Pat? I am not sure you will get any list out of Pat, not his forte. I think he would prefer to speak of specific features on specific courses.

I mentioned the Seawane "sympathetic restoration" recently to a pro and was told it significantly increased the time to finish a round for the membership.

« **Reply #51 on:** November 21, 2004, 08:07:51 PM »

Mike Cirba,

I infered, by your comment, that you didn't think much of Seawane.

I enjoyed it, I found it sporty, and WINDY.

All too often, if a course gets categorized as falling outside of the top 50 or 100 it is somehow deemed unworthy, and I don't feel that way about Seawane.

« **Reply #52 on:** November 21, 2004, 08:15:57 PM »

Patrick;

I've yet to play Seawane, unfortunately. I'm hoping to rectify that sometime in the next year.

I was asking because it seems to be a course that has clearly been "under the radar" in terms of discussion before this recent renovation by Kay. I had Geoff Childs recommend it to me a few months back and thus became interested in hearing more and seeing it for myself. I guess I was asking what you personally think of the course before and after the recent changes.

My other questions go to your statement that basically says Kay is getting a "free pass" from this group due to being in some "most favored nation" club. I can't buy that at all.

Hamilton;

Patrick is truly capable of speaking for himself. I'd much rather hear your thoughts on Seawane fore and aft if you've been out there. Thanks.

« **Reply #53 on:** November 21, 2004, 08:29:02 PM »

I would like to go out to see the course. I have been told that the time per round has syrocketed. Should this be a consideration for a membership when doing a "sympathetic restoration"?

Of course Macwood thinks clubs should be beholden to some web site amatuer architects when deciding what to do with their courses as long as it fits in with his crusade to bash Rees Jones and Fazio.

« **Reply #54 on:** November 22, 2004, 06:38:11 AM »

Pat
I'm not asking you to rank Seawane...I'm asking where would you place among Emmet's notable designs in the metro area. Is it among Emmet's best work in the area...other than its breezy location what are some of its outstanding attrtibutes (pre-Kay)?

"Of course Macwood thinks clubs should be beholden to some web site amatuer architects when deciding what to do with their courses as long as it fits in with his crusade to bash Rees Jones and Fazio."

Hambone
No. I think these clubs should be beholden to the likes of Emmet, Tillinghast, Strong, Ross, Travis and George Thomas.

« **Reply #55 on:** November 22, 2004, 06:54:15 AM »

Tom MacWood said:

"Jason
Who is the designer (or designers) of your new course? Would it be a mistake for a student of golf architecture to come to Seawane to see the work of Devereux Emmet?"

Stephen Kay has become one of my new best buddies. I do some officiating with him and recently visited his Llanerch project. One of the last times I spoke with him on the phone he was asking me how he could get into GOLFCLUBATLAS.com because he'd heard there were a bunch of architectueal maniacs on there and he wanted to see it for himself and maybe get involved!

Anyone want me to call him and ask him something about Sewane? I'd even be willing to tell him Tom MacWood wants to come there and show him how to really restore Dev Emmet architecture.

« **Reply #56 on:** November 22, 2004, 07:02:37 AM »

TE
I'm happy you made a new friend. Perhaps you could invite him on here to share his knowledge of Emmet...there are a number of us who would like to learn more about his architecture. In fact the two of you could present a shared lesson: Kay could give us an Emmet architectural analysis and you could delve into his sexual background.

« **Reply #57 on:** November 22, 2004, 07:07:58 AM »

Would love to have Kay participate. Sadly though, he is not a "MFA" and will probably be shouted down and attacked. Too bad.

« **Reply #58 on:** November 22, 2004, 08:31:46 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 22, 2004, 06:38:11 AM

Pat
I'm not asking you to rank Seawane...I'm asking where would you place among Emmet's notable designs in the metro area.

Isn't ranking it, and determining where to place it amongst his work the same thing ?[/color]

Is it among Emmet's best work in the area...other than its breezy location what are some of its outstanding attrtibutes (pre-Kay)

I already told you that I liked the routing and the use of water. I enjoy playing the golf course. As to where I'd place it, I think it's on Long Island, where developers have cannabalized many of his courses over the years.

I've played:

Ridgewood
Green Acres
Congressional
Glen Head
Hampshire
Pelham
Schuyler Meadows
GCGC
Seawane
Nassau

But, was the Nassau that I played remotely close to Emmett's Nassau ? I don't think so. So how can you ask the question about placing his work when so little of it remains ?

As to Seawane or any of these courses, how much of what was there on opening day, remains intact, untouched over 80 or so years, by insiders or outsiders ?

I'm not fond of Greenacres, but I-195 did impact a number of holes.

I'm hoping to play:

Huntington Crescent
Leatherstocking
Rockaway Hunt
Rockville Links
St George's
Wheatley Hills

Have you ever, "not cheated" when going to play a golf course ?

By that I mean that you played a golf course recently, without obtaining any prior knowledge, no history loolup, no aerials, no third party refences, just the golf course and you. And, having completed your round, have you ever evaluated the golf course without "cheating" ?

Is it possible that you liked a good many features, only to find out later on, that they weren't the original architects work ?[/color]

« **Reply #59 on:** November 22, 2004, 09:54:15 AM »

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on November 21, 2004, 08:06:58 PM

I mentioned the Seawane "sympathetic restoration" recently to a pro and was told it significantly increased the time to finish a round for the membership.

While we have made the course significantly more difficult for the single digit handicap player we have actually tried to aid the higher handicap player with additional tee options and bail out areas that didn't exist before or were otherwise less of an option.

That being said, however, the fescues that we've planted gobble up plently of balls so the rounds have been getting longer as the inevitable 5 minute searches are more common.

« **Reply #60 on:** November 22, 2004, 10:28:00 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on November 22, 2004, 08:31:46 AM

Have you ever, "not cheated" when going to play a golf course ?

By that I mean that you played a golf course recently, without obtaining any prior knowledge, no history loolup, no aerials, no third party refences, just the golf course and you. And, having completed your round, have you ever evaluated the golf course without "cheating" ?

Is it possible that you liked a good many features, only to find out later on, that they weren't the original architects work ?[/b][/color]

Quote

Pat:

I think you raise a great point and I wonder if for instance, Tom MacWood or Mike Cirba played Seawane blind, would they be candid in their appreciation or displeasure without first seeing an old aerial or getting a blow by blow description of what we've done as we play.

Therefore, I invite Tom, Mike and anyone else that has not played Seawane, and not analyzed an old aerial like the one from 1940 that I'm holding in my hand (graciously provided to the membership by Craig Disher) to play a round with me next year. Take mental or written notes and after the round we'll sit on the veranda, drink a few beers, and discuss the highlights/lowlights of what was seen.

I will then pull out the 1940 aerial and we can all compare and contrast what we liked/disliked, etc.

I will then post the results of this experiment here for all to ponder and otherwise analyze.

I'm actually looking forward to this because, for instance, Mike Cirba has mentioned Kay's name in virtually every one of his posts on this subject, after I've posted numerous times that Kay's firm worked great with our membership on this project because we ultimately had complete discretion to make the final decisions on the ground as we went. For instance, several times bunkers or mounding was roughly shaped in certain spots, played, and then torn down, moved, scratched or otherwise tweaked. The core concepts were drawn by Kay's firm but much changed as we went and I think the finished product reflects that flexibility. Thus for Mike Cirba or anyone to repeatedly call this a Kay project is misleading, for his firm should not receive all the Emmet purist criticism and should also not receive all the praise because our crew on the ground should share both equally.

So Emmet purists and sympathetic renovationists alike, if you don't already have a detailed understanding of what the old Emmet Seawane looked like, and you are genuinely interested in this project, please contact me and partake in my little experiment, inspired by Mr. Mucci.

Think about this . . . I played last year with two astute GCAers, who besides being wonderful company and educational, both had little old Emmet-Seawane knowledge and both had nothing but high praise for what we've done. I did not have the aerial in hand then but when they both come back next year to see the completely finished product I surely will.

I think this little experiment may shed light on how much of the GCA appreciation/criticism on this Board is name based (name biased) and how much is based on first hand experience.

We shall see . . .

« **Reply #61 on:** November 22, 2004, 10:44:03 AM »

Jason;

I'd love to come out next season. Thank you very much.

I'm a bit confused, however. I think it was Patrick who concurred with Kelly Moran that this project would never be criticized because, unlike Fazio or Rees, Stephen Kay is somehow an architect favored among the cognescenti on this board.

I told him that I thought that was ludicrous. I've written about some of Kay's courses in the past, as have others, from both a favorable and a critical perspective. He's hardly "untouchable", as Patrick and others suggested.

As far as Kay's involvement at Seawane, all I know is that he's the architect of record. I do realize that the members are also heavily involved.

My interest in Seawane is based on a really interesting discussion I had with Geoff Childs after he played there. I am hardly an expert in either Dev Emmett (beyond a half-dozen or so courses of his I've played, with probably the most original being the Red Course at Eisenhower Park (originally Salisbury), and I like what I've seen. I'm also completely unfamiliar with Seawane, and have never seen a picture prior to this thread.

So, I'm not sure if that makes me the perfect test lab patient, but I'm willing to come and see and give you my honest, unbiased assessment.

And I'd do that if the architect of record was Stephen Kay or Rees Jones or Kelly Moran.

« **Reply #62 on:** November 22, 2004, 12:18:08 PM »

Mike:

I did not intend to imply that you were being critical or complementary of Kay by mentioning him often. I simply pointed that out as an example of how we on this Board seem name oriented. This is a discussion group of architecture first, and architects second (I hope). And while I realize that it's often a common denominator and many architects have a distinquishable style so we can discuss Raynor bunkers vs. MacKenzie bunkers vs. C&C bunkers, I try to focus first and predominantly on the bunker and then on the dead or living guy or gal that drew it.

BTW, it's been a pleasure to have GCAers out to Seawane, so please do come and play.

We are also planning to give a brief presentation at the Winter Conference in NJ so perhaps we will meet there.

Jason

« **Reply #63 on:** November 22, 2004, 12:25:11 PM »

Great, Jason...I'll look forward to meeting you at Essex!

« **Reply #64 on:** November 22, 2004, 11:00:44 PM »

Jason
Thanks for the generous offer. Unfortunately I'm not from the 'ignorance is bliss' school of architectural appreciation. My goal is to learn as much as I can about a particular architect (Emmet or Kay for example)...as opposed to remaining in the dark as long as possible.

I'm not sure exactly what your goal is with this experiment, but having to resort to a gimick gives the appearance that something is not quite right. This is a website where we share information, not stifle information. If you and Pat prefer to play your golf 'blind' or ignorant, so be it, that's not something that interests me and seems to be opposed the objective of this site.

Instead of proposing an experiment that really doesn't make sense to me and in the end will prove nothing, why don't you write a 'My Home Course' on Seawane. You could share historical information on the course (including the 1940 aerial) and on Emmet, explain the course's evolution, including the recent renovations, and then present why you feel the course today is superior to the original Emmet design.

What is and who are the Emmet purists? There are so few Emmet authorites on this site...I'm disapointed to learn, evidently, you don't consider yourself an Emmet advocate.

« **Reply #65 on:** November 23, 2004, 08:35:57 AM »

Jason,

What Tom MacWood is admiting to you is that he doesn't trust his architectural eye.

That he won't take the test without being supplied all of the answers in advance.

Forget the fact that he could always obtain all of the information he seeks AFTER he plays a course.

He's telling you that without the benefit of numerous aerials, an abundance of ground photos, and written documentation, he can't distinguish the authorship of one feature from the next.

He couldn't tell if a superintendent had created or removed a feature 40 years ago, or if it was in the original design. And as such, he's afraid to take the test because that feature, created by someone he deems to be an inteloper, just might be a great feature that enhances the hole.

What's the difference if the original architect added that feature or the superintendent 40 years subsequent ?
If it's a good feature and enhances the hole, DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO WHOSE IDEA IT WAS ?

Understanding Tom's love of the old architects, how does he reconcile their disfiguring of an incredible number of existing courses in their day ?

Why was it okay for Ross, AWT, Maxwell and others to alter existing golf courses, but not anyone else.

Why was it okay for Maxwell to alter Pine Valley, but Fazio's a villain for doing the same thing at Pine Valley ?

Jason, thanks for your offer. I will take you up on it this spring. And, if I make a mistake in identifying an Emmett feature, when it was some superintendent's feature, added 40 years ago, it's not the end of the world.

« **Reply #66 on:** November 23, 2004, 09:34:20 AM »

"TE
I'm happy you made a new friend. Perhaps you could invite him on here to share his knowledge of Emmet...there are a number of us who would like to learn more about his architecture. In fact the two of you could present a shared lesson: Kay could give us an Emmet architectural analysis and you could delve into his sexual background."

Tom MacW:

I've been there and done that on here! So why do it again? Didn't you understand the influence that had on the architecture of GCGC and basically why Travis changed it?

You think you know something about the styles and nuances and evolution of architecture but you haven't even gotten to first base yet in understanding it. You're still stuck in trying to figure out what angular vs engineered architecture is.

But GCGC and Dev Emmet---now there's something truly unique in the history of golf course architecture. That course started out under Devie as the world's first example of Gay golf architecture and then that world class grouch and virulent homophobe Walter Travis tried to heterosexualize the entire course, only to be eclipsed in the late 20s and early 30s by return visits from Devereaux who added some of his best evolved homosexualized style to the course.

GCGC is world class architecture and a top rated course but it remains, without question, the best example there is of a totally unique style in the entire history and evolution of architecture known as the "transexualized style"!

Have you ever wondered why Doak doesn't want to completely restore the 12th green? Just look very carefully at some aerials of it and you may figure it out. But on the other hand, perhaps you won't!

« **Reply #67 on:** November 23, 2004, 10:38:30 AM »

I’ve been studying golf architecture, and in particular the history of golf architecture for a long time. I can’t remember the last time I played a golf course (old or modern) without knowing who the architect was, and some information on that architect, or without some third party reference, or without running across some old photo at one time or another. In my opinion knowledge is preferable to ignorance. The more information you have, the more information you can absorb. If you are looking for blindness you've come to the wrong place.

If I teed off today at Seawane I wouldn’t be blind…I’ve seen parts of the old aerial… I’ve seen an aerial from a few years back….I’ve read the comments of third parties (some positive, some critical)…I’ve recently visited two of Emmet’s more famous designs (St.Georges and Huntington)…I’ve seen Kay’s restoration work at Oyster Harbors. I’m not blind.

My evaluation of a golf course is what it is, and it is effected by all my experiences and all the information I’ve absorbed over the years…I prefer it that way. I love Yale despite Rulewich’s shoddy work…I love GCGC despite the 12th… if I wasn’t aware of those changes prior to visiting are you saying I would have loved those courses even more…your experiment makes no sense.

If we like Kay’s changes while blind (or partially blind), can you conclude we wouldn’t have liked the changes with prior knowledge? No. Perhaps it might be an interesting experiment for TE Paul, he appears to be in the dark often….I’m not interested.

Another point, documenting history and evaluating golf courses are completely separate activities. Pat has a problem differentiating between the two…the Hollywood pissing contests as an example.

It is your prerogative to believe that Mike C and I do not approach a golf course with an open mind and that are views are not candid….in other words we are biased…that’s not a new complaint….usually coming from a party who has a differing opinion on a golf course or an architect…we often disagree on here, but to attribute that disagreement to some bias is intellectually lazy IMO.

« **Reply #68 on:** November 23, 2004, 02:11:42 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 22, 2004, 11:00:44 PM

I'm not sure exactly what your goal is with this experiment, but having to resort to a gimick gives the appearance that something is not quite right. This is a website where we share information, not stifle information. If you and Pat prefer to play your golf 'blind' or ignorant, so be it, that's not something that interests me and seems to be opposed the objective of this site.

Instead of proposing an experiment that really doesn't make sense to me and in the end will prove nothing, why don't you write a 'My Home Course' on Seawane. You could share historical information on the course (including the 1940 aerial) and on Emmet, explain the course's evolution, including the recent renovations, and then present why you feel the course today is superior to the original Emmet design.

What is and who are the Emmet purists? There are so few Emmet authorites on this site...I'm disapointed to learn, evidently, you don't consider yourself an Emmet advocate.

Tom:

I respond by first saying that I second everything Pat states in his response above and without trying to make this personal, I add the following to your comments above in reverse order:

1) I advocate no single architect, living or long dead, and while I like some much more than others, I advocate strategic design over an otherwise interesting piece of land, so to the extent that Emmet has created that at Seawane or anywhere else I am an Emmet advocate . . . to suggest I'm not based upon my suggested open minded outing at Seawane is inane.

2) I'm not surprised that my proposal makes no sense to you, based only upon what I've read from you, you have little GCA thought that cannot be classified, categorized and otherwise over identified. Regarding a My Home Course, I intend to first see if Ran is able to visit and post a review (currently 10 on his next 25 us list), if so, I will hold off so as not to otherwise influence his process. As far as proving nothing, I think Pat answered that fully. Lastly on this paragraph, I have never once stated that I "feel the course today is superior to the original Emmet design." In fact, I don't think that's possible given the radical transformation that the boundary property has gone through, changing from open sand blown dunes to a fully developed neighborhood. In fact I've stated we'll never be able to recapture Seawane's original majesty because of this, even if we did a complete restoration.

3) If you see honestly see my suggestion as a "gimick" than it is you Mr. MacWood that is intellectually lazy, or perhaps intellectually timid is more appropriate. Dare to make your own observations and draw your own conclusions first, then place what you have observed in a historical construct and assign it all an author. It's much easier to avoid candid and original commentary, and, in fact, thought, if you have first filtered a course through such a construct.

Lastly, given the thought and commentary that my "gimick" has triggered, I'd say it comports precisely with the "objective of this site," meanwhile, if anything, it is your ostensible unwillingness to consider architecture before assigning it a category, author, or otherwise filtering it through your construct (all of which is clear from your post) that offends the objectives of this site.

« **Reply #69 on:** November 23, 2004, 02:59:12 PM »

".....Perhaps it might be an interesting experiment for TE Paul, he appears to be in the dark often…."

Tom MacWood:

Coming from some I really respect in this field that remark would be troubling to me but not coming from an eternally self-impressed noodlehead like you Pal!

« **Reply #70 on:** November 23, 2004, 03:12:32 PM »

"I advocate no single architect, living or long dead, and while I like some much more than others, I advocate strategic design over an otherwise interesting piece of land, so to the extent that Emmet has created that at Seawane or anywhere else I am an Emmet advocate."

I think I follow you...I think you are saying you are an Emmet adovocate because he practiced strategic design over interesting land (inlcuding Seawane, no?). I was confused by your constant referrence to 'Emmet purists' as if it were some kind of a negative label. Who are these Emmet advocates anyway?

There is no reason to wait for Ran...the 'My Home Course' feature will not compromise or pollute Ran's opinion of Seawane...in fact if anything it might interest him to visit sooner than later. You appear to be paranoid about the perceptions of your course based upon too much information.

Has the property that the course sits on been reduced over the years...is that why it would be impossible to restore? When did Craig Disher donate the aerial...was it before or after Kay's plan?

Frankly I don't understand the purpose of your proposed excerise. It sounds like Pat's goal is to test my "architectural eye". It appears your goal is to get a candid non-biased review of Seawane...while at the same time prove that GCA's appreciation is based upon name and not substance. Very different goals.

My architectural eye is pretty good...but I wouldn't consider myself a Emmet expert by any means. Regarding your concerns with candid, non-biased reviews...when haven't I given a candid, unbiased review? I admit I do appreciate a number of big names for obvious reasons. One of the big names being Alister MacKenzie...perhaps you should read my review of my home course if you have any doubts about my ability to give a candid unbiased opinion and to evaluate each course on its merits no matter how big the name.

I think everyone would love to learn more about Seawane, Emmet and its history...and Kay and the club's current activities.

« **Reply #71 on:** November 23, 2004, 03:36:57 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 23, 2004, 03:12:32 PM

"I think I follow you...I think you are saying you are an Emmet adovocate because he practiced strategic design over interesting land (inlcuding Seawane, no?). I was confused by your constant referrence to 'Emmet purists' as if it were some kind of a negative label. Who are these Emmet advocates anyway?"

I do appreciate Emmet, especially the routing and greens he did at Seawane. I reacted with the Emmet purist phrase, in most part, to a previous comment of yours questioning whether it was a mistake for a serious student of Emmet to visit Seawane (to which I said it would only be a mistake not to visit).

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 23, 2004, 03:12:32 PM

"You appear to be paranoid about the perceptions of your course based upon too much information."

While I'm not paranoid about anything golf related, my only concern is that some here will pre-judge Seawane on not enough information, the dead opposite of your perception. I have this concern because of what I clearly see on this Board as a strong bias for all things long dead. I'm also concerned, as I've stated many times in less direct ways, that what we've done at Seawane will be labelled a "Kay project." That label is not fair to all involved and since you have already seemed to label it that my concern seems warranted.

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 23, 2004, 03:12:32 PM

"Has the property that the course sits on been reduced over the years...is that why it would be impossible to restore?"

Yes it's been reduced and part of what we've done is reclaim borders, but no, that is not why it's impossible to truly restore, the neighborhood standing between most of the course and Reynolds Channel is the problem, if you've seen old and recent aerials that will be obvious.

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 23, 2004, 03:12:32 PM

"When did Craig Disher donate the aerial...was it before or after Kay's plan?"

Craig provided me with a copy of a 1940 aerial last year (year 3 of 5) and Kay did not draw an entire plan, as far as I know, he drew things hole by hole as we went. Also, I'm not sure that his firm did any formal drawings after the second year, but I could be mistaken there.

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 23, 2004, 03:12:32 PM

"It appears your goal is to get a candid non-biased review of Seawane...while at the same time prove that GCA's appreciation is based upon name and not substance. Very different goals."

These goals are the similar enough to me.

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 23, 2004, 03:12:32 PM

"I think everyone would love to learn more about Seawane, Emmet and its history...and Kay and the club's current activities.

"

We hope that everyone will.

« **Reply #72 on:** November 23, 2004, 04:49:03 PM »

Tom MacWood said:

"Another point, documenting history and evaluating golf courses are completely separate activities."

Tom MacWood:

Is that right? And which do you think you’re doing? Evaluating golf courses and then supplying the documented history shows most of us what golf architecture is all about—who did it, who was responsible for what and perhaps why, what contributed to styles and trends and principles etc. After a while one begins to understand better the entire evolution of all this and perhaps why it got that way, where it was at any point, who took us there and why and ultimately where we are now and perhaps where we may go next and why.

Documenting history and evaluating golf courses are completely separate activities, are they? You sound like someone who continues to claim Economics 101 has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world! Your type of ersatz intellectualizing is mumbo-jumbo and your constant purist pontificating is laughable, in my book. What do you do any of this for? What’s the purpose really? Is it to show all of us you found something in some 90 year old magazine before anyone else did? If so, what does that prove? How does one evaluate that? What does that mean? How is it to be evaluated to have some use? What does it mean to you if it can’t be used to evaluate golf courses which are our architecture?

I just read through all Jason Blasberg’s posts and your responses. A gimmick you call his offer to you. It sounds to me like you just don’t have the guts to put yourself in the position to be shown to be something less than the expert you keep insinuating you are as you continuously wrap yourself in old articles and photos. And for what? What does it mean to you if you can’t use it to ultimately evaluate architecture with it? Look at Pat, there---he said he’d do it and if he’s wrong about something, so what?

Take the blind test Jason Blasberg is offering you. Go play, have some fun and look around and see what you can identify. Isn’t that what you keep feeding all of us on here with those old photographic architecture tests?

Go take the test—it won’t kill you. The worst it can do is show you how much you have to learn just like the rest of us.

« **Reply #73 on:** November 23, 2004, 05:25:36 PM »

TE
Thanks for the suggestions...I'll file it right between your research on Dev Emmet the world's first Gay golf architect, homophobic Walter Travis, the evolution of architecture known as the “transexualized style” and your insightful comments regarding Tripp Davis’s restoration of Engineers.

« **Reply #74 on:** November 23, 2004, 05:34:31 PM »

Devereaux Emmett was gay?!?!

Why, I thought the little man was just mildly eccentric and dashingly dapper, with just a curiously strong fascination with fashion, theatre, and his mother?

News:

HamiltonBHearst

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

HamiltonBHearst

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

HamiltonBHearst

Patrick_Mucci

blasbe1

blasbe1

Mike_Cirba

blasbe1

Mike_Cirba

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

T_MacWood

blasbe1

TEPaul

T_MacWood

blasbe1

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Mike_Cirba