Summer In Monterey

« **Reply #50 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:31:03 PM »

Bob,

Thanks for clarifying the issue.

The contrast in the photo between the backround and foreground is stark.

With such an elevated tee is the wind much more of a factor on that hole ?

Are there prevailing winds and if so, from which direction ?

I had heard that you aced that hole into a 5 club length wind

« **Reply #51 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:34:58 PM »

Patrick:

Wuss. You're still wrong for judging this based on a photo.
Or at least grossly hypocritical.

But I'll let Mr. Huntley answer your remaining questions.
I've played the hole but 5 times. For course rating
there, we did use prevailing wind that quartered from
the right on that hole.

TH

« **Reply #52 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:37:24 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 17, 2006, 12:31:03 PM

Bob,

With such an elevated tee is the wind much more of a factor on that hole ?

Are there prevailing winds and if so, from which direction ?

Pat,

The prevailing wind is a right to lefter off of the ocean. At other times it can be head on or right behind. When right behind it is very difficult to keep the ball on the green, as it is sloped front to back.... and is FIRM.

« **Reply #53 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:43:54 PM »

Bob - for course rating, prevailing wind plays
a rather large effect. My recollection is we
did that as a cross - coming off the ocean,
as you say. But this illustrates one of the difficulties
in course ratings... how often do you think you
play that down-wind or into the wind?

TH

« **Reply #54 on:** August 17, 2006, 01:05:05 PM »

Tom,

I have never really thought about it but from now on I shall.

Will report in ninety days.

Bob

« **Reply #55 on:** August 17, 2006, 01:12:06 PM »

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on August 17, 2006, 01:05:05 PM

Tom,

I have never really thought about it but from now on I shall.

Will report in ninety days.

Bob

It's just a curiousity. But yes, let's discuss this again
in a few months.

TH

« **Reply #56 on:** August 17, 2006, 01:27:15 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on August 17, 2006, 12:34:58 PM

Wuss. You're still wrong for judging THIS based on a photo.
Or at least grossly hypocritical.

Tom Huckaby,

What have I judged ?

What is "THIS" ?

I made an observation.

Boulders are in the foreground, links like land, beach/sand and ocean is in the backround.

Am I correct or incorrect ?
[/color]

« **Reply #57 on:** August 17, 2006, 01:37:42 PM »

Patrick Mucci, from previous page:

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.

That is not a judgment? That is not based solely on a photo?

You lose this time. But that's OK. You aren't infallible,
as much as Hammy likes to think otherwise.

« **Reply #58 on:** August 17, 2006, 01:44:18 PM »

The panoramic vista is so grand from that vantage point that choosing to focus on the boulders, that Tom and I have said in photos and words of their inconsequential bering, is like focusing on a barnacle on a whale.

I imagine, that using the gestalt theory, anything can be broken down and dissected into it's minute parts as it compares to the whole. However, there is Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy that can help with this condition. You're welcome.

« **Reply #59 on:** August 17, 2006, 02:28:46 PM »

Tom, this episode reminds me of the time that pictures were posted of a course in Florida, that had undergone a tree management program. One photo was dominated by an adjacent cart path and some sort beverage dispensor, and yours truly pointed out to the poster that the picture was an unfortunate choice because anyone looking at it would focus on the cart path and not the tree trimming. I do not believe that yours truly commented on the hole itself, just the picture of said hole.

But, as I recall, the poster reacted very negatively to such comments. But, my memory could be faulty

, so let me look back through the archives, to page two of that thread where the interaction took place. (Unfortunately, it appears the pictures are no longer hosted somewhere).

The "Picture" Thread

« **Reply #60 on:** August 17, 2006, 02:31:51 PM »

Kevin - FANTASTIC.

I'd say a certain someone was hoisted on his own petard... but what are the chances he admits to such?

« **Reply #61 on:** August 17, 2006, 02:45:34 PM »

Tom, I think said person is trying to arm himself with virtual crayolas right now via Tommy's Firefox tip, so I would expect some technicolor responses later. But, I could be wrong, just ask my wife.

« **Reply #62 on:** August 17, 2006, 03:35:21 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on August 17, 2006, 01:37:42 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.

Tom Huckaby,

Does the foreground bear any resemblance to the backround ?

Are boulders strewn throughout the photo, or are they confined to a central area, and in contrast with the backround ?

If you don't think the boulders detract from the view in the backround I can see why you had difficulty understanding
the issue of the surrounds at Sand Hills. It all adds up now.
[/color]

That is not a judgment?

No, it's a statement of fact.
There are no boulders in the backround, only in the foreground.[/color]

That is not based solely on a photo?

The photo captures the terrain as it is.
Boulders in the foreground, ocean, sand and linkslike golf holes in the backround, sans boulders.

Those boulders detract from the view.
Bob Huntley said so, you admited same, so why do you continue to contradict yourself by stating that my observation is incorrect ?[/color]

You lose this time. But that's OK. You aren't infallible,
as much as Hammy likes to think otherwise.

I think I'm 100 % correct on this one and would cite Bob Huntley's and your own agreement on the issue as proof positive.[/color]

« **Reply #63 on:** August 17, 2006, 03:37:56 PM »

Kevin Reilly,

You overlooked reading and referencing Kelly Blake Moran's response # 43.

You and others were dead wrong in your assessments.
So much so that Kelly took to using profanity to try to get his point across to you.

Tom Huckaby,

Read Kelly's response # 43 and then get back to me.

« **Reply #64 on:** August 17, 2006, 03:40:50 PM »

Ha! Nice try. Keep trying to inject additional issues into this, but the one and only FACT in all of this is that you say:

The numerous boulders detract from a panorama that bears little or no resemblence to the look they present.

That remains a judgment - the word "detract" is certainly such - and since I know you haven't seen the hole in person - it's based solely on a photo.

You can't possibly deny any of this.

All the rest - all this crap about foregrounds and backgrounds - is nothing more than an attempt to support your judgment based on a photo. And that's fine... Hey, we can talk all you want about what the photo shows - but I don't really care. I know how it looks in person. Care to discuss that? Oh... that's right... you can't...

TH

ps - just read post 43 - that was addressed to Scott Coan, and rather proves my point. Who knows this golf hole better, you or me? Have you seen it in person? Or are you contradicting your oft-held view that photos can't be trusted?

« **Reply #65 on:** August 17, 2006, 03:51:03 PM »

Tom Huckaby,

You need to pull out a dictionary and look up the word "panorama". Perhaps that's where you've gone astray.

If you think the foreground bears a resemblance to the backround, your architectural "eye" is blind.

When Kelly addressed his remarks to "you people" he wasn't singling Scott out, his remarks were meant for a broader audience, including Kevin Reilly.

Bob Huntley stated that the boulders made the view look too busy and you concurred. Don't try to weasle out of it now.

And, I don't care if you've played the hole a thousand times, the foreground differs dramatically from the backround, and that was what I specifically addressed in my remarks.

Am I right or wrong about the difference in the foreground and the backround ?

A simple yes or no will do.

« **Reply #66 on:** August 17, 2006, 03:54:21 PM »

Another nice try.

Did you make a judgment based on a photo, or not?

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.

I see no mentions of background or foreground in this.

Is this a judgment based on a photo, or not?

In any case, the accuracy of that judgment is an entirely different issue. Answer my questions, and then if you wish, we can discuss the accuracy of your statement. I'll give you my view based on seeing the hole many times, and you can state yours based on a photograph. That's fine.

But we go no further until you answer the first question. Your attempts at deflection are rather beneath you, my friend.

TH

ps - I did not concur with Bob, not completely. Read my post back to him. If that's concurrence, then perhaps you need to review the definition of that word.

« **Reply #67 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:20:16 PM »

I hastily overlooked post #43, which appeared after all of my astute observations...but upon close review it appears that post #43 did not contain a single (1)(uno) reference to me, but rather multiple references to one Scott Coan with whom I did not align myself.

So Pat, I'm not sure what conclusion I should draw from that post #43, except to view it, and its censored content, as possibly fueled by the beverage referenced in post #45.

But one thing did strike me as I reviewed post #43 at your suggestion...post #44 contained some wise words, that somehow strike me as relevant to this MPCC thread:

Quote

If nothing else it demonstrates that photos alone don't tell the entire story, especially if you don't know how to thoroughly examine them.

« **Reply #68 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:33:39 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on August 17, 2006, 12:25:58 PM

Tom Huckaby,

Here's what YOU said.[/color]

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.

Even you refer to the boulders as "negatives".

Hence, I rest my case.[/color]

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.

It's one thing to focus on the boulders, it's quite another to pretend that they don't exist and that they aren't a stark contrast to the backround in the photo.[/color]

« **Reply #69 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:38:44 PM »

Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

I didn't comment on the play of the hole, only that the many boulders pictured in the foreground were in contrast to the view in the backround.

Tom Huckaby doesn't understand that repetition doesn't validate his argument.

« **Reply #70 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:49:29 PM »

Patrick:

Again you deflect. Why is this so hard?

Did you or did you not make a judgment based on a photo?

Here's the statement once again.

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.

Is that a judgment based on a photo, or not?

Like I say, we can discuss the accuracy of the judgment if you wish, but only after you answer this. I'll stop the repetition - and get into why Bob does not agree with you (which any second grader with reading abilities can discern), why your judgment is quite inaccurate (which I base on seeing the hole in person, as does Bob), and teach you how to discern what words refer to (when I say negatives, I am referring to how YOU and Rick see these based on a distorted photo, not how I see them when I am there in person) but only if you answer the first question.

Your wussiness here is quite unseemly. It's OK to be a little inconsistent, Pat.

TH

« **Reply #71 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:52:00 PM »

So this is what a steel cage death match is like.

Cool !

« **Reply #72 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:53:29 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 17, 2006, 04:38:44 PM

Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

You've been a BR member for many, many years, but your impression of that photo was inaccurate, so I think that illustrates that there isn't a perfect correlation between years of membership and the ability to accurately analyze a photo.

But, I make no opionion on the hole at MPCC because I have not been there. So as far as I am concerned, with regards to this hole, Bob Huntley is correct both in his analysis of this picture and this hole.

« **Reply #73 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:54:57 PM »

Quote from: Tom Zeni on August 17, 2006, 04:52:00 PM

So this is what a steel cage death match is like.

Cool !

Most people give in to Pat, finding he's not worth the trouble and assuming he has more stamina than they do. I know I do most of the time. Today I have nothing better to do. And he remains so obviously hypocritical, well... I don't expect him to ever admit it - it's just not in his nature - but well, it is worth trying. See, I really like the guy... this remains a labor of love... a little softening can only help the man. But then again, I've always had the feeling he has plenty of friends and enjoys being disliked in here. I just love to ruin his secrets there, also.

So expect me to give up also soon enough. No one has yet succeed in getting Pat to admit he was wrong or inconsistent... But I do like tilting at windmills sometimes.

« **Reply #74 on:** August 17, 2006, 05:44:27 PM »

Quote from: Kevin_Reilly on August 17, 2006, 04:53:29 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 17, 2006, 04:38:44 PM
Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

You've been a BR member for many, many years, but your impression of that photo was inaccurate, so I think that illustrates that there isn't a perfect correlation between years of membership and the ability to accurately analyze a photo.

How was my impression of the photo inaccurate ?
[/color]

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Bob_Huntley

Tom Huckaby

Bob_Huntley

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Tom Zeni

Kevin_Reilly

Tom Huckaby

Kevin_Reilly

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Kevin_Reilly

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Tom Zeni

Kevin_Reilly

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci