"TEPaul,
Could you cite, with specificity, on a hole by hole basis, starting on the first hole, the areas on the 1925 aerials where you wouldn't return the course to that configuration?"
Patrick:
Of course I could. I would have no problem at all doing that with COMPLETE detail and specifiity. Matter of fact, I have basically done it before on here in a relatively general way but apparently you missed that or simply didn't understand it.
But I am not the one who proposed using that 1925 aerial as a blueprint for tree removal on that golf course. As even you must be aware by now I do not in any way agree with that 1925 aerial as a blueprint for tree removal today! You were the only one who has done that and suggested that, continuously and constantly!
So, it is you who should CITE with SPECIFITY, on a hole by hole basis, starting on the first hole, those areas on the 1925 aerial where you WOULD return the course to that configuration!
And just as importantly WHY! Of course, as you have done in the past, you could simply say, "all of it", and completely obviate a need for a hole by hole analysis or explanation but to me that would only, AGAIN, indicate how little you know and understand about the architectural history of that golf course.
EX: You may think you have some idea where Crump cleared to look at landforms for holes that were never used (if in fact that ever even occured to you
), OR you may think some of us THINK you know THAT but I very seriously doubt you know any of that and so now I'm asking you to show me and the rest of us whether you know that or whether you don't.
SAVY, Patrick? SHOWTIME!!
