[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I can't argue with your opinions as they qualify as "informed" (you've played all three courses) and you're directly addressing my questions rather than hiding behind other criteria.

Soooooo....I can't really argue other than to say

1) I agree with your questions about specific holes and the architectural gaps at The Creek and Piping Rock EXCEPT I think that #13 at PRC (Knoll) is really, really good.

Chip, I also like the Knoll hole PRC, but, the Knoll hole at FI is a world class "Knoll" hole.  # 10 at FI is longer, with a much steeper fronting bank, usually plays into a prevailing wind and has a nice back to front slope to the putting surface.
I think the Knoll hole at PRC is "sportier", but, the Knoll hole at FI more demanding, and fun.
You can hit a long iron, hybrid or driver from the tee at PRC, I don't think you have that luxury at FI.

2) Some of the "other" holes you think so highly of at FI are, in my opinion, good solid MacRaynor holes - which isn't damning them with faint praise, by the way.

One of the things I really, really liked about FI was the "doubling" up effect.
The use of two concepts in one hole.  The 4th hole is a perfect example, probably the BEST "Punchbowl" hole I've ever played, made even better when combined with the "Alps" feature.

The same for # 9, another "Alps" like hole that morphs into a double plateau, with the green right next to the water.

I found the approach into # 12 at FI more fun, more exciting than the approach into # 8 at TC, both reverse Redan's albeing # 12 is a par 4.

What's even MORE interesting is that Fishers Island didn't have one fairway bunker on the entire course until one was added many years later at # 9, and that bunker rarely comes into play, even from the black tees.

3) I'm not creative enough to be a student of routings (I wouldn't know how to change one so I don't judge them).  Thus, I can't take a position on your high praise of FI versus TC and PRC in that regard. 

Remember that FI was also a real estate development with lots flanking many holes whereas TC and PRC didn't need to worry about that issue.
And, what's really, really great about FI is that the architect was given the PRIME locations to put the golf course, whereas, if Fisher's was done today, the lots/homesites would get the prefered locations.

The routing at Fishers Island takes complete advantage of the terrain and views

Given what I know about your appreciation of golf architecture, I'll concede your kudo's on FI. 
However, could you expound on where PRC and/or The Creek might be lacking in that regard?

Chip, I think we both love all three courses, and, I don't like to rank or order courses, I think all three are very, very, very special.
You know how much I love the 11th hole at The Creek.
I think it has the flexibility to be one of the greatest par 3's in all of golf.

If you look at how the holes at FI hug the coastline, either at the tee, fairway or green, or all three, incorporating that spectacular and ferocious hazard into play, you have to appreciate and admire the routing.

As I recall, your recent round(s) at Fishers Island was your first time there.  Am I correct?

You are indeed, but, unlike that idiot savant, TEPaul, I don't need a seeing eye dog to point out the quality of the architecture and routing to me.
At Fisher's Island, it's self evident, even to the architecturally blind, like TEPaul.

What you should know is that Fisher's was mostly rock, requiring extensive blasting, drilling and carting prior to producing those magnificent undulating, sloped fairway.

One of the things I really liked about Fisher's Island was the lack of a flat lie.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I didn't recall seeing any tee markers, but, my drive was in the left side of the fairway.

I think, if you'll visit "Google Earth" it may answer your question.

I believe that there's a New York ordinance that restricts clearance of anything within 300 feet of a salt water body, and that might impact the conditions you cite.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
The same green markers were also at the beginning of the first fairway.

I wasn't over there on #3 either,    but we were looking for a ball over there (but only for a minute as it was pretty overgrown.

Could be a faulty memory on my part.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"or, god forbid, shagging their own balls...."

Jud:

That's the way I'd do it when I first learned to practice on the place next door that had about 20 acres of turf nursery. I'd take my bag of 100 balls hit them out there, go collect them, bring them back, hit 'em again, go collect them, hit 'em again and over and over again!

TEPaul,

I did the same thing, as did most of the better players.

My shag bag contained 120 balls, that way I could practice in units of 10, 12, 15, 20, 30 or 40.
I rarely hit units above 20, and if I did so it was usually with my more lofted clubs.
I also positioned the shag caddy at 10 yard increments and provided him with a wet towel.
He would drop the bag, which was the intended target, pick up each ball as it was hit, clean it and drop it into the bag.
Every so often I would cull through the bag replacing cut or damaged balls with replacements.
I still maintain a shag bag but don't get much chance to use it.
Caddies made the same hourly rate for shagging and many liked to do it since, on a hot day, it beat lugging a heavy bag around.
You may recall those big, leather bags which got pretty heavy when filled with balls, rain gear and other items.

The other GREAT thing about shagging was that the balls were the same ones you played with so you could really get a great feel for distance and moving the ball.  Today, it's far different.  When I first started to play golf, shagging was confined to or concentrated amongst the better players, whereas today, a far broader spectrum of players practice.

I also recall bringing clunkers to courses that didn't have decent ranges or range balls, just so that I could warm up prior to playing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

I get the sense that your analysis of golf courses is heavily weighted toward the degree of difficulty.

Sebonack over Fishers Island ?  ?  ?

Having played both from the back tees, Sebonack is far, far more difficult, but in my experience, far less fun.

Isn't the real test of a golf course, the ultimate evaluation, the degree of the golfer's desire for repeated play ?

Given the choice of playing Sebonack or Fishers Island every day for the rest of my life, clearly, for me, it's Fishers Island.

That doesn't mean that Sebonack isn't a great golf course in its absolute form, only that it's playing demands, day in and day out, lack the elements of fun and joy.

The same can be said of WFW or WFE, both great courses, but, given the choice of playing them every day for the rest of my life, Fishers Island again wins by a landslide.

And, I think there's a distinct reason for that.
There's a sportiness that's inherent in FI's design that's absent in the designs of WF and Sebonack.

I think, more than anything else, that that's one of, if not THE key to CBM/SR/CB courses, they all seem to possess that "sporty" element lacking in so many "championship" courses.

While WFW and Sebonack may be great "tests" of one's golfing skills, the examination they present lacks the humor and the joy found at FI.

I believe that Friar's Head, also a great test, to a degree, possesses the elements of humor and joy, which are components of "sportiness"

I could easily play Fishers Island every day, 36 in fact, for the rest of my life and never tire of it, it's flat out fun.

I can't say that about WFW/WFE and Sebonack, despite the fact that I think they're all great golf courses.

Having played from the back tees at FI recently, I hit every club in my bag, Driver, 3-wood, irons 2 thru L-Wedge and my putter.

I'd call that a thorough examination of my ability to skillfully use my golf clubs.
How many courses test every club in the bag, and make that test interesting, challenging and fun ?
Not many, but, FI is definitely one of them, and as such, it would go to my top 5 list if I kept such a list.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Paul,

In terms of pure architecture, I just slightly prefer the green complexes at Piping Rock.  Maybe the construction budget was higher at Piping Rock - they just seem to have more to them.

Chip, I don't think you can go wrong with any preference on these three, but, I found the green complexes at FI to be thrilling.
# 2, # 3, # 4, # 5, # 6, # 7, # 8, # 10, # 11, # 12, # 16 and # 18 are pretty good.

Also, my experience with Fishers Island is that, much like National or TOC, a brisk wind is sort of required to bring out the best in the course.  Piping Rock still plays pretty tough (for me) on a windless day. 
I would say the same thing about Shinnecock, Merion and Pine Valley, as well - no wind required.


I understand what you mean, but, I look at it differently.
Fishers Island, NGLA and Seminole are great golf courses without the wind, but, with the wind they become exponentially better.
As for Shinnecock, like the others, the addition of the wind magnifies the greatness of the golf course, but, the inherent genius of the architecture exists without the wind.

As for individual holes, they all have wonderful examples: 4,5 (or more) at FI, #6 at The Creek is the single best golf hole on the entire plant Earth and #13 at Piping is one of neatest short par 4's I know - almost the equal of #8 at PV and/or #10 at Riviera.  All three Biarritz holes are very strong (FI, TC and PR in that order) and all three Short holes are equally disappointing relative to National, in my opinion.

Chip, I think it's safe to say that relative to National, every short on the planet falls short.
I don't think falling short of NGLA's short automatically dooms a hole to mediocrity.
All three shorts at PR, TC and FI have the high tee, low green configuration.
TC has the least interesting green due to the removal of the horseshoe/donut.
PR's short may be too long.
The putting surface of FI's short is most interesting.
Like NGLA, FI's short benefits from the breezes which accompany play.

Interestingly, all three finishing holes are a tad underwhelming to me.


I think the 16th at TC is a spectacular hole.
# 17 is lacking the character in the green and # 18 has been criticized by many.

At FI, the 16th is a wonderful short.
# 17 may be a tad bland, but, # 18 is a wonderful finishing hole with a world class green, especially given the length of the approach.
The segmented green is spectacular.
That lower left quadrant, the upper left quadrant, the spine seperating the left and right side of the green.
AND, if I'm not mistaken, that green was originally a "skyline" green, which, may again be a skyline green, making the hole even more dramatic.
Imagine the unique nature of the visual on the approach on # 3 and # 10 now being replicated on # 18.
It's world class, especially when you factor in a head, or quartering wind.

I also love the 18th at PR, I think it's a wonderful par 5 finishing hole, but, # 17, as a short, isn't in the "head of class" category, as Westhampton's short would be.  And, # 16 has the same degree of blandness that I find at # 17 at FI, a good hole, but not an outstanding hole.

Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

OK - your turn.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One of the other architectural and playing qualities I found at FI were the "rolled" edges of the putting surfaces that feed errant balls down to deep bunkers.

I've always loved that feature and have been victim to its diabolical intent at NGLA many times.

The punishment of the marginal or miscalculated shot is brilliant, and, that feature places a greater demand on having the proper angle of attack into the green.

What's all interconnected to this feature is the LOCATION OF THE HOLE, it's proximity to the edge of the putting surface.

When I played Fishers Island, on every green I visualized a myriad of hole locations and how they would effect/affect play of the hole.

It's my belief that if I could set the hole locations, not in diabolical positions, but in competitive positions, that the course could clearly show its teeth to the unwary golfer.

The golf course becomes exponentially more challenging as those hole locations are altered to enhance and increase the strategic value of well placed drives and the USE of one's MIND in planning their attack on the green.

AND, when you add in the element of the wind, the tactical challenge increases exponentially when the hole locations gravitate towarrd the perimeters or toward key internal features.

[ChipOat]

So, before this thread dies, I will observe that (I think) only three people on this thread have played all three courses - one of whom has been described by another as an "idiot savant".  Everyone else was a FI disciple and Donnie Beck, whose intimate knowledge of Fishers is unquestionable, has played The Creek, but not Piping Rock.

However, the case has been made by one of the three (who played there recently) that Fishers Island has demonstrably better architecture on the greens and on the ground than either The Creek or Piping Rock.  In fact, I interpret his several posts as a declaration that it isn't even all that close.  I hadn't remembered getting the same impression and, after all, maybe I was so taken by the views that I forgot to pay attention to the golf course.  I didn't think that was so but, perhaps.

On the other hand, maybe Pat Mucci was so taken by the beauty of Fishers Island that he succumbed to the sirens' song and is now unable to be analytical about the golf course on its own merits.

Either way, I guess I'll just have to get back there soon and re-examine my position.  It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.

[Sean_A]

So, before this thread dies, I will observe that (I think) only three people on this thread have played all three courses - one of whom has been described by another as an "idiot savant".  Everyone else was a FI disciple and Donnie Beck, whose intimate knowledge of Fishers is unquestionable, has played The Creek, but not Piping Rock.

However, the case has been made by one of the three (who played there recently) that Fishers Island has demonstrably better architecture on the greens and on the ground than either The Creek or Piping Rock.  In fact, I interpret his several posts as a declaration that it isn't even all that close.  I hadn't remembered getting the same impression and, after all, maybe I was so taken by the views that I forgot to pay attention to the golf course.  I didn't think that was so but, perhaps.

On the other hand, maybe Pat Mucci was so taken by the beauty of Fishers Island that he succumbed to the sirens' song and is now unable to be analytical about the golf course on its own merits.

Either way, I guess I'll just have to get back there soon and re-examine my position.  It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.

Chip

Well, if you need a partner let me know.  FI looks to be a lovely course and I greatly appreciate this discussion you have led. 

Cheers!
.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Since I guess I'm one of those three on here who has played all three courses I'm sorry I dropped the ball on you in trying to compare their architecture (I've been off and away on the road a lot in the last month).

I'll give it another shot but refresh my memory on what you responded to my question to you about what exactly you consider "architecture" to be----eg both the use of what is natural AND what is man-made or just pretty much just the latter?

I do have to say too that even though I have played all those three courses many times in my life at least one of them (ironically Piping my own original home club) it's been a pretty long time now.

Frankly, to do your question real justice I would probably need to take another very close look at the details of the architecture of Fishers and Piping but not Creek.

[Jud_T]

So, we all agree that Fisher's is a great place to spend a day on the golf course and has some very good to great holes and cool history.  But is it overrated (#11 Golfweek (classic), #9 Golf Digest, Golf Magazine #20 U.S., #31 World)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

However, the case has been made by one of the three (who played there recently) that Fishers Island has demonstrably better architecture on the greens and on the ground than either The Creek or Piping Rock. 

In fact, I interpret his several posts as a declaration that it isn't even all that close. 
I hadn't remembered getting the same impression and, after all, maybe I was so taken by the views that I forgot to pay attention to the golf course.  I didn't think that was so but, perhaps.

Chip, I can see how that could happen, especially if you were Tom Huckaby, 

On the other hand, maybe Pat Mucci was so taken by the beauty of Fishers Island that he succumbed to the sirens' song and is now unable to be analytical about the golf course on its own merits.

Unlike that idiot savant who requires his faithful guide dog "Coorshaw" to lead him around the course, I paid close personal attention to the holes and features at hand.

The views are spectacular, there's no doubt, but, the underlying architecture, as it was melded to the topography, is equally brilliant.

I think one of the pitfalls that many fall victim to are the "naming" of holes, especially when a hole's name is synonymous with the name of a "template" hole.

All too often some analyst immediately pigeon hole the hole's architect in the context of the "template" hole they're either familiar with, or, the most recognized "template" hole, or the "gold standard" template hole.

I think that fallacious analysis occurs at FI, starting with the 2nd hole, which I think is a wonderful hole.
However, it's doomed to comparison with the 4th at NGLA and the 3rd at Piping Rock, when the topography of # 2 at FI is so diametrically the opposite of that which is found at NGLA and PRC.

If, for example, the name of # 2 at FI was "Montauk" or "Eastward Ho", or "Dune", many would have a different perspective in their comparitive analysis.  They wouldn't make the immediate comparison, though eventually, the component features would lead one to view # 2 as a faux or hybrid Redan, and not a "classical" Redan.

I really liked the 2nd hole, which, when you consider the prevailing winds, is brilliantly positioned and oriented.

Another factor which you must account for is the underlying soil conditions at FI.
Some of the golf course was/is pure rock as you ascend from # 2 green, whereas the opening and closing holes along with some mid-holes are so low that routine storms have the fairways well under salt water from the sea/sound.

You can't analzye the routing, holes and individual features without considering the effect of the wind, especially the prevailing winds.
So, while you may think I was staring off into those magnificent vistas, my focus was on the ground.

One of the things I really, really liked about FI was the undulating fairways and the uneven, even unusual lies.
I commented to one of the fellows I was playing with, that if the course was built today, the fairways would have been a lot flatter.
Those undulating fairways present an additional challenge, but, you might not have noticed them if you were looking out at the boats and lighthouses

I was also enamored with the shaved, umbrella like perimeters of the greens, which fed errant balls down into large, deep bunkers, leaving the golfer blind of the putting surface in his attempt to recover.  That feature and the wind combine to exacerbate an errant or poorly planned shot and punish it accordingly.

That feature is a design feature, BUT, without proper maintainance, it becomes a vestigial feature, depriving the golfer of a more complete experience, as the architect intended.  Too many courses, in the name of "fairness" buffer and prevent that feature from becoming functional.
Fortunately, that doesn't occur at FI.  They get it.  They understand the intended architectural purpose and maintain it accordingly.

I think it's easy to overlook the quality and merits of the architecture and many of the subtle and not so subtle features.
If anything, the views can be distracting to the casual observer.

FI is like the gorgeous blond with a spectacular body, in a very revealing, very short dress with a very low top, who's rolling the dice in a Las Vegas Casino.
She has thousands of dollars on the table and needs a hard 10 to win an incredible amount.
As she's about to roll the dice, she pulls up her dress, takes off a white thong, holds the thong in her hand with her dress hiked over her waist, grabs and rolls the dice with the thong, yells, "YES, then bends way over the table with her gorgeous boobs falling out and her legs well off the ground, spread far apart, she grabs all her winnings, stuffs her boobs back into her dress, puts her thong back on, pulls her dress down and says, "thanks fellas" as she walks away.  One guy standing at the table says, "what did she roll ?"  The croupier says, " I have no idea, but, I thought she said 10"

I think the same thing happens at Fishers Island.  Too many golfers are looking at the eye candy and never see what's important.

Fortunately for me, I saw EVERYTHING, and I mean everything, on that gorgeous blond.
The guy standing next to me was a real idiot, as all this was happening, he was looking at all of the gamblers around the table and asked, "does anyone have a light ?", as he put his cigarette to his lips, and that's how I met TEPaul.

Either way, I guess I'll just have to get back there soon and re-examine my position. 
It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.

I'd be happy to accompany you and that idiot savant and his guidedog to FI for a round or two, unfortunately, there are restrictions with respect to visitors and I don't know if the Captain of the ferry or Water Taxi allows Idiot-Savants on his boat.

[Jim_Kennedy]

So, we all agree that Fisher's is a great place to spend a day on the golf course and has some very good to great holes and cool history.  But is it overrated (#11 Golfweek (classic), #9 Golf Digest, Golf Magazine #20 U.S., #31 World)?

No. 

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

With this constant idiot savant attribution of yours all you really need to concentrate on with the subject of golf course architecture is the savant part!   

[John Mayhugh]

That third hole is a beauty and I just have one question. It has been quite a while since I played there but I seem to remember that the lower section that ran along the right side of the hole contained pretty long grass and was rather unplayable along its whole length (this coincides with the brown are in the aerial that John posted). I recall a set of green tee markers that were placed on the upper fairway as sort of a drop area.

It looks pretty cleaned up now. Am I mistaken?

Thanks

Jim,

I took a look back at the scorecard and there is no such drop option indicated on it.  I also looked back towards the tee from the area that you described and don't recall seeing anything either.  I could have used a drop the first time around. 

[Kevin Pallier]

So, we all agree that Fisher's is a great place to spend a day on the golf course and has some very good to great holes and cool history.  But is it overrated (#11 Golfweek (classic), #9 Golf Digest, Golf Magazine #20 U.S., #31 World)?

Jud

From what I've seen thus far on my trip FI certainly deserves to be right up there in a US Top15 style grouping

On a Doak scale - I'd give it a 9

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,
The reason I remember the 'drop' areas w/the green tee markers was due to a couple of older members bringing it to our attention after one of the guys in our group topped one into the hay, reloaded, and then hit again.  This was on the first tee, but the warning was so sternly given that when the same guy hit one into the stuff on the right of #3 he just walked ahead and teed up at the green markers on that hole.

 

[ChipOat]

Jud Tigerman,

Although the title of my thread was designed to get people's attention, remember that my real question was "Is FI overrated vs. Piping Rock and The Creek (only)?"

I was trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison without venturing into the world of magazine rankings (except as a reference point). 

Since you asked about the bigger picture, I have no answer as, after my personal Top 3, I can only rate courses in groups of 20.  I'm not good enough to know where Pebble Beach "should" be except that it's definitely in my Top 20 despite several rather ordinary holes and an overrated 18th hole with a bunch of Stupid Trees.  Is it #4? I don't know.  Is it #20?  I don't know.  Is it behind or ahead of National in terms of pure architecture?  Probably "behind" if I thought about it although they both have their pluses and minuses.  How far behind?  No idea.  The same applies to Fishers Island.  Other than Top 20, I don't know where to put it. 

In case anybody cares, I am rather pleased with the results of my provocative title on this thread.  Besides five pages of mostly thoughtful posts (or better) and a great set of pictures from Donnie Beck, this thread has also spawned two other threads with even MORE great photo's.  Plus - an argument between Tom Paul and Pat Mucci.

It just doesn't get any better than that.

   

[Donnie Beck]

The green markers are for the very elderly and Jr golfers so they don't have to hit it over the forced carries.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Despite their origins, I think all three are unique, in their routing, topography, hole and feature designs.

Are there similarities, sure, but, there are also substantive differences.

Would I be content to play each, solely, for the rest of my life ?   Absolutely, I think they're all great.

But, I don't think FI is overrated in comparison to the other two.

I still think it's the best of the trio.

I'm very biased in favor of courses swept by the wind.
I think a course that enjoys the luxury of wind/s starts off inherently better than a course not subjected to wind/s

A hole that probably gets little in the way of accolades is # 6 at FI, but, I found it to be a fabulous par 5.

It's probably got more unusual, uncomfortable lies than any other par 5 I've played.
Sidehill, downhill and uphill lies, all on one hole, all combine to make this a terrific par 5
The tee shot is VERY demanding, as is the second shot and the approach shot.
Recoveries are also challenging, and once on that terrific putting surface, while you don't get the extreme contours and slope found on other greens, there's enough there to challenge anyone.
I also like the skyline effect of the green.

Conversely, I found # 15 a rather bland par 5 with a very interesting green and surrounds.

Remember, as originally designed and constructed, there's not a single fairway bunker on the golf course.
Think about that.
No fairway bunkering, yet the golf course is so well regarded, so challenging and so much fun.
That can only occur when the architect designs holes that blend brilliantly with the topography.
Which is what I think happened at FI.

How about "The Knoll" hole ?
Is that a great hole ?
Not a single bunker on the entire hole, yet, it's as challenging as you can get.
Just try playing the hole when the pin is up front, but, don't do it in a medal play round because you may never get to the 11th tee.
I've seen guys hit 3, 4 and 5 shots from just 30 yards short of that green.
Eventually they start laughing as the ball rolls down, once again, to provide them with another chance to hit the same shot, over and over again, until they get it right.
I've seen guys putt it from the back and middle of that green, off that green and down, 30 yards into the fairway.
That hole is SO unique, as are many of the holes.

I think you were too focused on the visuals beyond the golf course.
Were you playing with Tom Huckaby ?

[TEPaul]

"That third hole is a beauty and I just have one question. It has been quite a while since I played there but I seem to remember that the lower section that ran along the right side of the hole contained pretty long grass and was rather unplayable along its whole length."


Jim Kennedy:

That is a question (should something like reeds be kept up or taken down) I think should be turned into a separate thread! I think this particular question which has a huge influence on the visibility and play of FI's #3 is something that both can be, has been and very much still is roundly debated on a number of other very interesting and important holes.

Some great examples to add to FI's #2 are The Creek's #13 and #14 and Maidstone's #7 and most certainly #17.

It is actually a huge point and in the examples just given can pretty much make those particular holes seem almost like entirely different holes depending on whether things like reeds are up or down.

(By the way, I realize you were talking about FI's #3 but I am speaking of #2)

My experience has been that most interestingly golfers are just about equally divided in opinion and not just that they also tend to defend their opinions either way incredibly vociferously!  

It just may be the best example I know of that indicates and implies that a consensus of opinion in architecture doesn't really ever happen but that perhaps one should not even think to strive for it! I think the likes of Macdonald and Mackenzie truly understood this kind of thing when they wrote that (benefical) "controversy" was actually what should be strived for in golf course arhitecture!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The outcome of the debate you reference is oftened determined by the regulatory authorities.

I believe that the 300 foot salt water buffer impacts FI.

I know that the reeds are an impediment on tee shots from the front tee on # 15.
They can impact visibility, ball flight and direction, thus altering the play of a hole and even the architecture of the hole..

Years ago I was critical of the second par 3 at Spanish Bay because reeds between the tee and green prevented you from not only seeing the green, but the fronting and flanking water hazard, thus despite seeing the flag, you didn't know if it was 15 feet from the left edge of the green or the right edge of the green, making an intelligent shot impossible.

I know another club that cut down the reeds that had grown to such height that they directly impeded ball flight off the tee.
A disgruntled member notified the authorities and a fine was levied against the club.

Clubs that allow or promote an area to become wetlands are forever at risk that they'll lose control of that area, thus negatively impacting the golf course and play of the golf course forever.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

The outcome of the debate you reference is oftened determined by the regulatory authorities."


Pat:

Perhaps, but it would seem each course and example may be somewhat different in that way. I sure do know a few years ago Maidstone cut down the reeds around #6, #7 and #17 (clearly a very large and probably expensive undertaking on their part). I don't believe The Creek cut down their reeds around #13 and #14---I think they actually burned them down late in the year (which might not be all that kosher with the regulatory authorities but not because the club isn't allowed to touch that area and its reeds but because the authorities don't exactly like anybody in those areas BURNING UP any shit in such an extensive area)! And I believe I even know who did it and he knows I know he did it and if he doesn't treat me right in the future I'm gonna turn his ass in to ALL the AUTHORITIES!

On my farm we collect branches and all kinds of burnable stuff and such all year into the middle of a field and into what we call our "burn pile." Technically these days we are not supposed to burn stuff that extensive (that creates some serious smoke over a large area) but we do it anyway and generally in the winter.

I have never had the local police or fire department or township or anyone else actually come on my property and tell me not to do it but if I ever do I'm going to tell them I got permission to do it from a world class authority on the subject from New Jersey by the name of Patrick Mucci.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've already forwarded your response, posted above, to every regulatory authority within 150 miles of Happydale Farms.

I'll visit you on every other Sunday.

Is there anything in particular that you'd like me to bring you over the next 5 to 10 years ?

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, Patrick, over 25 years ago I was burning our really massive "burn pile" in the middle of a big field one day in the middle of the winter. When I say it was cold I am not joshing you. I think the high that day was just over 0 and I was so damn cold I was practically standing in the conflagration!

AND THEN, to my total amazement I looked up and saw about 4-5 horses and cowboys riding right at me yelling and whooping and they didn't even have coats on. I thought I was halucinating.

They whooped and hollered on up to me and my burn pile and swung off those horses like some cowboys in Dodge City do with the rail in front of the barroom on a Friday night just after they got paid:

I think I said: "Am I hallucinating or are you guys real?" They said they were real alright and they were fucking freezing their asses off."

So I said: "Who the hell are you people and where did you come from?"

They told me they were with a horse trailer convoy up from the King Ranch in Texas to drop a load of horses off to a King Ranch component around Chadds Ford and the Brandywine. Apparently they had come a bit too far north in the horse trailer convoy or the cowboys were supposed to be staying on a farm in my area so they stopped the convoy at a bar on RTE 3 just over the hill from my farm, took enough horses off the trailers, went in and had a bunch of drinks etc. So they were just trying to find the farm they were staying at on their horses and by the way they sort of forgot their coats when they hitched up their horses and went in for a Texas load of drinks.

I recognized the farm they were supposed to be staying at around here so after they practically lit themselves on fire in my burn pile conflagration to get warm enough they swung up on their horses and whooped it outta here!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()