The Bunkering at The National

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Disengenuous?  Your brain has gone into complete meltdown with ND's loss to Navy. 

Your attempts to deflect and divert the issue and avoid answering the questions I've posed to you are reaching desperate levels.


If you paid attention to my posts on this thread you would notice that sand containment was what I am on about.  This is why I suspect bunkers have changed from the more attractive natural look to a more formalized look.  Its easier to maintain sand in a pit then it is spread out over here and there.  Do you think this could be a reason blowing sand isn't much of a problem?

I've paid attention to your posts and challenged your contentions by asking you a number of questions, all of which you've avoided and failed to answer.

Just answer the questions.

For starters, would you cite for us, five clubs where sand blows out of the greenside bunkers and deposits a foot of sand on the green ?

I think your height combined with riding that high horse has messed with your oxygen supply.  Why don't you climb down once in a while and get re-adjusted? 

You're wasting everyone's time with these foolish attempts to divert and deflect the issue and the questions posed to you.
You made statements that I challenged, and you appear to be incapable of answering those questions.
One can only conclude that your statements weren't fact based, but rather a product of your imagination.

ND's losing to Pitt, CT and Stanford won't change the issue, nor will it dull my efforts to get you to answer the questions I posed, answers which you don't have, for if you had them, rather than citing ND, you would have provided cogent responses instead of babbling about ND and other non-germane issues.

Alternatively, you can just admit that you were wrong and spoke/typed without knowing or realizing what you were saying/typing.

I know how difficult admitting you're wrong is, but I have every confidence that you can do it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

If you really want to stop receiving emails from someone, just BLOCK the sender's email address.

Why continue to accept emails from someone if you don't want them ?

Both of you are behaving like children, in an ugly fashion.

Both of you are intelligent, interested in architecture and active posters on this site.
The site is better due to your participation, but, this bitter bickering is a waste of time.
I understand being passionate to the degree that you become invested in a topic or position, but not to the degree that you villify each other.

Stop already, block TEPaul's email address and get back on the subject at hand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

You have to admit that the land form surrounding the black flag and in front of the American Flag Pole looks a great deal like the 3rd green.

[Bryan Izatt]

Perhaps part of the problem of looking at the picture is that the perspective appears distorted because it appears to have been taken from above the bunker (maybe from up the water tower).  If you correct the perspective, the hill in back and the slope of the fairway to the bunker look less dramatic.

It appears from Google Earth that the ridge with trees to the right of the fairway is 10 feet above the fairway, while the parking lot at Sebonac is as much as 40 feet (and probably more before it was flattened for the parking lot) above the fairway.

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

The large majority of what you are calling my creepy and harrassing emails to you are nothing other than simple cut and pastes of your insulting posts on here---nothing at all more than that. I did not add a single word to the majority of them so if you view all those emails of your posts on here as creepy then perhaps you need to consider what is creepy on here. It was my hope that if I just cut and pasted your posts into emails to you and added nothing else you may begin to recognize just how insulting some of your posts really are. But apparently not even that worked to resolve this. Oh well.  

[Sean_A]

Patrick

Disengenuous?  Your brain has gone into complete meltdown with ND's loss to Navy. 

Your attempts to deflect and divert the issue and avoid answering the questions I've posed to you are reaching desperate levels.


If you paid attention to my posts on this thread you would notice that sand containment was what I am on about.  This is why I suspect bunkers have changed from the more attractive natural look to a more formalized look.  Its easier to maintain sand in a pit then it is spread out over here and there.  Do you think this could be a reason blowing sand isn't much of a problem?

I've paid attention to your posts and challenged your contentions by asking you a number of questions, all of which you've avoided and failed to answer.

Just answer the questions.

For starters, would you cite for us, five clubs where sand blows out of the greenside bunkers and deposits a foot of sand on the green ?

I think your height combined with riding that high horse has messed with your oxygen supply.  Why don't you climb down once in a while and get re-adjusted? 

You're wasting everyone's time with these foolish attempts to divert and deflect the issue and the questions posed to you.
You made statements that I challenged, and you appear to be incapable of answering those questions.
One can only conclude that your statements weren't fact based, but rather a product of your imagination.

ND's losing to Pitt, CT and Stanford won't change the issue, nor will it dull my efforts to get you to answer the questions I posed, answers which you don't have, for if you had them, rather than citing ND, you would have provided cogent responses instead of babbling about ND and other non-germane issues.

Alternatively, you can just admit that you were wrong and spoke/typed without knowing or realizing what you were saying/typing.

I know how difficult admitting you're wrong is, but I have every confidence that you can do it.

Heavy sigh Pat.  You should sue ND for issuing a degree to a chap with such poor reading comprehension.  For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  Eventually you will get over the ND loss and fully comprehend your argument is about as useless as the ND defense. 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I must admit....I continue to get a kick off ND fans who remain in denial about Charlie Weis's mediocrity.  Now that they have run out of excuses of this being a certain ex-coaches team, I wonder what is next?   

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I have been ignoring most of TEPaul’s creepy emails and messages for years now.  On a few occasions I respond to remind him that I want him to stop, but for most part I pay little or no attention to the content of his emails.  While blocking TEPaul’s messages seems simple enough, I don’t think it makes sense here. The problem isn’t that I get the messages; it is that he sends them.    Obviously TEPaul has some serious problems and needs professional help.   While blocking the messages may make me ignorant of the degree of his instability, it will not make him any more stable or any less threatening. So I won’t block his messages.  But I have started keeping an accurate record of any and all unwanted harassment, especially his attempts to create an unacceptable or inappropriate disturbance in my personal or private life.   

After all, it is not as if TEPaul is some anonymous spammer.   He is a bitter and unstable creep who has been threatening and harassing me in public and private for YEARS.  And lately he seems even less able to control himself, and seems to be losing his ability for rational thought.  See for example his belief that he is entitled to harass me without me exposing him for it, and his delusion that his harassment resolve our problems, despite that I have demanded he STOP.   Or the fact that even now, I have publicly demanded that he STOP, he continues.

Look, Patrick, I understand this puts you and others in an uncomfortable position because you have some sort of private relationship with this creep, and it is always easier to ignore these things rather than deal I with them.   But ignoring his problems and his increasingly unstable behavior is doing him no favors.  He needs help, and soon. It is undeniable that he has no respect for (or concept of) the bounds of appropriate behavior, that he has little or no self control, and that he is unable to understand or accept that his actions have consequences.   Together this makes for a volatile combination.

Look at his latest rationalization . . .
 
The large majority of what you are calling my creepy and harrassing emails to you are nothing other than simple cut and pastes of your insulting posts on here---nothing at all more than that. I did not add a single word to the majority of them so if you view all those emails of your posts on here as creepy then perhaps you need to consider what is creepy on here. It was my hope that if I just cut and pasted your posts into emails to you and added nothing else you may begin to recognize just how insulting some of your posts really are. But apparently not even that worked to resolve this. Oh well.

Just another effort to avoid responsibility for his actions, but he might actually believe it!  If so, then he cannot even comprehend why I find the messages creepy and inappropriate; or that it doesn’t matter that only some of his most recent emails contain actual threats; or that the fact that he continues to send his bizarre messages (six times yesterday) despite my many demands that he STOP is in and of itself is extremely creepy.  And what kind of a psycho cuts and pastes his own posts and mine and sends them, interspersing them with an occasional threat?   

This isn’t a one-time thing or a simple misunderstanding.  It is an ongoing issue and a continuing pattern of behavior with TEPaul.  A few months ago it was his sleazy and barely veiled threatening messages daring me to come to Philadelphia so he and his buddies could teach me a thing or two.   Before that there were the multiple times he told me that he wouldn’t rest until he drove me from the website.  And the promises to continue to harass me – by whatever means he wanted -- until I was gone from the website for good.  And the “Philadelphia Possee.”  And the lies about the Canadian “scholar.’   And the lies about Merion’s committee chairs supposed thoughts on my early research. And the defamatory rumors about things entirely unrelated to this website. And numerous other inappropriate and threatening messages and comments designed to chase me away.  And similar behavior directed to others. 

I am here to discuss golf courses, but that shouldn’t entail having to put up with harassment from an unstable creep who cannot control himself.
_____________________________________________

A few more passages from earlier this year, this time IM’s edited to only show my requests to be left alone and his responses:

"TomPaul,
Please stop contacting me.  I have no interest in communicating with you."

I couldn't possibly care less what you have no interest in! . . . I think you need my constant and personal attention.

"Don't contact me again Tom."

Or What?

"No more messages Tom.  I mean it."

Or what?

Come on tell me; I actually love threats from the likes of the David Moriarty's of life. . .

 

[TEPaul]

"or that the fact that he continues to send his bizarre messages (six times yesterday)"


The so-called bizarre messages that you speak of above from me (emails) contain nothing more than your own posts from this thread. It was my hope that if I simply cut and pasted YOUR posts about me back to you by email you might begin to get some idea of how insulting, and, yes, sort of creepy THEY are  , all filled with such remarks as 'scumbag', 'creep', 'psycho', 'sick.' Your post just above this one is just another example in a long list of examples of that which I should also cut and paste and send by email to you, again in the hope that you might better appreciate what YOU are saying on this website. I may not agree with much of what you say on here about architecture or architects but at least I'm not calling you things on this DG like scumbag, creep, psycho, sick and such. I may have insulted you personally a bit that way in the past but I don't do that anymore on this DG and I don't plan to. All I'm going to do is criticize what you say about architecture or architects if it seems warranted. I suggest the same for you. That's why I sent you those emails which were not much more than your own increasing string of insulting and bizarre remarks on here, and not about what I say about architecture or architects but about just me.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

If you don't want to be called a scumbag, a creep, and a psycho, then you need quit acting like one.  You have been harassing me and threatening me for years.  Even now, you pretend your behavior is okay because only some of your creepy, uninvited and unwanted attempts to harass me contain weird threats and such.  Did you forget yesterday already?  

 You need to get some help, Tom.  But whether you get help or not, DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO CONTACT ME IN ANYTHING BUT A PUBLIC FORUM, YOU PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Heavy sigh Pat.  You should sue ND for issuing a degree to a chap with such poor reading comprehension.  

For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  

That's NOT what you said.
This is what you said:

 Sand blowing on greens and fairways is not clever in terms of keeping that grass alive.

To which I responded:
"Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?
Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?[/b][/color]


And, to date, despite all your attempts to divert and deflect the issue, you've avoided answering the question.

Understanding that desperate men do desperate things, you've gone off in wild directions hoping that mentioning ND football will serve as a decoy, allowing you to escape the burden of having to answer the question/s, but, as you pointed out, a stubborn person isn't going to let you off the hook.

So, please, just answer the question.

And, while you're at it, explain how sand deposited on the green, whether it be by sand splash or sand blown by the wind, produce different agronomic and playing results.

It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  


You said it piles up to ONE FOOT, not 1/4 of an inch.
Would you care to admit that you embellished your facts a little ?

Eventually you will get over the ND loss and fully comprehend your argument is about as useless as the ND defense.  


You've obviously never been to an ND game.
Everyone likes winning, but, ND is gracious when they lose.
Perhaps you missed the ND players going to the Navy section with the Navy players and singing the NAVY Alma Mater after the game.
That's just part of the "Spirit of Notre Dame" that you and other detractors know nothing about.

Below is what the team, students and fans sing at the conclusion of every home game.
Fans who don't leave the stadium, fans who stay to support and celebrate the team and the university.
Pay attention to the last sentence and understand that your petty comments can't change anything, and they certainly can't diminish the "Spirit of Notre Dame", but then again, you wouldn't have a clue as to what I'm refering to.


Notre Dame, our Mother
Tender, strong and true
Proudly in the heavens,
Gleams thy gold and blue.
Glory's mantle cloaks thee
Golden is thy fame,
And our hearts forever,
Praise thee, Notre Dame.
And our hearts forever,
Love thee, Notre Dame.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMomkAJMDo

There's nothing quite like it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I must admit....I continue to get a kick off ND fans who remain in denial about Charlie Weis's mediocrity. 
Now that they have run out of excuses of this being a certain ex-coaches team, I wonder what is next?   

I never knew that a 6-3 (66.66 %) record was deemed to be mediocre.

I know it's not up to the all time record for Major College Football programs, held by Rockne (881 %) and Leahy (864 %), but heh, this is his first year with his players.

What I'm also puzzled about is how the Weis detractors, those who diminish his coaching abilities, choose to ignore his coaching record with the Patriots when he was their offensive co-ordinator.

Was he mediocre then, or did he just become mediocre when he arrived in South Bend and went 9-2 in his first season ?

There's always been a jealousy issue with ND that comes in many forms, and I guess yours is just another form.
There are those who want Weis and ND to fail, not understanding the positive underlying values that ND brings to college sports.

So rail away, vent your jealousy if it makes you feel better, it won't have the slightest negative impact on ND or true ND fans.

I liked what the Memphis coach (ex coach), Tommy West, had to say today.
What he hoped for, what he sought, in terms of team support, for him and for the next coach, was everything that true ND fans are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

YIKES.

Returning to the picture you posted, look at the man dressed in white stradling the bunker.
Then, look at how the land, either fairway and/or green slopes severly up behind him.
Actually to his right, our left and back.

The land continues to slope upwards where the fairway and/or green meets the rough line.

Then the rough continues to slope steeply upwards.

Tell me, WHERE, anywhere west of the windmill where the terrain matches your photo.

It doesn't.

There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,

YIKES.

If you were in my position I am sure you would understand exactly where I am coming from on this one.

. . .
There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

Patrick, I think the best thing to do is for you just to go look at it, when you get the chance.  I know, at trip to NGLA is a tough assignment.

I understand what you are saying, but don't know that I agree.   I think we may be looking at two hills, one behind the other with the second one about where Sebonack's parking lot is now.  I think the fairway was cut wider then, partially up the first up slope.   It makes sense to me that the flagpole (US Flag) would be on or near the highpoint of the property, so I assume that the flag is near the top of the first rise.

Here is the photo and a google earth view underneath.  You can make out the first hill (slightly darker) and the second.   The second is a slightly different shape, but as Bryan noted that land has likely been leveled for Sebonack's parking lot.

[Sean_A]

Heavy sigh Pat.  You should sue ND for issuing a degree to a chap with such poor reading comprehension.  

For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  

That's NOT what you said.
This is what you said:

 Sand blowing on greens and fairways is not clever in terms of keeping that grass alive.

To which I responded:
"Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?
Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?[/b][/color]


And, to date, despite all your attempts to divert and deflect the issue, you've avoided answering the question.

Understanding that desperate men do desperate things, you've gone off in wild directions hoping that mentioning ND football will serve as a decoy, allowing you to escape the burden of having to answer the question/s, but, as you pointed out, a stubborn person isn't going to let you off the hook.

So, please, just answer the question.

And, while you're at it, explain how sand deposited on the green, whether it be by sand splash or sand blown by the wind, produce different agronomic and playing results.

It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  


You said it piles up to ONE FOOT, not 1/4 of an inch.
Would you care to admit that you embellished your facts a little ?

Eventually you will get over the ND loss and fully comprehend your argument is about as useless as the ND defense.  


You've obviously never been to an ND game.
Everyone likes winning, but, ND is gracious when they lose.
Perhaps you missed the ND players going to the Navy section with the Navy players and singing the NAVY Alma Mater after the game.
That's just part of the "Spirit of Notre Dame" that you and other detractors know nothing about.

Below is what the team, students and fans sing at the conclusion of every home game.
Fans who don't leave the stadium, fans who stay to support and celebrate the team and the university.
Pay attention to the last sentence and understand that your petty comments can't change anything, and they certainly can't diminish the "Spirit of Notre Dame", but then again, you wouldn't have a clue as to what I'm refering to.


Notre Dame, our Mother
Tender, strong and true
Proudly in the heavens,
Gleams thy gold and blue.
Glory's mantle cloaks thee
Golden is thy fame,
And our hearts forever,
Praise thee, Notre Dame.
And our hearts forever,
Love thee, Notre Dame.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMomkAJMDo

There's nothing quite like it.

Patrick

Now, now.  You are the one who introduced the completely inconsequential question of why isn't free blowing sand good for turf.  I rightly answered that free blowing sand is nothing like top dressing, because unlike free blowing sand, top dressing is measured and purposely directed.  Because you fail to understand this point has no bearing on my original premise - which was, perhaps the shapes of bunkers have changed on windy sites to better contain sand.  Despite your best attempts to intimate that free blowing sand, which could pile up to 1 foot on greens or fairways (I saw it more like 3 feet once on a green and much higher on a fairway) is somehow good for the turf because it somehow does precisely what top dressing achieves, I don't believe it.  Please focus on the original premise.  While you are at it, instead of bickering constantly about why free blowing sand on a course is good or about the location of a bunker, why don't you put forward your own thoughts on why NGLA's (and in general sea side courses) bunkers have changed?   

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I must admit....I continue to get a kick off ND fans who remain in denial about Charlie Weis's mediocrity. 
Now that they have run out of excuses of this being a certain ex-coaches team, I wonder what is next?   

I never knew that a 6-3 (66.66 %) record was deemed to be mediocre.

I know it's not up to the all time record for Major College Football programs, held by Rockne (881 %) and Leahy (864 %), but heh, this is his first year with his players.

What I'm also puzzled about is how the Weis detractors, those who diminish his coaching abilities, choose to ignore his coaching record with the Patriots when he was their offensive co-ordinator.

Was he mediocre then, or did he just become mediocre when he arrived in South Bend and went 9-2 in his first season ?

There's always been a jealousy issue with ND that comes in many forms, and I guess yours is just another form.
There are those who want Weis and ND to fail, not understanding the positive underlying values that ND brings to college sports.

So rail away, vent your jealousy if it makes you feel better, it won't have the slightest negative impact on ND or true ND fans.

I liked what the Memphis coach (ex coach), Tommy West, had to say today.
What he hoped for, what he sought, in terms of team support, for him and for the next coach, was everything that true ND fans are.

Pat 6-3 is clearly on the mediocre side given NDs prominence thru the decades where they were constantly try to win national championships. I guess one can be more content by simply lowering thier standards, but I suspect this really isn't the case for ND fans.

But if you want some facts and figures.  As of now Charlie Weis has a .603 winning %.  Both Bob Davie and and Tyrone Willingham were within .20, with .583% winning percentages and those guys were both ran out of town.  So are you going to try to tell me Charlie Weis is all of a sudden a far better coach when he is only a hair better than these two also-rans? 

I also get a big chuckle how Weis is given credit for the good things that he did with "Willinghams players", yet also gets spared the hook when the bad things happened because after all it wasn't Weis' fault because he had "Willinghams players".

As for jealousy, none such here as my alma mater, BYU, has clearly done far better than ND in recent years....

P.S.  Last I checked being a good offensive-coordinator does not mean you will be a good coach.  Look no further than Mike Martz for the Rams..

[Andy Troeger]

As for jealousy, none such here as my alma mater, BYU, has clearly done far better than ND in recent years....

Wait, so how many BCS bowls has BYU been to in the last ten years? 

[Kalen Braley]

As for jealousy, none such here as my alma mater, BYU, has clearly done far better than ND in recent years....

Wait, so how many BCS bowls has BYU been to in the last ten years? 

Well that goes right to the heart of the problem as the BCS system is a complete and utter joke!!

Its bias towards the so-called "major" conferences and ND having an individual seat on this thing is beyond laughable.

But then again, you already knew this!!   

P.S.  I know you're a ND alumni/fan, but I just like busting Pats chops because based on the dicussions you and I have had, you at least seem to reasonable about all of this!!   

[Andy Troeger]

Kalen,
I made my point, and you took it in the spirit intended 

I certainly have my feelings about the Irish, but I'm going to spare writing them on the Internet for all to see!

[Patrick_Mucci]

For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  

That's NOT what you said.
This is what you said:

 Sand blowing on greens and fairways is not clever in terms of keeping that grass alive.

To which I responded:
"Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?
Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?[/b][/color]


And, to date, despite all your attempts to divert and deflect the issue, you've avoided answering the question.

Understanding that desperate men do desperate things, you've gone off in wild directions hoping that mentioning ND football will serve as a decoy, allowing you to escape the burden of having to answer the question/s, but, as you pointed out, a stubborn person isn't going to let you off the hook.

So, please, just answer the question.

And, while you're at it, explain how sand deposited on the green, whether it be by sand splash or sand blown by the wind, produce different agronomic and playing results.

It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  


You said it piles up to ONE FOOT, not 1/4 of an inch.
Would you care to admit that you embellished your facts a little ?

Patrick

Now, now.  You are the one who introduced the completely inconsequential question of why isn't free blowing sand good for turf. 

That's a lie.
That's not what I stated.
My statement, quoted verbatim, is cited above.
Please stick to the facts and the truth.

I rightly answered that free blowing sand is nothing like top dressing, because unlike free blowing sand, top dressing is measured and purposely directed.

I addressed the measured issue in reply # 48, well before it came to your attention.
You stated that sand blown from bunkers isn't good for the grass.  I then asked you, how so, and if it's substantively different from the impact of topdresssing.
Which is a question you never answered. [/b]

Because you fail to understand this point has no bearing on my original premise - which was, perhaps the shapes of bunkers have changed on windy sites to better contain sand. 

From the begining, an inherent quality of bunkers was retention of the sand.
Please tell us how bunker shapes have changed at NGLA and other American courses, based on your premise ?

Despite your best attempts to intimate that free blowing sand, which could pile up to 1 foot on greens or fairways (I saw it more like 3 feet once on a green and much higher on a fairway) is somehow good for the turf because it somehow does precisely what top dressing achieves, I don't believe it. 

I asked you to cite just five (5) American courses where this occured and you couldn't name one.
I also asked you if the wind that caused the alleged pile ceased to ever blow again, preventing the sand from being further dispursed.
You failed to answer that question as well.

Please focus on the original premise. 

I've done so, despite your attempts to divert and deflect the focus and despite your failure to answer direct questions.
Could you cite the five (5) American courses where the sand blown from bunkers piles one foot high on the greens, and then stays there, never to move again ?
Or put another way, you'd have us believe that the wind blows sand out of a hole in the ground, up into a one foot pile a green, more exposed to the wind, and the sand just sits there without being blown anywhere else ?

While you are at it, instead of bickering constantly about why free blowing sand on a course is good or about the location of a bunker, why don't you put forward your own thoughts on why NGLA's (and in general sea side courses) bunkers have changed?   

I can understand your wanting to divert and deflect my questions as much as possible.
Which bunkers at NGLA have changed ?
And, in what way ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

. . .
There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

Patrick, I think the best thing to do is for you just to go look at it, when you get the chance.  I know, at trip to NGLA is a tough assignment.

I understand what you are saying, but don't know that I agree.   I think we may be looking at two hills, one behind the other with the second one about where Sebonack's parking lot is now.  I think the fairway was cut wider then, partially up the first up slope.   It makes sense to me that the flagpole (US Flag) would be on or near the highpoint of the property, so I assume that the flag is near the top of the first rise.

Dave, Let's forget the distant hill for a second.

Look at how severely the fairway/green slopes between the man in white and the American Flag.
Then, look at how severely the rough slopes between the American flag and the hill to the left of it.

There is NO terrain like that on top of the fairway across from the windmill, or south of the windmill.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat 6-3 is clearly on the mediocre side given NDs prominence thru the decades where they were constantly try to win national championships. I guess one can be more content by simply lowering thier standards, but I suspect this really isn't the case for ND fans.

There tends to be an ebb and flow in college football and other sports.
USC has enjoyed great success for about the last 10 years, but, look at how they fared the previous 10 years.

But if you want some facts and figures.  As of now Charlie Weis has a .603 winning %. 
Both Bob Davie and and Tyrone Willingham were within .20, with .583% winning percentages and those guys were both ran out of town. 

When you rely on ESPN for your data base, there's a lot your missing.
Davie was a nice fellow who had never been a head coach.  And, he wasn't run out of town, his five year contract expired and wasn't renewed.
He inherited a pretty strong program and didn't make the quantum leap from assistant to head coach.
Willingham was another nice fellow, but, a default candidate and a mistake, unless you feel that his tenure at Washington established him as a good coach.

Is it your considered opinion that Davie and Willingham were good to great coaches and should have remained at the helm at ND ?

So are you going to try to tell me Charlie Weis is all of a sudden a far better coach when he is only a hair better than these two also-rans?

To answer that question, one must look at Weis's entire body of work, which is impressive.
In addition, this is his first year with his team.
I'm content to let him continue as ND's coach.
The interesting thing is that so many anti-ND fans want him fired.  Why do you think that is ? 

I also get a big chuckle how Weis is given credit for the good things that he did with "Willinghams players", yet also gets spared the hook when the bad things happened because after all it wasn't Weis' fault because he had "Willinghams players".

I think that's called making the best of a bad situation.

As for jealousy, none such here as my alma mater, BYU, has clearly done far better than ND in recent years....

Really ?
                   BYU    ND

2005            23      49
2004            20      17
2003            14      33

Like your favorite source, ESPN, perhaps you have your facts confused.
 
And, are you sure that you're not jealous that ND graduates 94 % of its football players and that BYU's graduation rate for their football players is only 56 % ?

I know you're not going to try to compare historical schedules, are you ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

As for jealousy, none such here as my alma mater, BYU, has clearly done far better than ND in recent years....

Wait, so how many BCS bowls has BYU been to in the last ten years? 

Well that goes right to the heart of the problem as the BCS system is a complete and utter joke!!

Its bias towards the so-called "major" conferences and ND having an individual seat on this thing is beyond laughable.


Andy Troeger,

Maybe Kalen has a point. 

Perhaps if ND played
Eastern Washington,
UNLV,
San Diego State,
Arkansas State,
SMU,
New Mexico,
Utah State,
Rice,
Wyoming
and Hawaii more often they'd be in the BCS and more bowl games 

P.S.  I know you're a ND alumni/fan, but I just like busting Pats chops because based on the dicussions you and I have had, you at least seem to reasonable about all of this!!   

Kalen,

I'm shocked, me, not reasonable ?  Surely you jest !  You don't mind if I call you "surely", do you ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

. . .
There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

Patrick, I think the best thing to do is for you just to go look at it, when you get the chance.  I know, at trip to NGLA is a tough assignment.

I understand what you are saying, but don't know that I agree.   I think we may be looking at two hills, one behind the other with the second one about where Sebonack's parking lot is now.  I think the fairway was cut wider then, partially up the first up slope.   It makes sense to me that the flagpole (US Flag) would be on or near the highpoint of the property, so I assume that the flag is near the top of the first rise.

Dave, Let's forget the distant hill for a second.

Look at how severely the fairway/green slopes between the man in white and the American Flag.
Then, look at how severely the rough slopes between the American flag and the hill to the left of it.

There is NO terrain like that on top of the fairway across from the windmill, or south of the windmill.

Dave, take a look at the google aerial and tell me on the google aerial where the landform in the photo appears.
It's certainly not in the location you diagramed, just west of the windmill.
So, where do you think this green sat, could you outline it on the google aerial.

Thanks

[Sean_A]

For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  

That's NOT what you said.
This is what you said:

 Sand blowing on greens and fairways is not clever in terms of keeping that grass alive.

To which I responded:
"Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?
Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?[/b][/color]


And, to date, despite all your attempts to divert and deflect the issue, you've avoided answering the question.

Understanding that desperate men do desperate things, you've gone off in wild directions hoping that mentioning ND football will serve as a decoy, allowing you to escape the burden of having to answer the question/s, but, as you pointed out, a stubborn person isn't going to let you off the hook.

So, please, just answer the question.

And, while you're at it, explain how sand deposited on the green, whether it be by sand splash or sand blown by the wind, produce different agronomic and playing results.

It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  


You said it piles up to ONE FOOT, not 1/4 of an inch.
Would you care to admit that you embellished your facts a little ?

Patrick

Now, now.  You are the one who introduced the completely inconsequential question of why isn't free blowing sand good for turf.  

That's a lie.
That's not what I stated.
My statement, quoted verbatim, is cited above.
Please stick to the facts and the truth.

I rightly answered that free blowing sand is nothing like top dressing, because unlike free blowing sand, top dressing is measured and purposely directed.

I addressed the measured issue in reply # 48, well before it came to your attention.
You stated that sand blown from bunkers isn't good for the grass.  I then asked you, how so, and if it's substantively different from the impact of topdresssing.
Which is a question you never answered. [/b]

Because you fail to understand this point has no bearing on my original premise - which was, perhaps the shapes of bunkers have changed on windy sites to better contain sand.

From the begining, an inherent quality of bunkers was retention of the sand.
Please tell us how bunker shapes have changed at NGLA and other American courses, based on your premise ?

Despite your best attempts to intimate that free blowing sand, which could pile up to 1 foot on greens or fairways (I saw it more like 3 feet once on a green and much higher on a fairway) is somehow good for the turf because it somehow does precisely what top dressing achieves, I don't believe it.

I asked you to cite just five (5) American courses where this occured and you couldn't name one.
I also asked you if the wind that caused the alleged pile ceased to ever blow again, preventing the sand from being further dispursed.
You failed to answer that question as well.

Please focus on the original premise.  

I've done so, despite your attempts to divert and deflect the focus and despite your failure to answer direct questions.
Could you cite the five (5) American courses where the sand blown from bunkers piles one foot high on the greens, and then stays there, never to move again ?
Or put another way, you'd have us believe that the wind blows sand out of a hole in the ground, up into a one foot pile a green, more exposed to the wind, and the sand just sits there without being blown anywhere else ?

While you are at it, instead of bickering constantly about why free blowing sand on a course is good or about the location of a bunker, why don't you put forward your own thoughts on why NGLA's (and in general sea side courses) bunkers have changed?  

I can understand your wanting to divert and deflect my questions as much as possible.
Which bunkers at NGLA have changed ?
And, in what way ?

Pat

When you falsely call me a liar I am done - I just don't have that much time for you.  

Ciao