2nd at NGLA...question about view from the tee

[R.S. Barker]

Ok,

I've been looking at my collection of NGLA pics, and quickly realized that the 2nd : Sahara looks like it's a very intimidating shot from the tee.

Having never seen the course in person, am I correct to think that from the tee, your faced with the Windmill to your left-front, the huge waste area bunker complete with what looks to be sawgrass or palmetto throughout, and a literal wall of rough that stretches from your right-front around to straight ahead of you AND all this on an uphill facing teeshot ?.

If this is correct, and since the hole is 300 yards from the Red tee, one option is to either hit a faded 2 or 3 iron off the tee over the front right corner of the waste area, and have it land on the upslope of the fairway, short of the bottleneck. This would leave you about 65 to 85 yards into the green which sits down below on the other side of the wall.

Or

Blast a drive straight over the largest grass/sand hill in the waste area ( clearing the bunker beyond that sits 65 yards from the green ), and hope to clear the wall ahead of you and let it come to rest some 30 to 50 yards away from the green.

Is this a correct way to look at this hole ??

Thanks for your time,

R.S. Barker

[ChipOat]

Yes (mostly).

If the wind is in your face, the direct route (from the red markers) is available to only the longest hitters.  The bail out to the extreme right leaves you more like 100-110 yards to the center of a very large green.

With no wind, the green is driveable on the direct route and the medium hitters will "shade" the drive a bit right - usually into a hollow into which the fairway falls.

The hole meant a lot more when shafts were hickory and 180 yards was a normal carry with a driver.

The seemingly flat green can be deceivingly fast - particularly when putting down-wind.

[Charles_P.]

Your assessment sounds pretty accurate; however, your picture might be a little dated -- the "wall of rough" has been trimmed considerably.  From the tee, the hole appears quite intimidating until you've played it a few times.  Once you have, you realize that the carries are more a visual obstacle then physical.  Like many holes at NGLA, the challenges are around the green.  I generally see better players go for the green and, if they don't reach it, end up short (which requires a play off a donslope leading to the green to safely get the ball close) or to the right pitching up a bank.

When taking the conservative line to the right, it is quite tricky to get the ball to stay on the top of the ridge and have an unobstructed view of the green.  Just about everyone ends up rolling down into the hollow and pulling out a wedge.

This is a great match play hole because you have to play for a birdie because the conservative par generally won't win the hole, but it is easy to psyche yourself out and make a dumb bogey or worse.

[R.S._Barker]

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for your appraisal of the 2nd.

My photos were taken early last summer, and believe me, nothing would please me more than to be able to travel up and see this gorgeous course in person.

I understand the layup to the right is dangerous, since from my images, the fairway drops off sharply down towards the neck, thus putting a emphasis on a strong short game. So, I guess my followup questions would be :

Comparing the greens to other courses you've played, how are they speed wise, ??

From all I've read of The National, and as both of you have eluded to, all of the challenges seem to be around the holes themselves ( except the 4th hole : Redan, and the 14th hole : Cape )...would you say that The National gives you the fairest test of your short game ??.

Thanks again for your incite, as I greatly appreciate it.

R.S. Barker

[Gib_Papazian]

R.S.,
Believe it or not, that is one of my favorite short par-4's on the planet. For those who decline the carry to the left and try to toss one to the top of the fairway on the right, it is not a simple matter of just pulling out your wedge if you hit it too far.

That catch-basin on the other side is DEEP. It leaves an absolutely blind pitch to the green oriented in a crossways direction.

I have long felt that the idea of using these deep basins to be an underused strategy in modern design because is allows for a satisfying recovery for most anyone without the use of deep rough -  yet it remains psychologically difficult and unsettling.

Try missing the saddle of fairway on the 16th and watching your ball roll down into either of those pits of purgatory.

Same goes for the right side of #16 at Mid Ocean.

These shots are WAAAY more difficult than they appear on a photo and the rare recovery is absolutely thrilling.    

[TEPaul]

Pretty good take on the hole on your part. #2 is a highly unusual "presentation" for a tee shot, particularly for a first timer. Basically you're looking at a high and diagonal ridgeline that can be deceptive distance-wise and is a basic "skyline" fairway, ridge and tee shot. The bunker is not the large waste or "sahara" you described--just a bunker cut below the natural broad ridgeline hiding the broad fairway over it.

Picking out a point to aim is a little perplexing due to the "skyline" nature of the tee shot but not as important as one would at first imagine. Basically if you get the tee shot over the bunker and ridgeline on the left 1/3 the ball will filter down at or on the green. If you drive it over the right 2/3 of the ridgeline the ball will generally filter all the way down to the deep bowl to the right and just below the green leaving some kind of L-wedge to a green you can see the position of but not the surface! The green is big so you have to know where the blind pin is to play a good approach!

I've never seen a hole anything like this one on either the look of the drive or the approach from the right. I'm fairly convinced that the hole is not really a complete "free choice design" in a routing sense on C.B. MacDonald's part anyway! I believe he could have put the green as far down the hill as he wanted to but only for one important reason. The green site on #2 had to be necessarily shortened and in its place because the entire natural landform of #3 and it's necessary tee position dictated it!

Actually a lot of this is just basic original common sense routing progression anyway as #1's green site completely dictated #2's tee position because of topography and space requirments. MacDonald probably could have created an awesome hole out of the beginning of #1 and most of #2 up and maybe over #2's ridgeline but he would have given up a lot of real estate to the left with no real way to use it later, and of course he would have had to find another hole out there somewhere on a rather narrow routing!

[R.S._Barker]

Mr. Papazian,

Wow !..thank you for your thoughts on this hole. In looking at all of the various images, I was blown away by the view from the tee. Then I discovered a view from about 10 feet on the green, looking back up towards the top of the hill, and saw to the left the fairway dropping down sharply behind the neck. I now realize it's this " catch-basin " that you spoke of...but I could not understand it's design, or purpose at the time...and even wondered who gets the inenviable task of mowing that slope.

You state that it's deep, could I ask you how deep is the basin itself ?...since you elude to it being deep enough that a blind shot into/onto the green exists if you overclub down into it.

I always looked to the 4th as being my favorite par 4, perhaps from design and noteriety alone, but have to say the more I study these images, the more I realize just how impossibly perfect Charles Blair MacDonald's design is....and why The National is regarded with such praise and awe-inspiring wonder.

Thank you !

R.S. Barker

[R.S._Barker]

TEPaul,

Sorry, I was typing a response out as you posted..

I certainly appreciate your insight into this hole, and as I stated above, have quickly grown to truly admire C.B.'s work here.

Your thoughts on why the 2nd was designed this way makes me think that was the case with NOT having a Biarritz at The National - since he stated that the land did not have a natural site available for a Biarritz.

Though I never thought of it until your post, it makes perfect sense that as soon as he saw the " Alps " hill in the backround, that this hole was maybe altered slightly ( and as you say - shortened ) so that the 3rd could keep all of it's length and beauty intact.

Of course, this discussion immediately leads me to wonder what the 2nd would have looked like had he decided to go a different route with the 3rd's design.

Thank you,

R.S. Barker

[TEPaul]

R.S.

It's interesting what Gib Papazian says about the extreme topography of the bowl to the right of green #2! It's surprising at first how quickly a tee shot choice that whimps out by going over the right half of that ridgeline (as I always do) gets all the way down to that bowl just to the right and below the green! The "playability" from down there is wholly unique!

I really don't believe that MacDonald/Raynor created that extremely deep bowl to the right of the green though, at least not the way most people might think they created it!

To understand why you have to sort of analyze and understand the extreme topography that runs along many miles of the very narrow coastal ridgeline of the North Shore of the Eastern end of Long Island! The topography of those miles of narrow coastal ridgeline can be unbelievable complex and severe, probably best exemplified all the way down at Friar's Head on the coastal ridgeline that make up the last few holes of that course.

Down there Coore and Crenshaw had to figure out how to tone down the topography on those last holes just enough to route the holes on that extremely complex narrow coastal ridgeline!

I think that radical topography actually swings a bit north to south instead of west to east as it approaches Shinnecock next to NGLA and incorporates most of Shinnecock's highly topographical back nine.

Again, as unusual as NGLA's #2 seems to be I think the creation of the hole was fairly basic from a routing and design standpoint. I believe all MacD/Raynor did on the hole is set the tee at or near the grade of #1  green, just cut the diagonal bunker into the ridgeline of the fairway and just "manufacture" a plateau green off the back of a fairly steep "decline" on the other side of the ridge that naturally descends from the treeline to the right of #2 to its fairway ridge and straight across past the windmill and ending over near the natural dropoff down to #16 green!

So it's not so much that they created a depression to the right of #2 green but more that they built #2 green so much up and out to create a "plateau" for the green on the very steep natural "decline" on the far side of #2's ridgeline that the bowl just happens to look deeper!

Again, I really think the entire #2 green was done that way because the green site was dictated by the necessary placement of #3's tee position.

[TEPaul]

R.S.

I forgot to mention that I would never think to speculate this way about any golf course about what was natural and what was created of the present topography of the course, except for one thing.

As I understand from George Bahto, who has to understand the design and creation of NGLA, at this point, better than any man alive, believes there was no topographical routing map that was ever used by MacDonald and Raynor. Either they never had one or never used one as most every course did and does. But this can be explained, I'm sure, by how early NGLA was.

Apparently on the routing that was left and is still availbable, the necessary elevations were simply indicated arbitrarily on the routing map as they needed them and shot them in the field. In other words they never had any predetermined contour lines on the paper they set their routing  plan on!

Some people have wondered, for instance, what's natural topography at Pine Valley and what Crump created there. Ironically Crump's original routing plan hangs on the wall in the clubhouse and has for years. You can actually stand within a foot or two of it today and still not really notice the extremely fine but faint counter lines on the topographic map used for the routing. Maybe not even ten people have ever really noticed those contour lines and certainly less have ever really analyzed them! But there they are and if properly analyzed they can actually reveal in minute detail everything that is natural and everything that Crump created!!

But apparrently the same is not true of the routing map plan that was used at NGLA. So one has to just look at the course and guess and not even the trees there are old enough to demark any topographic grades from 1909!

But it's probably better that way--more of an enigma! NGLA would then be the first great American architectural achievement with creation vestiges of the old "layout" courses from Europe from where many of its features and concepts came.

[Patrick_Mucci]

R.S.,

I've rarely seen anyone hit a 2-3 iron off the tee to the right because a miss hit 2-3 iron will leave you a fairly difficult shot.

As Charles said, it's not so easy to keep it on the ridge.  It's difficult to get the exact direction and distance.

And, it's uncomfortable to aim up the left side, even though that may be the prefered line, also requiring a longer carry.

# 1 and # 2 provide a neat introduction to the golf course, and many first time players have been fooled by looking at the scorecard and assuming they had two pushovers at the start of the round.

[redanman]

Interestingly enough, to pull a drive and miss the Sahara bunker to the left leaves a good shot.  I know from experience.  More than once!  I am certain this was unintended and that the hard packed sand to the left of Sahara will be toughened up the next time I play the hole.  

As for the "layup" to the right, it leaves an odd angle of approach with the ramp to the green, requiring quite a bit of precision.  New technology over the years has taken a bit of sting out of the drive, even for more modest length hitters.  I agree with Patrick, hit the driver, the missed 2-iron can be absolute death.

The thoughts about modifying 2 to allow #3 to exist in its current state probably weren't a concern at the courses inception IMHO.  Much of the discussion is technology driven.  If the carry over the bunker is marginal (Marginal with a 3-wood now) the strategy of the hole is supreme with firm conditions.  Given firm conditions, the marginal carry over the bunker is the key as the ground determines the final resting place of the ball, too hot and over.  But the possibility of an eagle 2 looms large on this hole.  A great way to kick off a round (If a 5-putt on #1 is avoided).

The second in the arguably best 4-hole start in golf, at least for pure fun.

[Gib_Papazian]

As  I recall when we played together, Karl told me he thought the front section of the 2nd green originally extended back towards the tee including the area in front of the drop-off.

The green is enormous as it is, and I wonder how different it would play with the pin on an upper tier. It is my understanding the hole was originally only about 280 yards.

As far as the carry over the waste area being a 3-wood, that all  depends on how far you carry the ball.  From the back  tee, I find it to be too long going uphill  to consistently carry it.

I remember the first time I played it many years ago, there was an Italian Cypress growing in the waste area about  halfway up the hill. Timmonds told me to aim at it and swing away  - of course I drilled it right into the middle of the tree.

It always struck me how odd it looked there. Maybe  some member thought he  needed some kind of  marker to pick a  line.  The next time I played the  hole it was gone and naturally I bit off more than I  could  chew and didn't make the carry.

Has anyone ever noticed how endlessly fascinating every aspect is of NGLA? Heck, you could almost devote an entire book to it . . . . .  oh, that's right.

[R.S._Barker]

Thank you to everyone for all the wonderful detail and thoughts on the 2nd as I greatly appreciate it.

If you don't mind, perhaps we can continue this discussion on the other holes in the near future...as I study them I'd love to hear the comments and thoughts of the fine community members here at GCA that know the course, have played it, and obviously understand it's subtleness better than I

Take care,

R.S. Barker

[TEPaul]

Gib;

Timmonds was good but obviously he wasn't good enough for you! I hope he was impressed when you drilled it into the middle of the Cypress tree after he told you to aim right at it and swing away!

Had he said a single negative word about that shot you should have said; "Look, Timmonds, you better get with my program in a hurry! If you meant for me to hit the ball just past the right side of that Cypress tree then why didn't you just say that? You better buck up on your advice kiddo, or you'll be walking in before we reach the top of that ridge there!"

That's what I think you should have said to him anyway!

Despite what redanman said about not thinking that hole #2's design had anything much to do with how #3 may have been set up first thereby sort of dictating some of what #2 would be, like its short length, I really do disagree, although neither of us have anything to even remotely prove our points.

I hope not speculate on any part of the upcoming book, Gib, but is it not true that NGLA never had an actual topographic map (with predone elevation contour lines) onto which was drawn the original NGLA routing and basic hole designs? What they have downstairs or anything I've seen of the routing schemes and plans has no contour lines that I noticed. And if that's so, trying to piece back together how NGLA was conceived and in what order, what was manufactured exactly etc would only be speculation, at this point, without some other documentation.

What I think we can be sure of is that MacDonald, like almost every other architect of that era, would have definitely wanted to keep the green to tee distances very short as they almost always seemed to back then.

So assuming that would have been true it becomes obvious that a hole's overall distance, particularly on a tight green to tee routing like NGLA's, would have a very direct effect on other holes around it (somewhat like fitting rails into preset fence posts).This kind of tight green to tee routing has much more of a way of effecting holes, particularly their distances  up and down the routing far more than today's separated cart golf routed courses!

And also if it could ever be determined where MacDonald may have actually STARTED to route or design one could sort of work backwards and forward to see how holes and their designs started to mesh together for him!

And also assuming that he had a bunch of hole ideas and hole concepts that he brought back with him from Europe we can probably assume too that he might have analyzed the property very closely before actually routing it to see where he could, as naturally as possible, site those particular European holes and concepts.

We know what he said about how to site a redan hole anyway. Let's assume that he might have started right there at #4. Obviously #3 green is going to be right there too. It seems logical to assume he may have worked backwards and just conceived of #3 using the awesome topography of the "Alps" hill and backing up from there to get the proper distance he wanted for the hole by siting #3's tee.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if #18 may have been conceived in its present landform shortly thereafter, simply because the green site is so spectacular and basically obvious!And also MacD may have calculated that #18 had come into the routing nicely as #9 in a basic European out and back long narrow routing! What a lovely place to stop after only nine holes at that green site of what's now #18 green!

If that kind of thing was true it really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if #1 and #2 may have been the last holes to be conceived of and finalized in the entire NGLA routing. To me they sort of look like he might have been struggling a bit to find a final two more hole landforms instead of one and he had to shoehorn what is now #1 & #2 (#10 & #11 in the original routing) in a bit basically making two really short holes out of a landform that looked like only enough for about one bigger hole.

In a perfect situation with no restrictions whatsoever with a basic landform like #2 why would he not have had the golfer drive to the ridge or beyond and then play a second shot (or more) to a green maybe 50 to a 100 to 150yds or more farther out and into the flat well beyond #3 tee? It seems obvious to me because that would have blown well beyond a hole that was already set!

Is anyone aware of a hole in Europe anything like NGLA's holes #1 & #2? If not, it looks to me like they just happened that way very much dictated by other routing considerations! They're totally unique and almost hilarious holes really, wonderful holes, but they don't look like anyone's idea of an ideal exactly.

They look more to me more like a "routing obstacle fix", a "routing compromise" or a "routing finalization" possibly--sometimes just the way some of the most interesting and unique holes come into being!!

But we'll never really know for sure, I guess, unless George and Gib found some great notes or ideas of C.B's in an attic somewhere!

[ChipOat]

It is obvious that all conversations about National must, sooner or later, include Timmons!!

Tom Paul:

Timmons was totally impervious to all chastising and other attempts to contain his personality.  Any admonishment such as you suggested would have been immediately disputed loudly and, of course, referred to constantly and derisively for the remainder of the round.

Arguing with Timmons served no purpose other than to distract and annoy your opponent.  As Pat Mucci has observed, Timmons was worth a 2 hole advantage in match play if your opponent had never been out with him before - and 3 holes or more if he had!

I actually attended Timmons 3rd (and finally successful) "retirement" party.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Oh I see now!

Well, I'm sort of flying blind in what I said Gib Papazian should have said to Timmons after Timmons directed him right into the middle of the Cypress tree on the ridge on #2!

I have definitely never been out with Timmons but I have a sneaking suspicion he was the first guy I ran into when I arrived at NGLA late on a Thursday afternoon just before the Singles about three years ago not having been to NGLA for about 35 years. Would that sound right? Whomever I ran into he told me he'd been at NGLA for about 90 years and there wasn't a thing about the place he didn't know or anyone of significance who'd been there he didn't know everything about too. Does that sound like Timmons? A man of light color as I recall.

Anyway, I might not know Timmons but I submit that you might not know Gib Papazian! He's a Californian, and I've met him but once and at NGLA of all places. It appears he couldn't be nicer but those that know him well call him something like the Mad or Maniacal Lebanese Street Fighter or something along those lines!

He's an excellent writer but apparently not a man to get on the wrong side of, and has been known to go out in the street on his lunch hour and annihilate entire brigades of Lesbian Rights Activists and things like that!

I've never played golf with Gib but apparently he has a damn good and vicious game if he wants to and one that sometimes utilizes otherworldy accuracy!

So if Timmons was with Gib during his first time at NGLA, a course he considers one of the very best on earth, I can see that Gib may have been a bit keyed up on the 2nd tee.

And it's likely, given his otherworldly ability to be accurate, if Timmons (you'll notice Gib did not pay him the proper respect on purpose by calling him Timmonds or Timmonium or something) actually told him to aim right at that Cypress on top of the ridge and swing away that Gib might have taken the man seriously and done just that maybe figuring on an ultra sophisticated course like NGLA that maybe there might be some kind of weird and benefical strategy hiding smack dab in the middle of that little Cypress tree that Timmons knew about!

Obviously it didn't take Gib long to figure out that wasn't so and that the truth is that Timmons had just given him some close to acceptable but ultimately pretty bum advice!

If Timmons was really as great as he said he was or thought he was he should have instinctively known after about 1 1/2 shots that if he was gonna really work properly with Gib Papazian and give him the kind of advice he could really use that he would basically have to dial Gib in like an armament officer might program in a stealth rocket!

But no such luck and it was very possible that Gib could have lost his temper right then and there which apparently didn't happen, thankfully! If Gib wanted to he probably could have actually gotten Timmons to pay him for the round and had Timmons even thinking that he might have gotten a special deal or something!

Timmons may have had the number of all kinds of people maybe even pushovers like a five Star General or so but I really doubt that Timmons had ever run into a real Lebanese Street Fighter like Gib Papazian before!

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

At National, Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden TOGETHER would have gone down to Timmons - probably before getting to Cape.  And they'd have each bought him a Budweiser at the turn - let there be no doubt.

In point of fact, "taking dead aim" (thank you Harvey) for that tree was always excellent advice for years to anybody that couldn't take the straight ahead route.  With the tree gone the last 5 years or so, it's easier to mis-aim.  Actually hitting into it was the ultimate "3 standard deviation event".  Not that Timmons would have cared.

Am I right on both counts, Pat Mucci?

[TEPaul]

Saddam and Osama wouldn't have a chance with Timmons Huh?

Well, the Hell with NGLA then! The country needs Timmons now! Call him up and unretire him and send him down to  Washington no later than yesterday morning!

Somebody has to take care of those two crumb bums and if you say Timmons can do it, I'll take your word for it!

Just an historic question though. Did Timmons fold and spindle Ike at NGLA too? If he did I'll drive to NY tomorrow, unretire him and drive him down to Washington myself!

I hate to say the Hell with NGLA as I just did though--it just doesn't sound right. The place really has "draw", maybe we could get Saddam and Osama over to NGLA for a fast round and just let Timmons take care of them both right there!

[TEPaul]

What are the chances of getting Yasir Arafat and Ariel Sharon to round out the foursome? Do you think NGLA would think about waiving the member accompaniment requirement in a case like that?

If not, I'd nominate Terry McBride to accompany them--he can get along with anyone.

The only other thing that would be needed is a couple of really good professional photographers! Actually make that a good Hollywood camera crew!

[George Bahto]

contour maps: the earliest "map" (blueprint) has only elevations marked along the centerline of play on each hole. I'm sure there were contour maps drawn later but I think they built the course juicing up the natural landforms. That plan doesn't even have the greens drawn in - just a tiny circle where the green would be located.

green 2: I have at least two indications 2-green was planned to have included much of the rise before the present green - don't know if it happened. I personally think they (he) would have had to scale down the drop-off and decided to leave it all alone. Hey the green is huge anyhow.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeB:

How about Maxwell? Any of his finger prints around anywhere anymore? And what about the double attribution to RTJ under the C&W NGLA listing?

[George Bahto]

Tommy: i answered that on the  "untouched classics thread"

[Gib_Papazian]

TE . . . . . et al,

A. That was quite a treatise! I'll try to be less Gib-esque the next time we share a drink . . . hopefully you will come to San Francisco this summer. Don't believe a word of redanman's anti-California invective, he is a victim of what I call the "Paris Effect."

Not all of France is like Paris. Not all of Northern California is like the city of S.F.

We gentlemen and scholars on the Peninsula get tarred with the same brush as the pseudo-intellectual, lunatic fringe, NPR listening, Boxer supporting, tax and spend, Greenpeace contributing, feminist, non-secular, moral equivalence, AID's walkathon nutbags who fight golf course construction near wetlands harder than they would a nucleur power plant, but think it is perfectly okay for 200 mentally ill homeless people to foul those same creekbeds without shelter or plumbing for years on end. True story, see Los Prados in San Jose.

I most certainly do not use my lunch hour (which I never take) to go jeer the women in "comfortable shoes" demonstrating for abortion rights in the third trimester, even though they would rather eat broken glass than have a man touch them.

Welcome to Nutville, but the city lines do not extend into my sweet little hamlet and if any of you would come look for yourself, I would be happy to arrange a safari to the People's Republic as long as we agree to retreat back to reality following the tour.

Walking around the zoo for a short time and actually staying there is psychologically dangerous. . . . . eventually you get so sick and twisted that Willie Brown begins to look like a conservative.

B. I would love to tell you everything I know about NGLA, but then I'd have to kill you . . . . . or George would kill me. Let it suffice to say that although I rewrote the tome, I am no more responsible for the essential information than is a biblical scholar when interpreting the Dead Sea Scrolls. I read and study at the foot of the Assyrian Master. It is his work and you'll have to buy the book. . . . . . well that is not exactly true, TE is going to get one of my gratis copies. After all, he is our Doyen.

C. Speaking of, although there is a thriving Armenian community in Lebanon, my parents would be quick to correct you referring to me as sharing an Arabic ancestry. . . . . history is complicated and there are few nationalities with a more convoluted and sad history then ours.

D. Timmons. That was the point, wasn't it? The story is much more interesting than that, and after dinner I'll post it. What a terrific character he is. . . . . NGLA is poorer without him.

[TEPaul]

GibP:

Thanks for clearing up the record. I apologize for skewing your ancestory--never again--Armenian it is! It may be complicated but not like mine. I'm various parts of English/Irish/Scottish/Ethiopian/Chinese/Balinese! I've been meaning to talk to Tiger about this. I've totally documented that my direct relative was John Paul Jones, whose real name was John Paul, but he tacked on Jones just following murdering a man and slipping out of England under another identity.

It probably explains why there are vestiges of violence in me and why I offered to come to SF and ally with you in wiping out entire brigades of Lesbian Rights Activists but it seems you're not interested in that, so fine--we can just play golf.

Thank you about the book. I'm really excited to read it. There's definitely a tremendous attraction architecturally about NGLA not just for what it is but the fact that it's so early I would really love to try to unravel someday just how they actually did make it and exactly where, trying to imagine at any time what the land must have looked like and been like preconstruction. The fact that there appears to be no topo used makes it definitely more complex but very challenging!

And I'm glad Timmons was able to remain on your good side  after that bad start he got with you when he miscalculated on the Italian Cypress tree advice right out of the box on #2. He really does sound like a world-class character and I hope in the book or a future one or at least in your own research (or George's) you've been able to debrief his life and times and and to debrief others in their times with him too!

There are many wonderful things to investigate with golf course architecture but also some wonderful characters we need to interview who won't be here forever and should be interviewed in depth for the things they know and saw. Some of my choices soon would be Betty Jameson, Skee Riegal, Eb Steineger, and maybe even Bill Kittleman one of these days!