News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Pages: 1 [2]

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did Macdonald get it wrong at
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2011, 10:15:14 AM »
That "mound" is what the hole is named after .........  "brow"
Logged
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did Macdonald get it wrong at
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2011, 10:29:21 AM »
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 29, 2011, 09:43:51 PM



There's a new green/grounds chairman this year.
Hopefully, he'll emphasize F&F conditions, but, as you know, it's difficult to change a club's culture.

It's a wonderfully sporty course, one you never tire of.

Maybe next time I get up there I'll hammer it into Hugh Sr. re: firm and fast.

I didn't notice anything overly punitive about the width the fairways, but, re-looking at the photos, they certainly could be mowing the corridors wider. I suspect it's one of those "half an inch every day" on the mow lines that eventually narrows them up?

And Pat, that wasn't me trying to distract you, or even be a distraction!

Usually, when I play with someone as "senior" as your esteemed self, I like to help guide them towards the intended target....it helps out with the older folk typically.
Logged

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did Macdonald get it wrong at
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2011, 03:20:17 PM »
The polo field was treeless and big enough to fit at least four holes on. With the clubhouse looking out over those holes I am sure it would have been one of the greatest sights in golf.
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Did Macdonald get it wrong at
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2011, 04:03:13 PM »
Quote from: Bradley Anderson on April 30, 2011, 03:20:17 PM
The polo field was treeless and big enough to fit at least four holes on. With the clubhouse looking out over those holes I am sure it would have been one of the greatest sights in golf.

Bradley,

You're forgetting that there was also a one mile, turfed, oval, banked horse track, a hunting course and tennis courts.  Near the present 8th green there were two large stables for 80 horses, a bunk house for 50 men, an office, a tool house and a blacksmith shop, so, I don't think moving that assembly of polo/horse related features and buildings was in the cards.

As to the sight/view, while it would have been very nice, it would hardly qualify as one of the greatest in golf.
Logged

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did Macdonald get it wrong at
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2011, 05:16:57 PM »
Patrick,

If you could picture the first, tenth, ninth, and eighteenth holes on what is/was the polo field, you have to admit that from the clubhouse lawn that view would rank with any of the great views in golf.

Shoreacres and Camargo have relatively wide open treeless areas on the outbound and returning holes. And I noticed especially at Camargo how the MacRaynor style is exceptionally beautiful on open landscape. At Shoreacres the effect might have even been more stunning if it had the elevation drop that Camargo has.

Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Did Macdonald get it wrong at
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2011, 10:45:14 PM »
Quote from: Bradley Anderson on April 30, 2011, 05:16:57 PM
Patrick,

If you could picture the first, tenth, ninth, and eighteenth holes on what is/was the polo field, you have to admit that from the clubhouse lawn that view would rank with any of the great views in golf.

Brad, you have to remember that the 4th and 5th holes didn't exist originally.
Of the original nine holes,
The routing was 1,2,3, 6,7,8, 9, 10 & 11.

How would you get # 18 on the north side of the clubhouse ?

How would you locate # 11 and the succeeding holes if # 10 was on the north side of the clubhouse ? and then get # 17 back on the North side of the clubhouse ?

Shoreacres and Camargo have relatively wide open treeless areas on the outbound and returning holes. And I noticed especially at Camargo how the MacRaynor style is exceptionally beautiful on open landscape. At Shoreacres the effect might have even been more stunning if it had the elevation drop that Camargo has.

But the routing has to be able to accomodate that arrangement, and I don't see how you'd get # 17 and # 18 back on the North side of the clubhouse.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back