News:

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


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2009, 10:49:13 PM »
Bob Huntley,

Explaining # 18 at Pebble Beach, and the entire golf course at Pebble Beach, to someone who has never played it is like explaining sex to someone who has never had it.  It can't be done.  And, even if it could, they couldn't appreciate it.

# 18 is a terrific par 5.

Pebble Beach is a GREAT golf course.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2009, 11:38:02 PM »
Pat, yet another example of review/opinion by picture or following the herd.  Not worth rebutting.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #52 on: November 01, 2009, 01:24:18 AM »
Ronald M.,

You wrote:

"My problem with the 18th hole is that it is the ocean that deserves the reverence, not the golf hole.  I have not putted the hole, but it does not confound in the way that an 18th hole should.  All in all, I think that MacKenzie, Travis, Tillinghast and Ross would have all done a better job with the property than did Neville and Grant. "


When you say that you have never putted the hole, it would seem that you have never played the hole or even seen the hole except on television. To express such disdain for the 18th with such limited experience reeks of hubris. Neville and Grant gave us a superb golf course and I am not so sure that Ross would have done better; he did wonderful work but also produced a bunch of clunkers.


Bob
 
 
 

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #53 on: November 01, 2009, 06:57:55 AM »
Kevin, exactly the opposite.  The herd believes that Pebble Beach is a magnificent golf course because of what it has read in print and seen on television.  And, as you'll find on this site, everything is worth rebutting.  That is what makes it an intellectual adventure.

Patrick, sometimes the playing of the course is the letdown.  Do you believe it is a consistent golf course?  Do you believe that the weak holes take away from the strong holes?

Bob, I don't discount the infusion of hubris in my arguments.  I do agree that the playing of the course, as Patrick suggests, puts all doubts to rest, tucked away under a blanket. 

You are also correct about Ross and I will admit that as I typed his name, the exact thought crossed my mind.  However (more hubris) I kept him in as four names somehow seemed better than three.

From my perspective there are at least two ways to elicit response:  one is to meekly pose a question along the lines of "Is Pebble Beach quite possibly a bit unbalanced" while the other is to charge ahead, steed foaming, lance aimed, with "I OUTRIGHT SUGGEST THAT PEBBLE BEACH IS UNBALANCED!!"  I find that the latter evokes greater passion (and verbiage) in the response.  I am most impressed with Bob's responses, as they focus on specific points.  Patrick's responses, ehhh...more supportive and more generic...maybe a little more needs to be said.  Kevin's response is a non-response.  Can you do better, Kevin?
Coming in August 2023
~Manakiki
~OSU Scarlet
~OSU Grey
~NCR South
~Springfield
~Columbus
~Lake Forest (OH)
~Sleepy Hollow (OH)

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #54 on: November 01, 2009, 09:07:13 AM »
Ronald, you do know that 18 as we know it today is not the work of Neville and Grant, right?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 09:25:47 AM by David Stamm »
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

TEPaul

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #55 on: November 01, 2009, 09:24:40 AM »
"But, having read both of the "Good Doctor's" books as well as Doak's (on the Dr.), and played a number of his courses, I think that what he wrote is at times contradictory and not all that congruent with what he put on the ground."


Lou:

I think you've got that exactly right. The truth is what most of those guys actually wrote compared to what they actually put on the ground would lead one to believe most all those guys lied through their teeth and they knew they were lying through their teeth when they wrote some of the stuff they did.

I find the only one who wrote it like he saw it and did it was Max Behr. For instance, he seemed to be the only one who actually wrote defending blindness (and explained well why he thought it could be benefical) while everyone else panned it in print but still did it on the ground!  ;)

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #56 on: November 01, 2009, 09:28:14 AM »
Ronald,

I couldn't agree more with the comments from Bob, Pat, et all.  The 18th is a terrific hole and I'm baffled that you would summarily dimiss it without even setting foot on it, or at least viewing it from behind the Lodge.  I described its several playing strategies in another recent thread, but can't find it.  As for its location, no doubt it adds to the hole... but then again a hole and its surroundings cannot be seperated and any architect who doesn't use a terrific setting to enhance a course is borderline crazy!!  ;D

P.S  That green is anything but flat...as Bob says quite a few parts of it has a ton of break.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #57 on: November 01, 2009, 10:07:39 AM »
David, I did not know that.  Could you elaborate for me?

Kalen, could you retell the different strategies for its play?

Thanks to both of you.
Coming in August 2023
~Manakiki
~OSU Scarlet
~OSU Grey
~NCR South
~Springfield
~Columbus
~Lake Forest (OH)
~Sleepy Hollow (OH)

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #58 on: November 01, 2009, 10:11:46 AM »
And I do apologize for having hijacked this thread.  I've complained about such felonious acts in the past and look!  I'm culpable.
Coming in August 2023
~Manakiki
~OSU Scarlet
~OSU Grey
~NCR South
~Springfield
~Columbus
~Lake Forest (OH)
~Sleepy Hollow (OH)

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #59 on: November 01, 2009, 10:15:40 AM »
David, I did not know that.  Could you elaborate for me?

Kalen, could you retell the different strategies for its play?

Thanks to both of you.

Ronald I found the comments I made on the Risk/Reward nature of the hole:

On the tee shot - One can "risk" challenging the hazard and bite off more by going left.  The "reward" is a shorter shot in that will also avoid the trees inteferring on the 2nd shot.

On the approach shot - One can also "risk" challenging the ocean again to either go for the green and/or being in better position for the 3rd shot in.  The "rewards" are either being on in 2 or having a shorter approach in and far enough left so the greenside tree does not stymie the next shot.


So throw in that one can easily make anywhere from 3-8 on the hole.....and then consider its sublime location with all the aethistics like the ocean on the left, terrific views, the seals barking along the shoreline, waves breaking on the rocks, etc, etc...and it indeed makes for one of the finest finishes in all of golf IMO.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #60 on: November 01, 2009, 10:44:58 AM »
Ronald, The difference between the top half of the top ten and the bottom half, only matters to those who have a vested interest. In reality the difference is minimal.

As for Pebble Beach as a whole. It spits in the face of those bean counters who judge a golf course hole by hole. There are quite a few of the top courses that I have played that have just as many holes that on the surface are not great when stood alone. Rather the quality exudes from the mix, the route, and the feeling one has after playing the whole that one can quantify for themselves, a courses greatness.
,
I can assure you that Pebble beach is one of the few courses that does not disappoint. Even after all the expectations that come from what others opinions have laid out for decades.

BTW, The fairway is not flat either. It is subtle but not flat.

The green has no flat spot that I know of. The back side of the fronting right bunker creates an almost punchbowl like affect for the front right quadrant. There is a vertical spine left center that extends almost the entire depth of the green, and, the entire right side slopes hard towards the front. Even on slower Poa annua greens a forty foot putt from one side of the green to other will have at least five feet of break. More like 8. How do I know that? Through repeated play and watching up close many people play the hole.

The hole tempts and teases on every shot. The greens apparent flatness illustrates an artists ability to fool the lazy observer while rewarding those diligent in spacial awareness.


One of the reasons Pebble has slide on the GW list, IMO, are the changes made to significant holes such as the 3rd, the 5th, and 15th.

In anticipation... The 15th is a significant hole in the ebb and flow of that course. It WAS an opportunity for the better player to get one more birdie before the difficulty ahead and for the weaker golfer to have a chance at a par. Something he/she may not have had a chance to do for many many holes, or, for the remainder. How do I know that? It was experience on my first time around the grand layout.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #61 on: November 01, 2009, 11:18:45 AM »
Adam and Kalen,

Thanks for the analysis of the various elements of the course.  There is no doubt that the subtleties of the course reveal themselves to the repeat player.  Those observations and strategies are exactly what I needed to eliminate my doubts about the validity of the hole.  While I don't believe that one is necessarily exempt from dismissing a hole's worth without having played it, I do believe that one can add to much to the credibility of a hole by playing it repeatedly (familiarity doesn't always breed contempt.)

I am interested to learn, as David Stamm alluded, how the course changed from what Neville and Grant designed to its present condition.
Coming in August 2023
~Manakiki
~OSU Scarlet
~OSU Grey
~NCR South
~Springfield
~Columbus
~Lake Forest (OH)
~Sleepy Hollow (OH)

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #62 on: November 01, 2009, 11:28:46 AM »
Ronald, As I understand it, Egan changed the hole from a par 4 to a 5. There are better historians than my weak recollection. Hopefully they can fill us all in on exactly what transpired.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

TEPaul

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #63 on: November 01, 2009, 12:25:37 PM »
Patrick:

As to the story of Marion Hollins hitting that brassie shot on #16 the story says she hit it from a bit less than 200 yards. Maybe you don't know that much about Marion Hollins (have you ever read her biography?) but that kind of thing was definitely doable for her---eg she was sort of unimaginatively long. And frankly back in that day pretty much the way they did length designing (and particularly across a body of water ;) was to just do shot testing. So Marion did it on that hole rather than someone else, big deal, so what? What's so hard to believe about that?


Furthermore, about that so-called Raynor design or routing, I wonder if that even was a fact. The same stories that involve Marion hitting that shot say that Raynor had done some "preliminary plans" whatever that means.

Also, it seems that whole club and course was a whole lot more Marion Hollins than most people might realize. Apparently she had some kind of option on it; maybe not on the land (didn't Morse own that?) but on the club itself. Marion was certainly the one responsible for generating CPC's membership and apparently more of the course itself than most might realize. That lady seemed to have thousands of friends all over the place and hundreds of them in some very high places.

Marion Hollins was one of the most unique and remarkable women in many ways I have ever heard of. What an athlete she was not just in golf but in some other things (perhaps the best woman polo player ever known). Apparently in golf her young friend Babe Zaharias was in awe of her.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 12:33:46 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #64 on: November 01, 2009, 04:31:32 PM »
Patrick:

As to the story of Marion Hollins hitting that brassie shot on #16 the story says she hit it from a bit less than 200 yards.

Maybe you don't know that much about Marion Hollins (have you ever read her biography?) but that kind of thing was definitely doable for her---eg she was sort of unimaginatively long.

Compared to whom ?

Please, stop with the foolishness.

In 1928 she couldn't outhit Ran Morrissett.


And frankly back in that day pretty much the way they did length designing (and particularly across a body of water ;) was to just do shot testing.
So Marion did it on that hole rather than someone else, big deal, so what? What's so hard to believe about that?


Have you ever played the hole ?

You couldn't make that carry with the ball and equipment circa 1928.
The story is a fabrication, unless she hit from the tee south of the current back tee.


Furthermore, about that so-called Raynor design or routing, I wonder if that even was a fact.
The same stories that involve Marion hitting that shot say that Raynor had done some "preliminary plans" whatever that means.


It's more probable that Raynor provided "preliminary plans" versus Hollins making that carry with a strong fairway wood.
You've seen stick routings.
You've seen them at Merion and other courses, including GCGC.
They are the most rudimentary form, so I'd imagine that "preliminary plans" were at least stick routings and perhaps far more detailed.


Also, it seems that whole club and course was a whole lot more Marion Hollins than most people might realize.
Apparently she had some kind of option on it; maybe not on the land (didn't Morse own that?) but on the club itself.
Marion was certainly the one responsible for generating CPC's membership and apparently more of the course itself than most might realize. That lady seemed to have thousands of friends all over the place and hundreds of them in some very high places.


That's got nothing to do with her ability or inability to hit a tee shot from the back tee to the green on # 16 at CPC with a ball and equipment in 1928.
It's a myth.


Marion Hollins was one of the most unique and remarkable women in many ways I have ever heard of.
What an athlete she was not just in golf but in some other things (perhaps the best woman polo player ever known).
Apparently in golf her young friend Babe Zaharias was in awe of her.

No one is disputing that she was talented, in sports and finance.

What is being disputed is that she hit a fairway wood from the back tee on to the green at # 16 at CPC in 1928.

I've seen good ball strikers come up short with drivers, hence my skepticism that she made the carry from the back tee in 1928 with a ball and equipment from that year.

Next you'll be teling me how she outhit John Daly using a featherie and niblick


Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #65 on: November 01, 2009, 04:42:28 PM »
Adam C,

Do you really think the changes have caused it to fall? While I don't love some of the changes, it shouldn't affect PB's ratings to any significant extent, IMO.

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #66 on: November 02, 2009, 10:27:46 AM »
I am interested to learn, as David Stamm alluded, how the course changed from what Neville and Grant designed to its present condition.


Ronald, Herbert Fowler changed the 18th to a par 5 and follows the basic route that we know today. Neville and Grant had originally deisgned the hole as a par 4, with the tee much further to the right, basically where the grandtands are for the 17th during competitions. The ocean was not nearly in play then. Chandler Egan came in later and redid the green and added/redid bunkers around the green, but Fowler is the one that is repsonsible for the hole we know today. Technology has actually made the hole even more interesting because the hole is actually reachable now for long hitters, something unimaginable at one time. It is a truly great hole and I would urge you to play it at least once in your life. There are fews walks as special as the 18th as the sun is setting.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

TEPaul

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #67 on: November 02, 2009, 10:38:40 AM »
"Have you ever played the hole ?"


Pat:

Of course I have.


"You couldn't make that carry with the ball and equipment circa 1928.
The story is a fabrication, unless she hit from the tee south of the current back tee."


I probably couldn't but I probably never could hit a golf ball as far as Marion Hollins. The story goes that she hit that shot from a bit less than 200 yards with her brassie and if you actually think or are using the rationale you appear to be on here that the story is a fabrication and that Marion Hollins couldn't hit a brassie 200 yards (the back tee is over 230 yards, so where did you come up with the imbecilic idea that she hit that shot from the back tee since there weren't even any tees on the course when she hit that shot? ;) ) you basically have your head and mind where the sun don't shine!


By the way, Patrick, if you've ever bothered to read Marion Hollins's biography there's a photo in it of her hitting the first tee shot on Pasatiempo. If you know anything about swing dynamics you should check out that particular photo, and if you do also pay close attention to her size!  

As Bob Huntley (who arguably knows more about all things to do with the history of CPC, including Marion, than the rest of us on here combined) has sort of alluded to in the past, it is more than just possible that Marion might have been about half-man anyway!   ;)
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 10:45:11 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #68 on: November 02, 2009, 10:52:38 AM »
Patrick:

I just checked out that photo again of Marion Hollins hitting her first tee shot on the opening day at Pasatiempo and I got to tell you having basically personally seen most all the best lady golfers for the last sixty years (my dad knew all of them particularly from his years at Spalding) that Marion who is right at the top of her backswing in that photo has the most powerful looking swing dynamics I have ever seen with a women by a factor of about 3! Check out that photo and I think even you might begin to see what I mean!  ;)

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #69 on: November 02, 2009, 10:59:33 AM »
Patrick:

I just checked out that photo again of Marion Hollins hitting her first tee shot on the opening day at Pasatiempo and I got to tell you having basically personally seen most all the best lady golfers for the last sixty years (my dad knew all of them particularly from his years at Spalding) that Marion who is right at the top of her backswing in that photo has the most powerful looking swing dynamics I have ever seen with a women by a factor of about 3! Check out that photo and I think even you might begin to see what I mean!  ;)

Wow, Tom. 3 times more than Joyce Wethered, Glenna Collett Vare or Mickey Wright?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #70 on: November 03, 2009, 09:35:42 PM »
Patrick:

I just checked out that photo again of Marion Hollins hitting her first tee shot on the opening day at Pasatiempo and I got to tell you having basically personally seen most all the best lady golfers for the last sixty years (my dad knew all of them particularly from his years at Spalding) that Marion who is right at the top of her backswing in that photo has the most powerful looking swing dynamics I have ever seen with a women by a factor of about 3! Check out that photo and I think even you might begin to see what I mean!  ;)

Wow, Tom. 3 times more than Joyce Wethered, Glenna Collett Vare or Mickey Wright?

Marion had a serious keester on her.  Lots of leverage and torque.  Huge legs.  Check the photos.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #71 on: November 03, 2009, 10:48:42 PM »
Patrick:

I just checked out that photo again of Marion Hollins hitting her first tee shot on the opening day at Pasatiempo and I got to tell you having basically personally seen most all the best lady golfers for the last sixty years (my dad knew all of them particularly from his years at Spalding) that Marion who is right at the top of her backswing in that photo has the most powerful looking swing dynamics I have ever seen with a women by a factor of about 3! Check out that photo and I think even you might begin to see what I mean!  ;)


TEPaul,

To clarify and put this issue to rest, is it your contention that Marion Hollins, with balls and equipment circa 1928 could outhit me with modern day equipment ?

Remember, please don't confuse me with that "powder puff" Ran Morrissette. ;D

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2009, 08:17:50 PM »
Hadn't followed this thread closely, but looking at the old photos in response to the Hendren thread got me thinking about it.   (Pat, while you may have had the idea as well, I think I have seen Gib write the same thing in the past.)

Looking at Shackelford's excellent book, I am not so sure the hole wasn't originally intended to be something like the original world's greatest Biarittz.   All page references below are to this book.  (For those who are unfortunate enough not to have purchased it, I might be willing to part with one for around 1/2 the going rate for Doak's Confidential Guide.)

1. Originally there were tees just to the left of the little peninsula that change slightly change the angle (See page 52.)  And if one looks at the diagram of the 1926 plan inside the front cover, it seems like the par three version of the 16th tee was planned for well left of the current tee and closer to the spot of the current forward tees.  This would change the angle substantially.  Obviously a tee was built on that little peninsula as is shown in the photo referenced above, but I do question whether it was the original, intended tee.  

2. Macdonald's description in SoSA makes much more sense if the tees were further left.  There are no carries of less than 100 yards from near the little peninsula tee unless they played back toward the clubhouse.  From the back of the front tees, the carry to the green is still about 200 yards, the carry to the fairway is about 100, and the carry to the shortest part is about 75.  Also note the angle from which the hole is usually photographed.  It is left of the little peninsula (See pages 164 and 169.)

3.  Also, according to the photographs, the original green wasn't nearly as round as it was now, but was deeper and narrower, more what one might expect of this type of hole (See page 162.)    

4.  And there is a natural swale bottoming just a bit left and short of the green.  See AM's description and also the photo on page 165.  One surprising thing about laying up left is just how deep and intimidating this little swale is when approaching from over there.  (Try laying up if you don't believe me.)  

5.  Looking at the various photos, I think the left front bunker was was further left, leaving a larger gap between the bunker and green, and putting the swale or dip more in play just short of the green.  Take a look at pages 15 and 126, you can see the gap between the bunker and the green.  

My understanding from Uncle George is that the his best estimate of the original Biaritz green was that it had some sort of swale in front of it, and/or the swale of the CBM type Biarritz green was based on the Valley of Sin.  As many of pointed out, the Biarritz doesn't necessarily have the swale in the middle of the green, but rather often in front.   My take (and I could be wrong) is that a biarritz at its purest  might play over some sort of chasm.

So this hole is pretty damn close to the a biarritz hole as it is, although it gives a few more options.  Fantastically, the swale is at least as much in play on the layup as the tee ball.   I don't think formalizing the lines or making an artificial swale would make it any better.   I don't know if it could be any better.

When people discuss these supposed templates, they seem to get a very caricatured and engineered vision in their minds, and because of that the seem to have trouble considering the underlying concepts.   But the underlying concepts are there, if slightly offset.  First clear your mind of what you expect a a biarritz to look like aesthetically, then think of the basic concepts, then look at the photos on pages 15, 52, 126, 162, 164, and 165.  Or you can imagine what a Biarritz might look like in an ideal world if the great Mackenzie decided to build something like it.  

DISCLAIMER:   I am not saying that Raynor planned a biarritz hole exactly there (although it certainly seems possible given AM's description) or that AM decided to build something like a Biarritz, whether because of Raynor's plan or his own volition (although again this is possible.)  But if one looks at the concepts, they are there, just a tiny bit offset, depending on the location of the tee.

___________________________________

By the way Patrick,  the wind doesn't always blow the same direction out there.  I have no doubt that Marion Hollins could reach the green with a brassie.   Depending upon the wind, reaching the green with a brassie is possible even for a hack like me, and when it came to golf Marion Hollins was twice the man I am.   Also, keep in  mind that they may not have been at the exact tee location as you.

______________________________________________

I think a Biarritz on the 16th at Cypress is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

Bob

My Dear Mr. Huntley,

You are more well-traveled than the rest of us, so surely you know that occasionally even the most beautiful Italian woman might get a bit of a shadow above her lip.   Not my beautiful Italian bride of course, but I've heard.

Best,

DM
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 08:27:20 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #73 on: November 22, 2009, 06:15:00 PM »
I think a Biarritz on the 16th at Cypress is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

Bob

My Dear Mr. Huntley,

You are more well-traveled than the rest of us, so surely you know that occasionally even the most beautiful Italian woman might get a bit of a shadow above her lip.   Not my beautiful Italian bride of course, but I've heard.

Best,

DM
I'm thinking it would be more like putting a push-up bra on the Mona Lisa.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 06:46:45 PM by Rick Shefchik »
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #74 on: November 23, 2009, 11:05:27 AM »
Pat, I am not sure of intent or other options other than what many of us have read. However while one can make your arguement on this hole, it is not sound to me. It is one of the greatest holes in golf as it is. The way the green is set, the wind and the carry all are challenges of the highest order. To create a probable 3 put if one ends up in the wrong part of the green seems silly to me. Most are hitting anything from a long iron to a driver. I have never hit less than a 4 wood in 30 plus rounds. It is usually a driver or aoccasionally a 3 wood. I would like to think your club will welcome Weis as a member given your love and respect for him and the extra 18 million he has in the bank after his ND days. Hopefully the school will show it is a place of higher learning and not merely a front for NBC executives to wash money through. Ok the wash part was a joke. Or they can learn from mistakes and fire the AD who did this most stupid 10 year K in year one after doing an 8 year K for Willingham. No we Tigers are not happy with Miles game day blunders either.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back