News:

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

Pages: 1 [2]

Patrick_Mucci

Re: R. Jones @ NGLA
« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2003, 07:56:24 AM »
TEPaul,

I was with Tiger when he hit 1-iron, sand wedge.

Sort of disappointing in that there was almost nothing there to challenge him.  Today's young players are hitting the ball distances we never dreamed of, let alone the designing architect.  I have no problem extending the tee back another 20 or so yards.  It does not alter the play of the hole in a negative way, and keeps that wonderful feature and strategy in play.

So, we just disagree.

P.S.  Look at your instant message board.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

SPDB!

Re: R. Jones @ NGLA
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2003, 07:59:07 AM »
When are they going to be bidding? It seems logical that NGLA would most likely be interested in hosting the centennial matches (or at least the closest approximation (2021 - necessitated by the the 11 year dormancy). Similar to TCC hosting the 2013 open on the Centennial of Ouimet's victory.

If that's the case, why the rush?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: R. Jones @ NGLA
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2003, 08:06:05 AM »
Pat- How did I render an opinion on rees work at Baltusrol?  I said some of the bunkering has less character than it once did, and I do not know who is responsible. This is my OPINION.

You are the one who said his work at Baltusrol was well regarded. Is that fact or opinion?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re: R. Jones @ NGLA
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2003, 08:26:09 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I think a problem most classic courses inherit is:
to what year do you effect or target a restoration ?

A bigger problem is that many courses want no part of a restoration and feel the changes over the years are proper.

I also think that changes will continue to be made and that one can only hope that the changes will be implemented with an eye sympathetic to the original designers work.

Clubs that continually host events are the most prone to change, but I fault the membership for any disfigurement.

To a degree, golf's popularity has also been responsible for altering many courses for the worse.

Corey Miller,

I combined the gist of the thread with your post and reached what I thought was a reasonable conclusion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: R. Jones @ NGLA
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2003, 08:38:44 AM »
Pat
I take it from your non-specific answer that you really aren't that familiar with the evolution at Baltusrol-Lower, but yet you cite it as an example of why we should not be concerned with the developments at NGLA. Would you like to see the NGLA/USGA use Baltusrol as an example of the direction they should go? I personally would prefer the Brookline model.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: R. Jones @ NGLA
« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2003, 09:18:53 AM »
"TEPaul,

I was with Tiger when he hit 1-iron, sand wedge."

Pat:

Come on, cut that stuff out. Are you really going to fall into that BS? Who the hell at NGLA should really care about Tiger Woods playing that hole in 1 iron/SW.

If golf courses are going to start thinking and talking about stuff like that we'll need 1000 times the amount of architects that we have today to redesign every golf hole in the world!

There are millions of golfers out there Pat, but only one Tiger Woods! I'm going over to GMGC right now and I'm going to tell them that we really do need to move to Adrossan Farms to a 7500yd course because someday Tiger might stop by!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back