[Bob_Huntley]

Hamilton B Hearst,

I am not sure that in your response to P.Mucci you were referring to the minutiae of the origin of the sand used at CPC, but I believe our local quarry company, Granite Construction, gets it out of their Arroyo Seca plant.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

Tom Huckaby,

I just said I never played the course to know a before and after there, as I never saw the before (or at least I don't remember it).

TH

Now I really am confused.

I thought you said that you had played CPC before and after the changes to the bunkers ?

Could you please clarify this for me ?

Thanks

You accepted Tom Huckaby's opinion despite the above quote from him, which was never clarified,
as requested.

It certainly confused me, especially in light of his earlier post where he said that he did play the golf course pre and post bunker work.

How are we to determine his frame of reference and the soundness of his opinion if we don't know his personal experience with respect to playing the golf course ?

Or, does not playing a golf course that one is commenting on, with respect to playability and strategy, not trouble you or weight its credibility ?

When I asked about bunker depth, configuration, slope and location, not once were those questions addressed.
How can you form an opinion with respect to the new bunkers without that information ?

As to my questions, some were genuine, and some were clearly tongue in cheek, and attempt to illustrate the absurdity of some of the contentions.  If you don't recognize the tongue in cheek nature of the questions, let me know, and I'll put   next to every subtle or ribbing comment to make sure it isn't missed.  Surely, you must have noted that the extreme nature of some of the questions put them in the chiding category.

On the Oakmont rough thread, noone was asked to hypothosize about future changes, most of the discussion
dealt with the tournament conditions, so I don't know what future changes you're referencing.

If you'll go back and review the questions I asked, seperating the serioius from the chiding, you'll see that the majority, if not all of them went unanswered.

Without the benefit of being there, how can one ascertain what has transpired without asking probing questions ?

You're content to accept the popular mantras, I'd rather inquire, in depth, before forming an opinion.

[Michael Dugger]

Bob,

IF HBHearst even exists, he surely will have troubles comprehending your post.  That is, of course, until P. Mucci addresses it and then he will agree wholeheartedly.  

Hearst....get an original thought.

If you exist.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

Didn't you initiate and send me a personal message asking that the hatchet be buried ?

Is this how you hold up your end of the bargain ??

[HamiltonBHearst]

MDugger-why don't you just post pictures of a the sand surrounding Cypress point.  Based on your last fiasco(sandpines) it does not even have to be in California.  

[CHrisB]

Here's something truly scary... Click on Hamilton B. Hearst's profile, go to the bottom, and choose ALL on "Show the last ... posts of this person."

After reading his posts, doesn't he look just like a "clone" of Patrick Mucci? Clearly Hamilton B. Hearst is not a real name, and his email address is not valid.

If I were Patrick and I had a little puppy dog like this following me around agreeing with everything I say, and I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS, I'd be pretty freaked out. It's kind of creepy when you think about it. But so far I can't remember Patrick calling him out publicly, and since he has a bogus email he can't do it privately, so he must know who he is. Or he doesn't mind having his own anonymous online puppy.

Patrick, do you have a family member who occasionally participates on GolfClubAtlas.com?  

(If I'm wrong, don't torch me too badly--it's late and I'm in the mood for a good conspiracy theory...)

[George Pazin]

I guess I have a hard time distinguishing when your questions are real & when they're chiding. If I didn't know better, I'd say you wait until after the fact to decide yourself.

Regarding Oakmont, I mean that I did not comment on the "Geoff was right..." thread because I had been asked not to share what I had learned, as things are far from finalized. I don't recall anything specific about the future on the "Oakmont rough" thread, I was simply trying to explain why I chose to comment on that thread & not on the other, since you chose to infer that my lack of comments on one thread somehow meant tacit approval. For someone on an endless quest for fairness & objectivity, I'd think speculating on the reasons someone would or wouldn't post on a thread would certainly fall far outside the boundaries of appropriateness.

I guess I just flat out don't understand why you seem to view everything as a matter on which we must render final judgment. Aren't we here to discuss? How can one discuss without floating initial ideas?

Don't you think there's a reason your questions aren't always answered?

-----

Sorry to everyone for breaking my own personal rule on commenting on poster style rather than addressing the thread content. Didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion...

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

Don't you think there's a reason your questions aren't always answered?

Yes,

Amongst the reasons are:

1.     They don't know the answers to the questions
2.     The answers would conflict with their position

Perhaps the key to understanding from whence my questions come, is to understand whether or not your interpretation or perspective is predisposed.

If someone says that the bunkers play differently, is it not prudent to ask WHY ?
Is it not prudent to inquire if their depth has been altered ?
Their location changed ?
Their slopes increased or decreased ?
Their configuration mutated ?

Why would you object to those questions, unless you didn't want the answers revealed ?

ChrisB,

A.   I don't know the identity of Hamilton B Hearst.
B.   I've never had any luck convincing anonymous posters
      to reveal themselves.
C.   To my knowledge, no family members post on GCA.com.

If you have a beef with Hamilton B Hearst, take it up with him, what he posts is under the control of his fingers and mind, not mine.

[RJ_Daley]

Patrick, you have probably already served our country in the armed forces, or CIA or something.  But, you know we could really use your talents right now down at camp X-ray interrogating the detainees...  If you can't question them and get them to crack and give up 'Yousmamma bin Hiden', nobody can.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

My interogation theory is simple:

You can get more out of people, with a kind word,
and a gun,
than just a kind word.  

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

It's certainly possible that those are the reasons your questions went unanswered, but, speaking as an objective participant in this thread, I'd say that attempts were made to answer your early questions (in fact, as I pointed out initially, some were addressed prior to your questions) and as you persisted, tweaking the questions a bit each time, ignoring good faith attempts to answer the questions, they were eventually ignored. I didn't see much in the way of acknowledment on your part at the efforts of John B & Tom H to address your questions, I saw more questions that seem to be aimed at glossing over opinions or embarrassing people. If I were a betting man, I'd bet I'm not the only one that sees this pattern, and, indeed, sees it develop on many threads.

I don't see any of us on board as conspirators looking to thwart your efforts to have the facts revealed - I see us as a bunch of golf design nuts who love to passionately argue/discuss golf & get exasperated at your tactics.

P.S. I hope you don't use that gun approach with us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

The good faith answers you reference were conclusions absent the specifics that I inquired about.

Did the depth of the bunkers change ?
Did their configuration change ?
Did their location change ?
Did their slopes change ?

None of these questions were ever answered.

The reasons for my questions were to obtain as much information as I could before drawing a conclusion, AND,
to stop a feeding frenzy before it began.
Both, reasonable quests.

I would imagine that John and Tom didn't have that information at their disposal at the time the questions were asked.

Absent that information, I don't know how you make a definitive judgement that the strategy on the golf course has changed, due to the work on those bunkers, which, you may recall, is what was alleged.

If the strategy on the golf course has changed due to the work on those bunkers, I'd like to know how the bunkers were changed, and how that in turn changed the strategy on that golf course.  Don't you seek the same knowledge  ??  

[THuckaby2]

To be honest, in all the banter here I didn't see those specific questions being asked.  By my memory re #8, it goes like this:'

depth - no change
configuration - slight change in shapes, maybe "roughing" edges that were more rounded before.
location - no change
slopes - not sure what you mean by that.  

I'm also not sure why this matters... but hey, I'm happy to try to answer, from my very brief before and after views I had of that hole... and I am also working off memory that is pretty old.  I could be completely wrong.

JB would have to answer re 9, as I say I didn't see before and after there, or at least not with anything close to good recollection (my rounds were once in 1987 then 3 times in the last two years).

Re 13, I'd guess the pictures here tell enough.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

Do you feel that perhaps more information might be needed ?

Tom Huckaby,

By slopes I meant the internal configuration of the bunkers.
Changed internal slope angles can affect play from the bunkers as can changed face angles.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

OK, gotcha.  I don't think the slopes changed much either.  But the more I think about it, maybe the front bunker on 8 did get a bit deeper... not so much as to change the strategy a whole hell of a lot, it was always places you didn't want to go, now it definitively is.. but that's really the only change other than the cosmetic I can think of.

And again, I could be very wrong on this.  Working on some pretty long-term memory based on something I didn't spend too much time looking at.

TH

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Patrick Mucci,

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time following you.  

I was addressing HBHearst, not you.  

Do you somehow consider yourself a part of HBHearst?

Since you've found the need to bring our private matters into the public light, might I add that you may want to consider heeding some of your own advice and thicken up a bit.  

Who's the one being overly sensitive now??

HBHearst.......we all look forward to meeting you in New Mexico.  

[George Pazin]

Since a non response will be interpreted as some sort of admission of wrongdoing , I'll simply say this: I am never against more information. I am against questions that imply conspiracy or lack of thought on the part of posters that I respect. If I was incorrect in inferring such intent from your barrage, I apologize, though I am reminded of the wonderful tale of the boy who cried wolf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

There was no need to bring my name up in the context you chose.

If Hamilton B Hearst wants to defend, support or oppose me on an issue or issues, deal with the issue/s, or HBH, not me.

Let sleeping dogs lie !

George Pazin,

My take, is that sometimes, some, jump on a bandwagon,
prematurely, before all of the facts are known, and, that perhaps we should make attempts to discover all of the pertinent facts, as best we can.

You seemed to cling to Tom Huckaby's assessment, as gospel, which he later qualified as, foggy at best.

The questions I posed remain relevant.

[A_Clay_Man]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this other than Bob's reference to the arroyo seca quarry( I can't get thru all the in-fighting) But the natural sand (in that area) is on the whiter side. The old quarry at Spanish Bay produced so much of the white stuff, I heard it's what covers waikiki beach, but i'm gullable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

Even the early pictures and paintings seem to show fairly
"white" sand.  And, I believe that darker surroundings makes lighter colors appear brighter/whiter

[Joel_Stewart]

I played Cypress Point a few days ago and took a few pictures which hopefully Tommy will post. 

The first photo which is on the other thread about Cypress is the sixth hole and the rebuilt bunkers.  Maybe I have been reading this web site to much but I thought the condition of the bunkers is too good if that is possible.  The problem is,

1. The sand is ultra white
2. The sands consistancy is different then the sand dunes and different than what has been previously used.
3. The reconstruction of the bunkers using some type of fiberglass base keeps the sand very cleanly in the bunker.
4. The pristine sod around the bunkers does not blend in well with the fescue or sand dunes.

My problem is that I have always thought Cypress Point trys to benchmark its conditioning to Augusta National.  (The same could be said about Pebble, NGLA and possibly Shinnecock). As a result, you have this pristine links course that is losing its identity.

Lastly I'll mention that the condition of the greens, especially on the front nine is getting worse and worse due to the fungus called nemitode (I believe this is the correct spelling).  I have to believe the club is one or two years away from a full restoration like SFGC.

For those who want to know, there are no plans to restore the bunkers on the fairways of #17 and #18 which is a shame especially if you see the old photos which are in Geoffs book.

So funny to see this old post from years ago.  Love seeing some of the old names especially Bob Huntley.


I'll start by saying I played CPC yesterday and the greens are very good. The nematode problem has been solved.


Interesting but not surprising that the club is starting to prep for the 2025 Walker Cup.  The clubhouse is being rebuilt and should be completed by the end of the year.


As for the course, Ben Crenshaw is the lead and they only expect a few minor changes. From what I heard, the club feels they have discovered two lost original tees. These are on the 4th and 11th.  The 4th would be to the left of the 3rd green and would add maybe 50 yards.  There's some concern over the walking path from the 11th green to the 12th tee but I'm sure that can be resolved.


A new 11th tee is so obvious and right there under a tree.  It only adds maybe 10-15 yards but is more elevated.


The only other consideration is restoring a bunker around the huge tree on the right of 14.  I'm not sure why they would risk it because of the disaster on the bunkers and trees on 17.


They're experimenting with the rough which sadly I found on a few holes.  The left of 6 has some very deep rough that you can only wedge back into the fairway.


I'm looking forward to attending the tournament.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()