Visions Of Garden City Golf Club's 12th

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I read again that great quote you produced above about #12 being putting surface over and beyond the mounds (the green mountains).

I still find it amazing that all of that was putting surface even back then. But certainly during the research of restoring #12 green one has to ask if restoring the mounds and beyond to green surface is reasonable or doable in this day and age.

Maintenance is a large question in doing that and I see from that quote that even in Travis's time the question of how to play shots from beyond the mounds was an open one. The quote mentioned that putting was the best policy (ala Travis) but that many used a niblick.

Today it would be tricky business to restore to green surface something that players would start to consider using something like a wedge on. I noticed this problem while visiting Riviera and the local rule against using anything but a putter on the completely unique #6 green except in tournaments (bunker in the middle of the green). I don't know how the club wants members to play that hole.

As a consequence it would seem more reasonable to maintain over and beyond the mounds as chipping area today.

In my opinion, all these questions are going to need answers and good ones or the restoration of #12 is going to continue to run into resistance and roadblocks.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I don't believe that the area over and beyond the mounds on #12 was greenspace. Your quote actually doesn't say that. It does say that the undulations on the second, fourth and ninth greens can be compassed with a putter. It doesn't actually say that the space over and beyond the mounds on #12 was greenspace, just that the best way to play it was with a putter (ala Travis). We do know that players of his day and certainly in Europe even today are apt to putt from far out in the fairway and such and well off of greenspaces.

Pat:

Did you notice in the quote about #9 and putting from over the undulations on that green?? That would indicate to me that there was putting surface on that green once probably well beyond that back roll and maybe from well over to the right near that bunker--now far removed from the green surface! Very interesting!!

[T_MacWood]

Tom
No, it does say it was part of the green, "...a mashie on a Garden City green is not 'thinking' golf. It is unthinkable." Plus with the aerial photo I see three distinct playing surfaces--rough, fairway and green--and the mounds appear to be cut like the green.

I agree the decission of what to do is heavily effected by maintenance, of which I have little or no knowledge. The first thing I would do is figure out what type of equipment was used to maintain it in those days. And what was the basic condition of a green back then. Do we have an equivalent equipment-wise today, and was a green maintained at that time similar to our fringe, fairways or tees.

As a guess I'd say the condition was probably closer to our fairway or fringe--you would still have the option to putt the ball or chip it. I know I've seen fairly abrupt mounds that have been maintained as fairway--I just can't think of any examples right now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Tom MacWood,

If.... the hole and green are restored to the 1936 version, the mounds would be outside of the putting surface due to maintainance issues.

TEPaul,

When Gib was at GCGC he noticed that the back ridge on #9 extended all the way over to the detached right side bunker.  I would also think the green had a little more depth, allowing for some cupping positions behind the mound, but that's just a guess.

The fact that the mound in the rear of # 9 green exists today, and is properly maintained would lead me to believe that that same mounding could be put within the interior of a reconstructed/restored # 12 green.  While that mound on # 9 may not be as high as the old ones on # 12, it would still provide the effect and be within the boundaries of the putting surface.

The real question is:  What possible reason is there for not restoring the old 12th hole

[TEPaul]

I must be getting vague. I kept reading Pat Mucci's question just above as: "What possible reason would there be for restoring GCGC's #12 hole? Then I realized he asked what possible reason would there be NOT to restore it?

Well either way those are questions the old Devil hisself could do some serious advocacy on---either way!!

Why to restore it? Because it is one of the most unique holes and greens golf architecture may have ever seen! It's totally unique and the work of a real class early architect(s) at a world reknowned golf course. GCGC also seems to be going down the road of some serious and maybe historical restoration on both design and playing conditions.

Lastly, if the parallel mounded green and the bunkering could be pulled off well that hole could send a great message for what much of the exciting and adventurous architecture of the early and "Golden" period of American architecture was really all about. It could pull off that message in spades with a green restoration like that particular one--done correctly!

Why not restore it? That's a complicated question, at least it is for me. But the underlying reason not to restore it would be that it wouldn't be pulled off well.

I've followed this question of the restoration of #12 GCGC closely for a couple of years now and answers to what's happening or what might happen with it are hard to come by. There seems to be a ton of opinions on it both to do it and not to do it.

I think the research and decision making on restoring a green like that might be some of the most complicated and significant research and decision making we've seen in restoration architecture.

There are so many things to consider. How did it really play back then? Why did they change it from what it once was?  Right there are some serious questions which in my opinion need answers.

If it was restored how would you do it with the vastly changed maintenance considerations of today? How would you restore it with the vastly changed green speeds of today? What would the members really think of it and how would they really play it?

I think there are answers to all those questions but I also think GCGC better find those answers before they proceed with restoration.

I do think that it would be wrong for people to say don't worry about a thing just go ahead and restore it the way it used to be without understanding the ramifications of maintenance and playability.

Do the mounds need to be softened and broadened to make that hole play remotely reasonable today? Does the scale of the hole need to be altered although the look of it may remain the same as it once was. Can the mounds be fairway or chipping height? How can anyone seriously consider that the parallel mounds could be greenspace and kept maintained and playable as such at today's green heights and greenspeeds? Pat Mucci's mention of the lower long rolling mound or ridge in the rear of #9 might be the beginning of a really good answer!

I have no doubt it can be done-it can be restored somehow--at the very least as a "concept copy" that fits with how the game is played today.

If it was restored well and was maintainable and playable (although possibly a little radical like NGLA's #1 or #6) it would be a wonderful thing and a great message for restoration architecture. But if it was done badly or without the proper research, well....

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the club is capable of performing due diligence prior to any change, that won't be the issue.  The real issue will be the club's failure to restore a magnificent hole to it's 1936 form, when it had the opportunity to do so.  Also understand, that if a compromise or hybrid hole is built, it will doom for the next 20 years or more, the restoration of the hole as pictured above.
What an opportunity lost !!

You would think that there would be an abundant number of members who could recall the reasons for the change in the 60's, only 35 years ago.  But, when you go through the membership roster it's amazing how few members were around back then.  
There has been considerable member turnover, and I guess 35 years takes its toll on any membership.  At my club in New Jersey, there has to be 50 or more people who were around
35 years ago.  Even so, few, if any recall the architectual features from yesteryear.

At any rate, my understanding for the change, as related to me by some members, was for maintainance purposes.  

But, that doesn't make sense to me because one would only have to soften or eliminate those mounds in the green to resolve that problem.

And... why touch the bunkers which were in complete harmony with the bunkering on the rest of the golf course ?  Those bunkers were far enough from the green not to cause a conflict or maintainance problem for those tending to the green.

And... If you look at what's there now, it is so out of context with the rest of the course, leading me to believe that somehow, a movement took hold with the individuals running the club that perhaps some changes should be made to the hole.  My GUESS is that RTJ was brought in as a NAME architect, and he made his presentation, dramatically altering the hole.  Who amongst the membership would go against, or toe to toe with a BIG NAME architect, who injected his style into the golf course ??

Don't we see this same situation today ?

This is how holes and courses lose their soul

Now, you asked me to inquire about those fairway bunker marker flags, and I did.
Noone seems to know their history, but I have had people indicate that they would research it for me.

Interestingly, the other day I was told that the other fairway bunkers on # 10 each had their own flag years ago.  Now, as you know, only the first fairway bunker has a flag in the right corner.

When I find out more, I'll get back to you.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Don't get me wrong--I would probably like to see #12 restored as much as you would! I'm just asking a couple of maintenance and playability questions which you know as well as I have to be asked.

Look at that original photo again. That is a great long par 3 hole with the bunker scheme the way it is and all even without the parallel ridges. But the unique, radical and complex feature of that hole is the parallel ridges, plain and simple.

We both can see from that aerial photo that those parallel ridges (mounds) had to be about 3-4ft high and narrowly vertical!! How would you restore them today? How would they be maintained and how would a golfer play them?

I can see that you could soften and broaden them and play and maintain them at fairway height or chipping area height. You could probably soften and broaden them even more and maybe maintain and play them as greenspace (as you said apropos of the rolling ridge in the rear of #9 green is played and maintained).

Or you could restore the green just the way it appears in that photo and maintain and play those parallel ridges as light rough grass (Is there any other way to maintain something that narrow and vertical?)

I'm not saying at all that's a bad concept or one that's unmaintainable or unplayable--just different today.

If a golfer hit a ball wide of the greensurface they do have the modern L or 60 degree wedge to recover onto the green. How else could something that is clearly that narrow and vertical be maintained? Maybe with a weedeater!?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be restored. I'm just asking you or the club how it would be maintained and played? And if the parallel ridges weren't restored as vertical and narrow as they appear on that photo, how would you do them for chipping or even putting? You'd have to broaden and soften them, don't you think?

Don't get me wrong, I think this is one helluva fascinating restoration project--I just think there are a lot of questions to it that require answers. Not that it couldn't be done and not that they couldn't be answered--I just can't quite imagine what the answers are right now.

[TEPaul]

Just as some of the finer points of really interesting architectural restoration are getting good.

I want maintenance and playabiliy answers on restoring those cool but radical ridges on the original #12 and I want them NOW! Who says I can't handle the truth?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

One solution is to put the mounds outside of the putting surface where they could be adequately maintained.

Another solution is to incorporate a softer mounding, similar to # 9 green.

Perhaps another alternative solution or two exists or will be suggested, but these issues with the green shouldn't get in the way of proceeding with returning the bunker complex to what it was in 1936.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The more I look at that old picture, the more it looks like an open ended punchbowl effect to me, aiding slightly mishit tee or recovery shots, and penalizing poorly hit shots.

What do you think ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I have a pretty good and clear monitor at work, and it looks to me as though the ridges existed "inside" the green space.  

It almost looks like a punchbowl, all within the green, and with abrupt fall-off to more green, flattening out into fringe and beyond.  Then there is what looks to be a second punchbowl, with the area just beyond the bunkers raised, as well as the area over the green.  It also looks as though the green had a pretty serious back to front cant.

Wow, would that be fun if you could mow it properly and get it to drain correctly.  

[TEPaul]

I think it's clear that's exactly what it was--an open ended punchbowl (open in front only). I've been calling it parallel ridges and I'm wrong about that. It appears sort of open in the rear too but on closer inspection you can clearly see the size of the bank to the rear of the green surface. The dark shadows on the sides of the parallel mounds sort of throws observation off at first. Obviously the sun is low in the sky over in the direction of the clubhouse.

I certainly wouldn't recommend that the club restore just the bunkers without answering the playability and maintenance questions about the semi-punch bowl green and looking to restore that in some way at the same time. The green (hole) was designed the way it originally was for a reason and to do the hole without the punchbowl effect would leave a green that was different in the midst of surrounding bunkering with a green inside chipping area inside surrounding bunkering or maybe just an enormous green inside surrounding bunkering.

Somehow the club should look into answering what it was that made the club change the hole in the first place. It may have been famous and unique and radical but if it wasn't working well for maintenance or play or it was unpopular with the members the club should determine why that was or they might likely repeat the same mistakes again.

Personally with the vastly changed maintenance practices and much quicker greenspeeds of today I like your idea of really broadening and softening the punchbowl effect and turning it into greenspace somehow. That would be quite consistent with the rolling ridge to the rear of #9 and if you think about it from the perspective of all players and all members it would probably play a lot better that way and end up being more popular and acceptable.

I think you really have to try to visualize what golf balls would do all around that hole and its green and imagine what the options would be for any and all golfers. Afterall that's what original architects try to do anyway. If you don't do that somebody will bitterly complain and it will run into problems. The maintenance aspects have to be resolved too or maintenance problems will arise and maintenance will complain and that will probably lead to more member complaints.

I've no doubt somehow it can be done to take into consideration the realities of golf today and I think the club should answer all the questions before proceeding with any of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The answer is simple.

If NGLA, ANGC, PV or any other SPECIAL club wanted to do this project..... it would get done, done the right way, and done quickly.

We're not talking about sending a man to Mars

[TEPaul]

I have no doubt that you're right and that at those clubs it would get done, done quickly and done the right way.

It can get done at GCGC too but the first thing should be for them to decide what the right way to do it would be. That would undoubtably be the first step in the process at those special clubs--ie before the contractors are signed on and enter the property what would be the proper way to do the restoration given the maintenace and playability questions of today.

Maybe GCGC has decided the right way to do it--maybe they haven't. I was just wondering what their thinking is on the right way to do it.

[Tags:]

Tags: