Template Holes - Acceptance & Rejection

[TEPaul]

David:

At Galloway, I think the 2nd hole is worth copying in the correct setting, as well as the 17th hole and the entire green end, partiuclarly the multi-optional approach on the 18th hole. All very good stuff, wonderful strategies, playabiities etc. There're a number of other parts of holes out there that're interestingly nuancy and worthy of duplication somewhere--at least in concept. Galloway has a number of holes that have some true and very distinct and well functioning multi-options creating some very thoughtful strategies.

[T_MacWood]

It is interesting to note that use of template holes never caught on beyond Macdonald and his disciples--it appears it was rejected early on.

[wsmorrison]

In order to clarify Tom's remarks on the Redan at Shinnecock, the tee that is currently in use is the original Macdonald and Raynor tee.  The Flynn tee that Tom and I knew was there from the drawings we've analyzed was uncovered on the left side of the M/R tee as a result of tree removal.  Tom and I were walking the course with Mark Michaud the other day and it really is remarkable how the hole changes so drastically with the Flynn tee just a few yards to the left of the original.  Is this better angle because Flynn used the existing green to better effect with a new tee?  Or did this new tee work better with a new green?  It is hard to answer such questions and thereby conclusively determine the attribution of the current green.  I would differ from Tom and say the bunkering was more than somewhat changed by Flynn.  There were originally two very long coffin style bunkers flanking the Macdonald green more reminiscent of a Biarritz style than a Redan.  Tom and I are sure that fill from the Macdonald bunkers provided much of the material to perch the green pretty high above grade.  Perhaps the large Flynn bunkers that were subsequently put in provided fill to raise the green a bit more--once we know the elevation of the current green we may be able to learn more as we have a drawing of the pre-Flynn course with topo lines.  

One thing we do know is Flynn was using as much of the original course as possible while he was redesigning the new course so that the club would have 18 holes to play while construction was going on.  Because of this and some excellent pre-existing holes, some of the course was retained; that is 4 green sites and one tee.  But the mystery remains whether these greens are Macdonald reused by Flynn or Flynn greens on the same site.  Given that the outlines of the green, bunkering, and line of play on Flynn's 2nd (par 3) is different than that of Macdonald's 12th (par 5) as well as the difference in par, it may be that the green was redesigned.  It certainly seems as though the 3rd green (Macdonald's 13th) is an original Macdonald green as is much of the hole.  The squarish outlines of the fill pad are there to be seen on the 3rd.  I think the green will be returned to its original size.  The current 9th green is in the same location as the Macdonald green.  The shape differs from the Macdonald version and there were no bunkers around the green prior to Flynn's design, just a small crescent shaped bunker about 40 yards short and right of the green.  

Momentum is hopefully building so that a number of greens will be expanded at some point after the open as they've shrunk quite a bit and the green outlines have been simplified.  You should have seen how the grounds crew jumped up to see the stuff we brought up to the club and how enthusiastically they engaged in analysis of the differences between the drawings and what is currently on the ground, especially the green sizes and shapes.  That is one great crew with some talent and passion for what they do.  We had a blast spending time with these guys and learned so much talking with Mark.  The downside is that traffic really is bad.  Granted we were there on a friday and a holiday weekend no less...but man is that a pain to get to and from.  I'm glad Tommy did the driving!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne & TEPaul,

Thanks for the information on #7 at Shinnecock, it's very interesting, and hopefully, after the Open, that tee might be put back into play.

The road hole at Piping Rock is much improved now that the tee is back, although the hotel bunker complex could be improved a good deal making it a terrific road hole.

As to # 17, it's no longer short,  but, I do agree it doesn't have the same moat like bunkering, and is not quite as dramatic as # 6 at NGLA.  But, the bunkers are much deeper then those a NGLA.  I wonder if some bunkering wasn't removed in the name of fairness ?

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

To be honest I either didn't notice or I fogot that the present tee being used for the Open on #7 was the original Macdonald/Raynor hole tee and the one to the left was the Flynn tee. Are you sure it wasn't the other way around?

But no matter, that hole really is one that would be very well served with some tee locations that altered the angle on that green. That alone would create some really good shot variety on that par 3 and the beauty is the entire distance differential wouldn't need to be much more than 15-20 yards sideways. Of course there is a maintenance road running through there but that could be slightly altered easily enough.

I'd love to see how that hole would play for the members with a tee as far left as possible to make a shot in there against the right to left slope of the green a sort of even combination of a kicker and a bolster. At the green speed Shinnecock runs a shot in like that would be most interesting to execute!

[A_Clay_Man]

Wayne, great stuff man. Hard to believe that this is all new to so many. Especially those with an acronym for a name.
Will the membership be as willing as the crew? I sure hope.

Here's a hypo;

If the people involved were around today, would you hire Flynn to do the redesign?

[TEPaul]

"If the people involved were around today, would you hire Flynn to do the redesign?"

Of course not. The reasons for hiring a redesgner are far more complex than that. I think they'd hire Walter Travis.

Why? Because he apparently hated C.B Macdonald and Shinnecock hated Macdonald so much at that point they threw him out of Shinnecock and expunged his name and his memory from the club.

Why did the club hate Macdonald and expunge his name? For some of the most trivial no-good reasons I've ever heard of.

All C.B did to Shinnecock when he was a member there was swipe their chef and maybe their flagpole too, build a golf course right next to them much better than the one he built for them, and when some member told him he thought the tee on the redan hole should be moved about 7-8 steps to the left to create a better angle on that green, C.B punched the guy out at the bar so bad the little squirt almost died!

So then Shinnecock had clean all the blood and snot up, save the little squirt's life, throw Macdonald out, buy some more land and go get Flynn to build a better course than even NGLA. Then over time they up and obsolete Flynn's tee on the redan hole and use Macdonald's!

I tell you the decisions made in golf architecture by some people make absolutely no sense at all!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

And for the reasons you cite and others, that' why I think the permanent clubhouse at NGLA was always planned to sit where it is.

CBM would never tolerate the members of Shinnecock looking down on a clubhouse near the current 10th tee at NGLA.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're wrong about that. Macdonald planned to build his clubhouse next to the hotel that stood near the present 10th tee (Macdonald's original 1st tee).

You know that little squirt that Macdonald ended up punching out in the bar at Shinnecock? Well, it wasn't just the tee suggestion on Shinnecock's redan (#14, now #7) that pissed off Macdonald---he figured it was that little squirt that torched the hotel! It's a lucky thing he didn't kill that little guy. Some even say that little squirt was that little dandy Dev Emmet. There were some strange things going on back in that day!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

You're wrong about that. Macdonald planned to build his clubhouse next to the hotel that stood near the present 10th tee (Macdonald's original 1st tee).

MacDonald planned to build A clubhouse next to # 10 due to the convenience offered by the Shinnecock Inn.

I maintain, and George Bahto concurred that this was to be a temporary clubhouse.

My reasons are as follows.

1  Given the choice of those two sites, which one would you
    pick for a clubhouse ?  The answer is obvious.

2  CBM would never accept the members of Shinnecock and
    their clubhouse forever looking down on the NGLA
    clubhouse and members

3  The vast amount of land between # 1 and # 18 wasn't left
    vacant by chance.  If you had to start a first hole,
    wouldn't you parallel the 18th fairway and benefit from  
    those spectacular views ?  Views that CBM himself said
    were the greatest in all of golf, save for the possible
    exception of Mid Ocean.  Yet, CBM didn't, he chose to go
    inland, abandoning those views.  Since we know how
    heavily constructed the first green is, we could conclude
    that he could have built # 1 green anywhere,  especially
    on a site that would have given the golfer another
    spectacular view of  Peconic Bay.
    That parking lot and clubhouse are enormous, as is the
    space between# 1 and # 18, and that's because CBM
    was always going to put his clubhouse there.

4  CBM himself said that they didn't have enough money to
    build a clubhouse and thus designated the first hole to be
    close to the Shinnecock Inn as a matter of convenience,
    so that the Shinnecock Inn could serve as their
    clubhouse. The Inn burned down in 1909.  It would be
    helpful if George Bahto could supply the exact date of the
    fire.  Remember too, that the Shinnecock Inn was a built a
    short time prior.

5  Scorecards from 1910, before the course officially opened
    for play, reflect the present order of play.

6  The spacing of holes that parallel each other have little
    room between them, except for holes with steep banks
    seperating them, like # 15 and # 5, # 16 and # 2.
    The land seperating # 1 and # 18 is relatively without
    Pitch or slope toward or away from Peconic Bay.
    Why would CBM depart from his pattern of close parallel
    holes if he didn't have a good reason.

I'm aware of the second paragraph on page 188 of the book I gave you, but, I think that paragraph is open to interpretation, and, when combined with the six points above, there would be no reason to site the clubhouse in other then its present location.  Remember, CBM said "what was intended" but, that is only in the context of the fact that the Shinnecock Inn was going to serve as the clubhouse, due to the lack of funds necessary to build their own clubhouse.

When we get to NGLA in a few weeks we can examine the areas in question more closely.  

We'll let Chipoat referee

[DMoriarty]

At Galloway, I think the 2nd hole is worth copying in the correct setting, as well as the 17th hole and the entire green end, partiuclarly the multi-optional approach on the 18th hole. All very good stuff, wonderful strategies, playabiities etc. There're a number of other parts of holes out there that're interestingly nuancy and worthy of duplication somewhere--at least in concept. Galloway has a number of holes that have some true and very distinct and well functioning multi-options creating some very thoughtful strategies.

Thanks for identifying the holes.  I've never played the course, so I dont know anything about them except what is on their website.  

Any chance you will explain what specifically it is about these holes which makes them worth copying?  

And what features and/or concepts would be indispensable to a successful copy?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How would you compare the 2nd at Galloway, the 11th at Pacific Dunes and the 3rd at Kittansett ?

[George_Bahto]

hold on guys:

First: as far as I can determine the clubhouse was to be the Shinney Inn - for how long? I don't know.

Charlie was not going to build a new clubhouse from the start because he thought they had spent more than enuf money (don't you feel sorry for these poor guys  )

I think the location of any new club house (if there was to be one) would have been by the present 10th tee - why else would he have set the rotation of holes beginning with 10 as shgows on my early blueprint?

I think his thinking got changed when he was "forced" to build a new clubhouse - locating it where it is now and changing the hole rotation.

I often wonder what he must have thought about the change .... I personally like the course starting with present #10 and play it that way when I can.

The original scorecard I have in my book (the only known one I've ever seen) has the present order of holes beginning with present #1 so what does that tell us about the Inn fire?

It burned during course construction. Exact date???

and does it matter - what matters is that it burnt to the ground before the course was open.

IMHO, I think a new clubhouse (if and when built) would have been near the 10th.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
How would you compare the 2nd at Galloway, the 11th at Pacific Dunes and the 3rd at Kittansett?"

All three are par 3 and very near large bodies of water?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Could one make the case that they could be categorized as template holes ?