[igrowgrass]

Played my first round at Bethpage Black today, felt like I grinded it out the entire way around.  Fired 83 with 5 3-putts.  Have been playing more older courses since moving to New Jersey, how is it that these guys (Ross, Tillinghaust, etc) got it right without evening having the technology that we do today?  Has technology inhibited our ability to just let the land run its course and give us a great golf course?

[Cliff Hamm]

  how is it that these guys (Ross, Tillinghaust, etc) got it right without evening having the technology that we do today?  Has technology inhibited our ability to just let the land run its course and give us a great golf course?

Suspect you hit the nail on the head.  Perhaps they got it right because they did not have the technology we have today.  They could not move tons of ground to make artificial dunes where the land is flat or for that matter waterfalls where no water existed before.  They adhered to the philosophy that the course should look as if it had always been there.  Of course there are other factors.  They did not have to satisfy clients to the same degree as today who want monuments to themselves.    
The equipment of today is another factor that has certainly altered design.  I do believe though that the biggest factor is the ability to build a course with essentially any type of typography no matter what the natural land is like.

Cliff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Igrowgrass & Cliff,

I disagree with both of you.

They did move dirt, and lot's of it relative to their time.

I played Hidden Creek, then Pine Valley and then Meadow Brook the day after, and would have to say that more dirt was moved at the tee and green ends at Pine Valley then at either Hidden Creek or Meadow Brook, a Dick Wilson golf course.

Likewise, NGLA has a great deal of dirt moved to construct tees and greens.

Perhaps the old guys were better at camoflaging their efforts, or perhaps time has assisted in the masking process.

Yale and Lido are other courses where enourmous amounts of rock and/or dirt were moved to design the golf course.

Remember too, that yesterday's architects didn't have to worry about environmental issues, permiting issues, remediation or inverted drainage systems, hence little if any dirt had to be moved for those reasons, which significantly affect today's designs and construction efforts.

I wouldn't categorize CBM, SR or CB as minimalists.

But, there is something charming about the way those guys achieved their results with mules and men, scrapers and shovels.

[blasbe1]

Interesting thought, which I think raises a few additional thoughts:

Perhaps more classic GCA than we’d like to acknowledge got it right by not screwing up great pieces of land more times than creating something amazing in its own right?  I'm not sure if the Black course is the greatest example of this possibility b.c I think a lot of moving and other work was done at that site (please correct me if I'm mistaken).  

For instance The Creek comes to mind b.c it seems pretty difficult to design an average or above average course on that piece of land, and with Raynorphiles potentially aghast, I’d say one of the better accomplishments at The Creek is having a wide open naturally flowing layout on a relatively narrow piece of land, especially when compared to the land that was available to Piping Rock.      

Technology certainly has created more choices (which is arguably a problem in itself, especially for those fortunate to have extraordinary canvases on which to work) and I would argue that the corresponding imagination that evolves with more choices has benefited modern design in many instances.  Tall Grass is one great example, the imagination clearly ruled there and it’s a very good design built on a sod farm, Whistling Straights is perhaps the ultimate in earth moving wonders of great acclaim.  Even with naturally hilly terrain green sites, for instance, can be in more locations now because of irrigation technology.  

In contrast, the idea of a “replica” hole, whether a Redan, Cape, Alps, Biarritz, Eden, etc., even if large amounts of earth are moved, seems unoriginal at best and accepted plagiarism at worst.  Of course the genius, like the devil, is in the details and where the greatest of GCA lies and what makes a memorable course extraordinary or an acceptable Redan amazing.    

I don’t know if technology has noticeably enhanced detailing . . . from what I’ve seen some of the best detailing is still done by hand, ripping out clumps of fescue grass around ragged edged bunkering comes to mind.  
 
Perhaps someone with a much greater historical grasp of classic design could point out design examples that required great earth moving or other technological efforts for its time in an effort to understand if today’s design options are simply more efficient or new options entirely?  (BTW, this is a lob ball for the Lido buffs out there.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Do you feel that significant amounts of dirt were moved at the tees and greens at The Creek ?

[igrowgrass]

Maybe they weren't minimalists, and time has allowed things to look aged and natural.  What Tillinghaust did at Bethpage Black will stand the test of time, sure they have added new tees to counter length, maybe a couple tees too far back.  It is all the different shots you have to hit, using every club in your bag is essential. My favorite hole being #4, being 519 in length and you feel standing on the tee that you got about a 20 mile drive to the green.  They built golf courses, places that reward smart play and penalize stupid play, not courses that have no sense of that, which many due today.  I just returned from a trip in South Carolina and on one course saw some of those "stupid trees" in multiple locations.  The turn of the century architects did things that we try to do now, because we realize what they did is how a golf course should be built.  How did these architects just have the ability to build quality golf courses, sure they have there bad ones, and had more of an oppurtunity for great sites to choose from, but architects of today would be few and far between to design a gem like, Bethpage Black, Cypress Point, Plainfield C.C.  Pinehurst, the list could go on and on.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Igrowgrass,

How impressed were you with the grand scale of Bethpage Black ?

# 4 probably presents that grand scale as well as any hole.

It is certainly a unique golf course.

[igrowgrass]

I was very impressed, probably the best golf course I have ever played, I am not as diversed as many of the people on this website.  The truly public feel around such a great golf course.  No Golf Carts, could probably be its best special feature.  The golf course is so good on its own, not even the Open Doctor (Mr. Jones) could screw it up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Igrowgrass,

Did you detect any weak points in the architecture or in the golf course ?

[blasbe1]

Jason,

Do you feel that significant amounts of dirt were moved at the tees and greens at The Creek ?

Pat:

It appeared that some dirt was likely moved and perhaps a lot of it in spots.  For instance 10 and 11 could have required a tremendous amount of fill, but I don't know.  15 green seems like it required a good amount of dirt but most of the holes ontop of the hill seem to lay with the land, as does the rest of the course for the most part.  Again, I don't know how much fill, if any, was required toward the flater water front sections of the course.  

My point with The Creek was not one of minimalism per se, but rather, that property is so unique with such great variety pick and shovel could very well accomodate a world class design.  In addition, given that property my initial thought was that routing is likely the greatest challenge that Raynor faced.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

With narrow parcels of land, don't you think that the routing is fairly easy, pretty much predetermined by out and back configurations ?

[blasbe1]

With narrow parcels of land, don't you think that the routing is fairly easy, pretty much predetermined by out and back configurations ?

Pat:

Not necessarily, for instance I found the first few holes weak, unmemorable (besides 1 green) and not "out" but rather back and forth.  However, the first 4 holes really set up the rest of the layout.  Raynor sucked it up with a few up and back holes at the outset in what seems to be an intentional sacrifice to set up the 5th tee shot and approach and then once you crest the hill to the 6th tee you're reach a little bit of Nirvana compared to what came before.  

In addition, I think that having 10 run the entire Sound boundary was a risk, instead of a couple green sites and a tee on the Sound, Raynor chose the back and forth of a short 4-par and a great par 3.  Two great holes, IMO, but not necessarily an obvious choice.  Think about the criticism we often hear of not "utilizing" water frontage.

Plus it's obviously not as simple as "out and back" it's the sequence as much as anything, for instance the relativley easy tee shot on 10 followed by what can be a very demanding tee shot on 11.  The relatively blind tee shot off of 5 followed by the visually distracting tee shot off 6 . . . and so on.    

 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

.....I found the first few holes weak, unmemorable (besides 1 green) and not "out" but rather back and forth.  However, the first 4 holes really set up the rest of the layout.  Raynor sucked it up with a few up and back holes at the outset in what seems to be an intentional sacrifice to set up the 5th tee shot and approach and then once you crest the hill to the 6th tee you're reach a little bit of Nirvana compared to what came before.

I'm looking at an old photo, circa 1928-1933 and it seems apparent that the land on the upper plateau had to be utilized for a number of golf holes.  The access road to the beach club seems to be a line of demarcation, limiting construction to the property east of that roadway.  Likewise, the entrance road and clubhouse seem to predetermine usage of the land.
There's a parallel road running north-south, that is east of the clubhouse, hole # 1 and hole # 18.  If the land east of that road was not owned by the club, or not available due to other uses such as equestrian or trap shooting, it lends more credence to the routing being pretty much predetermined.

What today is reeds and wetlands appears to be pure sand expanses between holes # 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Looking at the inlet, creeks and tidal areas, it would seem that the development of golf holes in that area would be limited by the waterways and cost to create alternate holes.

Despite the wealth of the membership, I'm told by members at the club familiar with its history that the membership was still cost conscious, and got into disputes with CMB/SR.[/color]

In addition, I think that having 10 run the entire Sound boundary was a risk, instead of a couple green sites and a tee on the Sound, Raynor chose the back and forth of a short 4-par and a great par 3.  Two great holes, IMO, but not necessarily an obvious choice.  Think about the criticism we often hear of not "utilizing" water frontage.

I believe, if you saw the photo, that you'd change your mind on the above issue.  Also note that the beach club, dock and boating facility were an integral component of the club.  Remember too, that NGLA had a beach club and dock for boats, as members accessed those clubs by water.[/color]

Plus it's obviously not as simple as "out and back" it's the sequence as much as anything, for instance the relativley easy tee shot on 10 followed by what can be a very demanding tee shot on 11.  The relatively blind tee shot off of 5 followed by the visually distracting tee shot off 6 . . . and so on.  

The tee shot on # 5 is not blind, it's visually unobstructed and slightly uphill.   The tee shot on # 6 isn't visually distracting at all, it's just another steeply down hill tee shot where a golfer hits to the horizon with a frame of reference below him.[/color]  

[blasbe1]

The tee shot on # 5 is not blind, it's visually unobstructed and slightly uphill.   The tee shot on # 6 isn't visually distracting at all, it's just another steeply down hill tee shot where a golfer hits to the horizon with a frame of reference below him.[/b][/color]  

Pat:

I'd love a gander at the photo some time, seeing the contrast of sand areas vs. marsh, reeds-land is very interesting.  

I thought you'd say that about the 5th tee shot, I agree that it's not a typical blind tee shot, it is, however, a "horizon tee shot" as I recall.  In fact, I remeber asking my caddie several times where I should be aiming and having a lot of trouble picking a target b.c the fairway seemed to disappear and I kept looking at clouds, literally (and this was before cocktails).  

"The tee shot on # 6 isn't visually distracting at all, it's just another steeply down hill tee shot where a golfer hits to the horizon with a frame of reference below him"

For me on a tough day with the driver that's certainly a visually distracting tee shot.  

[Bill Gayne]

I also played Bethpage Black for the first time about a month ago and like most others on this website I found it thrilling to play but a course that made you work for everything.

It was as good of a driving test that I've had. The bunkering was exceptional both in terms of visuals and placements. The angles to the the greens that were created such as on the fourth and fifth hole were outstanding. The conditioning of the course was surprisingly good given the volume of play. The round took less then five hours teeing off at 9:15 on a Friday.

The only critical points that I can make of the course is that the greens on the front side were very simple with out much shape or undulation. The greens on the back side were more interesting. The other criticism would be the tree on the second par three (I think the 8th hole). It sits on front right of the green. Any pin placement on the right side of the green blocks a draw shot into the green. If was up to me, I would take the tree out.

I was told by a couple of Bethpage regulars that most of Rees Jones work was limited to restoring bunkers that were taken out in the sixties and seventies. Is this correct?

[Gerry B]

Jason;

Your reference to the Lido re: moving earth - from what I have read and George Bahto  / Daniel Wexler can confirm is that CBM and Raynor were hardly minimalists when it came to this project and a few others. . The Lido construction required transporting  2,000,000 cubic yards of sand to fill in Reynolds channel at a cost of $800,000 in 1917  on a 115 acre piece of land. The Lido was considered a marvel in engineering as it related to golf course construction prior to and including the 1920's.  I read that CBM said it was Raynor's finest moment in terms of construction and vision. Based upon how highly regarded / rated  the course was in the 20's and 30's - ie top 2 or 3 in the USA it would be hard to argue.

Having played Yale a few times - I cannot help but notice how big the property is. The original parcel of land that was donated by the widow a prominent Yale alumnus, was approx 700 acres. One should read George Bahto's book "The Evangelist of Golf - it describes in detail the monumental task of designing and constructing the Yale course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()