'Bottle' Hole at NGLA

[TEPaul]

Pat and TommyN:

The warmth of my car---my ass! That cold day with Pat and George Bahto we spent a good deal of time on #7, particularly the green end discussing all the ways it could be used elsewhere in other hole iterations. We spent little if any time on #8 because you were too cold. But #8 I've spent a couple of hours on over the years other than time spent playing it; alone, with Karl Olsen and a good deal of time once with Kye Goalby trying to figure out what the green-end may've looked like before the course and exactly where they got all the dirt to make that green and next tee as well as what that running ridge may've looked like once.

But the discussion of the Bottle hole as to its strategies is the thing that truly fascinates me. The reason it fascinates me is it's obviously one of those holes that apparently few agree what's best to do on it---what the preferred strategy is for any particular golfer including the fact that the functional options are necessarily very different--for a par 4 where most everyone (except the very long) likely hit driver. And of course that's a good thing---maybe even something that can eventually make a hole be perceived as great.

In that vein, I always remember the analysis of Geoff Shackelford of the multiple strategies of the 11th hole of ANGC (at least the way it once was with its extreme fairway width!). From the analyses of those pros who played it over the years it appeared even good golfers and tour pros could never agree amongst themselves if it was better to play way over to the left or to the right or something in between and that enduring fact made the hole and its nuancy multiple strategies enigmatic, mysterious and consequently great.

The same could be said for the Bottle hole off the tee although the tee shot options and strategies are so much more stark and "in your face" due to the center bunker line dividing the fairway in half.

I just laugh at those who spew out in glowing terms what the "preferred" tee shot strategy and the "preferred" approach strategy should be off some "Bottle" concept Macdonald picked up from Sunningdale or some other hole in Europe. NGLA's "Bottle" hole is a whole lot better than just that. It's a whole lot more enigmatic as what's best to do for any golfer---and of course that's a very good thing, maybe even a great thing about it's makeup and architecture.

Matter of fact, a lot of the holes of NGLA are that way---eg there're so many functional options and choices and many of them are very different and diverse from each other on many holes.

I'm the type of golfer who tended to get into my little modes of a particular way to play most all holes, sort of just one way--my preferred way (if there wasn't a ton of wind). If there was a hole that really broke me of that it would be the "Bottle" hole and it's probably because for a golfer like me anyway the choices of what to do off the tee are so enigmatic probably because they're so well balanced for me---in a form of "equilibrium" in other words---and that's probably the primary reason I think it's so good. (And the reason I wanted to use the basic "Bottle" hole tee shot "in your face" choices on GMGC's 15th hole by using a center bunker line scheme dividing the fairway in half).

When any golf hole can get a golfer who knows the course well to stand on a tee day after day and say to himself; "what to do?, what to do?"---it just doesn't get much better than that, in my book.

Pat, you can sit there and tell everyone how that hole should be played--- and admittedly you know that course better than I do. Chip Oat knows the course really well and also better than I do and obviously he doesn't exactly agree with you as to what the best way to play it is for him, and either do I.

Is it possible for you to understand why that's a very fine fact about the strategic and architectural quality of NGLA's "Bottle" hole? The trouble with you responding to me on a question like that (and the trouble with me responding to some of your questions) is you tend to treat questions like that rhetorically. Don't! A hole like NGLA's "Bottle" hole deserves better than that.  

[Mike Worth]

I agree with TEPaul's post.  I don't think you can put golfers in a 'box' and say the hole is best played a certain way for every player.

While I've only played the hole once (does this qualify me for 'honorary membership' in the treehouse?), I did play the course with someone that this board would consider an expert in golf course architecture.

After having the strategy explained to me, I opted for the right side of bunkers, which is where my drive ended up.  After walking to my drive, I confessed to my playing partner that I still didn't understand why driving left of the bunkers was the 'preferred' manner of playing the hole.  After he explained it, I remained convinced that I still preferred the right side because it gave me a staight in shot at the green.  I didn't like the approach shot from the left side of the fairway.

[mike_malone]

 Aimed at the bunkers ; landed in the rough surrounds ; iron to 3 feet ; made the putt. I wish I could say that more often. Sweeney was there as a witness!

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

A past thread (august 2002) on NGLA Bottle Hole :
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=3280
 
but I don't think it is the one Bob has mentioned.

[Andy Hughes]

When any golf hole can get a golfer who knows the course well to stand on a tee day after day and say to himself; "what to do?, what to do?"---it just doesn't get much better than that, in my book.

Tom, I think that's wonderful stuff.  How may courses or holes can really make that claim?  ('Course, any course that has decent wind can make that claim I suppose--just one of the strengths of links)

Tommy, thanks so much for the photos.  Beautiful, and I think Pat is right--much more attractive without the trees to the left.  Such a contrast.  
Tommy, one of your pics made it look like the fairway bunkers were below fairway level, almost hidden from view from the tee. Is that accurate?
Also, what exactly is shown in the very last picture you posted (black pants, white hat teeing off to the far right)
How much of a carry is it to hit it past the 'echelon' of bunkers? There has been reference to it not being an issue for long hitters..is that 260-long to get past them, or more like 300-long?

This is a link to the previous thread: Click here(thanks to a lurking Search Expert)

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, found this from you in one of the old threads: I've always wondered, with all the earthmoving that takes place today, why this hole hasn't been copied more.
But there were no posted answers. Curious this hole is not more copied....

[BCrosby]

We all agree it's a great hole. The question is why the Bottle wasn't replicated more.

It is as good a design as any of the template holes. And much, much easier to duplicate.

Specifically, Road Holes without a road and a shed are pale imitations. Edens without the Eden Estuary are, at best, second cousins to the orginal. Ditto for the Biarritz without the cliffs (I would guess).

But versions of the Bottle Hole could be replicated almost anywhere and, if well done, measure up well against the original.

So why wasn't it in Raynor's paintbox?

Better question: Why aren't modern architects using the concept? Is it no more than a reluctance to build centerline hazards?

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, found this from you in one of the old threads: I've always wondered, with all the earthmoving that takes place today, why this hole hasn't been copied more.
But there were no posted answers. Curious this hole is not more copied....

My view on that is that for whatever reason, the developer and/or architect doesn't think the "bang for the buck" is worth it.

In most cases, there's an awful lot of dirt that has to be moved to replicate that green complex.

There's probably a good deal of dirt that has to be moved to replcate the fairway and bunker complexes, and as such, I don't think many have the vision to see the "playing" worth of the hole from the perspective of expenditures necessary to duplicate the hole.  I don't think they see the value added to the golf course in the context of the cost added to the bottom line.

The other question is, are the other 17 holes capable of having a spectacular hole inserted in their midst ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You must have been out in your car smoking when I posted that the play of a hole is often dictated by the play of the previous holes.

And there is a "prefered" or "optimal" way to play a hole, provided that you can execute that strategy.

The determination as to whether or not you can execute the strategy you've chosen usually lies in your performance on the golf course prior to arriving at your current shot.

If you've been driving the ball rock solid with a slight draw, then aiming at the bunkers and hitting your draw will bring you to the prefered LZ.

ChipOat,

I understand exactly what you're saying.
It's the view from the fairway that can intimidate and determine the preference for the approach shot.

One of the things I love about that hole is that they can place the pin in a location, such that it looks like it's suspended in space, 20 feet off the green.

The approach from the left, visually, presents another challenge.  The perceived lack of depth to the green.
Whereas, the approach from the right gives you comfort that there's plenty of green depth, and rough and mound and the 9th tee behind the green.

If you stand on the green and look back, you'll see that the actual putting surface and surrounds don't substantively favor one over the other.  But, from the fairways, it sure looks that way.

The other factor that comes into play is that steep right side drop off.  From the right side fairway it seems as if your approach only has to have direction, whereas, from the leftside fairway it seems as though your approach has to have both direction and distance.

But, if you stand up on the green and look back at both fairways, you'll see that this is more of an optical illusion that CBM created, and, he created it quite well.

It's a stunning, fun, yet challenging hole to play, day in and day out.

George Bahto.

The first thing I thought of when I bought my Biggest Big Bertha years ago, was that I could now fly the centerline bunker complex, like the Maginot line.

If carrying that complex was only reserved for the truely gifted, that hole would rank in the top 5 in the world, amongst par 4's.

This is one of the reasons that "flogging" has come into vogue.

Bill Salinetti has done such a great job restoring NGLA that perhaps, on his wish list, is returning some of CBM's work that was removed or altered by the club subsequent to CBM's absence.

[TEPaul]

"So why wasn't it in Raynor's paintbox?"

Pat:

If you think hard enough you might be able to answer that yourself. To what extreme or extent do you really think Macdonald/Raynor or anyone else was really willing to go to replicate template holes or the holes of NGLA?

If some of the big-wigs of Lido, Mid-Ocean, Piping Rock or Creek wanted that much replication of NGLA they probably would've just bought the place!  

Or, alternatively, you obviously didn't take very seriously what respected critic Horace Hutchinson said about NGLA---eg that in his opinion the original holes of NGLA were the best.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Andy,
I'm not exactly sure of the date, but I think it was sometime during the 1980's (Uncle George can add to this), a certain well-known Champion Professional Golfer recommended a berm be constructed to hide the road going towards the hole @ #8 & 11.

The berm itself  is blocking the view of the bunkers from the fairway as you can see in the image, but the bunkers are visable from the tee when your standing on it, not behind it like where I was when I took that shot on #8, "The Bottle Hole."

Patrick,
I'll call Kye later on today and find out if he remained in the car on the majority of that day with Karl Olson too..... Why can't people just be accountable for their actions?  

[George_Bahto]

Tommy - yes that area was raised and the "famous's" name not connected - Karl did the work in-house

I think the lack of replication of this hole may be that you need so much width to do it jusitice ........

Tom D and the CC-ers are 2 that use substantial width where they can

There have been a few narrow(er) versions ....   I've got to check some of the old aerials I have as well as some of the concept drawings of theirs I have ......  I know there was a great one that was proposed by Raynor for the Olympic Club,,,, a real minefield of bunkers and I think there was a good one that never got built for CC of Fairfield

I have some great ideas for that Bottle(neck) hole strategy that I would love to build one day ........... (but getting older by the day !! - hah)

gb

[Andy Hughes]

Tommy, thanks for that clarification.  

I gather from the disagreements about the preferred angle to the green that the green itself is not actually oriented to accept a shot from the left fairway.  

Would it be a better hole if the green rewarded the tougher drive to the left fairway? Is it even fair to call that the tougher drive?
Also, any thoughts on how far to carry past the bunker echelon?

In most cases, there's an awful lot of dirt that has to be moved to replicate that green complex.

Pat, what is special about the green compex?  

Also, comparing the tree removal to what was there before, it appears someone made off with the ball washer-helluva souvenir!

[Jason Topp]

Is this it?  I can't figure out how to post it.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.901731,-72.448289&spn=0.003536,0.006870&t=k&hl=en

[Tyler Kearns]

Jason,

Yes. The aerial you have linked shows the "Bottle" hole in its entirety, with the "Road" hole green immediately preceding it.

TK

[Tommy_Naccarato]

For me, and I'm not the long off the tee in any sense, the left side is by far the harder shot off the tee that yields a greater reward if you do in fact smack it out there--a more unimpeded shot into the green. If your a short knocker, you can still play it left, as I have and have just as tough shot into the green thanks to the contour of the land and the Principles Nose staring you in the face, all if you don't hit it out there long enough.

The right side however is a much more receiving shot off of the tee, as it should be, only to be faced with an extremely challenging second. You have to carry that deep greenside bunker. I played the hole with an extremely talented Mid-Am player, and he went to the right and of course put it on the green with little problem, but for a shorter player like myself, it turned the hole into a three shot hole, unless I felt like playing from a big deep nasty pit of sand, or worse, falling off the back or right sides of the green which would only add further strokes.

[Ted Kramer]

Isn't there a great hole at Kingsbarns that kind of fits this description/pattern?

-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

Isn't there a great hole at Kingsbarns that kind of fits this description/pattern?

-Ted

Maybe #6?

-Ted

[TEPaul]

"Better question: Why aren't modern architects using the concept? Is it no more than a reluctance to build centerline hazards?
Bob"

Bobzee:

Who really knows why this hole or concept has virtually never been copied by other architects or even Macdonald/Raynor either, but I doubt a reluctance to build centerline hazards would have much of anything to do with it today. The reason I say that is who can deny there're a whole lot more holes built fairly recently with hazards within the fairway lines and the centers of fairways than there ever were in the Golden Age? And I'm definitely not talking JUST about architects today like C&C, Doak, Hanse, DeVries etc.  

One reason a copy of the Bottle hole, particularly the green and green-end may not have been copied more is for other than a pretty good player that approach shot is really hard to pull off and if you miss it in those front bunkers which obviously so many do there's not too many recovery shots that're tougher than from those fronting bunkers on that hole. One reason is the green is quite far above the bunkers and so many golfers are naturally going to make the mistake of not getting the ball all the way to the green surface which you pretty much have to do otherwise the ball will just roll back down the front bank and back into those front bunkers. For any golfer who's not pretty good at a relatively lengthy and relatively high greenside bunker shot that can and does happen over and over again. Frankly of all the holes on that course the approach shot to that green along with #3 is by far the toughest anyway but if you come up just short of the surface you really can have a problem after that. Maybe that's one reason so few have copied the hole.

Matter of fact I can't really think of more than a few holes I've ever seen that're tougher to recover out of the fronting bunkers. PVGC's #2 and #18 are certainly two that come to mind.

[George_Bahto]

I think you're assuming that the Bottle hole was always a long par-4.

On the contrary. The present 3rd at CC of Fairfield is very short.

There is a version at Essex County West in NJ - now Francis Byrne public course - that is about 375.

When Mr. Macdonald (now that's pretty respectful) first built the present 8th at NGLA is was 386!!!   The original 8th tee as I have stated before was originally just to the left of 7 green. Not a long hole!

The replication of the green config is not (necessarily) what the hole is about.

It is the narrowing of the tee-shot landing area, the further you hit the ball.

A green like NGLA's 8th is just an great added feature.

[George_Bahto]

.......  note the Simpson quote at the bottom of my posts.

[TEPaul]

George:

Couple of possibly small points but perhaps interesting nonetheless.

This could be about the fifth time I've asked you about EJ Raisz or about his NGLA course map that's now a fold-out in the back of the reprint of "Scotland's Gift Golf" (of course I'm assuming the original book printing did not have that EJ Raisz fold-out map).

Do you know when Raisz did that map? It doesn't have a date on it. The reason I ask is his drawing of the course which I've always felt is remarkably accurate in course detail has the tees on #8 pretty near where they are now although probably not so far back obviously. But on that map the Bottle Hole's back yardage is listed just as you said it was originally---386 yards. Raisz's map also has no tee on the left.

When Raisz drew that course map, assuming he did it quite a bit later, perhaps he just used an old original scorecard but if not something doesn't appear to compute somehow on that hole's tee yardages and tees.

Another interesting thing that maybe nothing, but who knows, is his drawing of the Principal's Nose bunker. Wayne and I have this on-giong argument about the meaning of hash marks in old drawings but if those hash marks around the Principal's Nose bunker on his map are any indication of it's height once upon a time, then No-Shit is was once a whole lot higher than it is now. The hash marks on that drawing around that bunker are remarkably long!  

[George_Bahto]

Tom, the map - I can't verify a date but as you said it may have been from an older rendition or even a Macdonald concept.

I have the original working drawing of the large restored drawing that is now in the proshop and was at one time down on the long wall in the locker room hallway. It has CB's corrections for the "map maker"   .... but this is not the one you're talking about

I dont' think PN bunker(s) were much higher than the remoaining originals are now (except the shaved down one we're talking about).

Yale's was the "tallest" one I've ever seen.

They are not to "block" you view but are there to annoy you a bit   ..... I guess ithat one annoyed the members at National!

[Patrick_Mucci]

George:

Couple of possibly small points but perhaps interesting nonetheless.

This could be about the fifth time I've asked you about EJ Raisz or about his NGLA course map that's now a fold-out in the back of the reprint of "Scotland's Gift Golf" (of course I'm assuming the original book printing did not have that EJ Raisz fold-out map).

Do you know when Raisz did that map? It doesn't have a date on it.

TEPaul,

This is what happens when you attend, let alone fail to graduate from the Ray Charles school of Golf Course Architecture.

The date of the map is [size=4x] 1928 [/size]

The date appears on the compass.

The reason I ask is his drawing of the course which I've always felt is remarkably accurate in course detail has the tees on #8 pretty near where they are now although probably not so far back obviously. But on that map the Bottle Hole's back yardage is listed just as you said it was originally---386 yards. Raisz's map also has no tee on the left.

When Raisz drew that course map, assuming he did it quite a bit later, perhaps he just used an old original scorecard but if not something doesn't appear to compute somehow on that hole's tee yardages and tees.

Another interesting thing that maybe nothing, but who knows, is his drawing of the Principal's Nose bunker. Wayne and I have this on-giong argument about the meaning of hash marks in old drawings but if those hash marks around the Principal's Nose bunker on his map are any indication of it's height once upon a time, then No-Shit is was once a whole lot higher than it is now. The hash marks on that drawing around that bunker are remarkably long!  

TEPaul,

I don't think all features are drawn to scale.
Look for example at the back of # 4 green and those lines and then compare them to the smaller PN feature and those lines.
Ditto the 5th tee.
I don't think you can draw concrete conclusions regarding scale from that drawing.

You'll also note on the map that the alternate tees on # 17 appear, but, not on # 16.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"The date of the map is 1928
The date appears on the compass."

Pat:

Excellent pick-up there. I've looked at that EJ Raisz map a lot over the last few years and I sure never noticed the date in the compass. Don't just call me blind about that---obviously the NGLA expert GeorgeB never noticed it either. Take a look at the fairway line on #8 on that map, it goes outside the last echelon bunker on the left! It sure doesn't do that on the course today. And check out the fairway meld across #7 and #12---that baby must be at least 150 yards wide. Check out the fairway area around the rear left of #7, totally surrounding #11, behind #16, but really odd check out the fairway left and below the redan. Check out the greenspace on Eden. That bunker is on the green!  

Do you think you could slip a drive to the left of that last left echelon bunker on the Bottle hole if that fairway area was restored? That map seems awful detail-exact---I doubt EJ Raisz just dreamed things like that stuff up when he did it in 1928.

Maybe NGLA was as good as C.B got it in 1928 before he started to lose it health-wise and attitude-wise and before he and some at the club started to get at odds.