The original Biarritz

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Based upon an almost universal understanding of a Biarritz hole, AND, George's schematic, I think you've placed the front edge of the green too close to the cliff.

I would think that the green would be recessed, further into the plateau.

In addition, the description mentioned the peril of hitting too long and going into the far chasm.

Where you've positioned the green would seem to eliminate that possibility.

Thus, recessing the green would create the fronting runup area and bring the back chasm into play, as described in the article you posted.

[Nigel Islam]

And people complain about 17 at Sawgrass!

[Cristian]

I first thought like so many that the Tee would have been where the green site is pictured. However it seems illogical that a stick routing at the time would get it so wrong. The stick routing clearly depicts the most northern chasm.

Looking at the stick routing however a large chunk of elbow shaped rock used to jut out into the sea providing room for the green site. It is actually where some of the rocks of recent erosion are visible on the beach/in the sea.

Erosion therefore seems to be the explanation for the discrepancy between the pictures and present areal photo's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cristian,

Let's not also forget that stick routings aren't often accurate depictions of the "as built"

Hence, while attaching credibility to the stick routing, it's not 100 % credible in terms of the "as built"

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

If by recessed you mean moved further back to the back side of the green in the picture, that would be difficult today, since the "cliff" on that side starts just beyond where I put the green.  A century ago there was probably more plateau there that has eroded now.  Both the stick diagram and George's sketch seem to indicate that.  So, moving the green back to the left in the picture to create more of a landing area in front, as in George's sketch, makes sense to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If by recessed you mean moved further back to the back side of the green in the picture, that would be difficult today, since the "cliff" on that side starts just beyond where I put the green.  A century ago there was probably more plateau there that has eroded now.  Both the stick diagram and George's sketch seem to indicate that.  

So, moving the green back to the left in the picture to create more of a landing area in front, as in George's sketch, makes sense to me.


Bryan,

That was one of my original points.

It's a shame that such a marvelous hole has been lost forever.

In what year was the hole lost ?

[Bryan Izatt]

A couple of years ago David Moriarty posted the following:

Here is a photo of the Chasm green from December 8, 1899, Golf Illustrated Article by Horace Hutchinson.  Unfortunately, the Chasm Hole had already been seriously compromised.  The green shown in the photo had previously been the approximate location of the tee with the hole playing over the chasm to the left of the photo.  From the article:

"The Chasm Hole is not quite as it used to be.  It used to mean a drive off from a spot near where the putter in the second illustration is addressing his ball, and the hole lay at the other side of the yawning golf which may be understood to beyond the present green.  As things are to-day that putter has approached the green with an iron shot over another and a shorter chasm.  The penalties of a foozled shot are no less heavy that they used to be, but the iron will now reach the hole which the driver would seldom reach before."

One cannot see all ground to the front of the green, but there does not appear to be a swale either on or before the green in this photo.  And this was 1899, well before CBM and HJW toured the hole in 1906.  (Query whether CBM had seen it before then.)



 

Notice the angle of the green to the lighthouse in the background.  Now, compare that to this picture from Hutchinson in 1897, two years earlier.  Could the green in the 1899 picture be in the foreground of the 1897 picture.  Did the hole get flipped and shortened between 1897 and 1899?  We have Willie Dunn saying the hole was 225 yards when he was building it in 1889 and the article above as well as the routing map suggesting it was 90-100 yards in1897 and 1899.




The 1897 article also talks about the flip.




Not quite sure what the 14th hole reference is about.  

Need to spend some time looking at the aerials to try to figure out how the 225 yard hole could be flipped to a 100 yard hole over a shorter chasm.

[Jim Nugent]

Bryan, in your reply #36, you posted a bunch of images.  The fourth image in that post shows 3 routings for the chasm hole.  Based on this info in your last post, do you still think the original chasm green was where you put it in that photo?  Or does this information suggest the tee was actually where you put the green, and golfers hit across the next inlet?  

Curious to know why the course changed such a great, famous hole.  In a way, it would be like CPC moving the tee on #16 way to the left, eliminating the shot over the ocean, and leaving a 125 yard pitching wedge instead. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

It's easier to understand how the hole could be flipped and shortened by examining George's schematic.

I would take exception to the statement regarding the ability to discern the configuration of the green.

This also makes inserting the compass points more relevant on the aerials as it would enable us to align the angles and determine locations more accurately

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

If you mean the aerial below, I created that based on George's sketch.  I am perplexed by the sketch now because George has the hole at 160 yards in 1897 and 90 yards the 1960's, while the article from Hutchinson in 1897 has the hole at 100 yards, as does the routing map posted earlier.  I have not yet had a chance to think further on how these pieces of information go together to give a rational explanation.  Stay tuned.

I suppose the obvious reason to move it was that a 225 yard forced carry over a chasm was probably just way too hard for resort players in the 1890's.

_____________________________


Patrick,

Yes, I agree that it is easy to see how the flip would work in the sketch.  The sketch does suggest that there was NO flip - that the green stayed in one place and the tee moved over the decades.  I'd also like to find the landform that matches up to the sketch and the routing map and the various descriptions.

I'm not sure what you're taking exception to in your second statement.

Are you looking for compass points on the aerials or on the various photos? For the aerials, the compass points are easy to discern, just go to Google Earth and look.  As for the pictures, I don't believe anyone could put compass points on those.  If they could, then aligning them on the lighthouse would be easy.  But, perhaps I don't understand what you are trying to do.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I hope to do a timeline, which might provide clarity.


I do think George’s diagram is the best interpretation of what we know. However I've long felt that a green with a swale in the middle of it, simply wouldn't work from all 3 angles. 


Brian can you post the link to David's other thread as I believe there was more.  (Can't find it using the search engine Ran).

[Bryan Izatt]

Tony,

Here's the link.  It started as a North Berwick thread and morphed into a Biarritz on the second page.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50245.0.html

I think David argued there that the model for the Biarritz green was the 12th hole at Biarritz and not the chasm hole, #3.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I know how to access Google earth, I don't know how to overlay the directional on the aerials, that's why I asked you to add them.

My disagreement was with David Moriarty's comment.

The hole might have measured 225, but the carry was significantly shorter.

In the 1890's a 200 yard carry would have been near impossible even with an elevation disparity between tee and green, ala Yale.
In addition, heavy ocean air and sea breezes would make it even more difficult.

Reversing the hole might have made sense if the prevailing wind assisted the tee shot

Tony,

Altering the green would be difficult, moving a tee, simple, hence I don't think the uncomfortable angle was a primary consideration until after the tees were moved and play at those angles proved difficult.   That difficulty may have led to the flipping of the hole.

As magnificent as the hole would be today, it had to be impossible in the1890's and that's what I think led to it's demise, unless of course Marion Hollins was vacationing nearby  

[Jim Nugent]

Bryan, if George's diagram is at all accurate, I don't see how that green/approach could possibly fit on the little finger of land that juts out in your picture.  In the picture, there's only room for a green and nothing else.  In George's diagram, the green is long, flanked by two much longer bunkers.  A considerable approach of land sits between the cliff and the front of the green.  

In your photo, the 220 yard hole is nearly all carry.  Probably over 200 yards.  There's no place to miss, short or right.  No way to run the ball on to the green.  Would require a high 200+ yard carry that lands soft and stops fast.  As Patrick points out, probably an impossible shot in 1889.  

Maybe some of the cliff fell off into the sea, which would move the original 220 yard tee forward and the green back.  But could 50 or 60 yards of it do that?  Does the historical record reflect that?  

Now say they actually teed from the spot where you have the green, and drove across the next inlet.  That much more closely matches George's diagram.  There's plenty of room for a long green, and a substantial approach.  The green can run parallel to the ocean, as George says.  The carry is much more manageable, maybe in the 150 yard range.  

It seems to me like a better fit.  On top of which, if I understand Hutchinson, that is indeed how the layout went.  

Eager to hear your thoughts.

[Bryan Izatt]

Assuming George's sketch is to scale, I placed it on that promontory and it does fit.  Probably a better fit if the back side of the plateau was still level in the 1890's and hadn't fallen into the sea.




After rereading the various articles, it seems clear that the various incarnations of the hole couldn't have been to the same green, as depicted in George's sketch.  The two contemporaneous articles indicate that the second iteration green was moved to where the tee for the first iteration was.  I am confidant that the routing map was post the second iteration and reflects the Chasm hole location in the routing.  The routing map (and the roads on it) match perfectly to the current aerial, so I'm reasonably confidant that where I placed it on the aerial is reflective of where it was in the late 90's and early 00's.

The tee for the first iteration hole was on that same promontory as the second iteration green, only further out on the point according to the picture. For the hole to be 225 yards as Willie Dunn described, it must have have gone out towards the lighthouse over the next chasm.  The carry was not so daunting, being nowhere near 200 yards.  That location of the hole makes sense since the 4th tee was closer to where the first iteration green was.

And, Patrick. this image is looking more or less SSE, if that helps you align it.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Bryan more interesting work.


One more thing we need to consider.   Tees and next greens tended to be adjacent, far more so than today.  For that not to be so this was the first 'signature' hole

[Jim Nugent]

Tony, but if you look at the routing drawings/photos on page two, Biarritz had lots of long green-to-tee walks.  3rd green to 4th tee was especially long: nearly as long as the entire 2nd hole.  

I think if the 3rd tee actually was where the green is in those images:

a) The walk from 2nd green to 3rd tee was less than quite a few other tee-to-green walks at the course;

b) The 4th tee was closer to the chasm green (shorter walk) than is in the images.  

3 distinct crossing holes... a shot across an 80 foot deep ocean chasm... a green and fairway on the beach... and some unusually long green-to-tee walks.  Biarritz really was a different design.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Here's an earlier post I made where I suggested two things.
That the green was further left than originally depicted in the red circle and
that the hole played over the second gorge.

Your photo below seems to confirm both


Bryan,

One of the things that leads me to believe that the green was further left is the inherent danger associated with the green being right on the edge of the cliff.  It would be far too easy for a golfer stepping back to line up a putt, to fall down that cliff, resulting in a fatality.

What also leads me to believe that the green was further left is the position of the lighthouse in the painting of the golfers playing the Biarritz.  The lighthouse is to the right of the green.

In addition, if the painting is a correct representation of the hole, it would seem that the second gorge, the one behind the red circle you represented as the green, would be where the hole was played over, with the tee being behind the red circle and the green being on the other side of the gorge.[/color][/size]

Take a look at the painting on page 148 in "The Evangelist of Golf" and let me know your thought.

The angle you portray at 220 doesn't match up with the terrain.
But, it does if play was over the second gorge/chasm.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Following is an article from 1916 about Arnaud Massy, a famous golfer of the area at the time.  It goes a lot beyond calling Biarritz a "different design".  Also, it has an early use of the term "architecture" as related to golf courses.




______________________________________


Patrick,

Your brilliance was never in doubt.  Remember that pride goeth before the fall.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Just pointing out that my position, which some seemed to dismiss, had a good degree of merit.

Interesting article.

Now I'm wondering if it wasn't the direction of the wind in combination with the awkward angle of attack from the shorter tees that resulted in the flipping of the hole.

What was the date it was flipped and is there any indication as to why it was flipped ?

Yale, today, remains a very difficult challenge, and Yale plays from a highly elevated tee to a lower greens and is without strong seaside winds buffeting the hole.  

In the 1890's and 1900's this had to be one of the hardest holes on the planet.

Therefore I wonder why more wasn't written about it.

[Jim Nugent]

Pat, I get the sense a fair amount was written about the chasm hole. The passage Bryan copied in his last post calls it "the celebrated cliff hole."  Hutchinson wrote about it in 1899 in Golf Illustrated, and so did Dunn in 1934, calling it "the famous chasm hole."  So it got some publicity.  Maybe the problem is that only a a little of that survives.  

btw, since you're keeping tabs, I too suggested the original tee used to be where stick routing map had placed the green -- before, I believe, you did.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Bahto indicates that the original tee was at 80' and that the green was at 50', making it more like Yale's 9th.

If so, then flipping it, such that the tee is lower than the green, puzzles me, unless the tee was moved further inland to a spot with equivalent elevation.

Jim, yes, you did allude to the 2nd gorge and thus deserve co-credit.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

I'll add you to the brilliant mind category too.  You and Mucci together in that category may not be what you want to achieve.  

For clarity, the famous "cliff" hole was the 14th coming up out of the Chambre d'Amour.  The famous "chasm" hole was the 3rd, across the chasm.  Two different holes that are famous on a course that was almost absurd, peculiar and which ought to be condemned, at least in the view of one contemporaneous writer/critic.  Perhaps we'd call them signature holes today.

_________________________________


Patrick,

The original hole was built in 1888-89 and it looks like it was altered around 1897, so the original only lasted a decade or so.  Both holes appear to go in the same direction so I doubt that wind direction was a factor.  Most likely it was just a distance issue.  Not sure what you mean by the awkward angle of attack.  Both versions of the hole appear to be similar in angle of attack.  Are you using "flipping" loosely?  The hole doesn't appear to have been flipped in the sense of reversing direction.

As Jim noted, a fair bit has been written about it over the years.

Google Earth indicates that the elevation of the tee and green of the original hole were about 100 and 110 feet respectively, so slightly uphill.   The second iteration tee and green elevations were about 115 and 100 feet respectively, so slightly downhill.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by flipping in this context.

I don't know the sources for George's sketch, but it doesn't seem to reflect the teeing grounds and greens of the original hole or its altered second iteration around 1897.  I suppose it's possible that there was another 220 yard and 160 yard tee post 1897 and even an inland 90 yard tee in the 1960's, but they don't seem to correlate to what was there from 1889 to say 1900.  If George looks in on this thread, maybe he could provide some comment.

[Jim Nugent]

Bryan, any pictures, drawings, descriptions etc. of the cliff hole?  

I don't mind in the least getting lumped in with Pat (even if in this case I got there first).    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

A few things to consider.

The photo below shows the llighthouse on the second gorge, provided that the hole hadn't been flipped.

If it hadn't been flipped, then it would appear that the back of the green extended all the way to the edge of the second gorge.

The reason that the compass points on the aerial are so important is that it would let us locate the actual putting surface with a high degree of certainty.