[TEPaul]

What Riviera should do is just get the money together and buy that golf club back from the present owner and make Coore and Crenshaw and the Shackelfords honorary members and permanent members of the Green Committee. The membership of Riviera needs to have some control over that golf course. At the present it seems like they have zero control over anything that happens there. How can anyone expect anything positive to ever happen to that golf course this way?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The biggest influence for restorations can be prominent neighboring clubs that undertake the process."

Patrick:

That's true to some extent. Do you really want to get the attention of the membership of GCGC to the architectural history of the course? If you do then just write a complete design evolution report of the course. You have mine from my club. Just do the exact same thing for GCGC, text hole by hole, the architects, and a good stagger of photos. Get the club to publish it and send a copy to each member. Then just watch and see what happens next.  

TEPaul,

You may be right, but, at the present time, I don't have the time to embark upon such a project.

Recently, several people asked me who I thought would be the architect eventually responsible for restoring the 12th at GCGC.

I said that I didn't know, but that based on history to date, that I would eliminate Tom Doak as a candidate.

I think Tom's focus is on new creations and not on restoring specific holes or features at isolated golf courses.

Having played The Creek recently, there's a club that could really benefit from a tree management and restoration project.

It's a spectacular golf course that could only get better with a little fine tuning.

[Willie_Dow]

Pat - Do you know Mel Lucas ?  To my way of thinking, he could be of great help for Garden City right now.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Glad you played The Creek recently. The club has removed trees and they may cut back a bit on some along the road to the beach club and on #15 but other than that the way the trees are now is basically the way the course was 75 years ago. They are thinking of doing a bit of fine tuning too in a restoration sense, as I told you. Have you ever seen the old aerials of the course?

Willie:

I told Pat I would get Mel Lucas's tel # to him but I can't lay my hands on it at the moment. Could you get it to Pat?

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

Willie:

You should delete that tel # now, or Mel will be getting prank calls.

Patrick:

I don't know what prompted your "prediction", but I am still the consultant for Garden City Golf Club and don't appreciate the implication that I am not doing my job.  I just finished yet another long narrative report for the club whose prinicpal recommendation is to restore the 12th hole.

"Nothing has been done" there for many years because I've steadfastly refused to build a half-assed Doak green (as the club has been prepared to do) instead of restoring a good version of the original.  That's about the only tack I can take, I'm not going to sneak in there at night and build it.

They may never take my advice on the subject but it isn't because I have not been diligent in trying.  That is one reason I am more interested in my new projects nowadays ... I don't need the approval of a committee to do the right thing.

Perhaps you should make your enlightened opinions on the importance of restoring the hole clear to the club committee, instead of criticizing them (and me) here.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

That last post of yours sure does seem to be a most appropriate one, probably considering all things at GCGC and with Pat Mucci regarding the future of the 12th green.

If that doesn't solve some previous "What we have here is a faila to communicate" (Cool Hand Luke), I can't imagine what would.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I don't know what prompted your "prediction", but I am still the consultant for Garden City Golf Club and don't appreciate the implication that I am not doing my job.  

I NEVER implied that you weren't doing your job.
You may have infered that from my comment that you've transitioned your focus from doing alterations/restorations to the full scale creation of new golf courses.

I would think that most architects aspire to create their own courses versus tweaking existing courses. [/color]

I just finished yet another long narrative report for the club whose prinicpal recommendation is to restore the 12th hole.

"Nothing has been done" there for many years because I've steadfastly refused to build a half-assed Doak green (as the club has been prepared to do) instead of restoring a good version of the original.  That's about the only tack I can take, I'm not going to sneak in there at night and build it.

My wife chastizes me for having what she calls the best selective memory she's ever encountered.

You may want to rethink and edit the above paragraph.

As you know, I've been an unwaivering advocate of restoring the 12th hole green complex with an eye toward replicating the green and surrounds, circa 1936.

I'm delighted to hear that your most recent report recommends restoring the 12th hole green and surrounds.
It's a project whose time has come.[/color]

They may never take my advice on the subject but it isn't because I have not been diligent in trying.  That is one reason I am more interested in my new projects nowadays ... I don't need the approval of a committee to do the right thing.


I couldn't agree with you more.
The unfettered creative process and the satisfaction you get from designing and building your own courses has to be far and away more rewarding than putting up with the design by committee process.[/color]

And,
Perhaps you should make your enlightened opinions on the importance of restoring the hole clear to the club committee, instead of criticizing them (and me) here.

I didn't criticized the committee or you.

I stated that I didn't think the project would get done in the foreseeable future, as it hasn't been done in the last 43 years, or in about the 20 years or so since you've been the consultant.

If something hasn't been done in 10 or 20 or 40 years, inertia usually builds and works against getting it done.

I've communicated my enlightened opinions on the 12th hole, in writing, to the committee.  They're on the record and date back over about 10 years.  And, they've been unwaivering in principle.   I haven't vascillated one iota.  I haven't advocated one rendition only to advocate another and yet another.  I've been steadfast in my support of restoring the 12th green AND surrounds to the 1936 version.

I don't know of anyone else, including you, who can state the same.

You can be rest assured that I will ardently and vigorously, support a proposal to restore the 12th green and surrounds to a circa 1936 version.[/color]

[Kevin_Reilly]

I think Tom's focus is on new creations and not on restoring specific holes or features at isolated golf courses.

Don't forget SFGC.

[ForkaB]

A humble request.....

Could somebody please post the before and after photos of the 12th that I've seen before on this site?  Thanks in advance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin Reilly,

What do you think the fee is for consulting with a golf club ?
What do you think the fee is for designing a new golf course ?

Where would your focus be given the disparity in the financial rewards ?

Rich Goodale,

Tommy Naccarato had the photos.
I'm not sure that he can retrieve them, but, Tommy, if you can, posting them would be helpful.

Thanks

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is phenominal news that Tom is going to suggest to restore the old 12th. I don't think anyone is more capable of doing it. It's a restoration whose time has been long over due.

I've got some information--as I suspect Tom MacWood probably does too--explaining how the mounds played on the 12th. They were maintained as green, and the idea was that you could play off of them to get to certain areas where the pin was cut.  

The majority of the photos were on my old computer, and if anyone knows has suggestons on how to get them off of a old Windows 95 hard drive, I'm all ears.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

I'll ask my son, he's more computer literate than I am and transfered data from an old computer of mine to a newer one.

I've also felt that the mounds served a pseudo punchbowl function and you seem to confirm that.

[Willie_Dow]

Sorry, Mel, I hastily answered Tom Paul's request.  Guess breakfast is on me !  Thanks, TD.

[SPDB]

Tom Doak -
I was curious about your comment regarding Camargo. I haven't been there in 3 years, has there been a substantial amount of work done in that time? When I was there last it didn't seem like it was 98% of the way there. The latter stages of the back nine and couple of spots on the early holes looked to possess considerable vestiges of Von Hagge (off the top of my head, I seem to recall #4 and 17 (Road?)).

Any chance of (p)restoring the Channel hole on 12?

[M. Shea Sweeney]

The 12th hole was a spectacular hole that was destroyed in the early 60's and its replacement is totally out of context with the rest of the golf course.  The hole is so repugnant that I refused to play it when I visited. It bothered me that much. It's hard to believe that this horrible hole has been allowed to survive for 40+ years. I don't think I can offer a better point or more perfect example: a case study for a restoration.

Tommy Naccarato, Patrick Mucci, Tom Doak and other who may have some knowledge on the subject.

I believe Tommy was the first to bring this to my attention in a thread this summer. I have been playing Garden City for the past say several years consistently and know the golf course very well. One of my favorites.

I am still having a hard time understanding why the 12th hole is so disliked. I have not seen pictures of the green complex from 1936. I am not claiming to be particularly fond of the hole.

Could you please explain to me the problems you find with the golf hole.

Thanks,
Mike

[Tommy_Naccarato]

M.,
My problems from the 12th arise from the aspect that there isn't another hole like it on the course. when the architect of record who destroyed the original hole--which was in fact much more representitive of the architecture at GCGC, he designed a hole that looked like it belonged on some obscure course in the Catskills. (BTW, I've never been to the Catskills and I'm only assuming what courses like it in the Catskills, built in the 1950's and 60's probably look like!)(In other words, I'm speculating on what most of the architects of that time frame built.)

The original, and I'll try to post an image before the night is up was a fun, quirky, unforgettable hole you would never see any architect this day and age ever building. Holes like it just don't happen anymore, just like the rest of the architecture at GCGC. Since you've played there countless times, you know what I'm talking about--I hope!

The passionate debate about it is recreating it. To try to recreate it and to make it work with today's green speeds, as well as the possibility of being laughed out of the country for architecture absurdity is a risk the current club architect seemingly doesn't want to take. The mounds that in fact were part of the putting surface would unfortunately have to be tamed down for today's green speeds. (so they say) The other thing is the ability to recreate the hole to where it will work for the type of shot that it once presented. Pat has proven, as well as Tom MacWood and others have researched that play off of the mounds to certain portions of the green was the key. It varied with the pin-positions in an age where fast & firm was the norm as pure green grass is to us today.

GCGC is a club which much like Merion, relies on a certain rough-at-the edges appeal. the hole that the architect rebuilt there was simply clean lines, nothing bold or in your face unusual that made you want to re-think the play before shooting.

I'll admit to you I take a personal issue when it comes to holes like this because there is no reson in God's Green Earth why it should have ever been altered in the first place--especially by what I feel is Golf's Greatest Snake Oil Salesman who deserves about as much respect for Golf Architecture as Thomas Edison does for Alternating Current.***

***Edison didn't devise the theories of Alternating Current, Nicola Tesla did, and Edison in fact tried to every angle to convince a naive American public that AC current was both dangerous and impractical. That Direct Current was a much better system of electricity which America build for. This would of course have meant a power house on every corner whcih he would build and hold all the patents for.

Sorry for straying, I'll try to get that image up soon!

[TEPaul]

In my opinion even seriously considering restoring the 12th green at GCGC is a situation that could logically be used to bring purists and doubters together in a process that could be remarkably useful, perhaps even hallmark, even if the ultimate decision was to not restore the green.

The reason I say that is it's clear the 12th was a truly radical green and a radical architectural offering even during the early years when golf architecture of its general type was not as unusual as it is today. I believe everyone, purists and doubters should realize this fact and not try to rationalize it away somehow, and certainly not avoid it. History within the club can and will show this green was fairly obviously both loved and perhaps despised too. In a general sense history also may show that this---this kind of controversialness is not necessarily a bad thing ultimately in architecture. At least we are sure that the 12th was GCGC's most famous or notable hole or close to it (perhaps with the original 2nd), even if simulataneously loved and despised.

Let purists realize all this and not only what it's inherent problems may be today if it was restored the way it once was but also what the inherent problems were with the green back before the decision was eventually made to change it.

First of all, and on reflection, if an attempt is made to even consider restoring the 12th green I think it should be restored just as it once was and not some modern day interpretation of what it was. This is probably the best case out there of a tough decision as to the degree of restoration purity that should be done. In this case, my sense is that if it is not done exactly, it probably shouldn't be attempted at all.

This is also a restoration situation on which a huge degree of research needs to be done. If anyone skimps on research on either maintenance practices or playablity on restoring this particular green the eventual outcome could be something of a nightmare in both play and maintenance in the future. If anyone denies this, I really don't think they're using their heads and doing their jobs.

So why was it changed in the 1960s? What were the specific reasons? This needs to be known by all, purists and doubters alike.


GCGC's history book says the original green was changed in 1960 as 'that would cut out the large amount of maintenance the old green required'.  What did that mean exactly? Was it the difficulty of mowing those radical mounds on the right and left and rear of the green (back then called "The Fence")? Was it the difficulty of keeping grass on them, or scalping them etc? All this needs to be known to consider a decision to restore the green. If it isn't known the likelihood of future problems with the green agronomically and in play might be high.

And purists who refuse to consider these things---eg potential maintenance problems, cost etc, or even playability problems as a result are not doing their job, in my opinion, and they're not being honest---eg they're not being good advocates of restoration, and they're not doing this old green justice.

This doesn't mean it can't be done and done well? We are lucky to have one of the earlier superintendents still around to ask questions of in this vein---to do research with. His opinions should be very important and taken very seriously.

I don't know when he first came to GCGC but he has said that the super who preceded him completely soaked that golf course in a manner that we today might find unbelievable. It sounds to me like that former super may've tried to drown the golf course as it is said he put app 50 million gallons of water on it per year.

This led the 12th green to be completely soaked all the time, and actually prone to some real vandalism. If it was in its original form at that time the course was constantly soaked then it wouldn't have worked well in play anyway since the ball could not be bounced off those mounds like bolsters which must have been the original playability intent of those radical features. This factor needs to be known in research too, as it may've contributed to the decision to change the green in 1960.

And how did they actually mow those mounds back then? How low were they really? This obviously needs to be known now. How could they be mowed now and how low and how would those ramifications make the hole play?

All these questions not only need to be asked but they need to be answered accurately too if a pure restoration of this green can be expected to be a success in the future.

I hope all these questions are asked and answered by the club and I hope all the answers prove to be positive. I hope the green can be restored just as it was. The photographic evidence to do precisely that exists in GCGC's history book alone. Those mounds on either side appear from an on-ground photo during the 1913 US Amateur to be app four feet in height (and not particularly wide) with the rear mounds somewhat lower. And then there's a really good photo in the book of the green from an aerial angle allowing for excellent width annd length determination for restoration.

GCGC is an ultra historic and famous club in American golf and architecture. For that reason alone they could pull this off if they can figure out how to maintain that green and those mounds without breaking the bank or ruining the agronomy on those mounds or totally missing the boat on today's playability somehow. I have confidence they may be able to do that if they do all their research well.

If they did that and restored that green just as it once was would the green be controverial in the future? I feel there's no doubt about that. That is probably the very reason that hole became so notable and famous in the first place---eg like all ultra notable holes it was both loved and despised. I hope this very fact does not scare the club off. Personally, I think they should embrace that fact. After-all that course, its architecture and its significant place in American architecture has earned that right and that place for them.

Emmet or Travis or which ever one of them it was that designed and built it obviously knew that back then and we should all know that now.

I hope the research begins and is done really well and that no one, purist or doubter alike skimps on it or they will never be able to do this green and its potential restoration justice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The stories about, and the alleged reason for disfiguring the old 12th hole at GCGC are bogus.

The claim of maintainance problems with the green were greatly exaggerated and used as an excuse to destroy the green and surrounds, including offset bunkers.

In addition, if the reason for altering the green lay solely with maintaining the mounds within the green, why were the magnificent, deep horseshoe bunkers that fronted and backed the green removed ?

As you and Willie Dow suggested, I contacted Mel Lucas the former, ong time Superintendent at GCGC.  Mel Lucas was so talented that he was the superintendent at another club at the same time that he was the superintendent at GCGC.

Mel spent a great deal of time on the phone with me.
His affection, interest and concern for GCGC remain strong.
After our conversation Mel sent me a letter which confirmed our conversation, along with a schematic which showed the 6th and 7th fairways as one.  I forwarded both to the Green Chairman at GCGC.

At the present time, GCGC's focus is on conditioning and getting the golf course back to F&F conditions.  The last two summers have taken their toll on the greens.  It appears that GCGC is on the right track, but, architectural issues appear to be on the back burner for the near future.

Mel Lucas has supplied the definitive explanation as to why the 12th hole was altered, and how it was altered.  It's a lesson on how clubs, while well intended, can get it so wrong.

If the 12th hole was restored to its 1936 configuration, the improvement would be enormous.  It would tremendously enhance the "unique" playiing experience that is GCGC.

Am I allowed to say that it might just elevate GCGC in the rankings ?

It would also send a signal to other clubs that they too can recapture great features and great holes lost at the hand of previous generations.  It would dislodge the inertia that grips most clubs.

If ever there was a hole that cried out for restoration, the 12th at GCGC is it.

It's so obvious that it's mind boggling, yet, inertia and other forces have prevented it from becoming a reality.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

That's my point. We got you Mel Lucas and his phone number for a purpose----eg research.

The man obviously knows far more about how that green was once maintained and played than any of us do.

So, how does he suggest those mounds and the grass on them be maintained and mowed? Some say those mounds used to be maintained as green space. Does Mel Lucas really concur with that? Did he mention how they used to cut those mounds? Don't tell me they did it with a lawnmower they used on the green. That just seems an impossibility looking at the angles and dimensions of those mounds. And lastly does anyone really think if those mounds were restored just as they were they could be kept at today's green height or should be?

Do you really think a green's mower today could mow them? If not what would be used? A Flymower, a weedeater or what?

I hope you or someone at GCGC knows or has a pretty good idea if that green is slated for an exact restoration.

You do think it should be an exact restoration, don't you? Or do you think it should be something interpretative?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

That's my point. We got you Mel Lucas and his phone number for a purpose----eg research.

The man obviously knows far more about how that green was once maintained and played than any of us do.

So, how does he suggest those mounds and the grass on them be maintained and mowed?

Daily

Some say those mounds used to be maintained as green space. Does Mel Lucas really concur with that?

YES

Did he mention how they used to cut those mounds?
Don't tell me they did it with a lawnmower they used on the green.

Then, I won't tell you that.

That just seems an impossibility looking at the angles and dimensions of those mounds.

And lastly does anyone really think if those mounds were restored just as they were they could be kept at today's green height or should be?

That's an issue that will be discussed and debated.

If the 5th green at Somerset Hills can have its mound maintained at green height, and if NGLA can maintain their mounds on holes # 1 and # 6 at green height, some feel, so can GCGC.

Do you really think a green's mower today could mow them? If not what would be used? A Flymower, a weedeater or what?

A lot would depend upon the actual configuration of the final product, and part of the discussion on what will be the final product will be based on the ability to maintain the final product.

There have been discussions with respect to having the mounds just outside of the putting surface and there have been discussions on having them within the putting surface.
And, I'm sure that the debate will continue.
 
I hope you or someone at GCGC knows or has a pretty good idea if that green is slated for an exact restoration.

Exact would be impossible as noone kept detailed records on the green, bunkers and surrounds, but, a sympathetic or faithful restoration is possible.

You do think it should be an exact restoration, don't you?

Again, the word "exact" is impossible to accomplish.
"Faithful" would be a more apt term.

Or do you think it should be something interpretative?

NO,  I'm ardently opposed to an interpretive design.

Once you go that route, who interprets, 51 % of the membership ?

A "faithful" restoration would be preferable.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It seems to me that a good architect at restoration could come very close to almost exactly restoring the size, shape, dimensions etc of those mounds from those two photos of the green in the GCGC history book. That aerial or whatever else there is photographically of that hole, either aerial or on-ground should go to Craig Disher to see what he can determine from them. It's not that hard to tell the height of the right mound from the on ground photo of Travers and Anderson standing on that green in the 1913 US Amateur, and some scaling off that aerial in the book could determine a whole lot more.

I've seen the mound on the back of Somerset Hill's fifth. I may've been the first to say on here that if that can be mown to green surface height today most anything can (that prompted me to call Somerset Hills' green chairman and ask him what they were using for mowers ) but when I said that I sure wasn't thinking of those mounds on GCGC's #12.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's my belief that competent architects could reproduce those mounds.  Perhaps not as perfect replicas, but, pretty darn close.  I think there's sufficient photographic evidence and I'm sure that Mel Lucas would be happy to provide any additional imput.

I also believe that you were the first to reference the 5th green at Somerset Hills in the context of being able to mow the potential mounds in # 12 at GCGC.

The features in and around the green are striking.

The two deep horseshoe shaped bunkers that are offset from the front and rear of the green.  The mounding that creates a pseudo punchbowl green.

The aerials alone don't do the hole justice, although, they are impressive.

When you see the ground level photos, they're striking.
They're really quite unusual and highlight the depth of the bunkers and the shape, size and location of the mounds.

If ever there was a green where restoration would be such an enormous improvement, this is it.  The features are so dramatic, so unique that I doubt that many have seen anything like it, today, or in the past.  It's truely unusual and quite remarkable.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Tommy-

I really understand what you mean now. It doesn't fit.
The last time I was there I literally stood on the 11th green staring at the hole trying to figure out what the deal with the hole was.
What was the original yardage of the 12th?

Tom and Patrick Mucci thank you for the information.

-Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

M Shea Sweeney,

From the 1999 book,

"The Garden City Golf Club
      A History"

"The original green was unique, punctuated by three large manicured mounds, right, left and rear (called the "fence") that made putting a real challenge.  The 12th was considered the signature hole on the course --- until Robert Trent Jones was retained in 1960 to make alterations that would cut out the large amount of maintainance the old green required.

Many considered Jones' green to be out of character with the golf course, and there has been sentiment through the years to restore the original bunkering."

We now know, thanks to Mel Lucas, some of the details as to why the green was altered.

There is no question in my mind that a pure or faithful restoration would greatly enhance the hole, the golf course and restoration efforts elsewhere.

It is such a unique green and green complex, quirky, but interesting, challenging and fun.

I wish I could post the ground and aerial photos because they're "eye popping"  

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick:

I don't know what prompted your "prediction", but I am still the consultant for Garden City Golf Club and don't appreciate the implication that I am not doing my job.  

I NEVER implied that you weren't doing your job.
You may have infered that from my comment that you've transitioned your focus from doing alterations/restorations to the full scale creation of new golf courses.

I would think that most architects aspire to create their own courses versus tweaking existing courses. [/color]

I just finished yet another long narrative report for the club whose prinicpal recommendation is to restore the 12th hole.

"Nothing has been done" there for many years because I've steadfastly refused to build a half-assed Doak green (as the club has been prepared to do) instead of restoring a good version of the original.  That's about the only tack I can take, I'm not going to sneak in there at night and build it.

My wife chastizes me for having what she calls the best selective memory she's ever encountered.

You may want to rethink and edit the above paragraph.

As you know, I've been an unwaivering advocate of restoring the 12th hole green complex with an eye toward replicating the green and surrounds, circa 1936.

I'm delighted to hear that your most recent report recommends restoring the 12th hole green and surrounds.
It's a project whose time has come.[/color]

They may never take my advice on the subject but it isn't because I have not been diligent in trying.  That is one reason I am more interested in my new projects nowadays ... I don't need the approval of a committee to do the right thing.


I couldn't agree with you more.
The unfettered creative process and the satisfaction you get from designing and building your own courses has to be far and away more rewarding than putting up with the design by committee process.[/color]

And,
Perhaps you should make your enlightened opinions on the importance of restoring the hole clear to the club committee, instead of criticizing them (and me) here.

I didn't criticized the committee or you.

I stated that I didn't think the project would get done in the foreseeable future, as it hasn't been done in the last 43 years, or in about the 20 years or so since you've been the consultant.

If something hasn't been done in 10 or 20 or 40 years, inertia usually builds and works against getting it done.

I've communicated my enlightened opinions on the 12th hole, in writing, to the committee.  They're on the record and date back over about 10 years.  And, they've been unwaivering in principle.   I haven't vascillated one iota.  I haven't advocated one rendition only to advocate another and yet another.  I've been steadfast in my support of restoring the 12th green AND surrounds to the 1936 version.

I don't know of anyone else, including you, who can state the same.

You can be rest assured that I will ardently and vigorously, support a proposal to restore the 12th green and surrounds to a circa 1936 version.[/color]

Let me preface this remark with a disclaimer:  I have never visited nor played Garden City and can accurately say I don't know anything about it at all!

But Patrick's comment that he would like to see the 12th green and surrounds restored to the 1936 version makes me ask the question, if a classic course built early in the 20th century is to be restored, how do you pick the year to which you'd like it restored?  There is so much discussion amongst this group about restoration vs. renovation and the objectives of these efforts that I just wonder, how could you pick the specific era to which you want the course restored?

If the course was built by the original designer in the 20's, would you want it restored to a time capsule of a later year?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()