[TEPaul]

....that is restore the 12th green, surrounds, the old bunkering and particularly those amazing mounds or berms in the green as it once was (it was redesigned by RTJ in n 1960) and they pulled if off really well for maintenance and playablity, that just might be one of the real hallmark projects and examples in the history of restoration architecture. It also might be perhaps the most significant event to date for the future of real restoration of old fashioned architecture. What would top it?

Assuming they can do it so as not to create unforeseen maintenance problems just imagine for a second how the green would play. It would be something like trying to fly the ball into an open pin-ball table without the stuff in the middle. Can you imagine how those berms on three sides of that green would work?

I can, and I think it would be one of the coolest things in golf. Would it be controversial with some? I'm sure it would. Would it be adored by others? No question in my mind.

That's the way it once was and was felt about and can be again. It was the most notable hole on one of American architecture's most notable really early courses.

I think they might do it and if they do I hope they redo it just the way it was with no quarter given to modern considerations of golf. Enough detailed material is there to restore it just the way it once was.

Again, if they pulled it off well don't you think it would be the most significant restoration event to date and one helluva great precedent for future restoration of some of that wild old architecture of a wonderful era?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Just think how great and interesting the hole would play with fast and firm conditions on that green.

Can someone post the aerial of the old 12th hole ?

Tom MacWood, I recall that you had done so in the past.
Tommy Naccarato ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Just think how great and interesting the hole would play with fast and firm conditions on that green."

Definitely. That obviously wasn't remotely possible with the club dumping 50mil gallons a year on that course back in the 1950s. Our friend has said that old green was basically ruined BEFORE it was redesigned in 1960 with what had happened to it before 1960.

[Ian Andrew]

Give me a current photo and an old photo from the same spot and I'll photoshop what it would look like.

Ian

[T_MacWood]

It would be hard to top it. Perhaps matching it: restoring some of the lost holes or features at ANGC...unlikely. Restoring a long line of quirky Herbert Strong designs: Engineers, Ponte Vedra, Manoir Richelieu, Inwood, etc. Restoring Behr's Lakeside as much as possible. Hollywood. Oyster Harbors. Aronimink. The dunesy greens at Pebble Beach. The waster bunkers at Shinnecock. Hirono. Timber Point. Too many Tilly courses to mention (Bethpage, Quaker Ridge, Baltusrol,...) A million lost or altered Colt bunkers in the UK. Chiberta. Cape Breton. Banff.

[T_MacWood]

In the old days there were replicas of the 12th at GCGC at Columbia and Whitemarsh Valley.

[TEPaul]

What I'm saying about the 12th at GCGC is that its restoration although clearly unususally complicated for two primary reasons---eg mowing and maintenance of those berms and the playablity of the hole even if that could be done, it is worth considering for the club but to consider it properly really will take a ton of research and thought.

The good news is if they thought it through really well and did it and pulled it off well maintenance-wise and in playability-wise it really would be an incredible example for restoration and future restoration efforts in bringing back, or even preserving some wild old famous architecture of an era and making it work again in various ways today.

That to me would be a huge boon for the restoration effort and interest in some of the really old and wild stuff.

That's the good new. The bad news is if they tried it and it was a failure maintenance-wise and agronomically or in play, or for any other reason, somehow that would really set back the restoration effort of this kind of old architecture.

I think they could pull it off but it's really complicated for a variety of reasons.

GCGC, however, is in a fairly unique position here. They've got a famous old course there in the evolution of American architecture and they have an old hole that was really notable, controversial and famous that was ruined. Not too many clubs in America are in their unique position that way to take advantage of a seemingly unique opportunity in restoration.

I think they could pull this off and it could be a huge, huge benefit to both them and the restoration effort which seems to be in full bloom now, but they've got to realize all the risks they'd be taking to do it.

I hope they do it, at least I hope they do all the research and seriously consider doing it in a pretty pure way and not some interpretative way that would be viewed as a sop to modernity and an admission this kind of thing really can't be done anymore.

One of the factors heretofore seemingly unknown by most is just how much that hole (and perhaps even most of the  course) may've come close to being ruined even before #12 was redesigned in 1960.

[JSlonis]

Tom,

There is no question that a true restoration of that hole would be one of the most significant restorations of a particular hole in America.  Thanks to Pat, I'm able to play in the Travis each year, and every time I'm there, I always look at the photo of the old 12th for a few minutes and think how cool it would have been to play that hole.

I really hope they do restore it someday.  The uniqueness of the original design is too special to pass up and what currently sits in its place is unworthy of being on such a great golf course.  If it becomes a controversial hole, so be it.  Guys will figure out a way to play it properly, and if they don't, let the fun begin.

[Kyle Harris]

In the old days there were replicas of the 12th at GCGC at Columbia and Whitemarsh Valley.

Tom,

Which hole at Whitemarsh?

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Tom MacWood has said that before or maybe I heard it elsewhere too. I know both Whitemarsh Valley and Columbia pretty well (and their evolutions to some extent) but for the life of me I just can't think what holes on those two courses were real replica's of GCGC's #12.

But if there were real replicas of #12 on those two courses it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to at least find out what happened to them, both when and why.

In my opinion, there should be nothing to be feared from comprehensive research of all types and kinds.  

I often wonder if some on here may want some things to remain unknown, particularly if it doesn't suit ther agenda somehow. Research has to be more objective and broadbased than that, in my opinion, because to get some of these things done and done well for clubs cost-wise, maintenance-wise and playability-wise everything needs to be known going in.

[T_MacWood]

Kyle
The 16th at Columbia...I don't recal which hole Whitemarsh Valley. If I find I'll let you know.

TE
A call for comprehensive research...good idea...why don't you get on that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm a little puzzled by what seems to be an excessive fixation on additional research.

Many photos of the old 12th green are in residence in abundance, both aerials and ground level pictures.

First hand knowledge of the factors that caused the old 12th hole to be disfigured reside within the memory of Mel Lucas, the former Superintendent at GCGC.
He's made that information available to you and me, and I've made it available to the club.

You don't need to do any more research.

You're approaching the threshold where Paralysis by Analysis rears its ugly head.

What needs to be done is a faithful restoration rendering after the current superintendent defines what he can maintain.

The bunkering work is as significant as the green work.

Then, at some point in the future it's up to the club as to whether they want to recapture the great architecture that represents their golfing heritage, or leave the current eye sore as is.   There are other choices, but, they're interpretive in nature and I'd prefer not to throw them into the mix.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle
The 16th at Columbia...I don't recal which hole Whitemarsh Valley. If I find I'll let you know.

TE
You often talk about doing comprehensive research...why don't you get off your ass and do some.

From what Pat has told me and shown me on a napkin, the only hole at Whitemarsh with similar topography would be the long (240 yard) Par 3 4th.

[T_MacWood]

Kyle
It was replica of the green not the topography of the hole. The 16th at Columbia does not have the same topography as the 12th at GCGC. The 12th at GCGC has no topography. From memory the hole at Whitemarsh looked a little like the 9th...I'm not sure it was the 9th, but the green was kind of perched up like it

[Mike_Cirba]

TEPaul,

I'm a little puzzled by what seems to be an excessive fixation on additional research.

Many photos of the old 12th green are in residence in abundance, both aerials and ground level pictures.

First hand knowledge of the factors that caused the old 12th hole to be disfigured reside within the memory of Mel Lucas, the former Superintendent at GCGC.
He's made that information available to you and me, and I've made it available to the club.

You don't need to do any more research.

You're approaching the threshold where Paralysis by Analysis rears its ugly head.

What needs to be done is a faithful restoration rendering after the current superintendent defines what he can maintain.

The bunkering work is as significant as the green work.

Then, at some point in the future it's up to the club as to whether they want to recapture the great architecture that represents their golfing heritage, or leave the current eye sore as is.   There are other choices, but, they're interpretive in nature and I'd prefer not to throw them into the mix.

Hi Patrick,

I understand the plan and wish you great success.

The one thing I'd question is the step of the current Superintendent defining what he can maintain.   I think this goes to Tom Paul's asking for research into the playability and maintainability of the four foot adjoining mounds given today's agronomic factors.  

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems at first blush that you're leaving this determination up to the Superintendent.   Without knowing anything else about that person, it would seem to me that they would perhaps be coming at it from strictly a conservative maintainability standpoint, which is only natural, but it also seems to me that this was a design that pushed the envelope to the nth degree and perhaps needs some type of specialized care and feeding that similarly pushes the envelope from the maintenance end.

So, without wanting to step onto his reply, I think he means that there is likely a very fine line of playability, maintainability, etc., that is workable given the uniqueness of the design, and that expectations should be very clear upfront on how this thing is actually going to be maintained and played and then well communicated to the membership through a consistent message delivered by unified messengers.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Here is a photo of Columbia Country Club's 16th green around 1910.  I see the caption mentions that the green is modeled after the 12th at Garden City.  Do you really think it does resemble the GCGC green with the mounded features on the internal portion of the green?

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Tom MacWood on Today at 01:32:47pm
Kyle
The 16th at Columbia...I don't recal which hole Whitemarsh Valley. If I find I'll let you know.

TE
You often talk about doing comprehensive research...why don't you get off your ass and do some."

Tom MacWood:

Apparently, you decided to alter your oriignal post and soften the tone of that remark but it looks like someone clipped and pasted it before you did that.

I don't think someone like you should be telling me that I need to get off my ass and do research. First of all, you have about zero idea what I have been doing. We are doing a good deal of work and research for a good number of clubs that doesn't appear on this website and obviously you have zero idea about. If you got even 1/10 as directly involved with clubs and their research as I have you would be about ten times more productive and useful in this vein than you are.
 

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

I couldn't have said it better myself.  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Its kind of hard to tell from that photo and angle. I've seen another photo from the angle the hole is often photographed from (from the 17th tee looking down from the side) and it looks similar to the 12th. Its not identical but it is a very similar concept. HH Barker who designed the hole at Columbia was the pro at GCGC.

TE
Thats great! I've been very impressed with your research to date....very comprehensive. Now get off your ass and do some on the relicas of the 12th @ GCGC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The one thing I'd question is the step of the current Superintendent defining what he can maintain.

Who else would be up to that task ?
And who else would be charged with that responsibility ?

If the superintendent can't maintain it in a given form, you have to alter the form to the degree that he can maintain it.  

I think this goes to Tom Paul's asking for research into the playability and maintainability of the four foot adjoining mounds given today's agronomic factors.

I don't know that they were four feet high, but, the next time I'm at GCGC I'll try to measure them.

How would you research playability ?
Would you examine the 7th and 9th green at Friar's Head ?
The 1st, 3rd & 6th at NGLA ?
The 1st, 11th, 14th and 17th at Westhampton ?
The 5th at Somerset Hills.

What difference does the degree of playability make ?

It's form isn't intended to produce a singular function.

Just for the heck of it, let's say that it can't be maintained at more than the equivalent of a 6 on the stimp scale.  So what ?

It will still deflect balls toward or away from the target.
It's still a vertical impediment to recovery.

Why do you feel it's necessary that it stimp at 9, or 11 or 13 ?

I feel it's an almost immaterial factor.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems at first blush that you're leaving this determination up to the Superintendent.  

Again, he's the one who will be charged with the task of maintaining it, the logical choice for perameters.
He's intelligent, capable, understands architecture and knows the intent of the features and hole.

Without knowing anything else about that person, it would seem to me that they would perhaps be coming at it from strictly a conservative maintainability standpoint, which is only natural,

Not really.
It would be foolish to build what can't be maintained.
It would be prudent to build what can be maintained, while functioning as intended.
Dave Pughe, the Superintendent understands this and isn't prone to dumbing down the architecture to provide for the smallest possible maintainance efforts.

Was Bill Salinetti conservative in his approaches when he took over at NGLA.

but it also seems to me that this was a design that pushed the envelope to the nth degree and perhaps needs some type of specialized care and feeding that similarly pushes the envelope from the maintenance end.

I don't think it pushed the envelope at all when it was incorporated into the design of GCGC.

Today, it might be deemed radical, but, I doubt it would have survived about 60 years if it was "pushing the envelope" from inception.  It seems to me that designs were far more extreme when GCGC came into existance, absent the quest for fairness.

So, without wanting to step onto his reply, I think he means that there is likely a very fine line of playability,

I don't see that at all.
Would it matter if the mounds were on the interior or exterior of the putting surface ?   Surely the preference would be for the interior, but, you should only build what can be reasonably maintained, and I don't think that will be a problem if you remove the context of greens that putt at 12 on the stimp.

The mounds are also at the extreme flanking and rear perimeter of the putting surface, and not a central feature, which diminishes their actual influence on play.

While it would be "ideal" if the mounds could be maintained at the same speed as the rest of the green, I don't think that that's a prerequisite to constructing them.

maintainability, etc., that is workable given the uniqueness of the design, and that expectations should be very clear upfront on how this thing is actually going to be maintained and played and then well communicated to the membership through a consistent message delivered by unified messengers.

I totally disagree.

You can't predict how normal greens will be maintained throughout the year, let alone individual internal features.
That's a lesson all too familiar to GCGC and other clubs.

If the overriding desire is to maintain the golf course with fast & firm conditions, the mounds would fall within that general domain.  If they, like other features, need a little TLC, they'll get it.

The worse thing you could do would be to paint yourself into a corner by telling the membership how the hole will play and how it will be maintained.  Flexibility is more desireable than stringent forecasts.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Thats great! I've been very impressed with your research to date....very comprehensive. Now get off your ass and do some on the relicas of the 12th @ GCGC"

Look at that guys. The man can even spell or write. Look at that statement. What the hell does it mean? "Relicas" (of the 12th @ GCGC)?

Jeeesus!  

As time goes by Tom MacWood it's becoming more and more obvious that self-promoting bookworm dilettantes like you just aren't going to cut it in restoration OR preservation architecture. It doesn't even take me to point it out---you're doing it all by yourself.  

[TEPaul]

"The worse thing you could do would be to paint yourself into a corner by telling the membership how the hole will play and how it will be maintained.  Flexibility is more desireable than stringent forecasts."

Tell me something Patrick, would the most important thing that can ultimately be done with a golf course be to make the membership happy with it and happy to play it? If it is something other than that then why don't you tell us what that would be?  

[T_MacWood]

Jeeesus!  

As time goes by Tom MacWood it's becoming more and more obvious that self-promoting bookworm dilettantes like you just aren't going to cut it in restoration OR preservation architecture. It doesn't even take me to point it out---you're doing it all by yourself.  

Let me know what you're researching I might have something on it.

[TEPaul]

"Let me know what you're researching I might have something on it."

At this point, Tom MacWood, I think the majority of the most intelligent and informed contributors on here know that you're not much more than a name and place dropping sham with a personal agenda that's not much more that just that. At some point most everyone on here should figure out anyone on here, including you, has to get out in the real world to deserve credibility. GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is coming of age and you're lagging and it's becoming obvious.  
 
 

[T_MacWood]

"Let me know what you're researching I might have something on it."

At this point, Tom MacWood, I think the majority of the most intelligent and informed contributors on here know that you're not much more than a name and place dropping sham with a personal agenda that's not much more that just that. At some point most everyone on here should figure out anyone on here, including you, has to get out in the real world to deserve credibility. GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is coming of age and you're lagging and it's becoming obvious.  
 

That being said let me know what you are working on I might have something of interest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()