Less-Known Redans

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

So what you're saying is that Patrick and I are both right?!?

No, George isn't saying that.

What you continue to miss is two things:

1  It isn't that the tee is 5 feet + or - to the green, it's that the putting surface isn't visible, that the leading ridge obscures hole locations.

2  It's that the green presents a fortress like structure,
   NGLA and PRC do that, # 11 at LACC doesn't.
   You're gunning down at the completely visible green at
   LACC, there is no obscuring of any part of the green, and
   the green certainly doesn't present a fortress like structure
   that the golfer must assault, like the 4th and 8th at NGLA.[/color]

Why, my friend, that's impossible.  The earth will surely tilt off it's axis and will spin this planet into cosmic oblivion!  

Please...I had him hooked and was reeling him in.  Please just say, "Patrick is wrong here".   It's not hard...you can do it!  

Do you think the members at NGLA will mind if I go out there with surveying equipment?    


See my comments above.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I highlighted the key word, "principle" to help you get a better grasp on the subject.

Think "theme" or "general concept" if the word "principle" doesn't jump out at you.

Patrick,

Does the 4th hole at NGLA borrow from the principle, general concept, and theme of the 15th at North Berwick, or is it an exact replica?  

If every nuance, including near total blindness, copied down to the minute detail, or are certain fundamental concepts applied in a rendition where liberties have been taken by CB Macdonald to distinguish it from the original??

It seems to me that your whole argument boils down to having a raised front portion that does not permit the golfer to see much of the green.  However, the 11th at LACC and the 17th at MidOcean have a raised front as well, but not raised enough to blind the golfer completely from the higher tee angle.   Since the 4th at NGLA is likely downhill, as well, it seems to me we're talking matters of minute degrees of difference.

You don't think those differences are within the scope of what CB Macdonald meant when he said that there are an "infinite number of variations" possible while still retaining the concept and playability of a redan???

Once again, by your own narrow definition, I would argue that there is only ONE redan, and that one's already taken.  Everything else, including CB's versions, are simply utiizing the design "principle" of that original with the infinite number of variations that CB spoke about.

Ultimately, if it looks like a fish and plays like a fish, it's a fish.  

Hook, line, and sinker.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Does the 4th hole at NGLA borrow from the principle, general concept, and theme of the 15th at North Berwick, or is it an exact replica?

I think it replicates the essential features necessary to qualify it as a true redan.

The shielding of the putting surface from the tee.
The deflecting nature of the approach.
The fortress like footpad of the green and immediate surrounds
The cant of the green and immediate surrounds,
And, the deep bunkers surrounding the green.

If every nuance, including near total blindness, copied down to the minute detail, or are certain fundamental concepts applied in a rendition where liberties have been taken by CB Macdonald to distinguish it from the original??

The "critical" elements were replicated.

Liberties that would taint or disqualify the design as a true redan were not employed, as they are at # 11 at LACC[/color]

It seems to me that your whole argument boils down to having a raised front portion that does not permit the golfer to see much of the green.  

No, it's more than that.
It's the fortress like footpad, deep bunkers, cant of the green and immediate surrounds in concert with obscuring the putting surface.

None of those elements exist at # 11 at LACC[/color]

However, the 11th at LACC and the 17th at MidOcean have a raised front as well, but not raised enough to blind the golfer completely from the higher tee angle.  

Then, they're tainted, disqualified from being classified as true redans, as is the 13th at YALE.[/color]

Since the 4th at NGLA is likely downhill, as well, it seems to me we're talking matters of minute degrees of difference.

Not at all.
The 11th at LACC plays dramatically different from the 4th at NGLA.   In large part because it lacks all of the required architectural components necessary to classify it as a redan, in appearance and in play[/color]

You don't think those differences are within the scope of what CB Macdonald meant when he said that there are an "infinite number of variations" possible while still retaining the concept and playability of a redan


Absolutely not in the context of playability which requires an interrelationship between the architectural components in order to achieve the desired playability, and the 11th at LACC DOESN'T have those characteristics, architecturally, nor does it play like a true redan, ala NB and NGLA.

I think CBM's remarks are meant to legitimize hybrids and serve as a reference with respect to providing credibility when it comes to pseudo redans.[/color]

Once again, by your own narrow definition, I would argue that there is only ONE redan, and that one's already taken.


It's not a narrow definition, it's just one that you don't want to accept.

I'd say that PRC's redan more closely resembles NB's, but, that NGLA's is in a better setting.[/color]

Everything else, including CB's versions, are simply utiizing the design "principle" of that original with the infinite number of variations that CB spoke about.

What you fail to grasp, is that at some point, deviations from the core design principles eventually create a trigger point where the hole ceases to FUNCTION as a true redan.

And, the 11th at LACC in no way functions like a true redan, be it NB's, PRC's or NGLA's.[/color]

Ultimately, if it looks like a fish and plays like a fish, it's a fish.  

You're confused, the only thing fishy about your theory is that it stinks like one. [/color]

Hook, line, and sinker.    

As Lee Corso says,
"Not so fast my friend"

Your boat has capsized and you're merely tredding water above a shark that hasn't eaten a lefty in a while[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

In the words of General Macdonald, I shall return!

Or, was that Macarthur?  

[Chris Cupit]

I apoligize up front as I still can't get a d*** picture on the site.  But, my course has just finished a renovation and we attempted a redan on our fourth hole.

Its 195 yards and the picture I'll direct you to is taken from the next lower tee so the perspective is that it looks a little more uphill than it should.  The hole plays almost level from tee to green (maybe a foot or so downhill?).  The front of the green is visible and then disappears to the left.  The left front bunker is about 10 feet deep.  The slope on the back right that funnels the balls back and left is between 8-12%.

www.rivermontcountryclub.com

Then on the left, click on "renovation update"
Then scroll to the very bottom of the page--may take some time loading.

At the very bottom of the pics (there are lots of them) you will see the new fourth hole--it's bigger than the other pics--I couldn't figure out how to size it for my site either!!

Obviously I am biased but I think Michael Riley did a helluva job on this and the rest of the holes!  He grew up caddying at Somerset Hills BTW.

[Chris Cupit]

During construction:

Green ready for seeding:


More pics to come--I figured it out.

[Bill Gayne]

Williamsburg Country Club

[Chris Cupit]

Hole #4 prior to renovation--typical Joe Lee (nice)




Hole #4 as a "Riley redan"  (more nice)!