Degradation of a hole

[Joel_Stewart]

Degrade: 1: to reduce from a higher to a lower rank or degree.  2: Decompose.

I don’t post as much as I used too but wanted to run these photos as an example of what time, lack of proper maintenance and lack of understanding classic architecture can do to a hole.  This is one of the few web sites which an honest discussion can take place about architecture and this is a perfect case study in changes to a hole.

I don’t have the ability to post the pictures of what the hole looked liked in the 1920’s and the 1930’s but the hole (a short uphill par 3) originally started out with a Biarritz green.   There is/was a very large bunker at the front of the green which swept all the way around the left (right on the picture).   One of the first changes I can see is that the bunkers were cut in half allowing players to walk to the next tee.

   



Over the years the hole has continued to evolve until the current condition.  Trees come and go, the bunkers have changed and the obvious cart path has been added.  The green now has a very slight slant and is flat in many sections.





The hole was changed in 1953 prior to the club (first picture) hosting the US Open and again in 1965 again prior to hosting another US Open.

Some of the more detailed changes include,

1.  Flattening of the green
2. Bunkers eroding into current shapes.
3. The green evolving into an oval.
4. Cart path installed.
5. With the cart path installed, the loss of one of the great bunkers in the back of the green.
6. Mounding around green and bunkers have been reduced.
7. The tee (originally a walk off tee) has been built up around 3-4 feet.
8. The loss of trees and failure to replace them (some at the request of the USGA) has opened the hole up.
 
I have discussed this with the superintendent and the consulting architect but neither has an interest in restoring this or many of the other holes which have degraded.  Sadly the course continues to drop in rankings despite fantastic and much better conditions of the grass.  The loss of trees resulting in better air circulation and sunlight have improved the condition of the grass considerably.

[Mike Benham]

At least give them some credit for cutting down a palm tree or two ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

Great comparative photos.

The character, contouring and tie-ins in the bunkers and their surrounds is dramatically better and more challenging in the first photo.

Do you know who did the work prior to both Opens ?

The next question would be:  Why was it done ?  What was the purpose, the perceived improvement ?

How did the club get that palm tree to grow on top of the clubhouse ?

[Gib_Papazian]

Joel,

I think you have a photo of the right hand bunker (left from the tee) obscured by the palm trees. That is also - in my mind - an excellent example. Those two oval turds there now look like a muni gone bad.

-g

[Mike Benham]

Do you know who did the work prior to both Opens ?

I believe RTJ was one of the first to alter the original design prior to the '55 (?) Open.  I'm not sure to the extent of his actions.

[Joel_Stewart]

Do you know who did the work prior to both Opens ?

The next question would be:  Why was it done ?  What was the purpose, the perceived improvement ?

It is RTJ.  Prior to the 55 Open his marching orders were to modernize the golf course.   He added some length, and tightened up the course.  

Prior to the 66 Open he basically bulldozed the green.  The good news is this could be repaired with the right management and architect.  

Pat:
The hole was originally a fortress green.  Large grass wall with the sand at the base extending arounding.

This is a sad case of maintenance gone bad.

[Mark_Fine]

Joel,
It is funny that you posted that photo of #8 at Olympic.  I just saw that old photo over at The Golf House.  

I've always said, golf courses change - some for the better, some for the worse.  

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Some of the more detailed changes include,

1.  Flattening of the green
2. Bunkers eroding into current shapes.
3. The green evolving into an oval.
4. Cart path installed.
5. With the cart path installed, the loss of one of the great bunkers in the back of the green.
6. Mounding around green and bunkers have been reduced.
7. The tee (originally a walk off tee) has been built up around 3-4 feet.
8. The loss of trees and failure to replace them (some at the request of the USGA) has opened the hole up.
 
I have discussed this with the superintendent and the consulting architect but neither has an interest in restoring this or many of the other holes which have degraded.  Sadly the course continues to drop in rankings despite fantastic and much better conditions of the grass.  The loss of trees resulting in better air circulation and sunlight have improved the condition of the grass considerably.

Joel, what does the membership want to see with respect to the hole, and the golf course?

[ed_getka]

Joel,
   That is interesting that #8 had a Biarritz green once upon a time. I have never seen a hole with a Biarritz green that you couldn't see at least some of the swale. Was the fronting bunker originally lower so you saw more of the green surface?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

The desire to host a U.S. Open can cause clubs to alter and in some cases ruin their architecture.

While the pressure to "bolster" the course in the face of the upcoming attack, by the best golfers in the world, can come from many directions, in the ultimate, it's the leadership of the club and the membership that bear the responsibility for disfiguring the golf course.

They are the curators.
The golf course is entrusted to their care.

Some see that responsibility as immaterial when compared to the glory associated with hosting a Major.

[Joel_Stewart]

The majority of the members don't care about the US Open.  This hole especially would have no impact on US Open players except if the biarittz was restored.  The course has been run by superintendents for the last 30 years with no vision except to save their jobs and make the course green.

As in most courses, the members are very naive especially with respect to details.  Whats interesting is this is just 1 hole, with the same situation on many of the others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

Superintendents are employees of the club.

Their job description, duties, responsibilities and pay are all established and overseen by the leadership of the club.

If a club has abdicated their responsibilities, that's the leadership's fault, not the fault of the beneficiary of the void created by the abdication

[Joel_Stewart]

Superintendents are employees of the club.

Their job description, duties, responsibilities and pay are all established and overseen by the leadership of the club.

If a club has abdicated their responsibilities, that's the leadership's fault, not the fault of the beneficiary of the void created by the abdication

Pat:

We have discussed this before and there is no easy answer.  Of course supers are employees but they wield influence and assume certain amounts of power.  Couple this with a naive administration who doesn't want to bother rocking the boat or searching for a new super and you get what you get.

In our case the guy has done some tremendous things, improved turf conditions tremendously, cut down a bunch of trees, rebuilt the yard, hired a new crew (no small task for 45 holes).  His problem is he doesn't see or appreciate classic elements or architecture and has hired an architect who was an old buddy that also doesn't get it.

[Matt_Cohn]

Joel,

As a fan of the Lake Course I'd be interested to hear what you think is the cause of the rankings drop that you refer to.

Do you think it's because of the degradation/loss of character in other holes similar to what you've demonstrated on #8? (I'm not implying anything, just asking.)

[Sean_Tully]

Joel

Biarritz, hmmmm. I have little experience with O Club and will be more than happy to stand corrected, but I just can't see it. The hole plays under 140(?) and it is uphill. The green from what I understand was larger and the front bunker was still an attention grabber from the tee. What time period are you referring to? I would be very interested in seeing the photos.  I have photos from 1925 and 1929 and the bunkering is more towards the front of the green and does not appear to run along the side of the green, ala the biarritz. As for the biarritzesque swale I have not seen any mention of that when the hole is being described, a feature that would surely be mentioned.  Even with the original size of the green would there have been enough room to fit a biarritz swale and still have enough pinnable areas with regards to a back to front sloping green.

Tully

[Mark_Fine]

Joel,
I am also not sure about a Biarritz on #8?  Are you sure there wasn't just a soft swale that might have run across part of the green?  I guess I would need more information/study to determine what was there.

Talk to you soon,
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

Is there any real interest in restoring the hole ?

It would seem that seeing both pictures, side by side, would lead to a desire to improve the hole by restoring it.

[Joel_Stewart]

I am also not sure about a Biarritz on #8?  Are you sure there wasn't just a soft swale that might have run across part of the green?  I guess I would need more information/study to determine what was there.

Well I'm calling it a biarittz but maybe their is a fine line between a biarritz and a hole with a swale in the center.  The photos I have are from the 20's and 30's and their are 2 tiers, one in the front and one in the back with a swale in the middle.

Tully:

I think it makes perfect sense since the hole is short.  Its a perfect distance to play to either the front, middle or back.

Matt:
When you break down the rankings by category the main fault at Olympic has been the conditioning.  The numbers are very close over the last 10 years.  I would like to think that some panelists have a good eye and see the problems associated with the above photos and again with many of the other holes.  I believe if a true restoration would take place as opposed to piece meal which is what they do now it would have big impact on the course and rankings.  The super doesn't have an interest in other peoples thoughts or ideas and mainly does what he wants.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joel,
Just my opinion, but if your actually trying to get something done I don't think this approach is going to work all that well.

[Sean_Tully]

Tully:

I think it makes perfect sense since the hole is short.  Its a perfect distance to play to either the front, middle or back.

If it is going to be called a "Biarritz" then could it really have a middle hole location? You can call it a Biarritz if you like, but all you are going to do is confuse the subject. I have had the opprotunity to play two Biarritz greens and from the photo I see absolutely no resemblence.

Not sure of the date on this photo, but it predates your earlier photo and although we can't see what is behind the green, you can see the front bunkers look different.

The trees were planted very early on and numbered close to 11,000 trees. Pretty amazing photo, too bad for the shade on the green.

Tully

[Kevin_Reilly]

Sean, here is a shot of the adjacent 18th from 1946...trees a bit bigger so  that gives one relevant date reference for your photo of #8.

[Mike Benham]

As Kevin and Joel know, the overhead aerials in the club's locker room, show the dramatic planting and growth of the trees from the mid-30s through the '80s.

In contrast, the photo shown by Tully shows a treeless parcel of land across the Lake, that land later became Harding Park and trees were planted.  The hillside of Olympic was basically void of trees during the '20s.


Up the 18th fairway in 1930:



Aerial from 1955...

[Mark_Fine]

As Sean said, many many trees were planted early on at Olympic.  Sam Whiting planted most of them.  He is the same guy who did most of the plantings at the club we are working on at the Willie Watson course across the bay - Mira Vista.  

Joel,
From a few of the photos, you can see how it takes time to do a good restoration analysis.  Look at the difference between your old photo and the one Sean posted.  Pretty dramatic.  This is fun but it takes time and lots of dedication.

Good luck,
Mark

[Joel_Stewart]

From a few of the photos, you can see how it takes time to do a good restoration analysis.  Look at the difference between your old photo and the one Sean posted.  Pretty dramatic.  This is fun but it takes time and lots of dedication.

Good point and this is an excellent example of picking a high water mark for a restoration.  Personally I would choose Seans photo but many at the club would choose the 1955 photo.  Whats interesting about Seans photo (which you can't see) is the front of the green is a fortress green (grass walled front).

Sean:  Thanks for posting this photo.  It actually is a postcard I believe from the 20's.  I do have a few ground view photos showing the green contours which I will share with you next time we meet.  From your photo, the players are putting to a pin location in the swale.  The front of the green is raised and slightly angled toward the middle.  The rear of the green is then slanted toward the middle.

I can't tell exactly but believe the bunker in this photo is still one long photo.  The club split the bunker allowing players to walk to the 9th tee at the front left portion of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

Looking at the photo circa 1930 is interesting.

Given the location of the golf course, how much of a factor is the wind today, and how much of a factor was it in the 50's and 30's ?