[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Dan

All the facts you list are conistent with what I "know," but your speculation on the length of the Redan is just that, speculation.  Just after the course was opened in 1895 NB held a "big" professional tournament won by JH Taylor with scores of 83 + 89 = 172.  JH won the Open at St. Andrews the next week, so he wasn't in too bad form then.....

Here's another guess!  Because of the high scores of that tournament (and/or pro or member complaints) NB decided to play the Redan from the forward tees pretty soon thereafter (maybe even keeping the back tee to boost their published yardage).

This would keep the Macdonaldophiles happy, but also better fit the historical facts.

Tony I agree with both your posts.  The huge swale in front of the green is in fact what got me thinking when I saw the map of that 266 yard version of the hole.  It would have been (and still would be) a great short par-4!

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

It's the old "dog that didn't bark in the night" thing.  Since the Redan is so important (at least to GCA geeks), why is there no record by Adamson of it having been changed from a 266 yard hole to a 192 yard one, particularly when he notes so many other major and minor changes made to the course over the 1832-1932 period?  Maybe he just forgot.

Of course, we're all doing this blind.  When I get the time, maybe I'll just call the club and ask (or you or anybody else feel free to do so if you are more anzxous than I am to get a result)!

R

[James Bennett]

Rich, Sean, Tom and Dan (and Tony).

I have enjoyed following this thread immensely.  I have nothing valuable to contribute, so I have been silent.  From a distance, I observe that Rich is trying to achieve a higher standard of evidence (perhaps 'beyond reasonable doubt'') compared to others in exploring what might have been the timeline here.  Some of us have the need for evidence of a prosecutor, some of a defence attorney, some of a judge, and in this case I think Rich has the position of 12 (angry?) men determining beyond reasonable doubt what has transpired  (TEPaul might argue that Rich is seeking evidence beyond any doubt! ).  Thanks for the discourse, I think all who have read this thread have learnt something, from the inaccuracies of recorded history through the development of the rules of golf.

Rich responded to one of Tony's earlier comments thus
'Tony I agree with both your posts.  The huge swale in front of the green is in fact what got me thinking when I saw the map of that 266 yard version of the hole.  It would have been (and still would be) a great short par-4!'

Certainly the design of the Redan is unique (befitting North Berwick West).  For those who haven't seen it, here is the view from the tee.  The flag is just visible on the left, the pin is hardly visible.  Check Tony Muldoon's overhead drawing for the layout.  Remember, you only see the fronting approach bunkers here, not those guarding the green (they are deeper again).  A truly unique and memorable hole.



James B

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, James

Just to make it clear, the swale Tony mentions is behind those bunkers in your picture and those bunkers are probably 80+ yards from the pin and not at all in play from today's 192 yard tee, except for the foozler.  They would have really been in play from the 266 yard hole......

Great call regarding "Twelve Angry Men," one of my favorite movies, which I first viewed as a part of a case study in my Organizational Behavior class at HBS.  I don't at all object to being compared to the Henry Fonda role, in fact I relish it!  One by one, those who are so sure about the CBM version of the "Redan" will crumble in front of me, and the last person, raving and ranting until the rest of us finally break him down, will be Tom Paul, playing the Lee J. Cobb role to perfection........

Rich

PS--as I'm sure you know, for me this has been a learning exercise rather than a polemic one
PPS--I added the "PS" above as I know that Tom Paul doesn't read past the first paragraph of any thread.

[James Bennett]

Thanks, James

Just to make it clear, the swale Tony mentions is behind those bunkers in your picture and those bunkers are probably 80+ yards from the pin and not at all in play from today's 192 yard tee, except for the foozler.  They would have really been in play from the 266 yard hole......

Rich

Thanks Rihc, A long way short yes, but 80+?
From the google overhead



And, an old photo (possibly from GCA) of the left greenside bunker.



James B

[Rich Goodale]

James

I was going to say 40 yards from memory, but Tony's diagram implied otherwise.  Shows you not to rely on those diagrams.

As for the old photos, those were the days when bunkers were bunkers and both the men and the sheep were nervous....

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

It would also basically prove the NB history book wrong in saying that the 15th hole was shortened from 266 to a "one shot" hole or par 3 between 1910 and 1915.

Tom

In reviewing this thread, I came upon this comment, which had passed me by.

I think my remarks re shortening in the 1910-1915 period related to the 4th and not the 15th hole.  If I am wrong in my recollection, feel free to correct me.

Rich

[Sean_A]

It would also basically prove the NB history book wrong in saying that the 15th hole was shortened from 266 to a "one shot" hole or par 3 between 1910 and 1915.

Tom

In reviewing this thread, I came upon this comment, which had passed me by.

I think my remarks re shortening in the 1910-1915 period related to the 4th and not the 15th hole.  If I am wrong in my recollection, feel free to correct me.

Rich

Rich

It really surprises me that the club would take so long to alter the 4th and make it a par three more or less sharing the tee with Redan.  Speaking of sharing, why aren't those two tees joined to create a bit of elasticity (jeez I hate that word)?  Is there any info in the book concerning the 4th in relation to the 15th?

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

It would also basically prove the NB history book wrong in saying that the 15th hole was shortened from 266 to a "one shot" hole or par 3 between 1910 and 1915.

Tom

In reviewing this thread, I came upon this comment, which had passed me by.

I think my remarks re shortening in the 1910-1915 period related to the 4th and not the 15th hole.  If I am wrong in my recollection, feel free to correct me.

Rich

Rich

It really surprises me that the club would take so long to alter the 4th and make it a par three more or less sharing the tee with Redan.  Speaking of sharing, why aren't those two tees joined to create a bit of elasticity (jeez I hate that word)?  Is there any info in the book concerning the 4th in relation to the 15th?

Ciao

Sean

Only that it was shortened c. 1913-4 in order to solve the crossover problem with the 15th.

PS--if the 266 yard 15th were actually in play there and then (c. 1913-14), moving the 4th tee to the current position would have solved that problem without having to resort of also shortening the 15th.
PPS--as you know there were a lot of crossing holes in those days, and even are today (e.g. 7/11 at the Old Course, most holes at Painswick , etc.)

[Bill_McBride]

It would also basically prove the NB history book wrong in saying that the 15th hole was shortened from 266 to a "one shot" hole or par 3 between 1910 and 1915.

Tom

In reviewing this thread, I came upon this comment, which had passed me by.

I think my remarks re shortening in the 1910-1915 period related to the 4th and not the 15th hole.  If I am wrong in my recollection, feel free to correct me.

Rich

Rich

It really surprises me that the club would take so long to alter the 4th and make it a par three more or less sharing the tee with Redan.  Speaking of sharing, why aren't those two tees joined to create a bit of elasticity (jeez I hate that word)?  Is there any info in the book concerning the 4th in relation to the 15th?

Ciao

Sean, from my recollection of several rounds there since 2004, I think the 15th and 4th tees are indeed one large area of flat, closely mown (tee) grass.  It's really pretty cool, that's where you cross over from waterside (#1-3) to inside (#4-8). Then you cap off the routing with perpendicular #9 and then head home on the waterside (#10-14) and then cross back to the inside (#15-18).  It's a wonderful figure 8, two holes wide.

[Sean_A]

It would also basically prove the NB history book wrong in saying that the 15th hole was shortened from 266 to a "one shot" hole or par 3 between 1910 and 1915.

Tom

In reviewing this thread, I came upon this comment, which had passed me by.

I think my remarks re shortening in the 1910-1915 period related to the 4th and not the 15th hole.  If I am wrong in my recollection, feel free to correct me.

Rich

Rich

It really surprises me that the club would take so long to alter the 4th and make it a par three more or less sharing the tee with Redan.  Speaking of sharing, why aren't those two tees joined to create a bit of elasticity (jeez I hate that word)?  Is there any info in the book concerning the 4th in relation to the 15th?

Ciao

Sean, from my recollection of several rounds there since 2004, I think the 15th and 4th tees are indeed one large area of flat, closely mown (tee) grass.  It's really pretty cool, that's where you cross over from waterside (#1-3) to inside (#4-8). Then you cap off the routing with perpendicular #9 and then head home on the waterside (#10-14) and then cross back to the inside (#15-18).  It's a wonderful figure 8, two holes wide.

Bill

I think you are right, but have you seen the markers palced so that either hole is made longer?  Though, in the case of Redan, the angle would change slightly if the markers were moved more toward the 4th teeing area.  

Tommy Mac pointed me toward a diagram of Redan done in 1912 which is in Shack's Golden Age.  The hole is about 200 yards according to the diagram and the tee looks to be in the very same spot as the Hutch photo in the 1897 British Golf Links - just off the wall.  Also, according to the diagram, to clear those first two bunkers would require about a 125 carry from near the back of the tee.  That means its in the neighbourhood of 75 yards to the back (favoured) hole location.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Every time I've played NB, the tees have been set up for typical visitor days, the tees about the usual distance from each green and from each other.  However,there would be a great deal of elasticity and each par 3 could probably be played 30 or 40 yards longer without significantly affecting the other.  The #4 tee is quite a bit narrower as there is a hill to the right more or less protecting the players from wild shots on #14    but #15 tee is very large and there would be room to move the #15 tee off to the left and create space for what could make #4 play perhaps 200 yards.

I love that part of the routing.  You can see Gate #16 off in the distance as you move to the #4 tee, and you can savor the anticipation of playing Redan #15 on the way!

All this is part of why North Berwick West Links is my 2nd favorite Scottish course.  That could change after next summer's visit to Dornoch and Cruden Bay!  

[Andrew Mitchell]

It would also basically prove the NB history book wrong in saying that the 15th hole was shortened from 266 to a "one shot" hole or par 3 between 1910 and 1915.

Tom

In reviewing this thread, I came upon this comment, which had passed me by.

I think my remarks re shortening in the 1910-1915 period related to the 4th and not the 15th hole.  If I am wrong in my recollection, feel free to correct me.

Rich

Rich

It really surprises me that the club would take so long to alter the 4th and make it a par three more or less sharing the tee with Redan.  Speaking of sharing, why aren't those two tees joined to create a bit of elasticity (jeez I hate that word)?  Is there any info in the book concerning the 4th in relation to the 15th?

Ciao

Sean, from my recollection of several rounds there since 2004, I think the 15th and 4th tees are indeed one large area of flat, closely mown (tee) grass.  It's really pretty cool, that's where you cross over from waterside (#1-3) to inside (#4-8). Then you cap off the routing with perpendicular #9 and then head home on the waterside (#10-14) and then cross back to the inside (#15-18).  It's a wonderful figure 8, two holes wide.

Bill

I think you are right, but have you seen the markers palced so that either hole is made longer?  Though, in the case of Redan, the angle would change slightly if the markers were moved more toward the 4th teeing area.  

Tommy Mac pointed me toward a diagram of Redan done in 1912 which is in Shack's Golden Age.  The hole is about 200 yards according to the diagram and the tee looks to be in the very same spot as the Hutch photo in the 1897 British Golf Links - just off the wall.  Also, according to the diagram, to clear those first two bunkers would require about a 125 carry from near the back of the tee.  That means its in the neighbourhood of 75 yards to the back (favoured) hole location.

Ciao

Sean
You couldn't move the tee markers back on Redan without going the other side of the wall which seperates it from the 14th fairway.  You could move them sideways, effectively towards the front of the 4th tee.  This would, as you imply, alter the angle of the tee shot, but would I assume add little in the way of yardage.

[James Bennett]

The 4th tee, and the wall, as described by Bill McBride and Sean Arble  (Bill found #4 to be an easy birdie, from the right hand bunker!).





I am going to check my Golden Age book.

James B

[TEPaul]

Rich:

While it is interesting to consider when and for what reasons either the 4th or the 15th were shortened to holes under 200 yards and whether their shortening was done at app. the same time or app. simultaneously for the purpose of correcting a crossing or "play across one another" problem is not the primary thing I've tried to focus on here to answer your original queston on this thread---eg was NB's #15 a one shot hole considerably shorter than 266 yards before or after NGLA's Redan?

What I've tried to focus on here is that it seems to have been a much shorter one shot hole (under 200 yards) considerably before NGLA's Redan simply because so many people around 1900 said it was. By that of course I mean the prevalent mention of it as a much shorter hole in that London Golf Illustrated's "The Best Hole Discussion".

That, after-all, is the reason Macdonald probably became interested in it as something to copy at NGLA. Had it just been a 266 yard hole before and up to or even after NGLA do you really think he would have copied it via the app 198 yard par 3 that NGLA's Redan is? (Isn't it interesting that NB's Redan and NGLA's Redan are app. the same yardage? Why do you suppose that is Rich? Why do you suppose his Road Hole and TOC's Road Hole were app. the same yardage? Or the Eden hole?).

You can rationalize all you want about why the NB book (written 50-60 years later) mentioned that either hole was shortened around 1910-1915 or 1913-14, or even in the early 1930s and you can speculate about swales before the green and if tournament players of that early day could play a 266 yard hole in an average score of less than 4, but the point is none of that addresses WHY so many well known golfers said the Redan was a hole that could be reached distance-wise fairly easily in the 1895-1901 timeframe that resulted in it being picked as "a good second" in the one shot hole category of "The Best Hole Discussion" in the London golf magazine Golf Illustrated. If it had never been a much shorter hole previous to NGLA then why did so many people either say or imply that it was? You can play the doubting Thomas for all kinds of reasons but none of them really address that fact, do they?

You can act the part of Descartes all you want and just question the validity of anything and everything but that hardly trumps the prevalent evidence that so many people said it was a much shorter hole much earlier than you seem to want to continue to imply or question.

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, you seem to keep saying that Tom MacWood and I constantly comment on courses we've never even seen.

He might do that but I generally don't.

Perhaps you've forgotten that I have seen and played (and studied) North Berwick. Matter of fact, I called you from the Greywalls Hotel down the road just after I did play it in 2003.

I even told you that funny story at that time of my playing partner hitting Mrs Major's in the ass from the 4th tee as she stood on the 4th green---and he hit her in the ass another time or two during that round all of which for some odd reason inspired her to ask him after the round in the bar if he'd like to join North Berwick (something he seriously considered). Do Scottish women tend to get turned on for some reason if American golfers hit them in the ass a few times with a golf ball, Richard Descartes Farnsworth Goodale? If you don't know the answer to that feel free to ask your wife.

And I even told you how when we got to the 4th tee and had a wait he looked around and asked me why in the world they would put bunkers in such a huge mound out in the middle of nowhere.

I looked behind me at what he was referring to and told him I had no idea why they'd do that. We did not know until we came off Perfection and stepped onto the 15th tee that that in fact WAS part of the famous (less than 200 yard) ONE SHOT, PAR 3 REDAN of North Berwick!! THE VERY SAME ONE OF ALMOST THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE THAT MACDONALD HAD COPIED AT NGLA!!!

But question on Oh Obtuse one---I'm quite sure you will.  

[TEPaul]

Congratulations to a number of the contributors on here for providing some pretty impressive historical and documentary evidence to essentially answer this question.

This is what GOLFCLUBATLAS and GOLFCLUBATLASERS are so good at and a ton of people elsewhere are beginning to realize that and recognize this site for that facility and ability.

It has not been specifically mentioned before but from time to time even those in and around the USGA's Museum Library and committee if they are stumped by some historical architectural question tend to get some of us to just throw the question on here and I feel they are fairly blown away in how and how comprehensively most any question is answered for them inside a day.

[Kyle Harris]

Congratulations to a number of the contributors on here for providing some pretty impressive historical and documentary evidence to essentially answer this question.

This is what GOLFCLUBATLAS and GOLFCLUBATLASERS are so good at and a ton of people elsewhere are beginning to realize that and recognize this site for that facility and ability.

It has not been specifically mentioned before but from time to time even those in and around the USGA's Museum Library and committee if they are stumped by some historical architectural question tend to get some of us to just throw the question on here and I feel they are fairly blown away in how and how comprehensively most any question is answered for them inside a day.

And probably blown away by the fact that they don't have to pay to do the research.

[Dan King]

Richard Farnsworth Goodale writes:
All the facts you list are conistent with what I "know," but your speculation on the length of the Redan is just that, speculation.  Just after the course was opened in 1895 NB held a "big" professional tournament won by JH Taylor with scores of 83 + 89 = 172.  JH won the Open at St. Andrews the next week, so he wasn't in too bad form then.....

At least according to John Kerr, you and I are talking about the same tournament, on 5th June 1895 -- shortly after the opening of the expanded course. But Kerr doesn't have Taylor winning, but finishing in a tie for 11th, 12 shots behind the winner A. Herd.

Kerr only lists the hole by hole score of the top seven finishers, with the others including Taylor only getting their round score posted.

A. Herd won, shooting 80-80--160 and playing the Redan 3-3.
W. Fernie second, shooting 82-80--162 and playing Redan 3-4.
A. Kirkaldy tied for third, shooting 84-82--166, Redan 3-3.
T. Vardon tied for third, shooting 82-74--166, Redan 3-4.
H. Vardon tied for fifth, shooting 83-84--167, Redan 5-4.
D. Brown, tied for fifth, shooting 82-85--167, Redan 4-4.
Ben Sayers tied for fifth, shooting 81-86--167, Redan 3-4.

Hard to believe these guys could play a 266 yard two-shot hole so well. It would also be hard to believe with the opening tournament of a new course they would have the best players in the world play from some sort of forward or ladies tees.

I got to believe you and I are also looking at the same stick diagram of the course, with the yardages listed
313-466-440--243-300-270--333-510-246
273-300-363--260-382-266--380-450-300--6095.

Here are how the top finishers played the fourth,  supposedly 243 yards.

A. Herd 4-4.
W. Fernie 4-3.
A. Kirkaldy 3-4.
T. Vardon 5-4.
H. Vardon 3-4.
D. Brown 5-4.
Ben Sayers 4-4.

I find it difficult to believe the best players in the world would play from a forward tee, or they were able to score so many threes on a 266 yard hole. With the conflicting information, I'm thinking I'll have to go with whoever measured the Redan as 266 got it wrong, perhaps just to show the new West Links was much longer than the old West Links.

Cheers,
Dan King

The Green Committee made arrangements for a Professional Tournament over the extended course on 5th June1895, two days after the amateur competition to which we have referred. As the Open Championship was to come off at St. Andrews the following week, the gathering of professionals was a large and representative one. In the list we found nearly all the finest players of the day, including Taylor, the champion, on his way to a second victory, Herd of Huddersfield, Ferine of Troon and Andrew Kirkaldy. Herd on this occasion added another to his numerous successes in stroke competition, which entitled him to rank second to no other professional of his time.
 --John Kerr (The Golf Book of East Lothian)

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I started this thread because I didn't know the answer to the question I posed and I still don't know."

Well, that certainly doesn't surprise me Richard.

And I wonder why you say I reguritated facts you already knew. If you knew that some of the best golfers and golf architecture analysts in GB around 1900 listed the Redan at NB as a one shot hole then why didn't you just say so in the first place?

Why did this thread need to get to around the second page before I pointed that out? Why didn't you point that out in the first place? The thing with you, Ricardo, is you act like no one at all can tell you a damn thing.

DanK:

Good post above and very logical reasoning there. Richard Goodale doesn't understand logic like that. If Taylor didn't win the tournament you both are speaking of and Ricardo thinks he did, then one really does wonder if Rihc is capable of getting anything right. It's probably not even important that he gets things right about NB's architectural evolution---all that seems important to him is that he knows a helluva lot more about it than I do. Let him think that. Who cares?  

By the way, Dandy Dan, the quote meister, it's good to see you back on here.

[Andrew Summerell]

I haven’t posted on this thread for what seems like 23 pages of rhetoric, but I have enjoyed reading it.

For me, Dan’s post of the scores is great proof. I could not believe there would be that many 3’s on a 266y hole with a green that plays that tough.

My home course (Newcastle GC) has a 240y par 3, that was built in 1935 as a short 2 shot hole & was considered such by most of the top players in the country. If a 240y hole can be considered a 2 shot hole in 1935, there is no way that 266y could ever have given up that many 3’s, even if the was favouring them, as that green is just too difficult, especially considering the equipment of the day.

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

Logical reasoning like that is right of course but that doesn't matter to Richard Farnsworth Goodale. He thinks that kind of reasoning is merely argumentative.  

[Dan King]

Rich, I got to thinking about the different proof both ways. To me, the many people calling the Redan a one shot hole, as well as the pros playing it in such low numbers makes it obvious the Redan has been a one-shot hole at least since the 1895 expansion. For you, the fact that someone between 1895 and 1896 published the hole was 266 yards convinces you it was at some time a two-shot hole.

I think I might have a reasonable explanation for why the yardage was published at 266 yards. If you look at the stick diagram from 1895, the course is measured as a continuous course. It goes from the first tee, to the first hole, to the second hole, etc... Other than between the seventh and eighth hole, the point to start a hole is always no closer to the next hole than the last hole. This would have been the way to measure a hole prior to 1882, when the R&A changed the rule to no longer require teeing up within n club-lengths of the previous hole, but instead require teeing areas. Whoever measured the course for those yardage looks as if they measured the course from hole to hole rather from teeing ground to hole, at least that is what the diagram shows. Perhaps it was just tradition to measure a course this way, perhaps whoever measured it hadn't gotten the word yet from the 1882 rule change and perhaps there weren't any tees prepared when the measurement was done.

Cheers,
Dan King

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.  
   -- Albert Einstein

[TEPaul]

Dan:

That is a good thought indeed but we've been all over that thought (that next tees at that time, or not far removed form that time, were by the Rules of Golf limited to within club lengths of the previous cup) about two pages ago!  

Of course Rich Goodale doesn't seem to think that type of explanation is good enough. He seems to think it's argumentative like everything else that doesn't appear to ply his point or give him credit for thinking of every point of view.  

[James Bennett]

Whoever measured the course for those yardage looks as if they measured the course from hole to hole rather from teeing ground to hole, at least that is what the diagram shows. Perhaps it was just tradition to measure a course this way, perhaps whoever measured it hadn't gotten the word yet from the 1882 rule change and perhaps there weren't any tees prepared when the measurement was done.

Cheers,
Dan King

Dan

if this method was still used today, some holes would be very, very long.  There could well be several 1000 yard plus holes!


PS  I love Einstein's quote.

James B

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()