News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tommy_Naccarato

Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« on: November 25, 2007, 03:52:14 AM »


Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2007, 04:16:08 AM »
Is that some kind of wooden sleepers at the edge of the green in the first picture?

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2007, 04:16:57 AM »
Exactly what it was (at one time)

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2007, 04:19:02 AM »
It's funny what our eyes instantly take us to--those sleepers, but if you look closely, doesn't that horseshoe seem a bit more bolder?

Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2007, 04:35:45 AM »
You are so right, Tommy. My first thought was that I would be very sad to find my ball trapped close to those sleepers. But ending up short sided in that horseshoe would certainly mean some work.
I have only walked the hole one time so I find it hard to judge which version that's more demanding than the other just by looking at the pictures.
I see a fair share of potential trouble in both.  
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 04:38:24 AM by Eric Franzen »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2007, 04:49:53 AM »
Eric,
I was actually trying to point more out at the green contour itself, which if you have been to National and most Raynor/MacDonald courses, takes the shape of a upside down "U" or horsehoe.

But yes, the left side bunker (which I think your referring to) is more severe. No doubt about that!

Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2007, 05:05:24 AM »
That's right, Tommy. I was referring to the left bunker. I don't remember that much about the contour of the green so I will consult the yardage guide back at the office tomorrow. My experience of CBM and Raynor's work is very limited, being from the other side of the pond. I also played Yale last year, but that's about it.
Note to self: get George Bahto's book sometime soon.

TEPaul

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2007, 06:43:54 AM »
First of all, sleepers (generally vertical wooden supports for the faces of bunker and such) were definitely a physical feature and style of an era---eg generally from 19th century architecture and beginning their use and existence abroad.

Macdonald, with his creation of NGLA (1907-11) and with its list of approximately a half dozen 19th century template holes took the look and style and physical architectural features from those holes abroad and recreated them at NGLA, and that originally included wooden sleepers.

Macdonald also continued to constantly work on changing and improving NGLA for about the next 30 years and during that time Macdonald removed those wooden sleepers from the 6th green as well as redoing some greens or parts of them and even moving a few others.

Also, probably the continuous use of sand topdressing may tend to flatten out or soften some contours, particularly low or concave spots, over time. On the other hand, some green contours immediately surrounding sand bunkering may tend to rise up in height through constant sand kick (virtually a player form of constant sand topdressing).

The speeds on the old green in that photo were probably about half as fast as the greens of NGLA today so my sense is that the contours of the 6th green, even if somewhat softer, probably function in play as far more dramatic and more demanding than the contours on that old green did.

Back to wooden board sleepers.

Even the old redan at North Berwick once had board sleepers supporting the face of its big fronting bunker. It now has a grass face, as does NGLA's #6.

For a time in the early years some courses such as Pine Valley and even NGLA tried to support some of the more vertical faces of bunkering just using sand. Basically, that just didn't work---it never held for long and would just wash down often taking parts of a green with it.

At that point almost all of the courses who used wooden sleepers went to grass faces or even smaller more formalized bunkers in place of a big single sand flashed up one.

And abroad on most of the steep faced bunkers that once used wooden sleepers for structural support bunkers were refitted with "sod courses" that became known as revetting.

I can tell you that today if a ball hits the front of the 6th green near and certainly to the left of that golfer at the front of the green it will generally roll off the green into that left bunker. And I can tell you that if you are outside the horseshoe and the pin is in it it's very hard to get the ball near the pin and often even quite hard to keep the ball in the horseshoe itself.

I can also tell you that green with today's firmness and speed on NGLA's greens is basically three greens in one (the horseshoe, the right portion and the back left portion) and if you are in the wrong section to the pin the chances of two putting are very low.

In other words, for what NGLA is looking for today playability-wise, the 6th green and everything about it is just fine!
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 06:54:04 AM by TEPaul »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2007, 10:17:42 AM »
Tommy,

The old version was much more demanding....but not exactly what I thought at the first glimpse of the two photo's.

In my opinion, the demand of the first shot is contained more in the contour of the green than in the surrounds. The first 1/3 of the green is the easy part to hit, if I remember correctly. But, in the old version, remember that the equipment was not nearly as conducive to a high, towering shot to easily carry the bunker, regardless of the sleepers.

The sleepers would be a second shot challenge, IMO. In the modern version, the same risk is there as far as the first shot is concerned. On the modern version, I see a missed shot left in one of those narrow bands of sand as a greater challenge than the missed shot of old.

If both versions could be played today, I would say the challenge off the tee is similar. It would be the recovery of failed execution that would be the difference.

Joe

" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2007, 11:55:39 AM »
Tommy,

GCGC where CBM was a member, used them on a number of holes.

Perhaps he liked their penal nature and their ability to keep sandy soil firmly in place.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2007, 12:30:20 PM »
Patrick,
Of all people, probably the person that holds this course most dear on this website (other then me!  ;) ) What do you think of the two? I want thoughts, descriptions, etc.!

So far Eric, TPaul and Joe have come through!

Rich Goodale

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2007, 01:50:30 PM »
The hole is pretty much the same today as it was ~100 years ago if you strip away the eye-candy from both pictures, but the earlier version was much more demanding in that it had to be played with early-20th century balls and other equipment, which, as we all know, were far inferior to what we have today.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Which Version Was More Demanding?--Volume 1 NGLA #6
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2007, 07:40:06 PM »
Tommy,

The reason I prefer the current version is for the following reason.

The putting surface and immediate surrounds have been shaped such that balls are fed into the surrounding bunker/s.

I"m not so sure that it's possible to do that with the sleepers.

Balls just clearing the sleepers would appear to be safe from spinning back into the bunker, a devilish feature that I think adds to the challenge and fun.

The first picture appears to have been taken closer to the green, so perhaps that's why the donut seems more pronounced.

I don't think, as the idiot-savant stated that it has anything to do with greenspeeds of the day.

Topdressing, aerification and daily mowing may have softened the contouring over time