Two Holes, One Architect

[JMorgan]

The two holes below, both par 4 #13's on the card, were designed by the same architect.






Without revealing the architect or location, what do these two holes suggest -- if anything -- to you?

[Phil_the_Author]

That, especially in the case of the one on top, that the green surfaces have shrunken due to poor maintenance practices...

[Mike_Young]

It suggest that the architect designed at least two courses

[Sean_A]

I would like to see the green from the first pic slapped in the setting o fthe second pic.  I also gotta wonder about the placement of the tee in the first pic.  Its good to have your enemies in front of you!

Ciao

[Andy Levett]

Please tell me the white stakes in the first pic aren't denoting OB, added in a horribly ill-conceived attempt to protect folks on the 14th tee? The top edge of the front bunker seems still visible, a slightly darker shade of green.
The second pic is from a course in Ran's ROTW Next 50.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Andy- They are not OOB stakes.
Sean- I suspect that 'tee' could be added since its original design.

I see this pretty much as a standard way of fitting a green into this landscape rather than anything of any great technical merit.

[Matt Waterbury]

Ummmm...guy had a weak fade, so made sure safe miss was always short right?   Perhaps a template of how to jam a green into the back corner of a property?

mjw

[Matthew Hunt]

Is it a redan green on a par 4/5?

[Jonathan McCord]

How about this little rendition?  Bunkers may vary.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The first photo looks like a hole at Agawam Hunt Club which was designed by Donald Ross.  

[rchesnut]

It's odd.  I would have expected bunkering on the left in the first picture to discourage golfers from hitting left where players could be on the next tee, encouraging a bailout on the right.  Perhaps, given the buildings and hedges on the right, there's not that much bailout room there.  Or perhaps there are nasty bunkers on the left that we can't see.  In any event, it suggests a course that's got limited property, forcing the architect to take full advantage of the whole corner.

The lower picture is more appealling because the course hasn't been overwatered.  The brown grass and bunkering add some contrast that's missing from the top picture.

[Andrew Summerell]

Well, I’m going to say they are the same hole, with the 2nd picture having being taken about 50 years ago and the first photo more recently.

[Brian Phillips]

Well, I’m going to say they are the same hole, with the 2nd picture having being taken about 50 years ago and the first photo more recently.

I am with Andy here...

[James Bennett]

Andrew (and Brian)

which version do you prefer, and why?

I liked Rob Chestnut's answer. ie 'The lower picture is more appealing because the course hasn't been overwatered.  The brown grass and bunkering add some CONTRAST that's missing from the top picture.'

And Phillip Young's, ie 'That, especially in the case of the one on top, that the green surfaces have SHRUNKEN due to poor maintenance practices...'

James B

[Paul_Turner]

James

I think I might be the only one here on GCA who's played both of those.  But I'd never compared the shaping similarities,  nice job!

Both are super courses but apart from having a similar total yardage and a similar 13th green complex, they are chalk and cheese.  The bottom one sprawls over a huge tract whereas the top one is in a tight urban setting. (200+ vs 90 acres)

The first pic is just a winter photo that doesn't do the hole justice;  the course isn't over watered and turns a similar yellow in the summer:



I've seen lovely old pics of this course but none of this hole...not sure if bunkers were filled.

The second hole has more contour to its green than the first.  

And the second green runs away quite strongly ("redan" style) whereas the first is right to left with a back to front slope.

[Jay Cox]

A third hole, a different architect (I think), a similar look?

[Pete_Pittock]

Did we have an earlier thread about #1 where someone said you had to go through someone's yard to get to the back tee?

[JMorgan]

I got slammed by a nasty flu bug earlier in the week ... otherwise I would have nurtured this topic along a bit better, sorry. 

These #13 holes are from Harborne and Broadstone, respectively -- both Colt redesigns.     

My thinking went something like this:  same shaping ... missing bunkers at Harborne?... how did Colt see better vs. novice player playing second shot in 1924 vs. 1914? ... and different land/totally different locations - Dorset and Birmingham ... routing sequences differ ... green template fit into one or other or both routings?  Etc.

(Ed. Plus one more that I forgot to include in the above impression of cognitive loosening: would Colt need those greenside bunkers today?)

Colt redesigned Broadstone in 1914, during an extremely busy period just before he entered the war -- on the Colt timeline, following completion of the Eden Course, work at Royal Montreal, visits to Pine Valley, and designing Hamilton and Detroit CC, in addition to work on over a dozen other courses -- and Harborne in 1923/24, around the same time as Sunningdale New and Tandridge, for instance.  I wondered if he for whatever reason used the same plan from Broadstone #13 at Harborne? From all I've read thusfar, I get the sense that his approach to certain design problems was undergoing a significant change just before WWI.  Another detail in the two pictures, as Paul notes, one green is Redan-like, the other is not.  Was Harborne's more steeply sloped at one time?  Or was this a variable built in so as NOT to repeat?  More extensive green one time at Harborne (as Phil notes)?  How often did Colt & Alison re-employ certain macro design features, beyond the more subtle tell-tale signatures that make up a style? 

[Jon Earl]

How about the 17th at Tandridge for displaying similar design features. Photos from Paul Turner's 2004 write up.

From the tee.