Comparing and contrasting Garden City and Myopia Hunt

[TEPaul]

"Any thoughts?  How close - if at all - were emmet and leeds?  do we know if they met or talked or ever worked on anything together?"


Jay:

I don't know if Emmet and Leeds knew each other but I'd find it a little hard to believe two men of that stature of that same time in GCA and basically of the same ilk (and both being very good players) didn't know each other. It seems they certainly had enough friends in common from the world of golf and architecture that they almost had to know each other.

Myopia and GCGC:

Compare:

To me both courses and clubs very much have a certain and unique look and aura of the particular very early era in American golf from which they began. There are not many like them even if they are not the only ones. It’s a bit hard for me to describe what I mean by that old fashioned aura but if anyone saw both I’m confident they’d know what I mean by that. Their courses, though, even if quite different for various reasons do show, in my opinion, why those two were considered to be in the best three in America at that early time (before NGLA, and Macdonald said as much).

Another comparative feature, in my mind, is both have some of the best of what I would call natural “landform greens” even if they are quite different in that sense (probably because of their very different topography, shapes and sizes).

Both courses very much have what are called “half-pars” (very short par 4s that may be like very long par 3s for good players today and par 5s that are like long par 4s).

(I should add at this point, that I’m not all that clear about exactly what Emmet’s very early (1900-1909) GCGC looked like compared to the Travis changes and then more from Emmet after that (I do have that basic evolution around here somewhere and I do have the GCGC history book which is OK that way).

I think in the early years of the first decade of the 20th century both were considered to be of championship caliber, maybe about the only ones.

Contrast:

Their topography is very different. GCGC is on what historically known as the Hempstead Plain. It was a basically quite flat treeless site (with some well used stunning natural features like the original gravel pit that made #2 so famous).

But in my opinion, GCGC is a flat site and Emmet made a masterpiece of the architecture in an overall way by creating what I would call really interesting “low profile” architecture “visually”. That required sunken features (to the eye and actually) like basic below ground coffin type bunkers and such and very low profile natural grade greens surfaces (if not necessarily surrounds). The tees of GCGC were and still are some of the best on-ground “grade” tees I’ve ever seen in golf. Most are so basically low profile I’m sure a 6’7” golfer would see a whole lot more of the course than a 5’6” golfer would.

I think Myopia has up to six holes that may be described as almost “radical/quirky” (1, 6, 9. 13. 16) and GCGC does not have anywhere near that many (maybe #1). Those particular holes at Myopia happen to be my favorites---eg I’ve definitely never seen anything in golf like them anywhere else (1, 6, 9, 13).

Because of their really early time in American architecture there aren’t a ton of diagonals---more sort of perpendiculars. The greens on both courses aren’t really of the type that have radical internal contours in them---eg more like basic slopes and natural grade slopes, some of which are really pitched in all directions at Myopia.

Leeds probably tried to make his course harder than Emmet tried to make GCGC.

The topography of Myopia is way more complex and differential than GCGC---eg Myopia’s topographical variety is quite something when one thinks about it all and may’ve even been pretty problematic in sections.

Sorry, Jay, I’m probably not describing or explaining them that well but for anyone from this site who could see and play them both I think they would pick up some comparisons but probably way more the contrasts.

But the thing I feel most on here could pick up is what made them the 2-3 best in the land in that very early era----they are just so much more interesting in so many ways then what was extant when they were young.

Later, I’ll get into the uniqueness and nuance of some of the particular holes, particularly Myopia’s.

I hate to say this and I rarely do but between them----if I had to choose one to play for the rest of my life or to play my last round on it would definitely be Myopia Hunt Club----as wonderful as I feel GCGC is. The very good player may feel otherwise and I recognize that.

I’d also like to add that Myopia with some real firm and fast conditions (Ideal Maintenance Meld) would be a total "hoot challenge"! (my Myopia member/guest partner says they get it that way these days and he thinks it’s too much). That way to me would be TOTAL FASCINATION!

(More later, if you'd like. Why don't you ask some more questions?).

Another thing I might add about Myopia (and Leeds) is compared to the other architects and courses that were so famous in early America, Leeds and Myopia were probably the ones that were the "most quiet". Interestingly, that culture still preserves and that may be why it is not TODAY even more respected for where it was in architecture in THAT very early time in American golf and architecture.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Do you have Dr. Quirin's book "America's Linksland", about the courses of Long Island?

There is a neat little drawing on page 47 that shows the original course.   It also has your favorite pic of Dapper Devvie next to it.

Page 52 shows a drawing of the course in 1915.   

I'm not certain that either is exact in displaying all of the features, but it is an interesting comparison.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Do you have Dr. Quirin's book "America's Linksland", about the courses of Long Island?"


MikeC:

I do but I decided to do that last post off the top of my head and from raw memory. I actually have quite a library here in the barn/office. Although I'm sure most realize, despite the games we play on here, Pat Mucci gave me the history book of GCGC AND Macdonald's "Scotland's Gift Golf." Pat Mucci, for you blokes out there who just read him and don't know him is a most generous man and he actually knows so much more about golf and golf archtitecture than some of his posts might make you think he does. The deal with Patrick, is, when he was two he told his mother he wanted to be on the US Supreme Court or at least a super famous trial lawyer. Unfortunately, for that, he got a pretty severe spanking, and it made him superciliously argumentative!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Although I know GCGC fairly well, and never understand why such a wonderful, low-key model hasn't been emulated more often, I'm really very, very interested to understand more about Myopia.

Can you tell us a little bit about the type of strategies employed on the holes, and how they may differ from GCGC, from NGLA, and from modern strategic course thought?

I'm picturing it more like a funky Oakmont, but again, this is pure speculation on my part and I'm not ever certain why I have that presupposition.

[TEPaul]

"Can you tell us a little bit about the type of strategies employed on the holes, and how they may differ from GCGC, from NGLA, and from modern strategic course thought?"


MikeC:

That just might be a remarkably good question (perhaps even more than I can imagine right now).

I probably should just leave aside GCGC and NGLA right now (since they are basically from the same era as Myopia) but if you asked me how Myopia's design and architecture differs from most modern strategic thought, I think I could say it in one word---THE GROUND!

Myopia was so early it had to be designed and visualized architecturally in a time when rock hard ground conditions prevailed some of the time (because it was obviously way before fairway or "through the green" irrigation (when the ground was soft naturally and seasonally the course was just a whole different think (and they actually talk about that)). I feel with the foregoing, there had to be so much of season when conditions rocketed the ball around for many scores of yards that the complexity that way of a Myopia is what separated it quality-wise from so much of its early contemporaries.

This is why in both small and large strategic ways Myopia is best with really F&F conditions and maintenance (that's probably precisely how Leeds visualized it at its best and most strategically challenging). There is so much interesting topography to the course, here and there and everywhere in little nuancy architectual ways that way I'm sure you may get my drift.

With those kinds of conditions it is just mindbending to try to figure out and play. Without that it's a whole different thing altogether.

THAT, just may've been the essence of old fashioned golf in the hands of the best of that day, like a Herbert Leeds!

Have you ever wondered why many of the courses of that early era both here and abroad had so many flat and square or rectangular greens or whatever? It was probably becuse the men who made them just didn't have anywhere near the "GUTS" of a Leeds!

If W.C. Fownes was the ultimate "Torture-mongerer" of American architectural history, I'm betting Leeds was a close second and right behind him! It is no wonder that Crump was pretty fascinated by a few of the holes of Myopia and his friends mentioned he tried to copy a few of them "in concept".

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Most of the modern pics of seen of Myopia seem to show a sensitivity for keeping the course firm and almost purposefully neglectfully under-maintained....sort of the Superintendent's version of benign neglect, although I'm sure just the opposite is probably true to maintain such conditions.

I'm also sure it's probably difficult to transpose conditioning and its effects to the equipment of the day, versus how the course holds up to modern implements.

Still and all, I generally find that courses where the game only begins to get interesting is after the ball has landed tend to be much more generally immune to the extinction factors necessitated by modern technology.

Mother Nature still has more tricks up her sleeve than Modern Man, may it always be so!

But in that spirit, could you elaborate more on the type of defenses that Leeds built at Myopia?   

For instance, did he employ diagonal angles?   What type of bunkering patterns were used?   How about the greens?   Internal contours or just strong slopes??

Given your recent comment that the course has changed very little since the days of Leeds, I'm very curious to see what we could and should learn from the Myopia example, as almost everyone I know who has played there has been enormously enamored of the experience, and I sense there is something mysteriously unexplained or perhaps unexplainable in the reasons why.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

With a thread and subject like this one there really is an undeniable theme that keeps cropping up and that is ALL of those old fashioned so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers who built these wonderful courses and architecture that we all admire so much really were some of the very best players of their day.

If that doesn't tell us something, or give us a really important historical "hint', then I think we are all being pretty blind, particularly those few historical revisionists on here who think those interesting "amateur/sportsmen" in most all casees had to find someone to show them how to think and how to do it!   

[TEPaul]

"But in that spirit, could you elaborate more on the type of defenses that Leeds built at Myopia?"




I guess I could but to do that I'd have to go through all the holes in some real detail and not just how they play today but how Leeds may've wanted them to play back then.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

In that vein, I was researching the old Schenley Park municipal course in Pittsburgh earlier today, which was turned over to the public around 1912, but had been built in 1896 as the home of the Pittsburgh Golf Club.

The more I looked into it, the more I kept seeing the name WC Fownes, along with other top players in western PA such as George A. Ormiston.

I think there's more to find and tell, but one thing that was very clear is that the top players of their day (as well as their professional counterparts from GB&I)  were also regarded as experts in all things golf, particularly the laying out of new courses.

When you think about how few people in this country actually had any real golf knowledge, or golf course knowledge, much less agronomic knowledge, it really shouldn't be surprising at all.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

If you're going to ask me to do that with Myopia, I may as well tell you right now that Myopia's #1 just might be the most unusual hole (par 4) I have ever seen in all my years in golf!  

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

If you're going to ask me to do that with Myopia, I may as well tell you right now that Myopia's #1 just might be the most unusual hole (par 4) I have ever seen in all my years in golf!  

That's what I suspected, and that's why I asked! 

[Thomas MacWood]

Which is considered the better course today, and why?

[Gene Greco]

"Tom,
The deal with Patrick, is, when he was two he told his mother he wanted to be on the US Supreme Court or at least a super famous trial lawyer. Unfortunately, for that, he got a pretty severe spanking, and it made him superciliously argumentative!

   For the sake of historical accuracy, was that about the same time that bug crawled up his arse?

Or did it occur during his years at Notre Dame?

Did others critters follow the night you guys roomed together at Sand Hills when you inadvertently left the door open during the night?

In your estimation, how many bugs are up Mucci's arse?

Is there talk of renovation or reconstitution amongst the supers on board which would focus on bug removal with the end result being a kinder, gentler Patrick?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I find it interesting that you mention the 1st hole at Myopia as being one of the most unusual in golf, especially in the context here where we are comparing it with GCGC, and NGLA, both of which have extremely unusual (and superb) starting holes. 

So if you say Myopia is unusual, then I KNOW it's unusual!

Which bring me to Merion, without wanting to divert this conversation in that direction.

What occurs to me strangely is that of courses of that very early vintage, the first hole (even the original) or any others are most assuredly NOT unusual, or strange, or vintage-looking, or museum-quality, or oddly-contoured, or abruptly-features, etc., especially when compared against others of that era.    Yes, the quarry holes could be possibly termed as "quirky", but even that's a stretch.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Thanks.

Actually, I was 5 when my desire to be Chief Justice was squelched.

Mike Cirba,

You've asked a question that I've been asking myself for years.

Over the years, why weren't there more attempts to duplicate the general concepts at GCGC ?

I understand the need for sandy soil or a site that drains exceptionally well, but, the low profile architecture certainly had to be efficiently produced at minimal cost.

My thoughts are that there was a disconnect from the penal school in an effort to embrace the emerging diversity of the golfing world.

Many of the bunkers at GCGC are severe pits, both in the fairway and surrounding the greens.

I think that these went out of favor as those playing golf became a more  homogenized group.

One of the features that you RARELY, RARELY ever see is a deep fairway bunker with a steep fronting berm, elevated well above fairway grade.

You see them regularly at GCGC and Oakmont.

Those features tend to be full one (1) shot penalty features ...... or more.

They are simple to construct and probably very inexpensive to build.
A perfect application for debris mounds.

They provide an element of visibility, warning the golfer that a deep pit lies below.  They would seem to be an ideal feature on a relatively flat location.

But, they're nowhere to be found.

Why ?

I believe that their extinction is a concession to those who objected to "unfair" features, especially as the appeal of the game broadened to a wider spectrum, including, if not specifically related to the influx of women playing the game.

While tees could be created to negate the distance factor and accomodate the lesser or new player, dramatic features couldn't be altered/reconfigured to serve multiple masters, the adept, the mediocre, the poor and the beginning golfer.  Hence, their shelf life was limited and architecturally they faded into extinction.

I can't remember a modern golf course having this feature, and I don't mean a mini-replica, I mean the big, real deal, a deep, sharp faced fairway bunker with an abrupt, tall fronting berm in the DZ.

I will start another thead on that feature shortly.

So, why didn't clones of GCGC sprout up ?

I think some did.

Seawane comes to mind.
What a wonderful site, swept by winds off the water.

The concept of wide fairways and penal features seems to have faded with golf's popularity because those courses couldn't adjust themselves or dumb themselves down to accomodate the broader spectrum of golfers being introduced to the game.

Popularity brings a price.

An inferior/softer design.

Are there 10 modern day courses that have penal bunkers/features throughout the golf course ?  (note, Water and OB don't count)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

The bunker pictured above at Myopia looks like the bunker on # 1 at GCGC.

I think you'll find that a few other greens at GCGC have a similar look.

At GCGC many of the bunkers seem to be deep pits carved out of the soil as opposed to the constructed form as shown above.

[wsmorrison]

One of the features that you RARELY, RARELY ever see is a deep fairway bunker with a steep fronting berm, elevated well above fairway grade.

You see them regularly at GCGC and Oakmont.

Those features tend to be full one (1) shot penalty features ...... or more.

They are simple to construct and probably very inexpensive to build.
A perfect application for debris mounds.

They provide an element of visibility, warning the golfer that a deep pit lies below.  They would seem to be an ideal feature on a relatively flat location.

But, they're nowhere to be found.

Pat,

These sorts of bunkers can be especially pleasing, from an aesthetic perspective, on rolling topography.   Hopefully I'll be showing you many examples of this when you visit.  This sort of design element can be seen on a great many Flynn courses.  He tied-in the raised toplines of the bunkers in a most appealing way.  Tom and I hope a great one on the fifth at Shinnecock Hills GC is returned to its former state.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

That would be great.

My feeling is that many on this site would welcome this feature.

But, sadly, at democratically run clubs, each member has a vote, and worse, a voice.

The shrill of complainer's voices is always higher than those of satisfied member's voices, hence, a feature that's perceived as making a hole more difficult has a tenuous life expectancy.   And, a severe feature, which inherently has a higher profile sits in an even more precarious position.

I'd love to see these dramatic, HIGHLY EFFICIENT features returned.

Good Luck at Shinnecock and elsewhere.

You've got my vote, even if it doesn't count.

[Bradley Anderson]

Having never been to either course I can only comment on what I seen in the photos.

But both seem to have greens that are close to grade, and bunkers that are dug in to the grade. These kinds of bunkers are more penal, and as Patrcik has pointed out, they are less expensive to build. I think they are more effective as well, because they don't have to be too big to collect balls, or to scare the crap out of golfers.

I agree with Patrick also that it makes no sense why these golf courses have not been copied.

The tees I think are also very pratical at both courses. Who says that a tee has to be three feet above grade? I think they are more effective with just enough elevation to drain. They are less costly to build and maintain at grade, and they don't clutter up the landscape with bumps on the horizon. Think about how less cluttered a golf course is, and how much easier it is to appreaciate the gorund contours when the tees are all close to grade.
 

[TEPaul]

"But both seem to have greens that are close to grade, and bunkers that are dug in to the grade."

Bradley:

You are essentially exactly right about that at both Myopia and GCGC. The reason for that probably has more to do with the fact that those courses were done that way so long ago and their architects probably just had to do them that way. I'm not sure it was some revolutionary new concept, and more like one that resulted from the inability back then to move earth easily.

That photo of the 9th green at Myopia is a great example and if one goes to the right of that green (actually almost behind where that photo was taken from) it's completely obvious to see that area is basically original untouched grade. If one then got on his stomach and looked across at the green and the natural grade in its area one can see it's on about the same grade (with perhaps a slight leveling of the green surface since natural grade in that area tends to fall gradually from the right side of the green to the left.

If one looks at those bunkers dug down INTO natural grade one can just about match what the fill was used for in that area---including something like that prominent "nose" that protrudes into that right bunker.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

That particular green in that photo is #9 at Myopia. I believe it might be basically original to the first 1894 layout.

It is also one of the most interesting greens in a strategic sense and the kind of thing one rarely sees anymore.

The hole is only about 140 yards max but that green shape is very remarkable. From the tee one can just see a small piece of the green surface because it is just about at the level of the eyes of a golfer of about 6 feet. It is actually very long (about 35+ paces) but a first timer cannot see that green length from the tee (or even make out all that well where the pin is on its length. The real uniqueness of the green, though is that it is a bit less than 10 paces wide and through its entire length.

And when you add those deep and extremely narrow coffin bunkers on either side of it you have a strategic situation that is really something to contemplate and play and particularly to recover to if you miss that super narrow green.

On the one hand, if you hit that green and hold the ball near the back to front location of the pin on that really narrow green you have a real birdie opportunity because there's not much break on that long and extremely narrow green.


But if you miss it in those coffin bunkers on either side you really have some potential situation in recovery because those bunker floors are so narrow you may not have much of a backswing or through swing depending on where the ball is in those narrow coffin bunkers. Then you're needing to recovery up very quickly and generally into a super narrow green where the ball is likely to go right over the other side into a coffin bunker on the other side of the green if you try to recover directly at the pin, particularly if it's on the front half (a better and smarter recovery with a front pin probably is to stand sideways in the bunker and play out to the back half of the green and then put back to the front pin.

Of course, if you miss wide of those coffin bunkers recovering back onto that green requires a shot that few golfers have (ala Mickelson).

All in all that little hole and long and super narrow green (it's in the shape of a domino) with the type of bunkers it has along either side along most of its length is one of the coolest little presentations in the world of golf architecture, in my opinion.

It just has "The Right Stuff" in shot demands via "risk/reward" (strategies) and to think it is as old as it is!   

[TEPaul]

But believe it or not, Bradley, as cool as that little hole is that way, in my opinion, it just may take about the third or even fourth seat on that golf course to a couple of others that may be even more remarkable on a super "reward" vs super "risk" scale.

I know there's probably no architect today out there who would dare to design and do something like Myopia's 1st hole or 13th hole for a number of reasons but those two are just about the neatest as well as potentially maddening little mothers you ever saw or played.

I think both of them sort of fall into that Riviera #10 category even if neither looks anything like it.

[TEPaul]

I think I should describe Myopia's 1st in complete detail because there's nothing like it. Some might say it's just too short (Leeds basically just had to wedge what it is in there) for today and they have a point. But the rest of what it is does to compensate in some really cool ways for its extreme shortness should be explained.

Bob Crosby, you played for Harvard and obviously played Myopia numerous times. Why don't you go first and describe this ultra unusual opener of that super early era in American golf and architecture?

[TEPaul]

There is also a most interesting letter in the Myopia history book from Bob Jones and from quite a time after he went to Harvard and came to know Myopia so well. What he said about it and why is worthwhile. It seems to get right down to the essence of what Jones felt about a few other courses he loved so well and defended against a direction in golf architecture which he apparently did not approve of.

[Jay Flemma]

Tom, great stuff.  When I covered the Travis, the club told me the Travis changes to GCGC were adding internal contouring to greens and deepening the bunkers.

Wayne, you are absolutely right.  Country Club of Charleston had their berms rebuilt asnd they look great - they really look like military fortifications from the green!

yes, Emmet, a follower of raynor, employed them to good use at GCGC.

Also occasionally at Eisenhower red before it was changed, there were great cross bunkers bisecting the fairways.  Do they have those at Myopia by any chance?  Is that maybe something else Leeds and Emmet - or all the designers of the age - might have commonly employed?

Maybe wayne is right, bring back berms.  Also bring back cross bunkers...that'll help stem some of the distance problem and keep things strategic.

They create the line of charm.