next »

[Tom Naccarato]

I wasn't able to post during the last GCGC topic, and I'm just too lazy too look past all of the poetry threads to find the old one, but lets talk about Garden City.

I love the place. Well most of it.

Let me start off by saying get rid of that intrusive and upsetting 12th hole and rebuild what should be rightfully there. AND NEVER LET ANOTHER GREEN COMMITTEE TOUCH IT EVER AGAIN! Yes, we have yammered on and on for years about this golf hole, but come on! the restoration effort has been in full swing. what is taking so damn long? The existing golf hole is not only harsh to the eye, but destroys the serenity of a perfect round, despite how good or bad of a golfer you might be.

Garden City is better then this. I say to the club, restore my hope, restore our faith and cleanse our Sport: RESTORE THE 12th! The Golf world is waiting!

(Also, that pond on #16 HAS to go. Restore that huge sandy bunker, as well as the fairway width of that hole. (and more))

Thoughts?

[Adam_Messix]

Tommy--

First of all, welcome back....

Do you know why the pond on 16 was put in, was there a drainage issue with the large bunker that was there?  I'm going to guess that Trent Jones did it, along with the 12th green.

I would love to see the old 12th Hole returned, but I'm sure that it would be quite controversial among the membership.  What Travis had there originally was truly unique. 

[Tom Naccarato]

Thanks Adam, and I'll call you later!

Hopefully Patrick can confirm that, but from memory, I think it was about the 40's or 50's when it was made into a pond. The 12th was changed back in the early 1960's if I remember right.

What bugs me about the 12th is that the original would fit perfect with the architecture. It was a quirky little thing ready to tear yoru heart out. It required a skillful shot but offered different types of plays for every type of game to every pin. It had an appropriate amount of strategy for the amount of penalization for a poorly executed shot.

[Phil McDade]

In my years on the GCA board, I've rarely heard of a hole on a great course more roundly criticized than the 12th at GCGC. Can someone post meaningful pictures, perhaps before and after, with informed commentary on what the hole was before, and what it is now, and how the changes have altered the hole for the worse (or better, for the contrarians out there...)?

[Jon Spaulding]

Here are a couple of the current version. There was so much bitching and/or moaning that I would have been lynched had I taken any more.

The hole might be out of place given the rest of the course, but put it on a number of other courses and people would be fawning over it.

[Jeff Doerr]

Can someone post a historic image of the 12th?

[David Stamm]

I've never seen the original. I tend to agree w/ Jon. While I'm not saying the hole is great, if it were elsewhere, it wouldn't take as much criticism. The hole (mainly the green) seems to the thing that is really out of character with the rest of the course. Then again, I've only seen it once.

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:

I have been consulting at Garden City for 18 years, and in all that time they have never had a Board of Governors (or a superintendent) ready to restore the original 12th green and to take the heat for it.

Saying that the original hole would "fit perfect" is a bit disingenuous.  It is nothing like the rest of the course, or any course, and you know that it would be very controversial.

I am sure that Patrick will come on here and agree with you ... funny how he forgets about "doing the King's bidding" when it comes home to haunt him.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tommy Boy, you were missed in the northlands....  JC

[Tom Naccarato]

Tom,
In the spirit of old fashion Golf Club Atlas Discussion, I would love to examine this further. I can't seem to find my crudely devised Photoshop rendition of the hole, from a photo taken form the GCGC history from many years back, but I'm ready to do another!

How I think it fits is this:

How did "The Maiden" fit into the grand scheme of Royal St. Georges? How about "The Cader" at Aberdovey? The Sandy Parlour At Deal? How does the Eden fit at the Old Course as well as many  other blind and not so blind, challenging one-shotters throughout Great Britain? You would be correct in saying that some of these holes don't even exist in their entirety anymore, but just like GCGC's 12th, it too was a victim of green committee and over-watering. they claimed they couldn't really mow it anymore, and frankly, it would have been interesting to hear exactly how they did once mow it! (the green)

Still, these holes represented the bulk of sportiness when it came to the tough, challenging and never un-entertaining par 3. they were supposed to be tough--and fair. They were supposed to have you confusing you while walking on to the tee and talking to yourself while walking off of the green. That's what a GREAT one-shotter, with character was supposed to be all about (IMHO)

How did the original differ in this regard? Yes, it wasn't blind, but neither is The Eden on the Old Course. I think it was a matter of strategy, especially where the pin was placed, just like the Eden on the Old Course. But the holes are nothing alike!

That to me is solid Golf Architecture from the turn of the 19th century....Quirky fun, exhilarating, deceptively beautiful (in our terms)

[Tom Naccarato]

Tommy Boy, you were missed in the northlands....  JC

Thanks Jon!

[JNC_Lyon]

The hole might be out of place given the rest of the course, but put it on a number of other courses and people would be fawning over it.

I disagree about this.  When I played Garden City this summer, this hole was by far the weakest hole on the property.  It certainly doesn't have the
stragetic interest of 2 or 18, not to mention it doesn't possess the quirk of those two holes (a sand quarry and an Eden on the patio? why not have a horseshoe
to complete the trifecta?) It is simply a nothing hole, with bland bunkering that is out of character with the course.  There is no strategy, and it
contains no creativity or interest.  The green is one of the least interesting on the course.  Although it is not a bad hole by any stretch, it would not stand
out as the best hole on another course.  It was also frustrating to see such a hole in the middle of an unbelievable stretch of holes from 8-16.

At the same time, I think the pond is fine on 16 at GCGC.  It is small enough and quaint enough be in character with the course. 
Remember 18 has a pond too? It is also blind for the second shot, which reduces any negative visual effects it might otherwise have.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Garden City.  It has a few less-than stellar holes (5, 12, 17 green), but the great holes are truly great.  It is a straightforward
test, but it has plenty of quirk and quaintness to attract endearment as well.  The most unusual thing for me playing it was the number of blind tee shots. 1, 3, 4,
6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17 were all partially or fully blind with the fescue up.  Never have I experienced so many blind shots except for maybe Oak Hollow
in High Point, NC.  I loved this aspect, and I thought it brought it closer to the Scottish links than most courses in America.

With such things being said, why wouldn't the old twelfth fit in with the quirk of today's course.  Certainly the membership would be more open-minded to than
many (I know my course would fire a superintendent for restoring a Ross feature), and the long-term effects would be brilliant.

It meshes very well with the surroundings

[Tom Naccarato]

JNC_Lyon,
The 16th is another hole which some years back we had innumerable interesting discussions about.

The width today, I feel is a mere shadow of its former self. I think that width goes further left (and somewhat more, right) then we see today. This would have called for a more direct shot over the sand hazard which is now the pond. From memory, I think someone was saying the entire reason why the hole was changed was because someone actually left the water on right near that pond. (the super's building is right next to it) and it flooded the entire area, including that vast bunker.

From the looks of it, the hole was much more interesting to look at from the fairway. A lot of sand, and certainlly a lot more raggy Hempstead Plain served as the canvas, giving it that links look most of us die for.

[JNC_Lyon]

I generally support width on a golf hole, but what would widening the fairway on 16 do to increase strategy?  What would added fairway to the left
do for the hole if there was indeed more room on the right.  It seems right now the hole has a line of charm aspect, where the flag lingers to the left
but the ideal play is a controlled down the right to fit the shape of the hole and leave a look/better angle into the green.  Would adding fairway to the
left increase the presence of the line of charm, or would it, combined with more fairway to the right, simply making the tee shot less of a test and
allow more room for angle into the green.

When I play the hole, I was able to shape a perfect draw down the left side that cut down the length of a hole.  However, I knew the pond was there
and the shot was still semi-blind.  Thus, I was left full of indecision and bailed out to the right of the green and made a bogey.  This blind second shot
seemed to contain many of the links qualities you speak of.  The current version of the hole provides fantastic strategy and attractiveness.  I'm not sure
how widening the fairway or removing the pond (replaced by a bunker) would improve the visual or strategic elements of the hole.

That's a ridiculous story about the formation of the pond.  It's one of those classic things that seems to happen at a lot of private American clubs!

[Tom Naccarato]

JNC,
Hopefully pat will comment more on the validity of what exactly happened, either that, or if someone were to find the thread we had on Garden City that a lot of in-depth analysis of that hole.

It was a GREAT thread, with nary a tone of infighting or dissension with-in the group.

The lay of the land to the left, if you took it left with the wider fairway cut, and we are talking much wider, brought all sorts of different angles into play for that green. (from what I remember of it in person) I'll have to see if I can find the aerial which shows a lot. I think you would indeed see the hole in somewhat of a different aspect.)

[Tom Naccarato]

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:

You are right, they should get that fairway mowed out to the left in front of the bunkers.  And it will be easy to do.  But, it's not going to make the hole a LOT better ... the angle mattered a lot more when you were hitting a longer club to the green than an 8-iron or wedge.

[Mike_Cirba]

In the late stages of the development of Cobb's Creek Golf Course, Walter Travis was credited with hanging around and helping (probably brought there by George Crump, as he was also hanging at PV at the time).

Tommy's wonderful pic of the old 12th green at Garden City reminded me of the one green built at Cobb's Creek that stuck out like a sore thumb from the rest of the very minimalist, lay-of-the-land architecture, and which some of us (Geoffrey Walsh, are you out there?) speculated may have been Travis's contribution to the course.




Of course, the original 10th green at Merion was a somewhat similar "one-off" with a similar "fortress" look to it, so I may be completely mistaken, but in the spirit of this thread, I think if Cobb's Creek ever does get restored, a number of us would LOVE to see the old "tie-fighter" (coined by Geoff Walsh) green and surrounds restored to it's amazing and unique glory on what is today the 10th hole at Cobb's Creek.

[JNC_Lyon]

Okay, I can see moving the fairway out to the right to create the gamble along the OB to get the angle into the green.  I think an open look is
always preferred to a blind approach, and anything that can enhance this general strategy of the hole is would be excellent.  However, I'm still not
sure that moving the fairway to the left would do much for the strategy of the hole.  Please explain.

[Scott Stearns]

nobody wlse is willing to do so, so i'll say it--

which would a low handicap player find a better test fo golf;  the current 12th, or the old one.  In my opinion, there is no contest-the current hole.  The old 12th may be a great museum piece and "fit" better than the current one, but with steel shafts, let alone urethane low spin balls, its just too easy and offers ZERO choices.

I play golf to be challenged, and while the 12th stops me in my tracks, its better than the old one to play.  the old one hits me as a "wow, this is like a civil war re-enactment".

The Travis field would be bored stupid with the old hole.  they might say it looks cool, but they wouldn't think for a minute as they pulled a shrt iron and ripped it at the flag.

as for the 16th, i rode the course with a former committee member and longtime member, and he told me that the pond on the 16th was a result of poor drainage.  Doak would know better than my poor memory, however.

[David Stamm]

which would a low handicap player find a better test fo golf;  the current 12th, or the old one.  In my opinion, there is no contest-the current hole.  The old 12th may be a great museum piece and "fit" better than the current one, but with steel shafts, let alone urethane low spin balls, its just too easy and offers ZERO choices.

I play golf to be challenged, and while the 12th stops me in my tracks, its better than the old one to play.  the old one hits me as a "wow, this is like a civil war re-enactment".

The Travis field would be bored stupid with the old hole.  they might say it looks cool, but they wouldn't think for a minute as they pulled a shrt iron and ripped it at the flag.

as for the 16th, i rode the course with a former committee member and longtime member, and he told me that the pond on the 16th was a result of poor drainage.  Doak would know better than my poor memory, however.

Scott, have you played the old 12? If not, I'm surprised you can deduce from that photo that it is "less challenging". If the new is harder, harder does not always mean better.

[Scott Stearns]

David, have you played the old 12?  I have not.  Please enlighten me as to what makes the old one so challenging.

i believe the new one to be more challenging to today's better player than the old one.

[wsmorrison]

Just what do you think is green space on the 12th?  To me it looks like it is limited to the area defined by the mounds and not in between the fronting bunker and the opening between the horseshoe shaped mounding, the sides of the mounding or the area between the mounds and the rear bunkers.  Is there documentation that the mounding was in the green space or that the mounding was kept at green height?  If the green space was actually in the interior of the mounds, perhaps the mounds were kept at fairway height.  I don't know the history of the course and I've never been there, but by looks of the photo, the notion that the entire area between the front and rear bunkers was green space with the mounds and internal green feature is not so certain.

[Tom Naccarato]

Scott,
 You say you play golf to be challenged and that the current version of the 12th would be more challenging then the old, it shows it is all a matter of what people feel is challenge and isn't. Its an issue of being able to see clearly what is challenging and what is simply either a very penal hole, or one that can be found on any insignificant golf course in the country. Thats what the current version is to me. But your really correct about one thing and that's how an esteemed field of good players like the Travis attracts, would even like the original.

But then again, I sort of think that those that play in those events are best to leave the architecture behind and just shut up and play! (sort of just joking!)

Getting back to the strategy and challenge-thing, in my opinion with the original, if the pin was say, tucked back left how and you were playing in the fastest, firmest, Tom Paul "Maintenance Meld" conditions imaginable--on which was how the hole was conceived, how would you play to a pin like that? To me I would find it great fun to try to hit it low enough to get it over the bunker, yet run it off of one of those mounds on the right, or hit it high and long and aim it for the back mound on the left, or try to aim for the center of the green and hopefully get it past the upper tier which seems to be in the photo--at least from what I see, but that would be chancy because if I didn't get it up over that tier, then I'm looking at having to get over it again...  The other hole, well it looks like a RTJ/design by committee special which gives away birdies, rather then defends itself, and challenges the golfer but then again, I don't know, I refused to play the hole because of moral convictions alone. It didn't matter, its a hole I've played on a public course in the middle of a cow pasture in Chino, California. (no fooling)

Honestly, the original with those mounds looks like it bleeds Emmet/Travis-style architecture. Not the current version. But then again, Tom knows the ramifications of trying to restore old par 3's with storied histories that were left for dead better then anyone that I know of. (A golf hole and hole(s) which I feel are FAR better then what they had, after the original holes were abandoned due to urban-sprawl issues. (See SFGC) No one there will ever win that argument with me!)

But thats another entirely different story!

[David Stamm]

David, have you played the old 12?  I have not.  Please enlighten me as to what makes the old one so challenging.

i believe the new one to be more challenging to today's better player than the old one.

Scott, I don't know either way. How could I, the hole has been long gone and I have only played the new. I'm just asking you to support your statement that the new is better/more challenging.

[Tom Naccarato]

JNC Lyon, I'm waiting to see others replies to this, in hopes of making this a discussion. I'll giv e you my thoughts after analysis by others, but I do have my thoughts on other strategies, although they are somewhat simple. Sometimes simple is better, and while that would be a perfect defense for others concerning the current 12th, honestly, this is about the 16th!

[john_foley]

So help me understand is the old 12th in the pics Travis or Emmett?

It reminds me of the heavily moguled 8th at Leatherstocking which is an original Emmett
.

[Tom Naccarato]

John, I believe its Emmet, with a bit of Travis bunkering, or re-bunkering...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I thought I had another pic of the 12th, copied from the original thread, but its the same one you just posted.  I love the idea, mostly because I recall having a similar putt over a ridge after missing the 17th at Lahainch and found it fun.  However, that version is much softer than the old GCGC and I ask you this - if GCGC was going to restore the concept of the 12th, would it be acceptable to you if those ridges were softened for the practical reasons that probably got them remodeled out of existence in the first place - i.e., they are probably impossible to mow at current heights, even with hand mowers because the transistion slopes are too steep and varied.

And, with current green speeds, I wonder if remodeling back to the play concept, rather than the actual dimensions/heights would be truly better for the members and their guests.  Lastly, I wonder why the bunkers were so far out there if the main recovery shot option was a putt/pitch over a large ridge?  I could see keeping the first one just because it would look cool.  The back bunker could stay or go in my mind.  In "restoring" such a unique green, these kinds of questions would have to be answered, I think. 

I do agree that the RTJ green is a great example of 60's thinking that you couldn't match the old style, so why try. (and perhaps the rest of the course would be remodeled to match)  Even if they never go back to the original concept, or anything close, I would think a different design or bunker scheme would be in order.

[Tom Naccarato]

jeff,
One of the things that was determined in the past threads on the 12th was that the hole became impossible to cut because of the mounds. I think they were getting scalped a lot. I also think many of us agreed that if it was the case that at least having a hole that somewhat reprsentitive of the original, that it would be better then what exists there now. I'd be for that.

I've seen a drawing of the plan Tom had for the redo of the hole when he proposed it. From a vertical standpoint it wasn't much different then what is there now, but knowing Tom, I'm sure he would have added some touches that would make it a better golf hole then it currently is. I also think that some amount of research into the original should be performed for the cause of knowing exactly what was there before recreating something one thinks is pretty close.

[Scott Stearns]

"To me I would find it great fun to try to hit it low enough to get it over the bunker, yet run it off of one of those mounds on the right, or hit it high and long and aim it for the back mound on the left..."

I think a player who is actually trying to shoot the lowest score he can fades a 7 iron at the back left hole, knowing that if he hits it straight, hes got a 10 foot putt at it.

i just dont think a good player finds those hills to offer a choice, despite the low running slice over a set of bunkers you describe.  pull 7 and hit it at the hole is what they do, and then wax on abt the hole in the grillroom.

The only part of your agrument i find compelling is that the old hole "fits better" and looks "cool"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Looking at that aerial again, without any carts or cart paths, look at all the maintenance access paths that are there.  The green is virtually surrounded by them.

[Scott Stearns]

I agree with those that suggest a third way-a hole that resembles the rest of the place, as i dont think the current hole is as fun as the rest of the course.  But i am trying to stick with Tommy's original question, which is the reason in my opnion the club has none nothing--there is a small but vocal group that would settle for nothing but the "old" hole-making their idea of the perfect the enemy of the better.

[wsmorrison]

Since nobody bothers to answer, I'll ask again:

What is the proof that the limits of the green were not defined by the surrounding mounds rather than the mounds being internal features of a much larger green?  Are there original drawings or different aerial photographs that lead one to conclude the green was larger than it appears in the current photograph?  I'd like Craig Disher's opinion on what exactly constitutes green space in the photograph.  At this point, I don't think the mounds were internal green features.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

To have a good and intelligent discussion on the 12th hole at GCGC and/or its potential restoration, some of the old treads on the subject should be pulled up again. There's a lot of good material in those old threads.

Also, in my opinion, the club should not attempt to get into a restoration of that hole without first bringing in and thoroughly consulting Mel Lucas. I doubt there is anyone out there who has the detailed knowledge of that old hole as does Mel Lucas. I had a very interesting discussion about it last June over about a day and a half at the USGA.

I'm in Portland Oregon today but I'll be back home tomorrow and I'll try to add some of the details on what we spoke about vis-a-vis that old hole.