next »

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

It seems hard to believe looking at the steepness of those in-line rolls or mounds on that hole but Mel Lucas assured me that they were mowed and maintained once as greenspace. Obviously back then they used some very light hand mowers.

Bradley Anderson can add some evidence of those kinds of mowers back in the old days.

[Tom Naccarato]

the 12th was originally a short par --with the mounds intact--at the turn of the century.

(It's about time you got into this!)

[Thomas MacWood]

In addition to the original at GCGC there were at least two replicas built of the old 12th hole - Columbia and White Marsh Valley. It is interesting the hole at Columbia was eventually designed when Travis was engaged. Which begs the question did he had a change of heart about the merits of the concept or did Harban not care for it or was it originally Barker's idea, and as a result Travis wasn't that heavily invested in the concept or some other reason.

[wsmorrison]

If by replica design at Columbia, Tom MacWood is thinking of the original 16th, I do not believe the mounds on that hole were part of the green and were mowed at a different height.  It is certainly not a replica but similar in so far as it has mounds around the green.  Perhaps he is thinking of another green.  Which hole at Whitemarsh do you think is a replica of the 12th at Garden City? 

I admire Mel Lucas's work in golf and knowledge of the history of golf, particularly at Garden City.  I wonder when the mounds at Garden City were mowed at green height.  I don't see how it is possible nor do I think they are green height in the photo Tom N posted, though he doesn't know the date of the photograph.

[Thomas MacWood]

I don't know which hole it was at White Marsh. The article mentioned the length of the hole would be somewhat altered from the original. The only photo I've seen of the Columbia hole shows the mounds on the putting surface.

[wsmorrison]

The 16th at Columbia?  A 1910 photo shows mounds surrounding much of the green save the opening.  They are not not on the putting surface and are clearly at a higher mowing height.

Which article are you referring to regarding WVCC?

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

Wayne,

Interesting theory.  Without the green having been out there originally, those bunkers really don't make loads of sense.  If it was a huge green, then would those mounds make it sort of a MacDonald short hole, with the isolated pin position in the middle?

[Tom Naccarato]

Jeff,
I have longed felt--but never really went there--that the 13th at Garden City was more or less an enlarged version that inspired the smaller versions of the strategy of the Short Hole, so yes, I think you are correct in that thinking.

[wsmorrison]

Without the green having been out there originally, those bunkers really don't make loads of sense.  If it was a huge green, then would those mounds make it sort of a MacDonald short hole, with the isolated pin position in the middle?

Jeff,

I've seen several early examples of greens with bunkers well short of and behind, not too dissimilar to the 12th at Garden City.  The green complex is very interesting whether or not the mounds were an internal green feature or on the margins of the green.  It is certainly of an era.

What do you make of the Biarritz green versus the bunkering scheme at Shinnecock Hills?  The green was clearly not out there originally, though many were later changed so that the front plateau before the swale was turned into green height.



I think trying to invoke a influence of the 12th at Garden City on Macdonald's Short hole is a bit of a stretch, but who knows?  You could be right.  Did Macdonald write anything about the 12th at GC?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

In the run up era, bunkers in front of the greens where the approach shot might land made some sense.  What about that back string bunkers a good 10-15 yards behind the green, over some mounds that would contain shots, etc.?  I can only imagine that they would guard a back pin position if it were all green.  Not many folks, then or now go that far over the green to justify a bunker.

I figured all Biaritz were originally all green and then shortened.  My first inclination is that since you provided it, you are looking at a base sheet of Flynn's reconstruction of Shinny, rather than a plan of how the green was originally built.  If that is an original CBM drawing, then I guess some of them started out with fw in front, not unlike the GCGC green. 
 
The short hole comparison I made is probably a stretch.  I wonder in those rougher cut days how those ridges played.  It would seem green surface would be better outside them to allow a putt.  If a comparitively rough collar, the option of putting would be gone, I think, leaving a pitch over a mound, but then the mound on the other side would keep the shot in if it was a little long.

I figured it got bulldozed for maintenance reasons.  But could it be that golfers of long ago just didn't like how easy it made the recovery?  Tom N seemingly (I could be wrong) feels that RTJ forced it on them, but like Pat Mucci says, the club really controls it.  Its more likely that they called him in specifically to modernize what had become viewed as a bad hole.  And, that it MIGHT still be one conceptually for score based players, but for architecture buffs, worthy of recall, for historical purposes or to restore some of the original, early Amercian quirk that was too successfully bulldozed out of existence.

[wsmorrison]

Jeff,

I think all or at least nearly all of the MacRaynor Biarritz greens were small with fairways preceding the swale.  They were enlarged later on. 

You're right, those bunkers behind the green are curious indeed.  Heck, the entire complex is curious.  I think more evidence is required before we accept that the mounds were internal features.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

That is not my impression, but it could very well be.  I gather a swale just in front of the green could be an effective defense, just as well as it could in the green middle for a back pin.

[David Stamm]

Could this green have been somewhat like the 6th at The Creek?

[Thomas MacWood]

The 16th at Columbia?  A 1910 photo shows mounds surrounding much of the green save the opening.  They are not not on the putting surface and are clearly at a higher mowing height.

Which article are you referring to regarding WVCC?

The photo of the 16th I'm referring to is from 1911. The hole was modeled after the 12th at GCGC; the mounds are on the putting surface.

[wsmorrison]

These mounds look like they are part of the green and cut at green height?  It seems obvious that the mounds on the back right are not green height.  The mounds on the left don't look like green height, though it is not quite as clear.

[Thomas MacWood]

That looks to be a constuction photo of the 16th at Columbia, and I don't think anything is clear in that photo. The mounds at the 12th at GCGC were on the green surface, there are numerous descriptions and photos.

[chipoat]

I first started to play Garden City in 1974; at least some of the members were bitching about RTJ's design of #12 even back then; they claimed he was never on the property and gave them the drawings in a lounge at LaGuardia then sent them a big bill.  Some of the old timers said the giant mounds on the green were always a maintenance issue which prompted the re-design.

Mel Lucas was super back then; curious to see Tom Paul's post re: their conversation.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have had the good fortune to have played GCGC over 50 times the past 15 years.  After a while, the 11th and 12th greens really feel as thought they do not belong.  I would go so far as to say these greens hold the course back from being super great.  Until they are improved, I will consider GCCC to have the best green complexes in Garden City.  What would be wrong with recreating greens similar to the old 11th and 12th greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Since you brought me in to this fray, I'll make a few comments.

First, how would you know what a board and/or membership was prepared to do ?

Secondly, as to whether the superintendent was ready, that may have been because the superintendent circa 2000-2002 might not have had the confidence or expertise to complete a successful restoration.

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.

Architecturally it's more similar to the rest of the golf course than the current version.

As to being controversial, many don't like change, but, the current hole is out of context with the rest of the golf course.

You yourself commented many times that the more you studied the old hole, the more you liked it and the more you thought that it should be restored.

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.


Fortunately, my memory remains crystal clear on this subject.

After a good deal of lobbying on my part, the Green Committee unanimously agreed to proceed with a sympathetic restoration.
 
At a Green Committee meeting circa late summer 2000 the Green Chairman directed you to prepare plans to restore the 12th hole.

In December, 2000 you submitted your architectural rendering along with some comments.  You stated that you wanted to restore the hole as closely as possible to the original design.

In a subsequent communication the following month you indicated that you felt even more strongly that the hole should be restored.

Unfortunately, about four months subsequent, around May of 2001 you did a 180 degree reversal and submitted a rendering not disimilar from one you had previously prepared in the late 90's that was not much better than what existed currently, undermining any effort to restore the 12th green.

As to the 12th green and the mounds, circa the mid 60's,, the golf course was having 55,000,000 gallons of water thrown on it annually.  In addition, local kids were using the mounds as launching ramps for their bikes, causing damage to the water soaked, soft green.  Mel Lucas took over and reduced water usage to 14,000,000 within three years.

In 1999-2000-2001, the golf course seemed to be getting wetter again.

Currently it is firming up.

I have NO doubt that the current superintendent COULD maintain those mounds properly.

I'm sure that if you check your correspondence you'll confirm that everything I've said is factually accurate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

TEPaul,

Your memory is as bad as Tom Doak's

Mel Lucas contacted me and spent a good deal of time discussing the 12th hole and GCGC.  He also wrote to me, memorializing his knowledge of the hole and the problems associated with it.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What do you mean my memory is faulty? I know what Mel Lucas said in June about the hole. I would certainly assume he knows as much about it as anyone else, wouldn't you? After all he was GCGC's superintendent. Who else do you think would know more about it, how it was maintained etc?

I believe he even made sketches of the old hole before it was redesigned.

It seems the problem with this potential restoration is there are just too many cooks in the kitchen. If the club wants to consider it the first thing they should do is consult with the person who apparently knows more about it than anyone else, and that appears to be Mel Lucas. I'm glad you had a comprehensive discussion with him about the hole. Do you remember me telling you about him a year or two ago, and what he had?

Even with Mel's consultation it would seem to be a pretty complex restoration anyway but I think I recall Mel Lucas saying he doesn't see why it couldn't be restored.

I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if it's been mentioned but I think one of the drawbacks to a complete restoration is some land was sold off at some point and therefore it isn't exactly possible to restore the original length of that old hole. If they restored it what is the possibility of redoing the green a bit farther out? Would that get in the way of #13 at all?

[Tom Naccarato]

Tom Paul,
The original hole was a short par 4 of a very short, short length. The property is gone where the tee originally stood. Now, the hole is pretty much representative of how it played many years ago length wise.

Quick! Somebody get Mel Lucas a log-in!

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

While I think Mel Lucas may be aware of this website I don't know that he will log-in here. The point is the golf club and others familiar with this course and hole most certainly know where to find Mel Lucas.

This hole originally was a most interesting, significant and perhaps unusual one, and it was apparently famous. It's restoration would be complicated, however, for a whole host of reasons no matter how gung-ho some on here may be about it. That does not mean it can't or shouldn't be done but it does need a ton of consideration and research and going to the best sources is the way to go. In my opinion, it's pretty undeniable Mel Lucas would be the best research source.

[JNC_Lyon]

How long would the original 12th play versus the current 12th?  the aerial shows that the old hole had that the hole had the playing characteristics of a 220 par three.  I think this sort of long par three would complement the other two holes perfectly, whereas the current 12th is of the same length as the 18th only far less interesting.

[TEPaul]

"How long would the original 12th play versus the original 12th?"

Wow, that's a tough one. Ummph. Arrggh. Let me see. Should I just guess? Why not?

PRETTY MUCH THE SAME!? 

Is this a trick question?   

[JNC_Lyon]

Read my correction above 

[TEPaul]

JNC:

Do not think that this is NOT an obstacle to the true restoration of the original 12th hole today? The fact is it's about 30 yards shorter than it was many years ago. If one does not think that's not important to its original strategic concept being restored today they are either nuts or blind! From the tips to be compared today to what it once was conceptually and strategically it would probably need to be at least 250-270 yards from the tips today. If anyone denies that they shouldn't be discussing the complete restoration of GCGC's 12th hole, in my opinon!

[Tom Naccarato]

Tom Paul, I sort of understand what you are saying, but I sort of disagree. Lets take Westhampton for example.

Does the balance of holes figure into the big picture of courses that are still great clubs that have been somewhat left behind distance wise due to time and the expansion, yet still are just as illustrious as-an-exclusive-club that holds a somewhat illustrious tournament?

I don't think so, and I'm not saying that Westhampton or Garden City are "complete" pushovers to the modern golf ball, but certainly they have been affected by it. Doesn't this fall under the guise of what a sympathetic restoration should be about too?

I really do think so....

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

Can you rephrase what it is you really mean in that last post? I'm not certain I understand what it is you're asking.

[Thomas MacWood]

The length of the 12th has fluctuated quite a bit over the years. In 1900 it was 200 yards and in 1905 it was lengthened to 260 yards. Travis's famous remodel took place in 1906 and it was 254 yards. In the 1913 US Am and 1924 Walker Cup it played at 173 yards. In the 1936 US Am and in the early 50s prior to bulldozing it played to 199 yards.

For decades the 18th hovered around 150 yards. It was lengthen to 166 yards for '36 Am and was that length for quite a while. I'm not sure when it was lengthened to 190.

The most consistant by far has been the 2nd which has always been 132 to 137 yards long.

I think Pat said the property lines have changed over the years and there is no way to push the 12th to 260 yards, the max would be around 200 yards from what I gather (maybe 220), which is what a restored 12th should play I reckon. IMO restoring the old 5th would be just as important, it was one of the great short par-4s in all of golf, playing from 290 to 305 yards.

[JNC_Lyon]

Obviously 2 can't be moved back because of the property line.  Is it possible to restore the 12th green in a slightly different location (long and to the left of the present green)?  This would also add some length and put it in the desire 220 range. I think 250 would be cool but it is clearly impractical.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

That was a great recap of the saga of #12, except you left out the part in the spring of 2001 when the green chairman and the board and the superintendent told me they did not think the membership would stand for restoring the original 12th hole, and asked me to come up with an alternate plan ... which I submitted as requested, but then dragged my heels on and did not implement.

Tom MacWood:

I actually had the old 5th hole mostly restored at one point ... we used the original green location as a temporary green for nearly a year, while the current 5th green was being rebuilt.  But, again, the club did not accept my original idea to restore the hole to 305 yards permanently, and insisted that we design a new green at the 360 yard length that they had extended the hole to c. 1960.

Tommy N: 

You could have picked a better subject for your comeback, buddy.  I'm tired of taking criticism for things that a club won't restore ... and I should not really be delving into this business between myself and my client.  And YOU should have learned from Merion that bringing it up from the outside isn't going to help matters any.  You're not dealing with Tom Fazio here ... I'm on your side, but the club is not.  And I can't really blame them, to be honest.  Everyone in favor of restoring the original green is in denial about its true character, and how difficult it would be to maintain, or how difficult it would be to defend architecturally on anything but historic grounds.

[Michael Moore]

Everyone in favor of restoring the original green is in denial about its true character, and how difficult it would be to maintain, or how difficult it would be to defend architecturally on anything but historic grounds.

Tom Doak -

What do you consider to be the "true character" of the original?

[Tom Naccarato]

Tom,
This wasn't meant to me a controversial thing, but more a celebration of what I think is a really great quirky hole on one of the GREAT golf courses in the history of our sport. The fact that your a guardian there is even more assuring that the course is protected and in GREAT hands. I do think that every hole at Garden City is worth the time and effort to protect; with the exception of one: The current 12th. It doesn't represent anything Garden City is about with exception to how stupid golf architecture got in the dark ages of the early 1960's.

Honestly, if a hole like the original 12th has a ton of faults, imperfections and unforgiving quirks in the mindset of the vastly playing-superior majority. How then can one forgive even older historic clubs that do get away with it. Take for instance, North Berwick and its undeniable quirks. Prestwick; etc. and how they are embraced by all forms of players, both good and bad.

I feel that Garden City is the epitome of what Golf should be all about--especially on such a magnificent canvas as the Hempstead Plain. From the raw strategy of the first tee, to the freedom one has to move their ball about the entire course, Garden City should be a celebration for us, not a selfish argument of whose right or whose wrong.

I think it's important that the Travis is one of the more prestigious tournaments that doesn't have a PGA Tour symbol on it, but for me, when one goes to Garden City, they go to celebrate the Sport, its history and in hopes that one sees how important it is to grasp the past and embrace it despite a lack of length.

Garden City is so much more then that.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I think you said it really really well on your post #66.

There are others on here making a case for the restorartion of #12 on the grounds of passion and the benefits of architectural history.

The dynamics between their points and your points are both necessary and very good, in my opinion. It is this kind of reality that needs to be developed from both sides with a potential project like this one. And, again, I think Mel Lucas would have to be a central part of it all to really do all the research component justice.

I don't really have a position on the restoration of the old #12 to something close to original other than to say it is an example of some true complexity in the area of restoration architecture and it needs, for that reason, more consideration from all angles and opinions than most projects.