Lets Really Talk About Garden City Golf Club (Again)

[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.

[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.