[ChipOat]

That was Tom Doak thanking George H. and you but I share his gratitude and appreciation.

[TEPaul]

Chip et al:

You've got to see this photo in 1913 from the tee of the Biarritz because you can see what seems to be the right half of the fairway of the original 8th hole. It looks like the fairway came much father over to the right than it does now and of course there were no trees on that hole then as there are now on the right corner. I might be crazy but it looks to me like originally if one wanted to get over even to the mid right of that fairway from even the old tees which were left of where the back tees are now one may've had to hit the ball right over that building. One thing we sure do know, and that is when Macdonald designed the 8th and in the first year it was in play, at least, that building sure was there and in play. I mean I grew up at Piping Rock and I never even knew until yesterday there ever was a building anywhere near that area. I'd heard there was a race track out there before the course and I believe I know where it once was but there was no vestige of it even fifty years ago.

George Holland, once again, you're a research star. It maybe incalculable what you've just come up with here for Piping Rock to think about. I don't care if Wall Street is tanking and the world's economy is going to hell in a handbasket, you tell those moguls next door to you at Piping that they better think about some serious money right now to begin to do things like restore that miniature grandstand that obviously inspired Macdonald to route a Road hole in that area.

Do not let that club rest Motor-mouth! I know you aren't.

Famous clubs all over the world----if you want this man George Holland to find this kind of incredible information for your club the way he has with The Creek and now Piping Rock get in touch with me and I'll tell you what you need to do. He doesn't know how to negotiate this stuff for himself so I'm telling you that you will not need to actually pay him other than his expenses. Just make him an honorary member of your golf club right now, wherever it is in the world, and he may do this kind of thing for you too.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley:

I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?

I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces -  to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.

Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.

You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.

Maybe George knows?

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Read post #17 of this thread. From that article The Creek Club's GEORGE HOLLAND found in the last few days by Devereux Emmet in 1913 (the year Piping Rock opened for play) he explained there were two greens on that Biarritz (one right in front of the other). He was there then and he saw it and that isn't just anyone, it's Devereux Emmet, the man who designed the original GCGC, and a ton of other great courses and helped Macdonald design NGLA. We'll never find better proof than that, period!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Emperor:

Given the current excessive speeds of golden Era greens, I would be skeptical of a hole location on the front part of a "full Biarritz" green that is set so close to the swale that the possibility of "losing" a putt down into it is high.  You could well end up with a #7 @ Shinnecock or #18 @ Olympic situation.

Chipoat,

That's a repetitive theme in CBM/SR/CB greens.

One only has to examine many of the greens at The Creek, NGLA and others to see the dire consequences of "going long" on their greens.
It was clearly a punitive result.
Try recovering from being over # 15 and # 16 at The Creek.

As you may be aware, one of my pet peeves is Golden Era greens that are maintained at speeds far in excess of the architect's original intent.  That seems to include darn near all of them these days and I did at least one thread about it whilst you were "on sabbatical".  Hole locations where putting off the green (or into a deep swale) are a "clear and present danger" for a reasonably capable golfer do not ring my chimes.

Chipoat, many agree with you, but, I think you have to differentiate between approach shots and putts.

I would submit that recovery from over the 16th green at The Creek is far more difficult as the green speeds increase, but, perhaps that places an emphasis on tactics, on being below the hole.

Have you played Deepdale lately ?

Over the last month or so the greens have been extremely fast, causing good golfers to putt "defensively".  At higher speeds those greens are frightening.

Hoping to two putt from 6 feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge.
Hoping to keep your ball on the green from 20+ feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge.

Somewhere, there has to be a prudent balance.

[TEPaul]

"Hoping to two putt from 6 feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge.
Hoping to keep your ball on the green from 20+ feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge."


Pat and Chip:

Neither of those examples are my idea of a reasonable challenge either, but I do not mind if either of those examples gets the attention of any golfer as something to at least think about (given certain putts from certain breaks or angles) versus the same putts to the same pins if the green was say at 9. I believe those kinds of examples should be very doable but they should get your attention at least!

If you don't know what I mean by the above I'd be glad to elaborate.

Well, let me just give you an example anyway. Let's say you have a downhill breaking putt of around six feet and like Woods' seems capable of doing you just decide to sort of take the break out and ram it into the back of the cup and you miss. For that I think a realistic three putt beginning with a first putt from six feet should be a realistic possibility!

In that light, I'm sure you can intuit what I'll say about some 20' putts possibly getting all the way off some greens with some pins. I see nothing wrong with those kinds of things being such that they most certainly occur to any golfer.

[Bill Brightly]

TE

A while ago Anthony Pioppi posted an article from a CT newspaper that described Yale's 9th as having the putting surface "beyond the swale." Maybe someone can find that post? I have the article in my office.

But in any event, I think maintaining the front section as putting surface, the firmest and fastest surface, is the truest way to honor the architect's intent, because it allows a far greater percentage of players to actually reach the rear section. As Pat Mucci suggests, modern irrigation  systems prevented shots running through the swale.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. Paul,

No question, Dev Emmet's word is unimpeachable.

How incredible is it that no one else ever describes the Biarritz as a hole with "two greens"?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

The Depression and WWII might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept, as well as the failure to create that concept in modern times.

[TEPaul]

"Mr. Paul,
No question, Dev Emmet's word is unimpeachable.
How incredible is it that no one else ever describes the Biarritz as a hole with "two greens"?"


Bradley:

Maybe they did. I think the real point of what George Holland just found and that all of us really need to appreciate is that Emmet wrote that article 95 years ago and there may not be anyone we know who's alive today who's ever seen it. That's 95 years Brad, since that article was written. That's almost a century and that's a long time ago! 

You know why this information find of George Holland's happened the other day, don't you? The USGA apparently just digitized and put onto their website a whole bunch of pre-1914 Golf Magazines! That stuff like THAT article may not have been seen or considered for as long as most people we know have been alive! THIS is what is starting to happen today because of the perceived interest and George Holland is really dilligent and he happened to find it and read it first.

That should be an incentive to all the INTERNET researchers we have on this website to do what George Holland just did and be a research star like he is today. I admit, I'm not very good at that kind of INTERNET research. I'm much better at analysis of research information despite what a few on here say about me.

There is a ton of fascinating and informative stuff out there Bradley and the information age is about to make it available to us again!

I think it's very exciting!

What you are into in the realm of the evolution of grass for golf is going to pay enormous informational dividends. I don't know specifically how but I can just feel that it's going to do that! Keep at it and keep collaborating the way you have.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley,

The Depression and WWII might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept, as well as the failure to create that concept in modern times.

Mr. Mucci,

I think also that the development of newer mower technology changed some of these hole concepts too.

In 1913, the best way to mow the 9th green at PR was by hand - the whole huge thing. You probably weren't going to pull a horse drawn 3-gang mower in to that swale.

Even your beloved 12th hole at GCGC might have been changed after the light weight sidewheel mowers that maintained the tight cut on those mounds went off the market - replaced by heavier motorized mowers.

It might not have been the economics so much as it was the changes in technology.

[TEPaul]

"Bradley,
The Depression and WWII might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept, as well as the failure to create that concept in modern times."


Patrick:

I do not think the question of what might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept of the Biarritz green (----which IS----eg whether the original concept of Macdonald's was to have green space in the front section and whether any of his Biarritz holes originally had that) is the question here; at least not yet.

The only question to be answered at this time is if front section greenspace was EVER the concept of Macdonald's and whether any of his biarritz holes originally had that.

To date some pretty good experts on Macdonald said they do not think that was the case and perhaps the best of them just mentioned on here that he found some recent information at Yale to support the fact that front section greenspace was never intended.

Considering what this 1913 article of Devereux Emmet's that George Holland found recently said, I, for one, would disagree with the opinion that front section greenspace was never intended and never was originally the case. I believe Devereux Emmet in his 1913 article proved that front section greenspace was both intended and created at Piping Rock in 1913!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

I'd be interested in studying the time line or chronology of walking mowers in the context of their weight and ability to mow difficult terrain.

The demise of the mounds at # 12 at GCGC appears NOT to be the product of mowing issues, at least according to Mel Lucas, who was the superintendent at GCGC and Piping Rock, at the same time.

Somerset Hills has similar terrain on their 5th green and they seem to have conquered any mowing difficulties over the years.

# 12 at GCGC was destroyed in the 60's, before riding mowers came into vogue.

[TEPaul]

"# 12 at GCGC was destroyed in the 60's, before riding mowers came into vogue."

I, for one, would like to find out when "riding" green mowers did become uses prevalently, particularly the so-called "triplexes". It seems like almost unintentionally those things did a lot of architectural greenspace shrinking simply because they just weren't very maneuverable into complex corners and periperal greenspace angles. If anything was primarily responsible for the rounding out of green shapes it sounds to me like it was the era of the greenspace triplex mower.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

As per your original questions about Piping's Biarritz (By the way, this thread is yours, is it not, or is it Tom Doak's? ), there is another element of that 1913 Biarritz that needs to be checked out. The Devereux Emmet 1913 article and photographs really must be posted on here for everyone's consideration.

It seems originally there was a rather large cross bunker immediately in front of that front green section that Emmet mentioned was a green in front of the green beyond the swale.

I cannot be sure but I believe that particular carry bunker is now gone or has been significantly minimized. But do not fret, the remarkable researcher from The Creek, GEORGE HOLLAND, will be on that item today as he lives less than a mile away from Piping's Biarritz.

Another of George Holland's talents is that he is one of the best and most rapid action picture takers. With his digital camera he is capable of firing off about three thousand photos inside of a New York minute. I saw him at a very large party at The Creek talking to a group of people and he simultaneously was taking photographs. He was talking to this attractive lady and he had his arm raised with his digital camera and he was waving it around firing off photos. He was not even looking at whatever all he was photoing but he did get everyone and everything that was going on at that party at that particular time.

That short carry bunker on these old Biarritzes is an important concept and design element and should not be overlooked.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that the cross bunker you reference serves two purposes.

One, it's a symbolic gesture to the crevice or inlet that had to be carried on the original.

Two, like "Top Bunkers" it provided an impediment to a mis-hit shot ending up on the green.

[SPDB]

Here is the picture from Emmet's article:

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

That's a great photo.

I wonder if the club will employ it in a tree removal program.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley:

I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?

I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces -  to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.

Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.

You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.

Maybe George knows?

Bradley, et. al.,

Would you therefore conclude that the existance of cinders is clear evidence that the area beneath which they lie, was clearly intended to be putting surface

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley:

I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?

I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces -  to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.

Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.

You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.

Maybe George knows?

Bradley, et. al.,

Would you therefore conclude that the existance of cinders is clear evidence that the area beneath which they lie, was clearly intended to be putting surface

Patrick,

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that everywhere the cinders are is precisely where the perimeter of the putting surface was originally. Because sometimes when you are building in layers you will drag a layer of material outside of its zone - this is most common when you have excess material on a site and its easier to loose it around the edges than it is to scoop it up and haul it away.

[Jim Nugent]

If Piping Rock originally had two greens, one in front of the other, I would think a number of golfers would end up chipping/pitching from one green to the other.  The pin is in the back green, you're on the front green, what do you do? 

This could create maintenance problems.  Maybe that is one reason they stopped cutting the front green.  Too many divots and chopped up sections there. 

[TEPaul]

JimN:

I remember Piping's 9th hole as far back as the early 1950s and it did not have greenspace before the swale then and it has not had it since then. It also seems as of now that there is not a single documentable example in Macdonald/Raynor's original Biarritz inventory that ever had greenspace before the swale, including Yale.

Bradley:

As to cinders under greens from Macdonald/Raynor, the only examples I know of are those few greens at Shinnecock that were reused by Flynn when he did his version of Shinnecock that uses most of the same land from the previous Macdonald/Raynor Shinnecock.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley:

I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?

I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces -  to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.

Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.

You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.

Maybe George knows?

Bradley, et. al.,

Would you therefore conclude that the existance of cinders is clear evidence that the area beneath which they lie, was clearly intended to be putting surface

Patrick,

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that everywhere the cinders are is precisely where the perimeter of the putting surface was originally. Because sometimes when you are building in layers you will drag a layer of material outside of its zone - this is most common when you have excess material on a site and its easier to loose it around the edges than it is to scoop it up and haul it away.

Bradley,

I think everyone understands +- margins or tolerance allowances.

I think you can be fairly certain that cinders wouldn't be placed in areas removed from the putting surface

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Piping Rock originally had two greens, one in front of the other, I would think a number of golfers would end up chipping/pitching from one green to the other.  The pin is in the back green, you're on the front green, what do you do? 

This could create maintenance problems.  Maybe that is one reason they stopped cutting the front green.  Too many divots and chopped up sections there. 

Jim,

That may be the reason that CBM created his deflection spines.

George Bahto can expound on those features, but, they served to deflect less than perfect shots away from the front tier, eliminating or greatly reducing the situation you allude to.

[TEPaul]

"George Bahto can expound on those features,...."


I don't think so, Pat, but I'm sure it's comforting to believe! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()