News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Why did they lose their shorts ?
« on: March 17, 2009, 10:06:45 PM »
Looking at the 1950 aerial of Piping Rock and having seen a circa 1930's aerial of The Creek, I couldn't help but lament the loss of the critical features of The Short hole, one of MacDonald's gems.

The surrounding bunkering has been totally lost at both holes.

Any internal contouring, be it a horseshoe or donut has been likewise lost.

Why were these gems allowed to be disfigured ?

Why did they have their telltale identity and legacy stripped from them ?

Is there any interest to restoring them ?





Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2009, 10:21:59 PM »
It's not the only hole changed either. Much of the bunkering on most holes appears different/altered. I see the principal's nose feature that has been restored on Hole 1 I think, but it looks to my eye like they got the scale wrong and have built it too small.

TEPaul

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2009, 10:22:14 PM »
Pat:

Thanks for this thread. This is an excellent thread on a very specific subject.

Not until today did I realize that Piping's "short" was ringed by bunkering as The Creek's was too, and my "good" ;) memory of Piping goes back over 50 years. Should the bunkering on both those greens be restored to the way they were designed? I can't think of that many good reasons why they shouldn't be.

But the first thing we need to deal with (factually) even if we think it should be is why was it redesigned and that green ringing bunkering removed?

I can think of one practical reason why it was. Do I think it was a valid reason?

Not really!  ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2009, 10:26:45 PM »
I have to admit that I'm a sucker for the "String of Pearls" type of bunkering, and regret that most renovation architects over the years seem to have considered them as excessive and illogical.

It is good to see that some have been retained/restored at courses like Mid-Ocean and Engineers.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2009, 10:27:45 PM »
Not only has the encircling bunkering gone - if we are looking at the short hole in the lower right corner - but the hole has turned into an Eden!  :o

At least there now appear to be a Hill bunker left, a Strath in front, and a large Shell to the right.  What happened?   ???

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2009, 10:30:04 PM »
They couldn't drive their mowers onto the greens. ;)


Excellent thread title Patrick!
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2009, 11:25:07 PM »
it has been recommended the Short at Piping Rock be totally rebuilt as it originally was
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2009, 02:36:00 AM »
Hi George
Do you know why the principal's nose bunkering that has been redone appears quite a bit smaller than the original, comparing Pat's 2 aerials which are of a similar scale? Just curious.
cheers Neil


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2009, 08:58:37 AM »
George Bahto,

Other than NGLA, which other courses shorts remain ringed by bunkers ?

The 7th on the 4th nine at Montclair would seem to be one, as would Westhampton's.
Is Forsgate's still ringed ?
Sleepy Hollow ?

What about the other CBM, SR & CB "Shorts" ?

Since almost every short had flat bottomed bunkers with easy frontal access, I would think that they would be ideal candidates for a Sand Pro and thus relatively easy to maintain.

I would hope that Piping Rock would restore its "short" hole.
The 1950 aerial seems to indicate internal contouring.
Was it a horseshoe or donut ?  Or, another contour pattern ?

Charlie,

"Shorts" typically had ramps for access and egress.
Those ramps easily accomodated walking mowers, but, I wonder how accomodating they were for riding mowers.  The intelligent fix would have been to widen the ramp, not a wholesale removal of the bunkering.


TEPaul

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2009, 10:32:04 AM »
I did not realize that not only was the bunker scheme around Piping's Short changed dramatically but it appears the entire outline of the green was as well. I have no idea who did that but I don't recall any architect doing major work to Piping before the Dye/Doak project. I believe Tom Doak was the primary one on the job on that project and since we luckily have him on this website I'm sure he could speak to the details of Piping's Short and any alterations made to it.

From the air The Creek Club's Short (also #17) looked very similar to Piping's. It was relatively square and once ringed by bunkering too and that club has begun to consider restoring its bunkering including increasing the size of the green to more or less what it apparently once was.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2009, 10:47:32 AM »
Another sad loss from looking at the two aerials is the diagonal bunkering on the 18th hole, which appears to be missing on the modern aerial.  :-\

Dean DiBerardino

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2009, 03:08:14 PM »
A couple images of Piping Rock's 17th from October of 2006 for reference....


From #17 tee.



From #15 green looking back to the clubhouse and the right side of #17 green (about 9 o'clock in the picture).



Another notable aspect of the current 17th hole would be its length.  With men's tee yardages of 145/156/170, it seems to be a bit long for a "Short" hole.

TEPaul

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2009, 03:27:30 PM »
Maybe a tad but it does play downhill and I don't recall it ever had the internal complexity of NGLA's.

TEPaul

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2009, 05:26:04 PM »
Patrick:

I apologize, I didn't really look at the title of your thread here closely enough.

They lost their shorts because they were all propositioned by some redesign concepts that were just so sexy it was virtually inevitable they would lose their shorts.

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2009, 06:52:22 PM »

Other than NGLA, which other courses shorts remain ringed by bunkers ?



Patrick, Yeamans Hall's short (the 3rd hole) is ringed by bunkers and has a horseshoe contour to the green.  I believe there are pictures in Ran's review.  I have several but can't post them from my blackberry.

Ed

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2009, 07:04:23 PM »


Patrick:
 *  from what I’ve seen at courses and from what I have in old aerials and drawings, I’ll try to put the Short bunkering in context  - MY opinion.

National: certainly the most complex set of greenside bunkers he built - nothing even close to it (and I’m sure that is by (Macdonald’s) design). In my opinion the bunkers at 6-NGLA “ring” the green - not as symmetrical as are (and were) the other Shorts, but the green is ringed.

The two Shorts at Piping Rock and Creek are far from what they once were and hopefully Tom’s company will make it more like the original at PR - a lot of this usually depends on the club, though. If they are not on board ................................

Creek: as I stated Gil’s master plan recommends the green pad be enlarged to original size, adding material and redoing the green surface. Hopefully they will follow through on our ideas.

Greenwich had a great short that was ruined and it has been “suggested” that one be rebuilt to as close to the original as practicable - that was a great green complex.

Sleepy Hollow: the present 16th was dramatically altered over the years (really bad - I’m sure you’ve seen the pictures) and when we did the course over, over the past couple of years, we got it back to where it was, using the original 1912 photo as a guide, except for a portion of the “ringed” bunkering. We had to leave a walk-on area for this green just around the corner of the left front, trying to hide it from view from the tee-box. We created a pretty large ramp, rear left for mowing and service equipment but this cannot be seen from the tee.

I have no idea how they got the mowing equipment on to the greens on some of those original greens.

ALL the Shorts had tricky internal contours - you were asked to test your short iron play and then there  were the testy undulations to deal, with once there.

Let me address the “ringed bunkering” if I may.

With very few exceptions (maybe none) the Short holes were ringed with bunkers - sometimes a single bunker, other times one, two or three bunkers (with separations for walkways mostly). The drawing of these Short holes were usually a squarish green with an outer circle, further out, which represented the “ringing” bunker(s). Generally there was not a detailed version of the bunkering - just a circle or rectangle around the green and it was left to who ever was in charge, on site, to determine what configuration the bunker(s) would end up looking like.

Think of this as an oasis of green in a sandy area.

In the days when these holes were built bunkers were not manicured and people just walked thru the sand on to the green. Over the years, of course, that changed, leading to the separations in the bunkering - usually a direct route right up the front of the green. This led to the look of what may Short have today - (“unintended consequences??”) - an evolution.

Incidently, at Old Macdonald the green is not “ringed” - but you will find, on part of the right front and along the right, a large hockey-stick bunker (probably Marty Brodeur’s goalie stick !!!)that was a natural feature on the ground; fronting the green the is an abrupt rise to the green, creating a difficult situation; a bunker left front corner and another on the left (working the ring around the green); and if you go over the back you might wish you were in a bunker for the green is falling away from you.

I see that green’s protection that way - perhaps Tom or Jim Urbina could add something or correct my thoughts on Old Mac-5th.

Internal features: The doughnut feature was on NGLA 6 - a bit of it on the 1st green at NGLA and it appears there may have been such a feature on NGLA-12 but much of it has been removed (still about half of it there). I think CBM wanted the doughnut on his greens only and I think this evolved into the “horseshoe” on other Short and Biarritz hole built by Raynor and Banks. Some of the evolution may have been dictated by needed surface drainage on heavier soils.

(Why am I writing all this here - now no one will by my book   ...................
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2009, 07:05:26 PM »
Neil C: I can't speak about the scale of the PN at Piping Rock - they did it in hours.
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

David Druzisky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2009, 09:18:07 PM »
Many of the bunkers at the leading edge of the fairway seem to be gone.  And, the finish 15-18 are really different.

How big is the original surface of that short?

DbD

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2009, 09:35:32 PM »
George Bahto,

My theory on The Creek and Piping Rock is that their unique relationship with and between one another may have led one club to follow suit when the other altered their short.

As far as the loss of ringed bunkering due to manicuring, that's an interesting concept, however, most "shorts" had very steep banks which didn't lend themselves to ascent or descent, so I would imagine that the golfer would not play their bunker shot and then climb up the steep banks to the green.

In addition, raking bunkers was a part of golf in the 50's, irrespective of the configuration of the bunker, so I don't see that aspect as responsible for eliminating the surrounding bunkers.

It seems like a quantum leap to go from a ringed bunker that wasn't raked, to eliminating those bunkers because of a lack of raking.  Wouldn't the logical, interim step be to rake the bunkers before you decided to eliminate them ?

Again, I suspect a monkey see, monkey do scenario, but, I could be wrong.

Yale's short WAS a great little hole.
While it's been somewhat restored, it still lacks the character of the original.

Dean,

You're right, the length of # 17 disqualifies the hole as a short, despite the downhill nature of the hole.
But, I believe that the length is of relatively recent vintage, and a mistake.
If someone more familiar with the club could date the newer back tees it would be appreciated.

TEPaul,

I believe that both Bostwick brothers played polo.
They were also superior amateur golfers, and probably good tennis players to boot.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2009, 09:40:32 PM »
The short at Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh remains pure.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2009, 09:46:01 PM »
Neil C: I can't speak about the scale of the PN at Piping Rock - they did it in hours.

George
Are you saying the time spent in building it could be measured in hours, rather than days? I assume from your comment that the club did this "in house", am I correct?

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2009, 10:01:23 PM »
Neil - that feature was built in house, yes


as for the amount of time needed to build one of these; over the last 3 - 4 years I built a couple of them - done in a day, no problem .... not that hard to build .... it takes loonger to get the material in place without disturbing too much of the existing fairway areas
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

TEPaul

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2009, 11:00:35 PM »
"My theory on The Creek and Piping Rock is that their unique relationship with and between one another may have led one club to follow suit when the other altered their short."

Patrick:

What have you got to base that on?

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2009, 12:14:50 AM »
Here is a picture of Piping Rock's short from around the time the course opened for play. Doak and Dye reduced the green size by roughly 30% as I recall and dug the front bunkers some 8-10 feet deeper than the CBM/SR depth. I obviously am not familiar with the as built version of the hole, but from the pictures, the recent version seems more compelling to me.



Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why did they lose their shorts ?
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2009, 09:14:11 AM »
"My theory on The Creek and Piping Rock is that their unique relationship with and between one another may have led one club to follow suit when the other altered their short."

Patrick:

What have you got to base that on?

The intertwining history of both clubs, including common membership.
They're almost like Siamese twins, joined at the hip.
But, you already knew that, you just forgot it.



Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back