MacRaynor "Short" holes - why are they disappointing compared to National?

[ChipOat]

With apologies to those on GCA that haven't played National:

Look no further than Pat Mucci's description of #6 at NGLA (I don't know how to find the link) for an excellent explanation of the best "Short" playing characteristics.  Three deceptively small greens in one (seemingly) large green without obvious levels ; a birdie hole if you find the "right" green off the tee with your short iron; a VERY tough two putt if you are on the other two "wrong" greens and an easy double bogey if you miss the green in the wrong place.  I would say #6 at NGLA often plays "Devil's Asshole" tough without looking nearly as penal until you've made a few double bogeys and found out the hard way.

So why are the other "Short" holes I've played so diluted and, frankly, rather disappointing?  The template is right there and it doesn't require an ultra-specific piece of ground to do it (unlike an Alps, for instance).

Fishers, Piping Rock, The Creek, Hotchkiss (which has excellent Raynor greens) - all are missing anything close to the same degree of difficulty as the original.  I don't remember the Short at the Links Golf Club (NLE) or at Yale (if there is one) but they don't stick in my mind, so.........

Are there any good Short holes out there that I haven't played?  St. Louis? Camargo? Mid Ocean? Yeaman's Hall? Sleepy Hollow?

[Steve Kline]

Camargo's Short hole is quite good. It seems like an easy birdie since you're hitting just a wedge or 9 iron but it can bite you very quickly. The entire green is pushed up 15-20 feet and is almost entirely surrounded by bunkers. I guess it's almost a volcano hole as well. Like most Raynor/McDonald the drop offs around the green to the bunker floors are almost vertical. The green has at least three distinct sections - a back left tier, a back right tier and a low in the middle. The two back tiers are very maddening. First they are very small areas to hit a ball to. Second once goes up the ridge from the low in the middle the tiers actually tilt away from you ever so slightly, which makes getting a tee shot on the back tiers very scary and very difficult. Third if you go over you will not get up and down (unless you make a long putt over a ridge) when the pin is on either tier. I see it as having all the elements you described in the 6th at NGLA - but I've never played that course.

[Phil McDade]

This is a pretty good one:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

I think the answer lies in several factors.

1  The wind
2  The elevation differential
3  The internal contouring
4  The size of the green
5  The configuration of the green
6  The combination of the above

With respect to the wind, I don't recall playing # 6 at NGLA where the wind wasn't a substantive factor.
Time after time you dial in the yardage to the hole AND surrounding features, calculate the reduction in distance due to the elevated tee, then you have to factor in the wind.  That may be the most difficult element to factor because of the configuration and contouring of the green and hole location on the green.

Very, very few "shorts" have those elements.

The 11th at Westhampton is a fabulous short.
Unfortunately, it was lengthened well beyond its intended yardage.
But, the contouring and effect of the wind are great.
What it lacks is the elevation differential.
You don't see all the problems associated with the hole location, configuration and contouring, thus the shot isn't as dramatic.

"short" after "short" have lost a, if not THE, critical element, the internal contouring.

I was never so disappointed with a "short" as I was with the 17th at The Creek, one of my favorite courses.
The 17th at The Creek is blessed with the elevation differential and wind, but fails terribly due to the inexcusable removal of the internal contouring.  The failure to restore that internal contouring is one of the great blunders in renovations/restorations

The "short" at Montclair, 7th hole - 4th nine, is a terrific short, unfortunately, unbridled tree growth over the last 7 decades has muted the effect of the wind.

Sleepy Hollow's 16th has the elevation differential and wind.
But, it's a different version of the short.
I believe that there are four versions.
The NGLA version and the other three.
The "others" tend to be much smaller greens with various degrees of internal contouring.

One "set" of internal contouring is the horseshoe or circular mound within the green.
Forsgate and Montclair have that feature and perhaps so did Yale years ago.

The other "set" is the quadrant contouring, such as at Westhampton.

The last "set" is the rather benign internal contouring such as at Sleepy Hollow and The Creek, and perpaps Piping Rock.

What we may never know is the intent at construction, AND, how the original "short" was modified by the club over the years.

Chip, I would agree with you that NGLA's short stands head and shoulders above all others.

That massive green with its contours, plateaus, slopes and surrounding bunkering, well below the tee, with winds buffeting the golfer and his shot the entire time.  Add speed of the greens to that mixture and you have an incredible hole.

If I could play only one par 3 for the rest of my life, it would be the short at NGLA.

The only other par 3 that gets my repetitive attention is the 11th at The Creek.

[Robert Emmons]

Patrick,

Well said. I agree on Westhampton CC that the wind is the key. Playing from the middle member tees the distance fits at about 135 yards although it can be pushed to almost 180...RHE

[Tim Gavrich]

The Short 18th at Old White--restored by our own Lester George, is magnificent.

[ChipOat]

Phil McDade:

What is the course in your picture?

Also, it's hard to know for sure from the picture, but it appears you can miss left and have a fairly level chip shot instead of a deep bunker shot.  Also, how would you describe the contouring of the green?

[Phil McDade]

Phil McDade:

What is the course in your picture?

Also, it's hard to know for sure from the picture, but it appears you can miss left and have a fairly level chip shot instead of a deep bunker shot.  Also, how would you describe the contouring of the green?

Chip:

Here's a photo of the green from slightly above; it has a significant contour that bi-sects the green.



I'll hold off on naming the course for right now, as several discussion board participants know it intimately. A small hint: it has been included in previous discussions of MacRaynor "shorts," with my argument that it is this particular architect's version of a Short. It plays about 145-155 yds from the whites, if I remember correctly.

[Chip Gaskins]

Chip-

For the most part I think you are correct.

The drop shot, Short at Shoreacres is fairly benign:

Looking back


As is the Short at Blue Mound:


As is Creek Club



The tee shot is very straight forward at Chicago GC but the green is wicked with two different ridge-lines.  We putted on it for about 10 minutes with Bill Shean trying to understand all the slopes:

Green (very bad picture on my behalf to show the severity


Now, St Louis has a really serious Short hole.  A 150-170 yards with one of the best thumbprints I seen on MacRaynor greens:


The coolest thumbprint green I have played.  Look at the pin position for a 175 yard shot!


None of which do I think have the distinctive three sections and for the most part are all much smaller than NGLA.  I personally think the longer ones are harder, especially St Louis.  But that is just my opinion.


PS...I assume you are not including #11 at Shinnecock, oh yeah, that was a Flynn sorry  :-)



Chip

[Bill_McBride]

Mountain Lake in Florida (Raynor/Banks) has a very good Short hole, #9.  The photo doesn't do it much justice because you can't see the contours of the green.




There is a really good donut in this green right in the center.  Pins located close to the slope are devilish.  I can personally testify to this due to a particularly careless 4-putt the first time I played it, when I got too aggressive with a 15' putt and paid the price!

[PCCraig]

Chip-

For the most part I think you are correct.

The drop shot, Short at Shoreacres is fairly benign:

Looking back

How in the world can you call that "benign?" Its a drop shot into a living ravine, not hard but it's nice as it's in between some somewhat tough / unconfortable holes. The green actually has a good amount of slope from back to front, and missing the green anywhere but short is an easy bogey.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill McBride,

Thanks for reminding me.

I like the internal contouring of Mountain Lake's "short" hole.

I also like Forsgate's.

[Jay Flemma]

Forsgate and Sleepy Hollow have great shorts...so does Bahto's Stonebridge.

forsgate:

[ChipOat]

To all:

What I'm not seeing in the pictures and/or hearing in the descriptions, even those with "thumbprint" greens, are the problems presented at National if you miss the green - especially down wind.  The right hand "tongue" portion of the green is hard enough to putt to from the "bowl" and, worse, from the back-left flat section of the green.  However, getting within 20 feet of a right side hole location at NGLA with a wedge is damn near impossible (for me, at least) and rolling into another bunker is a definite risk.  Also, because of the contours at the edge of the green, getting to the back-left part of the putting surface is often easier from the tee box at 130 yards than from a green side bunker at 50 feet.

Clearly, the thumbprint is essential for a real Short hole, but that isn't really the genius of the hole at National, IMO.  It's what happens if you miss the green, altogether.  National's Short is an altogether ridiculously easy double bogey from ANYWHERE if you don't have a putter in your hand for your second shot.

Chip Gaskins:

Thank you for those pictures.  Also, it happens that I think the 11th at Shinnecock is the single most brilliantly designed par 3 I've ever played.  In fact, I once did a thread asking why it hadn't been copied - it's that good.  However, it isn't a "Short" (it's better).

Phil McDade:

I missed the previous threads on Short holes.  Can you find one or more of those links?  Sorry to repeat although this one is getting decent traction, too.  I'll be interested to learn the identity of your "mystery Short".

Steve Kline:

From your description of Camargo's Short hole, the back two tiers may present many of the same problems as the original at National.

Tom Gavrich:

I recall seeing a picture of the Short at The Greenbrier a couple of months back but and I did take note of the "thumbprint" but not much else - and the "else" is at least 80% of the hole (see above).

Pat Mucci:

Like most (all?) of the others on this thread, the Short hole at Piping Rock (#17) is not all that problematic to chip to if you miss.  Also, the problems of a 30 footer at NGLA are much less severe at Piping (and The Creek, and Fishers, and.......).

[Phil McDade]

Chip:

It's the 7th at Lawsonia, Langford/Moreau's signature course, in Green Lake WI.

I can't seem to find the classic "Show us your shorts" thread, but this thread:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32829.0/

gets at some of the debate surrounding this hole and whether it properly could be characterized as a Short (see replies starting around #30). My argument is that Langford broadly tried to incorporate the concept of a Short at this hole, also known as the boxcar hole, as legend has it that Langford (more likely Moreau) used a railroad boxcar to help provide "fill" for the very large built-up green platform.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

As I stated, there's NGLA and then there's everything else.

# 6 at NGLA is incredibly unique.

Just today I was discussing this hole with George Holland, George Bahto, TEPaul, Ran Morrissett and others.

We were discussing the right front hole location, the left back hole location just over the ridge and the far back left hole location near the rear bunker AND the feeding nature of the green in combination with the wind.

I think a key element in the 6th at NGLA is the elevation differential in combination with the wind, given the angular presentation of the green in combination with the contouring/slopes and feeding nature of the green.

There's an architectural "perfect storm" that conspires to produce an incredible hole, almost completely devoid of the need for power.

While Westhampton has the wind, it's on a flat piece of property, absent any elevation differential.
Sleepy Hollow has the elevation differential and wind, but not the angular presentation and internal contouring.

I think you've raised and excellent point.

WHY hasn't there been any attempts to duplicate a spectacular hole, a short par 3 ?

Surely, that's the easiest hole to duplicate because you essentially need a tee and a green with little architecturally, in between.

If I was designing a golf course, if I could find the appropriate site on the property, and it was subject to wind, I'd replicate # 6.

Your question is:  WHY hasn't someone done that already ?

I'm puzzled by the failure to replicate NGLA's short over the last 100 years

[Dave Falkner]

Pat  WHCC also has OB left  and I would submit that the wind in that location is more severe than at NGL, perhaps it doesnt have the "looking easier than it really is factor" but it is a mighty strong hole

[Chip Gaskins]

Maybe because it wasn't inspirational enough to replicate?  Just a thought from the peanut gallery!

[Ronald Montesano]

It doesn't fall into the category of the McRaynor "Short," as it lacks the characteristics but, for my money, the one short hole that I would play again and again is #13 at Merion.  Having never played it and only watch it in play at the Walker Cup, it had all the characteristics of a great pitch shot that I could ever hope for.  The green appeared to be so intriguing that I could forego putting any other surface for ever and ever.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Falkner,

I never suggested that # 11 at Westhampton wasn't a strong hole, only that it differed with respect to the internal contouring and that it lacked the elevation differential found at NGLA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Maybe because it wasn't inspirational enough to replicate?  Just a thought from the peanut gallery!

Chip,

Your above statement, as heretical as it is, would seem to indicate that you've never played the 6th at NGLA.

If you have played the 6th at NGLA, your above statement is grounds for dismissal from GCA.com

[Chip Gaskins]

I have played it....GULP.....please no......let me stay!

Maybe just willing to go against the grain? 

or call a spade a spade? 

or be called silly? 

or hit a short iron to the correct tier, two putt and move on?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

15th at Blind Brook?


http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,23436.0/

Just throwing this one out there. I haven't played Blind Brook or NGLA.

[ChipOat]

To all:

Is it possible that, in the Golden Era that included hickory shafted niblicks as the bunker club of choice, #6 at National was considered too penal if you missed the green?  That it was dumbed down going forward on purpose?  For you guys who've never played it, you REALLY don't want to miss that green but it doesn't look, at all, obvious from the tee box until you've done it a few times.

Chip Gaskins:

You hit the nail on the head if all you've ever done at #6 is hit it in the right place and made a two putt par.  Especially if that "right place" was back left.

You need to hit it in the WRONG place a couple of times (which for me, is a snap) before you say to yourself, "wow, what a hole".

I have been thinking of doing a separate thread on that very subject and I have a couple of other examples in mind.  Stay tuned.

Ronald:

I've played #13 at Merion often and the Short hole at National often enough in competition to have made 2 through X+Y (match play only on the latter) when it mattered.  Other than being of similar length, the two holes are completely dissimilar in terms of the problems one faces both on and off the putting surface.

Not that your high opinion of Merion #13 is unfounded, but it's even less of a Short (i.e. not at all) than #3 is a Reverse Redan (only the front bunker and nothing else).

Pat Mucci:

Fishers Island absolutely has a substantial elevation differential (and the wind!).  To a lesser degree, Piping Rock is also sufficiently downhill to see the whole green.  For both, an opportunity that still exists although I doubt that we'll ever see it.

[Tom Dunne]

chipoat: Yale does have a Short, #5, a pleasant hole if not a contender in the MacDonald/Raynor Short canon. One thing worth noting is that the surrounding bunkers were twelve feet deep on the original plans. According to Godley and Kelly's club history, "installation of under-drainage has raised the bunker sand levels several feet above the original depth." It isn't stated in the book when this happened, but you can sort of understand why it did at some point--Yale's Short is on a pretty scrap of land, but the greensite juts into one of the spongier areas on the property.

I suspect it would be more a part of the conversation if those bunkers were still twelve-feet deep, but that's all right. There's plenty to talk about elsewhere at Yale.