Interested in opinions on The Biarritz style at Yale and Fishers

[V. Kmetz]

The 9th at Yale and the 5th at Fishers Island are two of the more noteworthy Raynor entries for this style.  I don't where I inured it, but I had always believed that one main function of the style was to use the approach and the front "section" of the green to sling the ball through the trough to rear pins, and also demanding control of the lower, more "running" shot to remain on the front level.  It seems to me upon several rounds of both the Yale and Fishers versions that these practically demand aerial shots, which seems to contradict that design principle.

Of course both are a visual feast and offer a unique golfing sensation but I was wondering:

1.  Am I understanding the strategic principle of the hole correctly?
2.  If so, don't the Biarritz appearances at Mountain Lake, Carmargo, Yeamans, Shoreacres (of these I've only played Yeamans) fit the strategic intents with much greater diligence?
3.  Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?"  They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else."  (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)

If any of you have occasion to respond, I'd love to know your thoughts.

cheers

vk

[Bill Brightly]

The Biarritz holes built by Macdonal, Raynor and Banks were built around 100 years ago before the introduction of the irrigation systems that we take for granted today in the US. Try to imagine hard-packed fairway approcahes guarded on both sides by menacing bunkers. The clubs and balls would not permit a carry to the green, so running your ball between the bunkers, then down and up the swale, was the only way to get it to the green.

Sadly, today's equipment and balls create the option of flying the ball to the green, and today's maintenance practices allow for greens that will hold these shots, even 3-woods and drivers. Much of the architectural intent of these holes has been lost, especially for long hitters.

On the other hand, there is a very strong movement to maintain the front portion of these green complexes as putting surfaces. Although the pin should rarely be placed up front, this creates a far firmer and faster approach than fairway height grass, so many of the shorter hitters now can reach the back section (usually 200-240 to the flag.) With the front sections maintained as mushy fairway, these players could never get it to the back section. So at least for players who can't carry to the back, the holes are being restored to the original intent.

[V. Kmetz]

BB,

I understand and agree with everything you stated.  I just don't understand how Yale or Fishers ever exemplified the precepts and historical intents behind the design style.  There's no mushy fairway or maintenance practices that have altered the shot "value" we both understand, there's Griest Pond and the Atlantic Ocean.  Moreover, one's slightly downhill and one's more strenuously uphill.  Given the limitations of the golfing equipment in the era they were designed, I can't imagine hitting a brassie, spoon or long iron with a post-Haskell ball to them without the context being "penalty," not "strategy."

cheers

vk

[Jud_T]

V.,

If you want to see a great, and somewhat unheralded, Biarritz check out Charles "Steamshovel" Banks' #12 at Tamarack Country Club in Greenwich, CT.

[Bill Brightly]

Not sure I understand the importance of "penal" vs. "strategic" when discussing a one shot hole.

The strategy is to hit a straight, low running shot with enough force to roll through the swale and stop on the green. You are penalized pretty heavily if you miss it in the bunkers thaat line the approach. But I don't see that as putting the hole in the "penal" category.

I dont see the water at Yale as being a factor except for a real mishit.

[John Mayhugh]

3.  Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?"  They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else."  (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)

Willie Dunn's chasm hole at Biarritz required the player to hit across a deep chasm.  So I don't think that the holes at Yale or Fishers are bad because of the forced carry (and you don't have to carry the ocean at Fishers, do you?).  From the members tees, I think the "chasm" carry is more like 160 at each course, though the uphill nature at Fishers makes it effectively longer.  I agree it's a pretty penal hole.

[V. Kmetz]

BB:

I believe you're right; there is no importance between penal and strategic on a one-shotter...if it's an ordinary or poor golf hole.  A great golf hole, that is more than its whistles and bells - to me - would have a strategic choice at its core.  Just because a one-shotter has already eschewed the strategy of a driving tee shot and already placed you safely in the fairway (the Par 3 tee box) does not mean there's nothing strategic left to consider for the Approach you are left with.  And...as often as not..the great Par 3s place you not in the ideal position to approach the green if it were a Par 4 or 5, but one slightly askew to that spot, but giving back the concept that you put the ball on a peg for this "altered from optimum" approach" position.

With intelligent design of green complex topography and placement of teeing grounds, a great one-shotter will have different dangers and opportunties based on the wind and pins.  I know a beautiful 130- 150 par 3, over water with a broad wavy folded taco green, two bunkers and a wide tee box that calls for cuts and draws and higher, longer shots and shots that hold the wind and fall right or left; ones with lots of spin and ones that you want to land dead.  It's not even a superb, all time hole - but it's a quality design and has loads of strategy in the precise quality of the stroke onto it.  As an enjoyment or hole that makes you think as opposed to the fear of merely "low, straight, running shot" over water to a wild green.

Even I accept the fact that Yale's forced carry over water is only 140 yards, Fisher's isn't and if you stated the Biarritz concept perfectly (I believe you did) the last thing those holes seem to inspire is "a straight, low running shot with enough force to roll through the swale and stop on the green."

I love them both and enjoy playing them, but I just wondered if anyone else thought the flatter non-carry ones were more rewarding to play?

JM:  Technically it's not the ocean that's carried per se, , it's a small inlet on the bluffs, but the effect is the same.  Do you or anyone have  pictures of the Dunn Biarritz?  I've always wanted to see it.

[Bill Brightly]

V

You may be right, many great par 3's don't have you in the ideal position to approach the green. (That's one of the things I like best about Redans, by the way!)

However, one of the cool things about a Biarritz is that you are placed in the PERFECT place to approach the green. The problem is, it is the longest approach shot you will likely have all day. And you can see all the trouble quite clearly, whether it be the "chasm," the bunkers, the swale, or that pin way in the distance. If you like golfers to feel discomfort on the tee, a good Biarritz fills the bill!

Don't forget the strategy of simply playing the hole as if it required two shots to reach the green, something that the ODG's probably thought about far more than we do as golfers today. In that respect, it is a pretty benign par 4: long or middle iron to the approach area and a short wedge to a huge green.

I also think you need to remember that the Biarritz was almost always one of four very unique par 3 holes. We all know the excellence of the Redan, the simple yet precise requirment for accuracy on the Short, and the daughnting mid-iron challenges presented by the Eden. When you add in the extremely long par 3 Biarritz, I'd say the archy has done a good job testing your ability to play par 3's, wouldn't you?

[John Mayhugh]

JM:  Technically it's not the ocean that's carried per se, , it's a small inlet on the bluffs, but the effect is the same.  Do you or anyone have  pictures of the Dunn Biarritz?  I've always wanted to see it.

Not sure about past conditions, but the only time I've seen the 5th at Fishers the carry was pretty much across grass & rough.  No real inlet carry unless you're playing a significant draw. 

Bill,
Great description of the approach to the biarritz.

[Alex Miller]

3.  Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?"  They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else."  (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)

vk

It's not really so bad to have a shot like this nowadays. With modern equipment and golf balls the shot doesn't ask nearly as much in the way of pure distance as it did when first designed. In fact, many great par 3s ask this from the golfer, e.g. 5 at Pine Valley

[V. Kmetz]

BB:
In that respect, it is a pretty benign par 4: long or middle iron to the approach area and a short wedge to a huge green.

bb

I agree with the probable surmising of many one-shotters as two-shotters by the Golden Age designers - the key relationship (imo) is to a score of "4."  I just would like to know where to hit my ball if I'm not going for the green in one.  I think at Yale and Fisher's, especially the latter's Biarritz, there's only the long straight option - which I thought was not a mark of greatness.

I repeat, I enjoy both of those courses and those holes are always a kick, but if you miss 20 yds (60ft) left or right from the center of the green, you might not even find it (again, less so at Yale).  If it's a match, I care a lot less...but as well-regarded exemplars of a particular style, they both elicit far more fear than delight or golfing opportunity in my game. 

That doesn't appeal to me, even if it is one select occurrence intended to be a the "Long, Straight Test" of the Short, Eden, Redan et  al.

cheers

vk

[Bill Brightly]

VK,

Did you know that when Raynor built Yale, the front section of the green was actually fairway?
So he really did give you a safe play: the landing area over the water, short of the swale...

I'm not sure when they converted the front section to putting surface. I believe that was the first course to do so.

If you don't think it is a great hole, you are entitled to your opinion.

It certainly is one of the hardest par 3's anywhere, is quite unique in its design (even among Biarritzs), demands great skill to hit the green, a par is far from certain even if you hit the green in regulation, is picturesque, and is the hole that most people think of when the topic of Yale comes up. To me, that ticks off many of the qualities that most great holes share, but what do I know?

Sounds like a wayward tee shot knocked it off your favorite hole list 

[V. Kmetz]

BB:

I am aware that many intact or restored Biarritzes have morphed in and out of having the front section appear as green or fairway (at Fishers it has been fairway during my 8 playings) but I did not know that was the case at Yale.  What year did that change to green surface? Though it might be a "gimmicky" annex to the original philsophy, I kind of like the marvel of it; the drama of the contours are so rarely found and the prospect of a slamming 90 foot putt down and back up through the trough is singular.

My fondest 9th at Yale story:  I've played it 20-25x and made everything from 8 to 2.  I would say that the pin placement has been back (yea!) and front (boo!) a near equal amount of times.  But in the mid 90s when I was playing it most, I ran into a stretch of visits when the pin had already been in the front three times in a row (boo!)  Upon a fourth visit, it was there again and I was truly disappointed, so I took a 3-iron and played towards the back anyway.  I guess being so blithe about not making a score, but playing a shot, I hammered it a little long.  The rough lie was pretty clean but I had never played from the back to the front  and I had no idea of distance control coming downhill through the trough.  I decided it was safest to play a little 7 yard "hop" with a PW figuring as long as it couldn't help but go down and through, which it did...right back up, braking 50% through the trough and steering in for a birdie.

Can't stress enough to you and the readers of this thread that I sincerely enjoy both holes; so stirred am I at the sight of the 9th at Yale (first played in 1994) that I often think it might have been the culmination-tipping point when the design of what I played became more important than my swing or score.  I merely want to engage the one-and-only discussion group that could speak intelligently to the concept.

As always we learn and here I've learned that Dunn's original necessitated a handsome carry over a chasm and that "fright" is intended to be in the equation as replicated by the MAC/Ray/Banks style.

I welcome any other views of what's been discussed.

cheers

vk

[Jim Nugent]

Willie Dunn's chasm hole at Biarritz required the player to hit across a deep chasm.  So I don't think that the holes at Yale or Fishers are bad because of the forced carry (and you don't have to carry the ocean at Fishers, do you?).  

As I understand it, no one knows if the chasm hole had a Biarritz green.  Or, really, if CBM modeled the Biarritz after this hole.  

At Yale, the tee sits some 50 feet or more above the green.  I have never played there, but that would seem to make it real hard to hit a low runner. Someone on this site said the strategy is to hit a tee shot that lands on the downslope of the gulch.  That is supposed to fling it onto the back shelf.  Talk about target golf.  You better have perfect distance control.  

[John Mayhugh]

I've never seen photos of the original chasm hole.  I think that Classic Golf Hole Design (Cornish & Graves) has a sketch of the original hole that includes a swale in the center of the green, but this may have just been speculation on their part.

I don't think that the swale is intended to be used to sling the ball to the back.  It seems that the way the hole should play is to always have the hole in the back tier.  Those that couldn't play a long accurate carry could either lay up to the front and then face a challenging putt.  The running shot would be a way to play the hole, but not the only one.  Of course, this is just my own speculation but CBM often spoke of giving the weaker player a way out.  Seems the front part of a Biarritz green does that.

[Tim Gavrich]

Having never yet had the pleasure of a round at Fishers Island, I can only comment on the 9th at Yale.  It is certainly one of my favorite par 3s anywhere, demanding a player's best long iron or fairway wood shot of the day.  I've played it twice with the pin in back, twice with it in front.  While it's an interesting shot to a front pin, it's a completely different hole a such times.  Still a good hole in its own right, but not as thrilling as when the pin is in back.

The real problem is that they have yet to reach the point where the green is so firm that it is necessary to land the ball in front in order to hold the green to a back pin.  It's getting there, but not quite yet as of this August.

[Jud_T]

How many rounds a year are played at Yale? You would think that a world class University, with a massive endowment (although it took a nice hit recently) would be able to support top-notch maintenace of the course. 

[Tim Gavrich]

How many rounds a year are played at Yale? You would think that a world class University, with a massive endowment (although it took a nice hit recently) would be able to support top-notch maintenace of the course. 

Jud--

Yale currently enjoys very good conditions (a few low-lying troublesome areas still) while getting a good amount of play from members and Yale students, faculty, and personnel.  It is a whole lot better since many original features and shapes have been restored out there, thanks to Scott Ramsey, the Superintendent.  Things will only improve under his supervision, I suspect.

[Jud_T]

good to hear, I only played out there once in '95 and it was a bit sketchy....

[Tim Gavrich]

Jud--

You owe it to yourself to take pains to return when possible.  It is a revolution that has happened there.  The profile on this site was updated recently; hif you haven't already, you'll notice that the pictures show some appreciably better-looking holes than those your memory of 1995 will supply.

--Tim

[George_Bahto]

Bill Brightly and others:

Concerning the idea of the front section of Biarritz greens being putting surfaces:

Biarritz holes have been a favorite of mine from the "git-go" of my Macdonald - Raynor - Banks research.

When I first began researching and visiting their courses beginning in the late 1980's only a few courses had putting surface before the "Valley of Sin" swale; Yale, Mid-Ocean, Chicago Golf come to mind (there were a few more). To me it was a striking feature, totally different from the Biarritz on my hole I'd been plain for  so many years, so I encouraged other clubs to go down the road of a "double-green" bisected by the swale.

I had (and have) to this time been able to determine what the original Biarritz green was like but given the time line (1888), the ball, the golf clubs, certainly the firm ground and the differential in the height on the Chasm hole, tee to green, I would suspect the green (or the approach to the green) was long and narrow (a cliff on the right). The original hole was 220-yards - the carry over the Bay of Biscay reported to be 160 or so yards, which leaves 60-yards beyond the Bay to the middle of the green.

but concerning whether the Biarritz holes by Macdonald Raynor were ever meant to be a double green and  given that the Yale-9th would be the poster-child for Macdonald-Raynor orginal interpretation, a few months ago friend Tony Pioppi turned up the following information from the Yale archives stating the "green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach" - to me - verifies these hole were never intended to have the double-green.


a portion of the article:

Special to The Courant
The Hartford Courant; Aug 16, 1925 - page B4
New Haven, Aug. 15, 1925

Yale to Open Probably Most Unique and
One of Largest Golf Courses in United States


The ninth hole is over the northwestern end of the Greist pond and has it original on the Biarritz course in France.   
   
The green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach which is of about the same area as the green. The approach is bunkered heavily on the right and left and the fairway is the lake. This hole is one of the most interesting of the course and is deceptive because of the full water play although the hole is not a long one.
   

[V. Kmetz]

GB and all,

Thank you for the overview.  Are there any available "viewable" materials concerning the original Biarritz?

Does the course and/or the hole still exist?

Whether it does or not, could the specific site be viewed from Google Earth to at least get and overhead on the general ground?

Cheers

vk 

[Jim Nugent]

George Bahto, I'm unclear if you think the chasm hole had a swale, either on the green or right before it.  Other than the chasm itself, I mean. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

The 9th at Yale and the 5th at Fishers Island are two of the more noteworthy Raynor entries for this style.  I don't where I inured it, but I had always believed that one main function of the style was to use the approach and the front "section" of the green to sling the ball through the trough to rear pins, and also demanding control of the lower, more "running" shot to remain on the front level. 


I believe that you're laboring under a false opinion.
The play of a Biarritz relies heavily on the topography, the relationship, elevation wise, between the tee and the green.
The 9th at Yale has a high tee, low green.
The 5th at Fisher's has a low tee, high green, thus the two holes play nothing alike.

In addition, the 5th at Fisher's has a pronounced spine in the putting surface behind the trough running from 12 O'clock to 6 O'clock, a feature that 's absent at Yale.  In addition, the rear putting surface at Yale differs materially from the putting surface behind the trough at Fisher's.

It seems to me upon several rounds of both the Yale and Fishers versions that these practically demand aerial shots, which seems to contradict that design principle.

I'd disagree with that statement as well.
Yale demands an aerial shot due to two factors.
1.  The highly elevated tee and the much lower green.
2.  The body of water fronting the green.

The 5th at Fisher's easily accomodates a running shot, especially a low driver.

Of course both are a visual feast and offer a unique golfing sensation but I was wondering:

1.  Am I understanding the strategic principle of the hole correctly?

NO

2.  If so, don't the Biarritz appearances at Mountain Lake, Carmargo, Yeamans, Shoreacres (of these I've only played Yeamans) fit the strategic intents with much greater diligence?

The Biarritz at Mountain Lake has the tee and the green at almost the same elevations, therefore a running shot to the back tier is more likely due to the topography and the natural trajectory of the tee shot with a long club.

3.  Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?" 


NO, the topographies are as different as night and day.
The tee shot at Fisher's encourages a low running shot, the tee shot at Yale will not tolerate a low shot or it will fall short of the green, into the water.

They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else."  (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)

Both tee shots require fairly straight tee shots, but then again, so does every par 3.
Fisher's can be a far more daunting tee shot due to the winds sweeping off the water.
A choked up driver, hit low is a great shot at Fisher's.
I would never attempt that shot at Yale.

If any of you have occasion to respond, I'd love to know your thoughts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Biarritz holes built by Macdonal, Raynor and Banks were built around 100 years ago before the introduction of the irrigation systems that we take for granted today in the US. Try to imagine hard-packed fairway approcahes guarded on both sides by menacing bunkers. The clubs and balls would not permit a carry to the green, so running your ball between the bunkers, then down qand up the swale, was the only way to get it to the green.

Agreed.

Sadly, today's equipment and balls create the option of flying the ball to the green, and today's maintenance practices allow for greens that will hold these shots, even 3-woods and drivers. Much of the architectural intent of these holes has been lost, especially for long hitters.
Not at Fisher's where irrigation is mostly absent.

On the other hand, there is a very strong movement to maintain the front portion of these green complexes as putting surfaces. Although the pin should rarely be placed up front, this creates a far firmer and faster approach than fairway height grass, so many of the shorter hitters now can reach the back section (usually 200-240 to the flag.) With the front sections maintained as mushy fairway, these players could never get it to the back section. So at least for players who can't carry to the back, the holes are being restored to the original intent.

The front portion or front tier of the Biarritz at Fisher's was NEVER intended to be a putting surface.

The Biarritz at Mountain Lake has both tiers mowed at green height, as does Yale.
Currently, so does the 11th at The Creek, although the trough is fairly benign.
Piping Rock's front tier and trough could be mowed at green height, as is the modified Biarritz at Westhampton.
I doubt that the Knoll's Biarritz ever had the front tier mowed as green.