[TEPaul]

"I have never thought that Merion needed any protection from anyone who wants to examine its history,"


Good for you, Jim Kennedy; on that I couldn't agree with you more.

[TEPaul]

"Again very well thought out points and photos. But what does the photo in the middle of the shroud of turin have to do with a par three?"


Good point, Anthony. Maybe someone played that PLASTICINE MODEL in the middle photo----maybe Whigham did and his ball bounced off some hogs-back and into one of those flanking bunkers, but.......  

[Bradley Anderson]

If a hogs back ound was placed 30 yards in front of the swale that would eliminate the

Whigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''

Am I the only person who is puzzled by this quote? I mean, if a hogsback of any significance was located where Whigham has described it here, wouldn't it force a trajectory that would be too high to run through the trough?

To my understanding, that hogsback would force an aerial shot, which contradicts everything else about the design of the biarritz. They were all built as the longest par three in the CBM collection. And I think all of them started out with one tee location, which means that every player, of various length, was playing what was then a fairly long one shotter.

The hogsback would favor the long hitter, and eliminate the controlled push shot which a shorter hitter could play to match the long hitters ball.

Also the hogsback might hide the players view of the ball running through the trough, which is proably the funnest shot in golf to watch.

[JESII]

Unless the hogsback is only a foot high and off to the side as Tom Paul described at Piping Rock...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bradley,
I think it was mentioned elsewhere that the hogback may have been placed perpendicular to the line of play. If that was the case Whigham's remark that it was 30 yards from the green, and how the hole should be played, makes perfect sense.

The hogbacks inthis case may have met the same fate as the ridges on some Biarritz greens.

[JESII]

But Jim, Wigham's description calls for the ball to land on the hogsback and then run through the dip (30 yards I guess) which seems like an awful lot to do as opposed to hitting it just a bit higher and landing in the low of the dip still with some run...no?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,
If the hog's back ended 30 yards short of the green that would be well short of the dip. So maybe the reality is lateral or perpendicular or a combination of the two (which is what a flesh and blood hog's back looks like  ), and adapted to the conditions of the site. His could have meant the high point too when he mentioned the distance from the green. Just a guess.

[TEPaul]

"Unless the hogsback is only a foot high and off to the side as Tom Paul described at Piping Rock..."


Sully:

If that pretty small little bump or moundy thing that one can just make out from the tee within that large and rather flatish area of the plateau fairway before the swale (btw, which is on about the same level as the green surface behind the swale ) in that photography of PR's Biarritz in 1913 is what Whigam called a "hogs-back," I will guarantee you that Whigs would have been a whole lot more accurate in his description if he had called it a "Teeeeny-Weeeeny little Piglet-back" who had been born about twenty minutes before that photo was taken.

But who really knows? Maybe Whigs felt that if the club gave that teeeny-weeeny little piglet's back about a decade or so to grow it might eventually turn into a full-grown Hogs-back that covered most of that substantial fairway area before the swale.

[JESII]

Maybe Tom.


Sort of like calling the 3rd at Pine Valley a Redan, I don't quite get the point of putting a label on somehting that doesn't match the definition...at all.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I think I might've just figured out why Whigs mentioned the ideal run-up shot on PR's biarritz should be a bit of a push shot (their terminology back then for a lowish fade). I've got to go get a haircut but I'll explain it to you when I return with my new buzzcut.

[DMoriarty]

With respect to plasticine models, we shouldn't assume that the plasticine model is representative of what was put into the ground.

I agree.  But right now I am more concerned with understanding their early concept than how the concept evolved.   And like written or drawn plans, Plasticine models can give us a very good idea of the designer's early vision.  They are particularly useful where, as here, the designer was working off some prior conception or model, but that conception evolved away from the original.  In other words, since I am trying to understand their early concept the plasticine may be more useful than what was actually put into the ground.

I think it's also incorrect to take Whigham literally in the context that the concept of a Biarritz, or any template, didn't evolve or morph over time.

I agree and am very aware of this.  But again, I am trying to understand their early conception of the hole; their ideal if you will.   It obviously evolved and morphed over time, but I think most people assume it did not.   They look at a Raynor Biarritz and automatically assume that it exactly exemplified the original concept.   This isn't the case, which is why I am looking at Whigham.   By comparing what he wrote to what was actually built we can see how the concept was flexible and changing from the very beginning. 

In my limited experience of examining templates, there's no "static" or fixed master mold, where the features are congruent. 
Similar in general terms ?  Yes, but, with enough deviation that the hole is unique in its own right..
A great number of "templates" vary greatly, yet they still maintain their general concept.

I completely agree, and have been saying this for years now.  These were general concepts applying basic fundamental principles of time tested golf holes.   Like CBM wrote about the Redan Concept, they could be applied in infinite ways depending upon the site.
_______________________________________________________________

It has never been called the Biarritz as far as I know but then the original hole at Biarritz wasn't called the "Biarritz" (assuming that it is the original of course, and not a version of a previous hole). "The Mill" is a reference to the structure which forms the backdrop when you approach the green.

Understood.  Your original post gave me the impression that the hole was called the Biarritz, but I must have misunderstood.

When you call this a Biarritz hole because you feel it is similar in concept, or do you think that it was actually inspired by a hole at Biarritz?
___________________________________________________________________________

Whigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''

I was wrong...it says the ball is to land short of the dip, which means on the hogsback...that's not possible at Merion (and I doubt ever was).

Jim, I think he was contemplating being able to run it over at least part of the hog's back, but given the length of the hole and the size of the dip (30 yards across) many golfers would surely be able to hit on the down-slope of the hog's back which would make things much easier.  They generally measured from the middle of greens, so on a hole of about 220 yards it would only take a carry of about 175-180 yards to clear get on the down slope or into the dip, so I don't think that they all would have had to run it over much of the hog's back.   Land it on the down-slope, maybe, but not run it over the whole thing. 

As for whether this was possible at Merion, I am not sure why it wouldn't have been.  As I have said, I think that area above the steep down-slope used to be maintained as fairway.  If this is so, and if the steep drop was cut down as well, then why couldn't one hit a ball short and bounce/run it on? 

Also, I suspect that Whigham's description was of the hole at Biarritz and not of Piping Rock.  It is very close to CBM's earlier description.  When I get a chance I'll try to track down the original source and see. 

Maybe we can discuss the different playability considerations when a Biarritz has an abrupt trench like all the ones you and I have seen compared to the "30 yard dip" in Wigham's definition.

It seems to me that, with a more abrupt dip that wasn't far across, a landing area large enough to get the ball on or near the ground would be a necessity because a ball it into the swale in the air on or on a big bounce will probably kill into the up-slope.  With a dip which is further across and has a less steep up-slope,  less landing area would be needed because there would be more room to land the ball on the downslope of the swale or it the bottom and still have it run out. 
_________________________________________________________

Bradley, if the hog's back was as Whigham described then it would only take a carry of175-180 yards at most to carry the hog's back.   Definitely some carry was required which was the real trick, I think.  You had to make the carry and still make it run. 
_______________________________________________________

Jim,
If the hog's back ended 30 yards short of the green that would be well short of the dip. So maybe the reality is lateral or perpendicular or a combination of the two (which is what a flesh and blood hog's back looks like  ), and adapted to the conditions of the site. His could have meant the high point too when he mentioned the distance from the green. Just a guess.

JimK,  As I understand it, the "dip" is the low land between the hog's back and the green.    CBM described the Biarrits as a hog's back stopping 30 yards before a plateaued green.   It is difficult to know if he was measuring from the high point or not.

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
True, but I don't think there are any Biarritz holes with a 30 yard wide swale, so the point of any ridge woud be well back from the dip.

Also, here is what constituted a push shot, according to Walter Travis:
"Like a great many others, he (Whigham) confuses this with a stiff-armed shot. They are totally different. In the push-shot proper the ball has a low trajectory, with comparatively little run, not with "plenty of run," in contradistinction to a great deal of run resulting from the stiff-armed shot. Not only is the action of the ball different in each case, but the strokes are radically unlike. In the one case the swing is vertical and the handfinish only a comparatively little way in front of the ball and without any turn-over whatever of the wrists. In the stiff-armed shot there is very little, if any, flexion of the elbows, or wrists, in the backward swing, and after the ball is struck, with a flat swing, the club is carried well out with stiff arms and the wrists are turned over."

[DMoriarty]

David,
True, but I don't think there are any Biarritz holes with a 30 yard wide swale, so the point of any ridge woud be well back from the dip.

The swale planned for the Lido looks to have been close to that if one measured from the high point on the hog's back. 

Also, here is what constituted a push shot, according to Walter Travis:
"Like a great many others, he (Whigham) confuses this with a stiff-armed shot. They are totally different. In the push-shot proper the ball has a low trajectory, with comparatively little run, not with "plenty of run," in contradistinction to a great deal of run resulting from the stiff-armed shot. Not only is the action of the ball different in each case, but the strokes are radically unlike. In the one case the swing is vertical and the handfinish only a comparatively little way in front of the ball and without any turn-over whatever of the wrists. In the stiff-armed shot there is very little, if any, flexion of the elbows, or wrists, in the backward swing, and after the ball is struck, with a flat swing, the club is carried well out with stiff arms and the wrists are turned over."

I've seen that and have it filed under examples of how Travis was becoming increasingly petty when it came to CBM and HJW, especially the part immediately before what you posted.   I think Travis would have fit in well here.

[Lester George]

At next years Greenbrier Classic (July 26th - Aug 1st) The PGA Tour will be playing the newly (2006) restored Biarritz on the Old White.  I personally want to see how it plays.  I am encouraging the Tour to pin the bottom of the trough one day to see what happens.  Any one want to take wagers on a hole-in-one?

Has the PGA Tour ever played a Mac/Raynor course on a regular basis before?  Trivia buffs?

Lester

[TEPaul]

"Has the PGA Tour ever played a Mac/Raynor course on a regular basis before?  Trivia buffs?"

Lester:

The course the tour has played on a regular basis in Hawaii is a Raynor I believe. I think it's called Waialae.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lester,
If its a Mac/Raynor, and not a Raynor/Banks, wouldn't it be OW for Sam Snead's Pro-Am?

[TEPaul]

"I've seen that and have it filed under examples of how Travis was becoming increasingly petty when it came to CBM and HJW, especially the part immediately before what you posted."

Travis became increasingly petty when it came to CBM?!?  

Hmmm.  


I wonder if anyone even wonders if he may've had some good reason to be. Assuming Travis appeared to be petty towards CBM from around 1914 to 1915 and on and not around the end of the first decade of the 20th century, I can pretty much guarantee that it was not about the Schnectedy Putter issue. Anyone have any idea WHAT it may've been about later?  

[TEPaul]

"Also, I suspect that Whigham's description was of the hole at Biarritz and not of Piping Rock."


Is it even possible that someone could actually read Whigam's statement and then claim that Whigam was talking about a biarritz hole at Biarritz France and not the ninth hole at Piping Rock? I can hardly see how since Whigam started his remarks by saying this biarritz hole is new to this country (which is true since Piping Rock's ninth hole was the first biarritz done in America) and after his description of the hole Whigam ended his remarks by saying 'This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.'    

By the way, you can see on the posts above the person who just made that statement about PR's hole as described by Whigam is the same person who manufactured QUOTATIONS on here from me and then proceeded to use them to accuse me on this website of 'altering original documents of Merion GC.' 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lester,
Don't keep us hanging too long. 

[Bradley Anderson]

The description of the hogsback that we have been attributing to Whigham here was actually written by Travis, ostensibly as direct quote of something that Whigham had written in Town & Country. It is possible, don't you think, that Travis didn't get every word of Whigham's Town & Country article verbatim? Does anyone have copy of the actual Whigham article?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If a hogs back ound was placed 30 yards in front of the swale that would eliminate the

Whigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''

Am I the only person who is puzzled by this quote? I mean, if a hogsback of any significance was located where Whigham has described it here, wouldn't it force a trajectory that would be too high to run through the trough?
Bradley Anderson,

I think some have misinterpreted Whigham's words/description.

I believe the "hogsback" he's referencing is the entire footpad of the land mass immediately preceeding the swale.
I've noticed that a number of these footpads/land masses slope toward the flanks near their edges, giving them a "hogsback" flavor.

I believe this feature was intended to direct marginal, low tee shots (runners) toward the steep, deep flanking bunkers, while allowing more accurate tee shots to proceed through the swale to the back tier.

If one studies the 16th fairway at NGLA, you can see how that center landmass, (spine or hogsback) directs marginal tee shots to the flanks.
I believe that CBM, SR and CB wanted to incorporate that feature in their Biarritz's.

NGLA is replete with "hogsbacks"/spines, in both the greens and fairways.
Hole # 5 is named, "hogsback".
CBM, SR, CB used this feature to deflect marginal shots toward the flanks which were usually sloped, some steep and deep slopes leading down to bunkers or the bottom of bowls.

Some, if not most of the fronting footpads on Biarritz's have that "hogsback/spine" structure and function.

I believe this is what Whigham was referencing.


To my understanding, that hogsback would force an aerial shot, which contradicts everything else about the design of the biarritz.

I disagree.  I don't think it forces an aerial shot at all.  In addition, at 220 yards, how many in the first decade or two of the twentieth century could carry the ball 180 to 200 yards ?

I think you're contexting the word, "hogsback" in a severe, limited form, rather than a subtle, broader or less obvious form.

They were all built as the longest par three in the CBM collection.

Agreed

And I think all of them started out with one tee location, which means that every player, of various length, was playing what was then a fairly long one shotter.

Agreed.

The hogsback would favor the long hitter, and eliminate the controlled push shot which a shorter hitter could play to match the long hitters ball.
Long holes tend to favor the long hitter.

Also the hogsback might hide the players view of the ball running through the trough, which is proably the funnest shot in golf to watch.

I totally disagree.
Why would a "hogsback" feature, narrow or broad, that runs tee to green obstruct any view ?
Balls approaching the swale were visible, then not visible when the entered the swale, then, hopefully reappearing if the ball had enough momentum.

The "hogsback" would not impede the view of a running ball.

[DMoriarty]

The description of the hogsback that we have been attributing to Whigham here was actually written by Travis, ostensibly as direct quote of something that Whigham had written in Town & Country. It is possible, don't you think, that Travis didn't get every word of Whigham's Town & Country article verbatim? Does anyone have copy of the actual Whigham article?

I don't have a copy but will try to track it down when I can.   I doubt Travis got it wrong, because it is very close to CBM's description of the original hole.  
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Patrick, I tend to agree with you that the first plateau was the "hog's back."   My only reservation is that CBM described the feature as a "sharp" hog's back.  So if the entire plateau was a hog's back then they defintely changed their thinking on this one early.  

[Niall C]

Tom P

The 4th at Silloth is definitely a Biarritz and I'm sticking to that story ! Seriously though, I had always thought that the hole owed more than a little to the Biarritz design. I had always thought of Biarritz holes in terms of the green complex, front and back green with swale/ridge/dip bisecting it and deep penal hazards on either side. The test being to get to the portion of the green on which the flag was on by means of running through the dip or being careful not to go to far and go into it.

This has been an excellent thread as it has opened up my eyes to other elements of the design (or at least elements that CBM took out of the original hole). And if I am reading this thread correctly a Biarritz had the following;

1 - length c. 220 yards which was a two shotter back in the day

2 - first half of the fairway comprised some large natural undulation, either a bay or something else

3 - hogsback/ridge in front of green (30 yards ?)

4 - green complex as I describe above

For my money the hole at Silloth ticks all the boxes. Certainly the swale in the green is not as exaggerated as some of the CBM holes but then the CBM holes probably don't have flanking hazards anything like as severe. I think its interesting what different designers can take from a hole and use as inspiration.

David

Whether or not this hole was actually seen by the person building it I can't really say. It would also be hard to say when and who designed the Silloth hole as well. I had a look at my Silloth club history last night and you have a diverse group of pro's/architects/designers involved ranging from Davie Grant who was commisioned to lay out the course, to Mungo Park (Willie Park Jnrs uncle) who helped him and stayed on as greenkeeper/pro for first year or so, to Hugh Kirkcaldy, to Willie Park Jnr himself, to Fernie and eventually Mackenzie and we know it definitely wasn't him as he changed the location of the tee.

Unfortunately none of these guys left much by way of literature, apart from Willie Park, to give us much of a clue. Not sure if Park (Willie or Mungo) or Grant ever went to Biarritz but they would certainly have known the Dunns.

What I think we can surmise is that the hole almost certainly wasn't influenced by CBM/Raynor etc which is where I think it gets interesting seeing how it compares to their Biarritz holes. I also can't think of another Biarritz hole that I've seen in Scotland.

As I said above, excellent thread.

Niall 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

I think you will find different versions of the "first plateau".
Some are flat, some slightly rounded and others noticeably rounded..

As I stated earlier, I don't believe that the "template" holes were fashioned with a "cookie cutter" method, thus I think you'll find ample variations. 

Whether those variations represent an evolutionary trend, or a capitulation to the land form at the site would be an interesting study.

I believe that the hole demanded length and accuracy on the tee shot, with recovery skills demanded should the tee shot be marginal or errant.

I think you have to consider a few factors when examining Biarritz's.

The elevation differentials are one.

The elevation of the first and second tier is another.
The higher up these tiers were, the dryer the ground.

The third factor is the lack of fairway irrigation systems.

If seasonal rainfall was typical or less than typical, firm conditions usually prevailed in the summer months.
This effectively "shortened" the playability of the hole, allowing for considerable run (provided the topography co-operated), thus, golfers, with an accurate tee shot, could hit well short of the green and still make the green.

I think the play of Biarritz's changed dramatically when irrigation systems became the norm.
The once dry, firm and fast first plateau became lush and green, thwarting running shots.
I think irrigation systems more than anything else changed the play of a Biarritz, and in so doing, changed the philosophy concerning the maintainance of the first tier (plateau)

With ample irrigation I think it became quickly apparent that the front tier needed to be mowed tigthly if any run was to be provided.
One progression, and perhaps the natural progression, of tight mowing on irrigated fairways next to a green, is to mow them at close to, or green height. 

I think irrigation of the front tier (plateau) lead naturally to maintaining that tier (plateau) as putting surface.

It made all the sense in the world, for a variety of reasons.

1  It now allowed for the intended running of the ball on lush green surfaces.
2  It introduced the entire swale as a possible hole location, adding tactical value to the hole
3  It introduced the entire front tier as a putting surface, exponentially adding tactical value to the hole.
4  It produced a very unique hole, a hole of rare appearance and quality, a hole with many options.
5  It allowed the short hitter to tolerate and enjoy the hole, versus the longer, lusher version.
6  It allowed the architecture to fulfill its intended purpose.

That's my premise and I'm sticking to it

[TEPaul]

"The description of the hogsback that we have been attributing to Whigham here was actually written by Travis, ostensibly as direct quote of something that Whigham had written in Town & Country. It is possible, don't you think, that Travis didn't get every word of Whigham's Town & Country article verbatim? Does anyone have copy of the actual Whigham article?"


Bradley:

Is that right?

If so, great find. You know you should definitely moonlight as a private GCA investigator as some of these self-proclaimed expert researchers/analysts/writers on this website seem to get a bit fast and loose with what they try to pass off as VERIFIABLE FACTS, don't you know?    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()