Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been

[DMoriarty]

David:  "George.    I notice that while on flat ground, Piping Rock's Biarritz has a bunker crossing the line of play short of the short landing area.    Has this always been there?     Strategically, it seems to serve the purpose of the Chasm-- requiring even the player utilizing the ground game to at least carry it to a bit short of the green.    Is this a correct understanding?  "

That bunker, well short of the "fairway", the swale and the green was to represent the carry over the hazard

note the illustration of the Knoll's 13th - many clubs removed this bunker becausxe, to them, it served no purpose at all.

Thanks George, that is what I thought, and it really clarifies things for me.  Seems to be characteristic of CBM as I understand him, he allowed for the ground game, but wasn't about to reward an ugly grounder or a topped shot.  

__________________________________

And thanks for posting the Essex County hole.     For those of you who do not understanding how  this could be considered a biarritz hole if the space between the bunkers and the green were reestablished, take a look at these.   The first is Essex, only in mirror image.  The second is CPC with the Essex outline over the top.   Both the red and white lines are about 219 yards.  

   

[Anthony Gray]

  Excellent post David

  Anthony

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
Rather similar, but the fairway of ECCC hole is very much of a downslope to the green, then the green heads uphill from front to back. The 'low' point of the 'swale' is the area where the green and fairway meet, and it shows up as a slightly darker area in your reversed photo of ECCC.

It you hit a low shot at Essex that landed short it has a chance of following the downhill slope and kicking up on the green. That sure doesn't look like the case at Cypress, the ground seems flat and the ball would just run straight ahead and onto the rocks.
I've never been on the ground at CPC, but that's my impression.   

[TEPaul]

I'm pretty sure Piping's biarritz is the same now as it was back in the fifties and I'm pretty sure no one did anything to it before the '50s. The fairway before the swale is pretty liberal with plenty of room to land a low running shot on it and run it through the swale and up onto the green. The green is on fairly flat ground but the tee is at least 15 feet or more above the green.

The Creek Club's historian produced a great photo on here sometime ago of Piping's Biarritz from 1913 that also showed how the fairway on the 8th hole seemed to come right to the right side biarritz bunker and continued on along the right side of the Road Hole green.

[Adam Clayman]

The rear bunkers on Dr. Mac's 16th green at CPC are there to catch the aggressive player. Just like all of his rear bunkers. No?

Having a backside of a swale, where a ball hit from 200 yards, on a firm surface, would in all likely hood go bounding into those back bunkers, seems like a penalty not caused by being aggressive, but rather a bounce designed in. Would the good Doctor do such a thing? Did he ever do such a thing?

For that reason, because of those rear bunkers, I don't think a Biarritz inspired greensite/green on CPC's 16th works at all.

[DMoriarty]

David,
Rather similar, but the fairway of ECCC hole is very much of a downslope to the green, then the green heads uphill from front to back. The 'low' point of the 'swale' is the area where the green and fairway meet, and it shows up as a slightly darker area in your reversed photo of ECCC.

It you hit a low shot at Essex that landed short it has a chance of following the downhill slope and kicking up on the green. That sure doesn't look like the case at Cypress, the ground seems flat and the ball would just run straight ahead and onto the rocks.
I've never been on the ground at CPC, but that's my impression.    

Jim,  I haven't played Essex so I dont know how steep the slope is.  However, having spent a bit of time in the lay up area on the 16th at CPC, I can tell you that the fairway most definitely slopes down toward the green, with the lowpoint a bit short of the green and then rises up again to the green surface.  

Here is how AM described the shot left in his book:

"A well played shot at the lone Cypress tree with a nicely calculated slice gets the help of the slope and runs very near the green enabling the player to run up a slope of a slight swale and still have a good chance at three."  

If you've seen photos you know how far left the lone Cypress tree is (and was) from the green, so he was contemplating some serious run on the ball down this slope.  In the old photos it looks as if there used to be enough room for the golfer to go more at the green and land just to the side of the bunker (or over it)  and still run on to the green.   As Shackelford reported in his excellent book, their was more room between the bunkers and the green than one might think.

See page 165 of Shackelford's excellent book to see a photo of the slope and swale.  

[DMoriarty]

The rear bunkers on Dr. Mac's 16th green at CPC are there to catch the aggressive player. Just like all of his rear bunkers. No?

Having a backside of a swale, where a ball hit from 200 yards, on a firm surface, would in all likely hood go bounding into those back bunkers, seems like a penalty not caused by being aggressive, but rather a bounce designed in. Would the good Doctor do such a thing? Did he ever do such a thing?

For that reason, because of those rear bunkers, I don't think a Biarritz inspired greensite/green on CPC's 16th works at all.

Adam,   I don't quite follow you here.   There is a bit of a swale already, isn't there?  Just left of the green?

I think everyone is assuming that a biarritz is a much more stagnant concept than it really is.

The Back Bunkers.
-  I agree with Adam that the bunkers were designed to catch the aggressive player, or at least give the player on the tee a reason not to just bang away with hall he's got.  But with Mackenzie there was likely more to it than that.
-  Much of the site is sand dunes and MacKenzie uses the large bunkers into the dunes and hillsides throughout the course to tie together the sections with exposed sand and the sections without.   This to me is part of the brilliance of the course-- it flows from environment to environment seamlessly without the golfer ever feelling like he has left one setting for another.   That is what amazes me most about these complaints about the back bunkers-- those complaining completely ignore the style and theme of the rest of the course.  
-  While there is no exposed sand, I think that this hillside is a sand dune, just grassed over.
-  The bunkers in front were small and the bunkers in back were large, thus creating the illusion that there is less space between the front of the green and the back than there really was, and making the shot look even more difficult than it was and thereby increasing the thrill of a successful shot without really upping the difficulty even more.   Look in 1934 photo below and how well the right bunker fit with the back right bunker.  From a lower angle the left bunker would have seemed much closer to the back left bunkers that it really was.    A terrific use of camouflage principles.

[The photo is the same one referenced above by David Stamm, and also appears (at much higher resolution) in Geoff's book.  Note that the left second left bunker is not built facing the tee, but facing the fall off in the back.]

[Bill_McBride]

David, what do you mean by "stagnant concept?"

[Adam Clayman]

David, I have no idea if there's a swale left of the green. If there is it sure must be subtle because that's where I was forced to play on my one time play. My issue was with balls hit online with the green that might hit the downward slope of the biarritz (or any swale) and the placement of the rear bunkers. Unless, Like Forrest did at Peacock Gap, turn the Biarritz sideways. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

If someone could post the diagram/schematic of the Biarritz in France, that appears on page 150 of George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf", you'll see the incredible similarity in the land forms at # 16 at CPC, including a "bail out" area to the left.

[Bill_McBride]

David, I have no idea if there's a swale left of the green. If there is it sure must be subtle because that's where I was forced to play on my one time play. My issue was with balls hit online with the green that might hit the downward slope of the biarritz (or any swale) and the placement of the rear bunkers. Unless, Like Forrest did at Peacock Gap, turn the Biarritz sideways. 

It is a cool green indeed - #7, right? - but turned sideways it's no longer a Biarritz, now it's become a Double Plateau!

I love this stuff!

[Adam Clayman]

That's funny Bill. I just thought FR stole it from Shivas'.

[Sean_A]

Hang on guys.  Doesn't anybody else other than me question how these two holes are meant to express the same design concept? Because somebody named these two holes the same, doesn't in the least mean they are similar holes.  Someone has some splainin to do - at least to me.






Jim

I don't recall the exact progression of events, but NB's 16th green wasn't created until after CBM made his NGLA design tours. In fact, NB's green may be a copy of a CBM Biarritz.   

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Jim Nugent and Sean:

This question of the architectural etymology (so to speak) of the Biarritz hole has always been an interesting and mysterious question and particularly the question of where the idea for that Biarrtiz swale came from or what it was supposed to imitate or emulate.

Some years ago I tried to do as much research as I possibly could on this question and I recall some fairly leading material about the course in France itself. My recollection is that famous Chasm Hole at Biarritz France may not have been the only one from which this idea of a swale or the name "Biarritz" hole may've come from (and we do know that Macdonald said he went to France with Whigam on one of his three architectural study trips abroad between 1902 and 1906 in preparation for the creation of NGLA).

I too have often wondered if Macdonald got the idea for the swale from North Berwick's #16 when he first saw that course in 1906 but now you (Sean) tell us that swale on NB's #16 did not exist at that time. May I ask you how you know that or can prove it? We should also note that even if Macdonald said he did not build a Biarritz at NGLA (even if he apparently wanted to) because he couldn't find the proper spot or topography for it at NGLA, he did do his first Biarritz at Piping Rock in 1911-13 which is definitely on some pretty unremarkable ground and topography. So that sort of begs the question of what Macdonald thought he was looking for as an appropriate spot or topography at NGLA for a Biarritz hole. And we should also remember that Macdonald mentioned this about NGLA in his autobiography that was written about twenty years after the creation of NGLA, or at least I believe that was the first he mentioned it.

Sometimes George Bahto mentions the idea for the Biarritz swale may have come to Macdonald from the "Valley of Sin" in front of the 18th green at TOC. Knowing how familiar Macdonald had been with that course over the years that seems somewhat more plausible or logical and certainly given the fact that it now seems neither Macdonald nor Raynor ever did a biarritz originally with green space in front of the swale (it was apparently always fairway area on their original designs) but that does not exactly explain how or why a Biarritz hole came to be so named.

Again, I have a sneaking suspicion Macdonald saw something at that course in Biarritz France that may've had this kind of swale even though it may not have been that famous Chasm hole over the Bay of Biscay which so many have come to call the original Biarritz hole.

[Sean_A]

TomP

I don't recall the exact genesis of why we know that NB's 16th was not a model for CBM.  However, I think it started with with Bernardo's description of the hole for his great book, Golf Courses... which was published in 1910.  It mentions a single plateau green for the Gate hole, not a double plateau.  Sometime later we saw a map of the course posted on here showing that the double was either not present or was added - I don't recall which.  In any case, you can do a search to fins all this out, but the evidence was pretty conclusive that CBM did not use NB's 16th green as a template for the Biarritz because the double plateau green at NB didn't exist at the time of CBM's research.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Thanks for that info on NB's #16 green.

I would say that no one really knows then where Macdonald's idea for that huge swale in front of Biarritzes came from. Not to mention that famous hole in Biarritz France was apparently not even called the "Biarritz" hole, at least not by the Biarritz golf club. I think it was referred to as the "Chasm" hole.

All this is probably just another good example of what Macdonald said himself-----these kinds of features (or even some of the names of holes) and such were simply taken from his observations of parts and pieces of existing holes and reapplied over hear in the same piecemeal or composite manner.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you will turn to page 148 of George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf", it will answer your question about the carry to the green on a "Biarritz" hole.

I don't believe that the carry/chasm has anything to do with the swale in the green or green footpad.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

My question on the Macdonald, Raynor, Banks Biarritz hole has nothing to do with the carry distance from tee to green; it has only to do with where the concept of the huge swale on the Macdonald, Raynor etc Biarritz hole came from.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It certainly wasn't by accident.

It was a deliberate design effort.

I don't have the time now, but, I'd like to list the Biarritz's accompanied by their timeline to see what form the original and subsequent Biarritz's took.

If someone can post the diagram on page 150 of George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf" you will see the eerie resemblance to # 16 at CPC

[Bill_McBride]

TEPaul,

It certainly wasn't by accident.

It was a deliberate design effort.

I don't have the time now, but, I'd like to list the Biarritz's accompanied by their timeline to see what form the original and subsequent Biarritz's took.

If someone can post the diagram on page 150 of George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf" you will see the eerie resemblance to # 16 at CPC

I can't post the photo but think there is one huge difference - the length of the forced carry.  At Cypress Point it's 210-215 yards.  At the Biarritz it's 170 yards with 40-50 yards of fairway between the chasm edge and the front of the green.   At CPC the only way you can play a shot as short as 170 yards is over toward the cypress tree.

Of course a 170 yard shot in 1888 probably equals a shot of 220 yards today......

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It certainly wasn't by accident.

It was a deliberate design effort.

I don't have the time now, but, I'd like to list the Biarritz's accompanied by their timeline to see what form the original and subsequent Biarritz's took.

If someone can post the diagram on page 150 of George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf" you will see the eerie resemblance to # 16 at CPC

I can't post the photo but think there is one huge difference - the length of the forced carry. 
At Cypress Point it's 210-215 yards. 

Bill, I think your measurements are off.
The CPC scorecard lists # 16 as only 219 from the Championship tees.
That's from the back tee to the center of the green, so I don't know where you're coming up with a carry of 210-215 yards.
The red tee is lists the hole at 208, so, again, I don't see how a carry of 210-215 is required.
 
At the Biarritz it's 170 yards with 40-50 yards of fairway between the chasm edge and the front of the green.   

Where are you obtaining your measurements for the Biarritz in France ?
From an artist's rendering or actual measurements ?

At CPC the only way you can play a shot as short as 170 yards is over toward the cypress tree.

That's not true ?
How do higher handicaps and women play the hole ?
Please look at the tees to the south of the Championship tee.
And, why is the assumption that the current Championship tee has always been the only tee location from the inception of the hole ?

If you could post George's schematic of the original Biarritz and the Google Aerial of # 16, the resemblance is striking

Thanks
Of course a 170 yard shot in 1888 probably equals a shot of 220 yards today......