Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses

[Jim_Kennedy]

Here is the 'no apparent swale' green at ECCC. 

[JESII]

It actually makes sense that it's really just a shot testing concept, with two distinct shot options but that each would have to be executed really well to come off.

How does the Biarritz differ from the standard false front when some sort of hazard is 30 or so yards short of the green?

[DMoriarty]

It actually makes sense that it's really just a shot testing concept, with two distinct shot options but that each would have to be executed really well to come off.

I agree.  The best way to approach all of these supposed templates is by thinking in terms of what they accomplish from a playability standpoint.

How does the Biarritz differ from the standard false front when some sort of hazard is 30 or so yards short of the green?

They may be functionally similar or not depending upon the circumstance and hole.   Like with the "Valley of Sin" discussion, you are deconstructing into specific features (which is a good way to do it) but then comparing one or two features to a concept for an entire hole, it is a bit difficult to compare without putting the features in context.  But here are some other key playability issues for CBM, as I understand them.  These same issues are important on many CBM holes, if not all, but all apply somewhat differently in different situations.

1.  Length.

- The length of the hole is a key element of the biarritz concept.   
- The biarritz green was normally NOT easily reachable by air for most golfers under normal conditions.   
- I think George recently wrote that the Biarritz was just there long par 3, whether it had a swale or not.

2.  Variety.

The reason that the holes length was important is that CBM believed that each hole should present a different challenge than the others, and ideally each would be played with different clubs and or different types of shots, depending upon the skill level of the golfer.  So each of the par 3s presents unique challenges and ideally would be played by different shots and clubs.   This concept calls for a wood or longer iron, either of which would run up onto the green, and could be played with a certain type of shot (Whigham called it a push shot while Travis called it a "straight arm shot.")

3.   Punishing the Nearly Good Shot.

Remember that CBM was more interested in punishing the egotistical shot as opposed to proportionally punishing the degree of error, and here the bank leading up to the green was placed to catch the "nearly good" shot, the one landingjust short of the green.  To CBM the golfer had failed to live up to his high expectations and that wasn't tolerated in his designs.   This again is a function of (among other things) the length of the hole, put just on the border of reachable or not, to entice the arrogant attempt at the green when a running shot might be the better option. 

[TEPaul]

"It actually makes sense that it's really just a shot testing concept, with two distinct shot options but that each would have to be executed really well to come off.

How does the Biarritz differ from the standard false front when some sort of hazard is 30 or so yards short of the green?"

Sully:

Something has just occured to me with your questions about the concepts and playabilities of biarritz holes particularly the prominent swale feature----and that is it seems you have never seen one or played one. That seems remarkable to me given your experience in golf. Is that true? Haven't you ever played Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh?

[Mac Plumart]

Truly fascinating stuff.

David M...I really enjoyed both of your latest posts.  That picture of Yale was really enlightening to see all the features.  The discussion of distance regarding this hole and other CBM holes made a lot of sense.

In fact, all the people who posted on this one did a great job.  Much love to y'all!!

Great stuff!

[JESII]

Tom,

I've played Yale (about 15 years ago) and Merion...

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I've played Yale (about 15 years ago) and Merion..."


Sully:

Believe it or not I've never seen Yale but if you've played it and remember how that swale works in play you don't need any answers from us.

Obviously you know Merion East and its 17th hole really well as I do and for the various reasons I gave above the massive dip (particularly length-wise) in the front of Merion's 17th does not look much like (in size and dimensions) and does not play like the swale in front of or in the middle of traditional Macdonald/Raynor Biarritz holes. The primary reason being it is so much of a longer dip and it really has nothing at the same basic level as the green behind it (actually Merion's 17th has long had considerable greenspace in its massive dip) to land a ball on and run it into and then up and out of the swale.

I guess it's possible to hit a low trajectory shot into the massive dip in front of Merion's 17th and try and run it up the really substantial incline on the other side, it's just that I've never seen anyone actually try that intentionally. I would think if they did they would have to keep the ball pretty low on most of its flight and that would probably just risk hitting the perpindicular berm (the old road or cart or rail track for the old stone quarry) that basically creates the front side of that massive dip before that green.

To be honest I never really analyzed everything in that massive dip before Merion's 17th green simply because to me or anyone else I've ever played with there it never seemed to be much of a strategic option----unless of course someone actually chose to put the ball in that massive dip and then just blast a putt up that really substantial incline.

I guess it is also possible for them to put a pin down there because some of it is greenspace but I've never seen one down there.

[DMoriarty]

Jim I forgot one thing I wanted to mention and that is this element of a hogback or roll that essentially constituted the landing area short of the swale/hole/trench/dip/valley.   From a playability perspective I am not sure I totally understand the necessity of this feature.   This I think is the same thing you were getting at regarding Merion's 17th where this is apparently absent.   If this feature isn't there, then it is still a biarritz?  That is just definitional, but I am not sure if it is a playability issue.    Sure a ball that is spinning wrong or not true will end up in trouble on the sides or in the swale, but then wouldn't this be just as true without the elevation of the approach area?   I am still considering this part of the question.

______________________________

Mac, it is quite possible to land a ball short of Merion's 17th hole and run it up onto the green and over the swale or ridge or whatever you want to call it.  In fact if you stood on the tee with equipment from 1910, you might find that doing so was your most appealing option by far.  

Most make the mistake of considering these things from their own perspective and with modern technology in mind.  One thing that I don't think was mentioned in a good approach to learning about design would be to consider the architecture as if you were playing the old equipment used when the course was built.   It gives you a much different perspective on some of these holes than one normally hears.   

______________________________________
Mac, regarding your last post, one of the ironies of CBM is that he is criticized for repeating concepts yet as we can see in these discussions the setting largely determines the individuality of the holes.   More importantly, at a course like NGLA the individuality and variety of each hole is truly remarkable.  I don't think you'll find anything like it from designers who who supposedly rejected CBM's templates and brought variety and diversity into their designs.  

[TEPaul]

"Mac, it is quite possible to land a ball short of Merion's 17th hole and run it up onto the green and over the swale or ridge or whatever you want to call it.  In fact if you stood on the tee with equipment from 1910, you might find that doing so was your most appealing option by far."


Mac:

With that statement above, believe me, all I'm considering in my response below is YOUR obvious interest in these things and in the details of these things and nothing more. In other words I mean nothing at all personal towards the person who made that statement to you above.

So let me ask you a question----if you had somebody who has seen that course and hole once or perhaps twice and played it once or perhaps twice versus someone who has played it hundreds of times over the last three decades or so who are you going to believe when it comes to how that hole actually plays or how its designed and intended strategic options for getting a golf ball up that massive incline and onto that greenspace on that hole actually works?    

If you want to take a week or two to get back to me on that, I have no problem at all with that my friend.


On the other hand, I will throw a real caveat into that question and that is most all my experience with Merion East which probably is playing it hundreds of times over the last three decades or so most all that time that golf course was probably nowhere near as firm and fast throughout as it can be and generally is now and so that strategic option of intentionally landing the ball short of that green in that massive dip could be a whole lot more doable with real firm and fast conditions compared to the vast majority of my experience (and observation of other golfers) over the previous three decades or so. I should remind you I stopped competing maybe 5-6 years ago!

By the way, Mac, if you haven't suspected it yet this is precisely WHY I am such a huge proponent of firm and fast conditions THROUGHOUT on golf courses like this one (this thing I call "The Ideal Maintenance Meld" (IMM)----eg it brings up some shot options and strategies and playabilities that people never even imagined before during all those decades these American courses were NOT this kind of firm and fast that many are today----and Merion East today both can be and sometimes is in real SPADES when the weather allows it!!

In other words, when the superstar super Matt Shaeffer came to Merion that club got into a program of true firm and fast playability and the results I'm sure are mindblowing in the options and possibilities golfers have to choose from today compared to the era of my own long-in-the-tooth life and experiences.

But to flip even that flipside---in all those more flat land biarritzes I described above even without F&F conditions one could still very much use that option of landing a ball well short of a biarritz swale and running it into the 10-12 yard long biarritz swale and up the other side to the greenspace beyond. The only real trick to doing it under those conditions is you really did need to keep the ball a whole lot lower through the entire shot than you may be able to now with some real F&F conditions!

But if Merion is not F&F throughout I very much doubt that option is doable on the 17th hole!  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

This thing about a hogsback on a biarritz hole has been mentioned on this thread. Like Moriarty just said, I'm not too sure what that meant. I have never really seen any biarritz hole with much of a hogsback feature to it or to its fairway in front of the swale or even its green.

The only time I have ever heard of a hogsback feature being part of a biarritz hole is when CBM mentioned it (from his own letter in 1906 or so) as a feature of the 12th hole at Le Phare in Biarritz France. And I will remind everyone again that mostly the Chasm Hole at Le Phare in Biarritz was considered to be the 3rd hole and I have never heard that Chasm hole had some kind of a hogsback feature to it.

Did the club switch the nines at some point (that would make the 3rd the 12th or vice versa) or was Macdonald actually talking about a hogsback feature on another hole (not the Chasm) at Le Phare at Biarritz France?  

[TEPaul]

"More importantly, at a course like NGLA the individuality and variety of each hole is truly remarkable.  I don't think you'll find anything like it from designers who who supposedly rejected CBM's templates and brought variety and diversity into their designs.  "


I do not believe the person who made that remark has ever seen Pine Valley in Clementon NJ. I don't believe he has ever seen Myopia in South Hamilton, Mass. either---two courses that sort of bracket NGLA chronologically with about the same timeframe! Oh well, one always lives and learns----I hope----and there is so much to look forward to!   

[TEPaul]

Mac Plumart:

I've got to hand it to you, pal, this thead you started is a damn fine and interesting one with only a few minor bumps in the road that have nothing to do with you. Good for you!! I would love to see a lot more like you on this website. It sort of reminds me of the way it used to be near the beginning.

[JESII]

I can understand the playability of the Hogsback feature leading to the Swale, but what I cannot reconcile is the front half of the Swale...and specifically, whether or not this front half / down side is actually important.

The Hogsback feature means a grounder will almost definitely not make it onto the green - it will be steered into the crap on the sides. This intent can be replaced by any sort of hazard you want so long as the intent remains of not letting a grounder hit the green. The description of controlling a low shot, but not too low so as to land more than 30 yards from the green (I think Wigham was quoted) really clarified the use of land 30+ yards short of the green. It can be a Hogsback or a lake or a bunker, so long as it makes it near impossible for the ball to get to the green.

The swale is my focus because it's such a unique golfing feature that I'm having difficulty thinking a simple rise (even if severe like #17 at Merion) could be an intentional replication. I think #17 could play the way Wigham describes the Biarritz...certainly it would eed to be firm, but so would a prototypical Biarritz like Yale. I think there must be something about trench that makes it a Biarritz, and #17 at Merion doesn't have it.

[Mac Plumart]

Jim S...I don't know if this helps your case, and it may in fact hurt it, but I agree with you.  The trench, ditch, swale, whatever seems to me to be a crucial part of the hole and as you all have described adds to its distinct strategy.

I certainly appreciate David M's contributions and insights, but in this instance I simply can't see a Biarritz at 17 at Merion.  Furthermore, I see and hear the stuff on Essex...but I simply know what I played at Lookout Mountain and what I see at Yale and Merion seems different.  But like I said, I haven't played it and have only played one course that had a Biarritz. 

So take it for what it is worth.

[TEPaul]

"I certainly appreciate David M's contributions and insights, but in this instance I simply can't see a Biarritz at 17 at Merion."


Mac:

I think, as you can probably tell by now, I very much agree with you!

There is very likely a very good and very logical reason for that----eg Merion East's 17th hole has never actually been called a biarritz hole or thought of as a biarritz hole by anyone previously as far as I can tell until one D. Moriarty came along on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com in the last few years. What do you suppose that indicates?  

It may not be all that much different from the fact that Merion GC always knew, and right from the very beginning that Macdonald and Whigam actually advised and helped them in a few ways (particularly agronomically but also with the design and construction principles of golf course architecture) during four days over a period of ten months before they began to build their golf course (one day in June 1910, two days at NGLA in March 1911, and one day in April, 1911) for which they thanked CBM and HJW profusely in their committee and board meetings and minutes at the time and later in various reports but it was not until about a year and a half ago that Merion or anyone ever connected to them had ever heard that CBM routed and designed their golf course or was the driving force behind it! (THIS, by the way, is all contained in the "In My Opinion" section of this website in an essay by the architectural expert researcher/analyst/writer D. Moriarty entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion." If you have not read it you definitely should).  I think I can say from personal experience that Merion GC was most surprised by it but how exactly it was so surprised by it, I will only offer the categorization, at this point, of "No Comment."

I don't believe Merion ever suspected their course was designed by HH Barker either until the last few years when one T. MacWood came along on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and suggested such a thing. What do you suppose that indicates?

And so, I can only say now that if the over-all reaction to these startling and theretofore previously unknown architectural revelations in some way hurt the feelings of those two expert researchers/analysts/essayists, I, for one, am truly sorry about it. Even though one who is experienced with these types of things probably realizes quite well, that is just the nature of the business.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom P...

Fair enough.  I read some old Merion threads this evening and I can see the genesis of the Merion "debate".  I will research it some more.  But perhaps for the purposes of this thread, we are good to go on the Biarritz/Merion for now.

Good stuff!!

[TEPaul]

"But perhaps for the purposes of this thread, we are good to go on the Biarritz/Merion for now."

Mac:

This is your thread and you're doing great with it; you just stated, after a massive amount of research input from all sides by others, what your own opinion of Merion's 17th as a biarritz hole is, so I would say absolutely we are good to go---onto to something else.

For instance, did you know that Tommy Birdsong may be the only Timucuan Indian (North Florida) golf course architect in history? Considering his only course seems to be the world-class hidden gem, Fernandina Beach Municipal, that might just qualify as groundbreaking or revolutionary.

It is also perhaps important to note for other historical reasons, such as anthropology, that Tommy Birdsong was reputed to be about 9'6'' tall which is not that remarkable as the Timucuan Indians were apparently the tallest people ever known.

However, some truly smart-assed young whippersnapper undergrad researcher from Florida State University has just suggested that the Timucuan Indians had a cultural habit of stacking their life-long uncut hair on top of their head and consequently Tommy Birdsong might have looked like he was 9'6" tall while in reality he may've been about 5'6'' inches tall.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
The one at Essex is a Biarritz (the proof of that can be found by reading the recent ECCC threads) and it's the flexibility of the concept and how well it can be adapted onto various landscapes that makes it so interesting.


*this post not edited 30 minutes after the fact to change content.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom P...

I've heard you mentioned Tommy Birdsong before...9'6"...heck that is groundbreaking in and of itself!!!

Seriously, I am looking for fill the list in with golf architecture features.  
Which was the reason for my questions on the Biarritz.  
I've got North Berwick as the home of the original Redan.  
I've got Oakland Hills as RTJ first Open Doctor work and, perhaps, his introduction of target golf to the world.
Augusta National's 16th as RTJ's first par 3 that carries a pond that butts right up to the green.

Can anyone think of other historic firsts for architectural holes/features that we should discuss and include on the list?

Jim K...that was funny!!

[TEPaul]

Mac:

For me that will do for at least a day or three---I feel sort of mentally wasted with things like GCA groundbreaking and revolutions for the time being.

By the way, Mac, Jim Kennedy's post is not funny at all; it is merely patently sarcastic but that's just the way that guy is on here as it is with just about the majority of what he puts on here if I am anywhere in the neighborhood.  His "non-swale" biarritz hole and photograph was appreciated though. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Thanks Mac, and looking at the edit-for-content lag of the last poster just made it funnier still.  This would be heaven for a comic, you wouldn't even have to write your own material, just wait 10 or 30 minutes and it'll write itself. 

[TEPaul]

Yeah, Mac, as if this 'edit-for-content-lag,' thing, whatever the hell that is, might be even remotely funny to anyone in this universe!

This boy Kennedy is sort of in his own separate space in that way, for sure, but Heh, I guess that's cool too on here.  

[DMoriarty]

I can understand the playability of the Hogsback feature leading to the Swale, but what I cannot reconcile is the front half of the Swale...and specifically, whether or not this front half / down side is actually important.

The Hogsback feature means a grounder will almost definitely not make it onto the green - it will be steered into the crap on the sides. This intent can be replaced by any sort of hazard you want so long as the intent remains of not letting a grounder hit the green. The description of controlling a low shot, but not too low so as to land more than 30 yards from the green (I think Wigham was quoted) really clarified the use of land 30+ yards short of the green. It can be a hogsback or a lake or a bunker, so long as it makes it near impossible for the ball to get to the green.

Jim S,

1.  According to George, the Biarritz concept included some representation of the chasm even if just a bunker across the line of play (see Piping Rock, I think.)   I mention this because this hazard (whether chasm, lake, bunker, quarry, whatever) would assure that grounders wouldn't make it.   So I don't think that the hogsback would be necessary to take care of grounders.

2.  To clarify, there is an overlap in what we are talking about.  My understanding is that the "dip" Whigham referred to was the space between the hogsback and the front of the green.   In other words, the end of the hogsback and the beginning of the swale are the same thing.   So in Whigham's description the swale or dip or whatever you want to call it is 30 yards from beginning to the green.  I assume that this isn't what you had in mind by a biarritz swale?  

3.  If this is so, then for the modern conception for the hole the "hogsback" is actually the plateaued area just short of the swale.  

4. The more I think about this, the more I wonder if this really wasn't a combination of two holes at Biarritz, or a different hole all together.

The swale is my focus because it's such a unique golfing feature that I'm having difficulty thinking a simple rise (even if severe like #17 at Merion) could be an intentional replication. I think #17 could play the way Wigham describes the Biarritz...certainly it would eed to be firm, but so would a prototypical Biarritz like Yale. I think there must be something about trench that makes it a Biarritz, and #17 at Merion doesn't have it.

1.  I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying here.   I am NOT claiming that the 17th at Merion was an "intentional replication" of anything.    There was nothing to replicate.   NGLA doesn't have a Biarritz and when he built the hole, Hugh Wilson had never seen the original (and I've seen nothing indicating he made it to Biarritz ever.)  This was before CBM ever created a Biarritz, so why would we expect it to look just like epitome of what CBM and SR developed over years and decades?  

2. As I understand Whigham's description, the dip was 30 yards from beginning to end.  According to CBM's earlier description, the hogsback ended 80 yards from the green, making the dip huge.  It doesn't sound like they are describing a narrow swale or trench when speaking about the inspiration for the green.   If Merion was based on anything related to the Biarritz, it would have likely been this early inspiration, not the yet to be determined ideal of the hole.   Merion's dip (between the down slope into the valley and the up slope on the green is about 30 yards, exactly the distance between the hogsback and the green, as described by Whigham.  

3. Here is a photo from Life's archives looking back from the green toward the tee.  The golfer is putting from down in the valley or swale . . .


- If the downslope seen in the photo was maintained as fairway or approach, would you change your view of the hole?    
- If memory serves, I believe the area above the downslope (where the spectators are standing) used to be maintained as fairway?  Is that correct?  If so, why do you suppose that was?
- Why doesn't this downslope count as the front of the swale you are searching for?
- How short across must the swale be in order for it to fit within your understanding of a Biarritz?  

4.  CBM and SR did not build the hole, Hugh Wilson did.   As you know, CBM's and SR's involvement was inspecting and recommending the land (among other things,) helping to plan the layout (at the very least) and choosing the final layout plan.  At the time of their involvement, it is not even clear that CBM and HJW had fully worked out their conception of what the Biarritz concept would become.  So why would you expect Merion's hole to be a replica of something that had not even yet been built?  

5.  A few asides about the course at Biarritz . . . I've read that one of the challenges was that there were a number of deep holes (sometimes described as punchbowls) for the golfer to negotiate.   As far as I can tell, there also may have been some long swales, but I am not yet sure about this.  The more I consider the substance of the early descriptions of the course (among other things) I wonder if this was not a composite conception, or modeled after a different hole entirely.   Hopefully this week or next I'll get a chance to look into it.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[DMoriarty]

Jim S...I don't know if this helps your case, and it may in fact hurt it, but I agree with you.  The trench, ditch, swale, whatever seems to me to be a crucial part of the hole and as you all have described adds to its distinct strategy.

Mac, please see my explanations and questions to JimS above.   I don't think this hole is exactly what we commonly think of as a Biarritz either; but am more concerned with the genealogy.    

I certainly appreciate David M's contributions and insights, but in this instance I simply can't see a Biarritz at 17 at Merion.  Furthermore, I see and hear the stuff on Essex...but I simply know what I played at Lookout Mountain and what I see at Yale and Merion seems different.  But like I said, I haven't played it and have only played one course that had a Biarritz.  

So take it for what it is worth.

You are certainly not alone in your conclusions about Merion's 17th.  I doubt many had ever even seriously considered the possibility until I suggested it, so you are probably in good company. About everything I have ever suggested about Merion that is counter to the Merion legends was initially rejected, ridiculed, mocked etc. so I appreciate your polite disagreement.  It is a welcome change.

But as to the Essex hole, just so I understand you . . .  Are you saying that you do not think the Biarritz hole at Essex is NOT really a Biarritz hole?   Maybe you are correct, but could you explain your basis for this conclusion, because that seems an odd position to take.  

In 1907 CBM briefly described his concept for a long par 3 based on the Biarritz hole, and H.J. Whigham' did similarly in 1913.  I think both descriptions are posted in this thread (if not the 1907 description is in Scotland's Gift.)   Based on your understanding of the hole, are they even describing a Biarritz?    If you happened to see a hole fitting their description, would you think it a Biarritz?  

I may be wrong but will be shocked if the original Biarritz hole in France was extremely similar in appearance to today's Biarritz at Yale or at Lookout Mountain.   My guess is that you and I probably wouldn't even know we were looking at the inspiration for these holes unless we were told.    If I am correct about this, then are you willing to say that the original Biarritz is not a Biarritz?  
_______________________________________

Mac,  I started to read the TEPaul posts about me, Merion, and such, but I stopped reading because I have no interest in them and don't want to risk getting sucked in.  Instead I'll trust you and everyone else to sort through and figure out the validity and veracity.   My only suggestion is that you base your opinions on VERIFIABLE FACTS rather than gossip, self-serving pontification, or unverified legend.  Good luck.

[JESII]

David,

Just a couple of things quickly, my impression of the Biarritz was an abrupt trench in or just in front of the green. Abrupt could mean 10 - 15 yards from beginning to end, not a 30 yard low...but again this was my impression. If Macdonald and Wigham spoke about 80 and 30 yards short of the climb, why do you think they quickly ammended that to such an abrupt trench? The cross section of the (to me) typical trench looks pretty similar to the image George B posted on the Biarritz thread (currently on top of page 2)...not sure what that would mean in terms of playability though...the written description by Wigham certainly is detailed and would dictate an interesting and challenging hole.