[Jeff Goldman]

Who says nothing good comes from those OT threads that go on forever. Tom Doak said something I did not know about that is possibly very significant. Tom, are you restoring the 12th green at GC?  That's huge. Can you let us know what the story is?  Big rises restored?

[Tom_Doak]

We are rebuilding the 12th green next week.  We hope to restore it faithfully to the old pictures we have, but we have reserved the right to make adjustments on the ground if there is concern about being able to maintain it appropriately.  The mounds in the original green were that severe, and that's what has always held the club back before from wanting to restore the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who says nothing good comes from those OT threads that go on forever. Tom Doak said something I did not know about that is possibly very significant. Tom, are you restoring the 12th green at GC?  That's huge. Can you let us know what the story is?  Big rises restored?

Jeff,

I know that somewhere on GCA.com there are pictures, aerials and ground levels of the original 12th hole.

If someone could retrieve them and post them alongside the current 12th hole it would make for an eye opening comparison.

I believe that the restoration of the 12th hole will be very well received by the golf world, and hopefully, give significant momentum to other clubs thinking about restoring some of their altered/disfigured holes.

With Tom's talent, he should be able to duplicate the original green, green surrounds and bunkering.

I can't begin to tell you how excited I am to know that I'll be able to play the restored hole, and bring guests to play the restored hole next year.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Here's the early aerial:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Thanks for posting the aerial, it's really quite impressive and an exponentially better hole than the one that presently occupies the site.

I can't tell you how excited I am and how excited other members and non-members are about the restoration project.

I can't wait to play this hole.Here's the early aerial:


[/quote]

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
You're welcome.
Hopefully GC's mounds will get your mind off Megyn Kelly's, plus, they will not make you any less smart.    

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ground level:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
You're welcome.
Hopefully GC's mounds will get your mind off Megyn Kelly's, plus, they will not make you any less smart.    

Jim,

Trust me, I wouldn't mind losing a few IQ points for a weekend with her.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Let's see, you and a 40 year old fire brand.... I think your weekend would most likely be over before you had the chance to lose any of those IQ points. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
Let's see, you and a 40 year old fire brand....
I think your weekend would most likely be over before you had the chance to lose any of those IQ points. 

Jim,

I'm willing to test your theory if you can arrange it

[Mike Policano]

Pat,

Is th original green that Tom is restoring a Devereaux Emmet green or one altered by Walter Travis?

[Patrick Kiser]

I'm having flashbacks of St.George's from that early aerial.  Screams Emmet I'd say.

[Tom_Doak]

I have never seen a green by either Travis or Emmet that was anything like as severe as this one.  I honestly don't know which of them built it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Look at the configuration and location of the bunkers, how offset from the putting surface they are, and how deep they are.

Then, look at those surrounding mounds within the putting surface.

If this hole is restored close to the aerial below, it will be one of the greatest par 3 holes in all of golf.

This is a monumental and historic restoration.

Let's hope the 2013 aerial matches the aerial below

[/quote]

[Mark McKeever]

Internal mounds aside, I can't get enough of that back bunker for some reason!

Mark

[David Harshbarger]

According to Ran's write-up, Travis complained about the lack of features at GCGC in 1906, and was handed the commission afterwards to make improvements over the next 2 years.  The photo from 1907 is in that timeframe, and certainly wouldn't prompt one to complain about lack of movement in the greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

None of the greens, save for # 4, # 11, # 12 and # 16 have much in the way of internal countours.
And even those greens are fairly mild except for # 4.

Most of the greens have slope, some obvious, others more subtle.

While some greens have been moved or altered versus 1899, the greens remain mostly even planed.

[David Harshbarger]

Pat,

Are there working hypotheses on who and how the twelfth came to be? 

My guess is that given the era, new designers tried novel features, and that GCGC 12 may have been one of those.  It looks like an exaggerated thumbprint intended to combine both a vertical and a putting hazard if you missed left, right, or long.

Reversing my point above, I could see that as an Emmet feature.  I think of Emmet as following his own compass.

Tom,

Widen the net: have you ever seen a feature like that anywhere?

Thanks, Dave

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Roll on next May for the Travis...cant wait now...even more than ever!!!!

[Bill_McBride]

That photo of the old 12th almost looks like a plasticine model!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Are there working hypotheses on who and how the twelfth came to be? 

My guess is that given the era, new designers tried novel features, and that GCGC 12 may have been one of those.  It looks like an exaggerated thumbprint intended to combine both a vertical and a putting hazard if you missed left, right, or long.

Reversing my point above, I could see that as an Emmet feature.  I think of Emmet as following his own compass.

Dave,

The 12th was not part of the original 9 hole course.
An 1897 schematic does not include it.

A 1907 photo shows a golfer playing over a bunker to the green, where the mounds are quite visible, so, it's safe to say that the hole was built between 1897 and 1907.

Other records state that the original hole played at 200 yards, yet other records indicate that it was a short par 4 until the property where the tee was sited, was sold.   The 12th hole played as a par 4 in 1905, so, now we can narrow the date or origin to 1897 to 1905.

There are a number of schematics in the clubhouse that I'll revisit when I'm next there to try to determine the exact date of origin and who the work is attributed to.

I suspect it's Emmet

[Robert Emmons]

Pat, 12 will be a controversial hole...has the membership fully bought into it??...RHE

[JSlonis]

Pat, 12 will be a controversial hole...has the membership fully bought into it??...RHE

Robert,

While I can't speak for Pat or the members of Garden City...

I've had the great opportunity to play there nearly 50 times and in my opinion, anything that Doak does to recreate the original 12th will be a huge upgrade to the current hole. Whether the new "old" hole will be controversial, I can't really say yet but what was there stood out like a sore thumb on a great golf course. It wasn't that is was a bad par 3, it was that it just didn't fit at all based on the other 17 holes. I'd be very surprised if a vast majority of members weren't in support of this restroration.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, 12 will be a controversial hole...has the membership fully bought into it??...RHE

RHE,

I don't understand the question.

Construction begins this week

[Jim_Kennedy]

Travis must have really liked the template concept  


photo posted by Craig Disher on another thread- old #16 at Columbia CC, gone before the 1921 Open

12th at GCGC:


edited to fix course attribution - Columbia, not Congressional

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()