[Jay Flemma]

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=5442

From the article:

Now I had the good fortune to play Mid Ocean on the same day as Malcolm Gosling purveyor of both fine rums and crisp iron shots. (He’s quite the stick, you know. He shoots in the 70s regularly.) His world famous Gosling’s Black Seal is the quintessential ingredient in the Dark and Stormy – not only the Bermudian national drink, but one of the island’s greatest contributions to world cuisine.

“I want you to write in your article that they ought to restore the 13th green so that the front of the swale is green too!” opined the jovial Gosling, and I was glad to heartily agree with him. After all, Stephen Kay’s successful restoration of Forsgate’s 17th hole by returning the front of the swale to actual green (rather than fairway) made their Biarritz one of the world’s great golf holes. Besides, most golfers find it more fun with the swale in the green, so they can try to putt through it. Practically buoyant after my talk with the affable Gosling, and just as desirous to see a green restored to its former Golden Age glory, I gleefully promised him I’d address the idea with Tom Doak.

Malcolm, there’s just one problem…

“The earliest aerial photos we have show that the front of the swale was NOT green,” Doak replied.

Balloon…meet pin.

“We’ve been checking, believe me,” confided Doak, “but we haven’t uncovered anything to indicate to us that the front was ever green.”

A core sample might confirm this. After all, many Raynor/Banks greens are built on a layer of charcoal ash. That’s how Kay confirmed that the front of the swale at Forsgate was actually green, lost over time by lazy maintenance practices and tight budgets. But Doak is nothing if not thorough. If he had reason to tell the club to restore something worthy of restoring, you know he’d have brought it up. Disappointing? Yes, but hey Malcolm, it’s nothing a few Dark and Stormies can’t fix.

[Jay Flemma]

And good news from fellow GCAer Mark Fine

“The object is to restore whatever we can, and renovate the rest so that the entire course will be in the style of Banks,” Fine stated. As such, fairways have been widened to their original widths. (“Wider fairways means more playing angles,” said Fine.) They removed a large number of trees. (“Now the wind whips through like it should, adding a defense to the golf course…so that extra width comes in handy,” adds Fine. “Besides, people come to Bermuda to see the turquoise waters, not the back of some pine tree…”.) And they removed bunkers that did not reflect the strategic nature of the original design. (“We took out any bunkers that were architecturally insignificant or didn’t look anything like Banks would have designed,” Fine concluded.)

[RJ_Daley]

I like the piece written by Jay as it seems both a cultural essay and an analysis of the state of the GCA in Bermuda.  I just went back and also read George Bahto's chapter on Mid-Ocean and was struck by a few things stated by George and shown on the old photo's vs the ones in Jay's piece.  I found it amazing that such a hideous road was right up the middle of the cape hole #5 FW in the old photos!  Also, George's descriptions, particularly of the back 9 suggest to me that there are areas that aren't all that wide to offer a great deal of choices to strategically play for angle positions for approaches.  He speaks of 'threading' tee shots through or around trees.  So, which is it?  Is there notable width or about average width through the FW corridors.  Hey, I never been there... so I'm just asking.  

I was also struck by the quote from a letter describing the property, of Mac's stating: "The contours are inviting to the golf architect to construct unique and 'scientific' putting greens consistent with the length of the hole demanded."  This was stated after describing the nature of the soil being barely suitable at a depth of about a foot along the valley areas, and the rest and underneath being corral.  

Can TD or Mark say how much of the usable top foot was redistributed from areas to provide enough soil and feature shaping in the more thin areas where corral underneath would likely cause standing water?  And, what does Mac mean by 'scientific' putting greens?  Is he speaking of using sand and drain tile, leaving that drainage challenge to Raynor to devise a system?  Did the contour TD speaks of melting down a bit like on the 4th green back slope require new or extra measures to move water off the green and enhance the 'scientific' system Mac speaks of?  Is the shallow described depth of the top soil an issue for Mark's future work, and a big consideration for what TD accomplished there?  Or, does the sort of functionality of an XDG drainage sort of drainage tile provide all that is needed to deal with any restoration or remodelling?  

It seems to me that Mark has more leeway to do some sympathetic remodeling at Tucker's than Tom, given the more pressing demand on TD to keep the Mac-Raynor-Banks primary jewel in the crown, as pristine as possible.  What will the remodeled Tuckers play to in yardages?  

[Tom_Doak]

I like the piece written by Jay as it seems both a cultural essay and an analysis of the state of the GCA in Bermuda.  I just went back and also read George Bahto's chapter on Mid-Ocean and was struck by a few things stated by George and shown on the old photo's vs the ones in Jay's piece.  I found it amazing that such a hideous road was right up the middle of the cape hole #5 FW in the old photos!  Also, George's descriptions, particularly of the back 9 suggest to me that there are areas that aren't all that wide to offer a great deal of choices to strategically play for angle positions for approaches.  He speaks of 'threading' tee shots through or around trees.  So, which is it?  Is there notable width or about average width through the FW corridors.  Hey, I never been there... so I'm just asking.  

I was also struck by the quote from a letter describing the property, of Mac's stating: "The contours are inviting to the golf architect to construct unique and 'scientific' putting greens consistent with the length of the hole demanded."  This was stated after describing the nature of the soil being barely suitable at a depth of about a foot along the valley areas, and the rest and underneath being corral.  

Can TD or Mark say how much of the usable top foot was redistributed from areas to provide enough soil and feature shaping in the more thin areas where corral underneath would likely cause standing water?  And, what does Mac mean by 'scientific' putting greens?  Is he speaking of using sand and drain tile, leaving that drainage challenge to Raynor to devise a system?  Did the contour TD speaks of melting down a bit like on the 4th green back slope require new or extra measures to move water off the green and enhance the 'scientific' system Mac speaks of?  Is the shallow described depth of the top soil an issue for Mark's future work, and a big consideration for what TD accomplished there?  Or, does the sort of functionality of an XDG drainage sort of drainage tile provide all that is needed to deal with any restoration or remodelling?  

It seems to me that Mark has more leeway to do some sympathetic remodeling at Tucker's than Tom, given the more pressing demand on TD to keep the Mac-Raynor-Banks primary jewel in the crown, as pristine as possible.  What will the remodeled Tuckers play to in yardages?  

RJ:  The greens at Mid Ocean are generally built on a little bit of sand fill, often right on top of coral rock.  We didn't see much of a scientific drainage system on the ones we dug into.  [On most, we just added a bit of sand, rotovated it into the profile, floated and grassed the new surface.]

There was no need to add drainage to the green on #4 ... it went from eight feet of surface drainage back to front on the old green, down to six, which is still more than sufficient!

[Jay Flemma]

There's no question Mid-O is great but the restoration/renovation of Tuckers is a great story too

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()