Return to Paramount - Urbina and Chapin Score an Eagle! *New Pix*

[Jay Flemma]

What a phenomenal resto job so far!  Night and day.  

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=4727

From the article:

Urbina went on to say that even so, the terrain was as good as almost any course Tillie designed. The enormous topography change of the first hole at Paramount is similar to the climb to the top of Bethpage Black’s iconic 15th hole, but also has the broad, expansive vista you would find perhaps at San Francisco Golf Club’s 16th hole, where you can see the ocean.

“When you’re on the first or sixth green at Paramount, you can see the high tor [called "the Palisade" by the locals] and the Hudson River valley. You won’t see that in New York City! Holes five and six play as well some of the best up and down holes at Winged Foot or Quaker Ridge.”

As always, the link works, and I am following Ran and Ben's explicit instructions to post the link to my site - GCA.com is theirs, so what they say goes:)

[Jay Flemma]

The view from 1 green



The Tilie Assoc.



Doug Smith plays to 2d green



2 green



New back extension on 3 green



Steal your face right off your head! Meet "Freddy".



The Reef Hole



Steve Scott and Bob Trebus



Steve and Jay trading pics:)



17

[Tom_Doak]

That is a great-looking par-3 finishing hole.  But I am not getting how it's like the old Tillie drawing?  You don't have to carry a bunker to take the left-center route, and the bunkers are built into the ridge short of the green, instead of the ridge deflecting a weak fade off into bunkers at the right.

Perhaps the original Paramount hole was a different interpretation than Tillinghast's famous drawing?

[Jay Flemma]

The original Paramount Hole wasn't a Reef (at least I don't think it was.) Tom you should have seen what was there before! God heavens, what an eyesore!

Here's what Jim and Brian said about the new 18th:

“The strategy of the Reef hole allows for options short and long of the bunker, which is like the reef guarding the landmass. The ridgeline, which is at a 45-degree angle to the line of play, protects the green as well,” explained Urbina. The ridge allows for golfers to play to different sectors of the green if you challenge the reef.

“What we built at 18 is an interpretation,” Urbina continued. “We had aerial photos to work with and Tillie’s drawings in his books.”

“We also went and took a look at Newport and the 12th at Bethpage Yellow,” added Chapin. “Jim nailed it; he got the angles dead on.”

[Jay Flemma]

BTW - here's a SIDE view of 18:

[Dan Herrmann]

Jay - has Jim done any work on two holes (9 and 14, I think) that I thought were out of character with the rest of the course?

They seemed like a couple of Rees Jones holes stuck in the middle of a classic Tillie.

[Jay Flemma]

9 yes, fourteen, not yet.  But soon.  Six holes (roughly) to go...

[Brian Chapin]

Jay - Thank you for the kind words and helping to tell the story of Paramount.

Tom - The bunkers were restored to the old aerial photographs.  The hole may not look exactly the same as the drawing (neither does Newport or Bethpage), but IMO does match the description that Tillinghast wrote in the article with respect to how it actually plays and for me, thats the important part 

Dan - Holes 9, 14, 3 and 16 were redone in 2009/2010 by John Harvey.  He was hired to fix problem bunkers from washing out, which he did.  Jim Urbina was hired to restore Tillinghast, which he has done very well so far.  He has not done anything to the bunkers on 9, 3 or 16 yet....  We just began work on 14 this week.

[Jay Flemma]

Brian, you are a rising star.  So is Steve Scott.  Lapper: great, GREAt place.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Looks great. I couldn't play the 2nd when I visited last year as it was under construction. I thought it was a really good 5par and the pic confirms.
Paramount indeed deserves its new reputation as a "special place."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - The bunkers were restored to the old aerial photographs.  The hole may not look exactly the same as the drawing (neither does Newport or Bethpage), but IMO does match the description that Tillinghast wrote in the article with respect to how it actually plays and for me, thats the important part 

Brian:

I just can't see the ridge in the pictures, and I would think that is the most important part of the Reef concept.  Perhaps it's just not showing up in the light Jay had to work with.

[Kevin Lynch]

Tom - The bunkers were restored to the old aerial photographs.  The hole may not look exactly the same as the drawing (neither does Newport or Bethpage), but IMO does match the description that Tillinghast wrote in the article with respect to how it actually plays and for me, thats the important part 

Brian:

I just can't see the ridge in the pictures, and I would think that is the most important part of the Reef concept.  Perhaps it's just not showing up in the light Jay had to work with.

If strictly following the template from "The Course Beautiful", there would probably be another bunker in the middle of the fairway, creating a full diagonal hazard from the short left bunker to the right greenside bunker.   Even without the "connecting" bunker, I thought the angles were correct for the "Reef" template at Paramount.  However, I'm not sure if it has the requisite length to encourage people to play to the safe areas in lieu of going for the green.  Put another way, there is little incentive to play short of the diagonal hazards.

Tillinghast wrote about this type of hole being "approximately two hundred and twenty-five yards" (which would be adjusted for technological inflation).  I believe the 18th at Paramount tips out at 195, so I think the "fear factor" is missing.

Having said that, whether it matches a picture in a book is moot.  As Brian indicated, the aerials were used to restore what was there, so that goal was accomplished.  I'd be curious to know what the original yardage was based on the aerials, and how that would need to be adjusted for technology (I can bring my hickories if I ever get back).

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - The bunkers were restored to the old aerial photographs.  The hole may not look exactly the same as the drawing (neither does Newport or Bethpage), but IMO does match the description that Tillinghast wrote in the article with respect to how it actually plays and for me, thats the important part 

Brian:

I just can't see the ridge in the pictures, and I would think that is the most important part of the Reef concept.  Perhaps it's just not showing up in the light Jay had to work with.

If strictly following the template from "The Course Beautiful", there would probably be another bunker in the middle of the fairway, creating a full diagonal hazard from the short left bunker to the right greenside bunker.   Even without the "connecting" bunker, I thought the angles were correct for the "Reef" template at Paramount.  However, I'm not sure if it has the requisite length to encourage people to play to the safe areas in lieu of going for the green.  Put another way, there is little incentive to play short of the diagonal hazards.

Tillinghast wrote about this type of hole being "approximately two hundred and twenty-five yards" (which would be adjusted for technological inflation).  I believe the 18th at Paramount tips out at 195, so I think the "fear factor" is missing.

Having said that, whether it matches a picture in a book is moot.  As Brian indicated, the aerials were used to restore what was there, so that goal was accomplished.  I'd be curious to know what the original yardage was based on the aerials, and how that would need to be adjusted for technology (I can bring my hickories if I ever get back).

Kevin:

Everyone keeps talking about the angles, but nobody has clarified whether there is a "reef" or not.  I have always interpreted the concept as being about a ridge that can be used to bounce the ball onto the green if played correctly, but which can deflect a shot to trouble if played poorly.  Is that the case for the hole at Paramount?

[Jaeger Kovich]

Tom,

I've tried having this same discussion about the reef hole a number of times on here. The concept for the reef hole is based on 3 different lines of play. A relatively foreign concept to many on a par-3

1 is the direct line to the green.

2nd is the indirect line to the green where a slope or ridge is contoured to guide balls onto the green.

3rd would be the over aggressive line, where those who try to take on the hazard, but over do it and pull a shot are rewarded for their bravery. (I wouldn't really consider this a line of play, but rather a well thought out way to contour the green by making a chip shot from the left side a bit more receptive. This would be very much in line with Tilly's concepts of contouring greens through the approach)

In the case of Paramount, although I haven't seen the final product, only the old #18, I do think this would be a hard hole to reproduce uphill.


... Wish I could find the old thread where I quoted most of the article from The Course Beautiful (didn't bring my copy to china so someone may have to help me out) where he is talking about lines of play on a par 3 rather than bunkers making greens appear as islands in a reef


I will forever argue with Flemma and others that Quaker Ridge #13 is a reef hole

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin:

Everyone keeps talking about the angles, but nobody has clarified whether there is a "reef" or not.  I have always interpreted the concept as being about a ridge that can be used to bounce the ball onto the green if played correctly, but which can deflect a shot to trouble if played poorly.  Is that the case for the hole at Paramount?

Tom,

The way I had read Tillie's article, I thought the "Reef" was defined more by the distinct separation of the fairway provided by a diagonal hazard, not so much the precise nature of the hazard (whether it be sandy bunkers or waste-area).  When I think of the Tillinghast designs I have played, the most prominent feature to me is the use of diagonal landing areas and obliques, which is why I focused more on the angled aspect of the Reef.

I noticed the discussion of the "gathering" slope (for longer off-line shots right) and the potential "kick slope" towards the green (for a pull left) in "The Course Beautiful."  In my opinion, those features really aren't in play at Paramount's 18th.  

Overall, the hole plays uphill, so a miss to the right probably won't kick forward or left into the hazard, but may simply stop short or be kicked right.  On the left side, it appears that there may be some rightward slope, but I'm not sure it is pronounced enough to be an intended play (vs. a hole like Dormie's 7th).  I can't recall if there is a bunker long & left to catch a pull that misses the kick-slope (as described in the book).  From the photos, I can't see one (unless it is over the slight rise).

I generally don't get too hung up on just how precise a living, breathing, real hole reflects some template idea.  The hole has some angled features that are interesting and I think the hole stands up on its own without reference to some historical template.  I would judge it on that alone.

However, I just think the hole would need much more length and danger to match the intent of the Reef hole discussed by Tillinghast.  According to my interpretation, Tillinghast wanted a Reef hole to make a golfer seriously consider the need to lay up on a par 3 (right) or intentionally play away from the hole (left), but with a little more danger involved in that route.  

I'd be curious to hear how many of the Paramount members really consider that there are two lay up options or if they play this as a demanding aerial hole with some bail-out area short-left.

[Kevin Lynch]

Tom,

I've tried having this same discussion about the reef hole a number of times on here. The concept for the reef hole is based on 3 different lines of play. A relatively foreign concept to many on a par-3

1 is the direct line to the green.

2nd is the indirect line to the green where a slope or ridge is contoured to guide balls onto the green.

3rd would be the over aggressive line, where those who try to take on the hazard, but over do it and pull a shot are rewarded for their bravery. (I wouldn't really consider this a line of play, but rather a well thought out way to contour the green by making a chip shot from the left side a bit more receptive. This would be very much in line with Tilly's concepts of contouring greens through the approach)

In the case of Paramount, although I haven't seen the final product, only the old #18, I do think this would be a hard hole to reproduce uphill.


... Wish I could find the old thread where I quoted most of the article from The Course Beautiful (didn't bring my copy to china so someone may have to help me out) where he is talking about lines of play on a par 3 rather than bunkers making greens appear as islands in a reef


I will forever argue with Flemma and others that Quaker Ridge #13 is a reef hole

To help you out while in China..

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks for posting the diagram above.

It's the second line from the top [the ball that hits the ridge and bounces right, into a bunker] that I was thinking of, that Paramount doesn't seem to have.  The ball just gets caught up in a bunker, as on 100 other left-to-right long par-3's.

I've never actually seen a hole that plays just like the one in the diagram.  I have never seen the hole mentioned at Bethpage.  Don't remember #13 at Quaker Ridge well enough to say that it is or isn't, but it sure wasn't obvious.

[Mark Saltzman]

I will forever argue with Flemma and others that Quaker Ridge #13 is a reef hole

I could see that.  What's the argument against?

[Jay Flemma]

Whoa. Everyone hold your horses...I never even knew there was a controversy involving Quaker Ridge 13...and I most certainly never said it wasn't a Reef hole because I never heard of any such imbroglio until now.

I've seen what I've thought were precursors to other Reef Holes like one at Cherry Valley and got shouted down just for asking the question, so please don't lump me in with any Kool-aid drinkers .

I have to agree with Tom.  I heard an awful lot about this ridge and was expecting it to be more prominent.  Yes there is supposed to be a ridge and yes it is supposed to deflect balls, and no I didn't see a pronounced one there...but I also see what Brian means when he says all the angles are there.

I also agree that there is no sense to laying up on a par three, so no sense in setting up a hole to offer that choice.  they weren't building an anachronism! They were building an interpretation of the hole brought into 21st century playability. I for one am glad its not too hard because the only thing you don't want is a par-3 finisher that's impossible, and that old hole was awful.  At least this one I have a chance.  My problem with the hole is that it's long, narrow, and uphill, a tough way to close out the day.  One of the great successes of the hole is that the strategic angles make it more palatable.

In the end, like I said, it's not a show-stopper, but a conversation piece.  And it fits the rest of the course well.  It's a nice Tillinghast puzzle box.  Give us a Great Hazard" at 7 and the gang will all be assembled.  It's a dramatic improvement over what was there, and not just at 18:)

[Jay Flemma]

Here's a better diagram:

[Brian Chapin]

Tom - The ridge that runs at a 45 dividing the fairway into two distinct areas is fairly subtle and is definetly described as "graded naturally" into the terrain.  It wont kick every ball into the bunker, but it is strong enough that a player attempting to run the ball through the two bunkers to get the kick onto the green off the front left feeder or kicker mound really has to think about it.  I would compare the front left "kicker mound" to be very similar to that of the 12th on the yellow course at Bethpage. The mound can either deflect a ball that carries the left side bunker onto the green or away from the green. 

Kevin - There is indeed a bunker long left of the green.  Also, I disagree that a lay up is not really an option.  Most of our members play the hole between 185-190 yds daily.  Many of them can not reach the green in the air.  They have the option to challenge the reef by running the ball through the bunkers, or to lay up short right.

While we were building the hole a lot of the members feared it would be too hard for them.  Now that they have played it for a year they love it because it offers the same challenge to the stronger players (the raking shot home), and many reasonable options for the wide range of other players at the club.  It has been a great success.

[Kevin Lynch]

Jay - Thanks for the updated diagram with the Paramount diagram.  That certainly helps see the Paramount angles a little better than a ground level photo. 

Brian - I would agree that the lay-up is an option. It just seems like the degree of risk for laying up left and short (providing the favorable angle) is not any more difficult than laying up well short to the right.  Thus, I really don't see two likely layup options.  It would seem that the options are:
A) Aerial to green
B) Lower flight threading the bunkers
C) Laying up short left over the left bunkers, but not flirting with the front right (ie to the left of the former "layup circle).

I imagine the only people who may lay up to the right are very short hitters who would be concerned about navigating the carry over the left bunkers to the upper left lay-up area. 

Regardless of whether it incorporates the proportional risks or length of the "Reef" hole in Tillie's drawing, the new 18th is definitely an improvement and much more interesting than most 190 yard offerings. 

Overall, the changes that have been made so far at Paramount are wonderful (especially the tree removal to restore the horizon green views on 4/6). I really enjoyed the insight you provided to us during our round last summer.  It was clear that Tillie's work was in good hands between you and Jim.

[Kevin Lynch]

Give us a Great Hazard" at 7 and the gang will all be assembled.  It's a dramatic improvement over what was there, and not just at 18:)

Jay,

I would have to disagree whole-heartedly that incorporating the road into a large pit would represent a "Great Hazard."  Tillie would never intend the Great Hazard to take Driver out of a player's hand.  In fact, the Great Hazard in practice would normally discourage a lay-up of the tee (just the opposite).  The purpose of the Great Hazard was to present a formidable challenge on a second shot that could only be navigated with a good drive and a solid 2nd (like Bethpage's 4th).

Under your suggested solution, a player could hit 4 iron then 5 iron and be clear. While this may be good from a property liability standpoint, it definitely would not reflect the intent of a Great Hazard hole.

The 7th at Paramount is truly a difficult problem, with the road in the worst possible position.

I would love the hole to remain a 1/2 par hole (either drivable 4 or reachable 5), mainly because of the slope of the last 50 or so yards.  At that point, the fairway cascades down towards the green, which would make for some great shot making options. I love the idea of being 260-280 or so out and trying to hit a low bullet that may just reach the crest and trundle down towards the green. Obviously, a similar play off the tee on a par 4 would be just as thrilling.

In a rose-colored glasses world, perhaps a system could be installed where groups could press a button on the 7th tee to temporarily halt traffic for them to hit drives from wherever is optimal from an architectural standpoint.  However, I don't know what traffic volumes are on Zukor Road on non-Sundays.

[Steve Scott]

Hi All...Although I don't post a whole lot on here, I am intrigued at this thread and wanted to make a few comments. 

First, the new Reef hole truly plays the way it is intended with the kicker mound on the left.  After being here for my first year as the HP and observing not only my shots but the shots of my members, I can definitely say that any ball struck with the proper shape and trajectory will utilize the kicker slope and help the ball onto the green as I have seen hundreds of shots played.  The hidden bunker back left will gobble up shots that miss the kicker and then the greenside recovery is played back downhill.

Kevin's comment about the hole only tipping out at 195, we can actually play the hole up to 205 with a back hole location.  The shot also plays uphill 8 to 10 yards and the predominant wind is into left to right.  So the hole actually can play in the 220 range.  For most of our members that means they are immediately pulling out lumber.  For the better player and longer hitter, a 3 hybrid to 5 iron is still needed to successfully navigate the hazards.  The diagonal direction of the front bunker rewards the brave player who decides to fire at a hole location anywhere on the right. 

One other factor I have not yet seen discussed makes this Reef hole very special to me; It is the relationship of the right and left edges of the green to the edges of the building you see directly behind it.  Although the building in is current viewpoint from the 18th tee is partially obstructed (there may be some vegetation removal), the player can clearly see that the green and the building were built in harmony (Similar to the 18th at Winged Foot).  This building I am discussing is what was Adolf Zukor's private theatre where he would offer his friends and collegues a personal screening of his upcoming Paramount Pictures films.  This building is now home to my Golf Professional Shop and our locker rooms.  When you are playing a shot to the home hole, you will often aim at the door of my Golf Shop or a window on top of it.  It helps to bring the entire round full circle; finishing right back where you started gives a sense of completion to the round.

As many of you have previously noted, Paramount is a "special place" and I am proud to be the Golf Professional here because of its rich history and current revival.  With the guidance of Jim Urbina and the leadership of Brian Chapin we absolutely have a unique and beautiful place to call home.  I hope many of our GCA Friends have the chance to experience it soon.

[Jay Flemma]

Kevin, something has to be done about 7.  Why not add a Great Hazard?  It's Tillie's most famous and celebrated contribution to strategic design templates.  They can't have people teeing off blind on 7 with a driver.  And you;re not necessarily "in the clear" once you play down to the bottom, you still have to execute a heroic shot.

Not every hazard has to be an exact copy or do exactly the same hing on every course - sometimes you can position the hazard to do other things.  Saying a Great Hazard isn't  Great Hazard" simply because it's not positioned in exactly the same place every time is misguided.  We have two shot redans don't we?  we have biarritz greens on par-fours don't we?  We have reverse redans and reverse road holes and  Principal's Nose bunkers on all sorts of different holes and places.  It's the variety in the use of the templates and other arrows in the quiver that gives courses character.

Steve, I really like your line about ending exactly where you started...you're right.  That is really cool!