Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?

[Patrick_Mucci]

However, the problem with your post is that the picture simply does not show a continuity of cut through the Swale.

Sure it does.  Look at this picture.  Look at the left green line, just above the swale, see how it curves and descends into the swale.

Next, look at the veritical mowing paths.  You will note that there is no discoloration, no line of demarcation from the back tier to the crown of the swale and down into the swale.

The vertical patterns disappear because of the slope and angle of the light 


There are not mowing lines continuing through the Swale.

That's because the green crowns and descends downward, changing the angle of the photo to the subject.
Now the slope of the swale is almost facing the camera.
Notice how both tiers clearly reflect the vertical mowing paths.

Then, take a look at the border of the green along the left back tier.
See how it bends and descends into the swale.

You'll also note that there is NO line of demarcation.
No indication that there are two heights of grass on the back tier.
If the back tier was solely the green, and the slope and swale fairway, there would have to be a line of demarcation between the two.
And, it wouldn't be on or in the swale, it would be on the back tier, so that the mowers could turn, as they were heading toward the camera, and return to the back of the green for another cut.

You do agree that mowers have to turn on the green or apron, right ?
But, there is no apron, there is no fringe, just green.
When was the last time you saw a green and fairway and they were cut to the same height ?

  

In fact, I am not convinced at all that the Swale is cut at the same height as either the green or the front approach.

Then where is the line of demarcation ?
It would have to be on the back tier.
But, no such line or differentiation exists, because it's all green.
Even the post construction photo caption says so.
It says that both tiers and the swale are putting green.

So why don't you believe the post construction photo and caption.

And, added to the mix is the charcoal layer that exists in both tiers and the swale.

You're an attorney, surely you see the overwhelming evidence indicating that the entire footpad was a green.


In fact, surely the smart way to mow a surface like that is to mow the relatively flat green and the relatively flat approach separately and then to mow the Swale.

Then where are the lines of demarcation indicating the different cuts.
That picture is pretty clear.
You can see the individual mowing paths on both tiers.
Where's the line of demarcation, the fringe or buffer area that would allow the mowers to turn and head back toward the rear of the green ?
There is none.

If there are no visible lines of demarcation, how can you state that the swale is cut at a different height from the back tier ? 

Perhaps a greenkeeper could weigh in here?

Why, are you out of your element ?
When greens are cut with walking mowers they still have to turn around somewhere.
If the back tier and swale were cut at different heights, where's the turn around area on the back tier near the crown of the swale.
All I see is vertical mowing paths, with NO seperate cut.
Why can't you see that ?

Oh, I forgot, you don't WANT to see that.

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

You're seeing what you want to see.  I'm not seeing it because the picture just doesn't, as far as I can see, support your interpretation.  Nor do any of the other contemporaneous pictures that have been posted, as far as I can see.

[Jim Nugent]

Without the close-up/zoom, all the old photos make it look like the green does not include the swale.  The swale looks far darker, and far less smooth.    

But the photo below, that I think Bryan first posted, is not so clear to me.  I don't see a clear boundary, that divides green and swale.  Also, at the right side of the swale/green, the texture of the swale looks the same to me as the green above it.  No boundary, same-looking surface.  Overall, the texture of the swale in this photo is far smoother than the texture of the grass on the bank above the pond.    



Several pages back someone posted a new, color photo of the hole.  Even in that photo the swale is much darker than the plateaus.  It made me wonder what a B&W version of that photo would look like.  Would the swale look like it's not a part of the green?

  

  

[Sean_A]

From the pix, there is no way I (can't see how anybody else could either) could definitively say the swale is part of the green.  My guess, however, is that the swale is part of the green. 

It is interesting to note that there is a white line on the face of the back bank, as if the grass from the swale hasn't yet knitted yet with the back deck.  There is also a line through the front deck.  Also interesting is the path leading from the left bunker.  Presumably golfers walked through the bunker, treating it as a path and didn't rake it?  Finally, there doesn't seem to be collar for the back deck, but there appears to be one on the left of the front deck.  The photos could very well represent the green in a state where the grass is still growing in. 

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Look at the up and back cut of the upper tier. Then note the horizontal cut just before the swale. That is how they finished the cut of the green, with one last pass going around the circumference of the green. The swale is clearly not part of the green.

[Jim Nugent]

Bill, the one thing 'clear' to me about these photos is that nothing is very clear.  They are open to lots of interpretation.  

That said, this last photo makes the swale look more like green to me, than not.  But that's still a guess.  

Maybe we covered it earlier in this thread, I don't recall.  Did Banks work on the course all through its construction, up to opening?  Did he see the hole on opening day, and for some time after?  

[Sean_A]

Bill

Are you saying the cut lines should follow through the swale?

Ciao

[Bryan Izatt]

Yet another construction photo; this one presumably after Donnie's picture and pre the other photos.  Notice the clearing of trees to the right of the green by the pond compared to Donnie's picture.  And, the road/dam appears wider than later photos.

What I find interesting is that the left side of the "green proper" appears to be well above the front approach and the green appears to tilt down to the right.  Is this an illusion relative to the other pictures based on the camera's perspective?  Or is this in the middle of grading and the green was subsequently leveled out from side to side?

[Jim Nugent]

Bryan, I think they maybe hadn't grassed that right side, or had poured something on it that made it darker.  i.e. I believe the right side is just as high as the left. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think it an illusion Bryan... I agree with a lot of what Patrick has said on this thread but David has been putting it best of all.

The only things we know:

1. There is no doubt the hole was conceived with the back plateau only as green. Banks wrote that and previous examples were conceived that way.

2. The description by Banks (paraphrased in all descriptions after UNTIL the one that described both plateaux as green surface) was written BEFORE the hole was in play, likely before it was constructed and possibly as far back as a conceptual design report.

3. There is a consistent charcoal layer beneath the front plateau that has Scott Ramsay believe that the front has been green surface since construction.

What we don't know:

1. Whether those early construction photos show a different shape front plateau / hogsback (can't see it myself).
2. Whether the early grassed photos have all grass mown as green (could be persuaded either way).
3. At what exact point someone advised that the front would play as green.
4. Who it was that advised that change to the original concept.

My wild guess is:

They constructed the front plateau using the same technique as the back as this was the easiest construction solution. It then also became the easiest maintenance solution to cut both plateaux the same. It could have been the architect that suggested the change but I'd guess the circumstances above led the first super to be the main advocate of the change.

No real evidence has been presented since page 1 of this thread to change any of the above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=10pt
Pat,

You're seeing what you want to see.  I'm not seeing it because the picture just doesn't, as far as I can see, support your interpretation.  Nor do any of the other contemporaneous pictures that have been posted, as far as I can see.

Mark,

Are you telling us that you can't see the boundary between the green and the rough on the left side of the back tier ?

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

That is the most irrelevant, defective question I have ever seen you ask.  Of course I can.  What possible relevance does that have to how the Swale is cut?  Frankly I'm disappointed in you.

[DMoriarty]

For what it is worth, CBM briefly discussed the construction of the golf course in Scotland's Gift.  He doesn't mention anything about charcoal, but does discuss using black muck, humus, and black loam from the swamps.

[Bill Brightly]

Correct, and CBM also does not discuss a drastic change in how a Biarritz hole should play... And while he does go into some detail about how difficult it was to shape the course, he does not talk about the grow in, which might very well have been left to others. The guys with the charcoal.
The book was published in 1928, I wonder if Macdonald even saw the front section as putting surface before he wrote the book.

[Donnie Beck]

Bryan,
By looking at the angle of the pond your picture was taken a little further from the left from the one i posted but in both cases the complex is already grassed and both clearly show more contour in the approach area than the later pictures.

[Donnie Beck]

Pat,
The mowing line in your picture is the transition from the collar cut to rough cut. If you look closely just above the swale you will find a horizontal cut going against the vertical stripes which shows that the swale is not being maintained the same as the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

That is the most irrelevant, defective question I have ever seen you ask.  Of course I can.  What possible relevance does that have to how the Swale is cut? 

Now that you admit that you can see the line, do you see it curve and then descend down into the swale ?

Frankly I'm disappointed in you.

I'd wait a little longer before making that call

[Patrick_Mucci]

Look at the up and back cut of the upper tier. Then note the horizontal cut just before the swale.

Bill, that's not a horizontal cut, that's the change in angle as the back tier crowns and descends down the slope of the swale.
That's why the entire bank of the swale no longer shows mowing paths.

That is how they finished the cut of the green, with one last pass going around the circumference of the green. The swale is clearly not part of the green.

If that were the case, and it's not, then the area short of your alleged horizontal swatch would be another shade from the bank of the swale, but, it's not.

In addition, if that's the way they did it, you'd see the same thing on the front tier, but, it's not there.

The fact is that caption on the POST construction photo clearly states that both tiers and the swale were putting green.
And, the charcoal layer is under both tiers and the swale.

Yet, you and others want to cling to an article written before the green came into existance.

Which is the more prudent choice ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
The mowing line in your picture is the transition from the collar cut to rough cut.

Then why does it curve down to the left instead of making a sharp right turn.

If you look closely just above the swale you will find a horizontal cut going against the vertical stripes which shows that the swale is not being maintained the same as the green.

I disagree, the vertical mowing stripes/cut disappear as the back tier crowns and descends down the steep bank of the swale.
It's the camera angle and angle of the sun that are misleading you.  The sun is to the right of the green at a 90 degree angle to the angle of the slope.

And, you can't discount a POST construction photo and caption that clearly states that both tiers and the swale were putting green.
Surely, POST construction, anyone would know the difference between a putting green, fairway and rough.

And, when you add in the charcoal layer, under both tiers and the swale, the evidence is overwhelming to the point that only someone in denial, or someone who wears white knee socks with shorts, would refuse to acknowledge that the entire footpad was putting green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Look at a recent picture.  We know that both tiers and the swale are maintained as putting green.

Note the mowing on the back tier and into the swale.
Notice how the mowing pattern is less discernable as the back tier crowns and descends into the swale.
Also note the front tier patterns.
Do you see the same phantom "horizontal" cut near the crest of the back tier and swale, a cut that we know doesn't exist on that green ?
If someone knows how to "zoom in" on the current photo, it would be helpful.
Thanks



Now, compare them to the post construction photo.


Do you see any similarities regarding the disappearance of the mowing lines as the back tier crowns and descends down, into the swale.

[Bryan Izatt]

I thought I would organize all the pictures chronologically in one place for future researchers.

The first two are early construction photos probably from late 1924 or early 1925.  Upon closer inspection I think they have put down the growing mix but haven't seeded the hole yet.  In the first one I'm not even sure I see the groove.

The third one is looking down the pond with the tee left and the green right, also a construction era photo from 1924 -25.

The fourth one is known to be taken before September 1925.  

The fifth one appears to be after opening, maybe summer 1926 or later, given the  presence of players.

The sixth one appears to be later still, given the formalized nature of the bunkers.

























And, for fun, here's another photo where they're laying down charcoal growing mix.

[Jim Franklin]

Thanks for organizing the pics Bryan.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I find the pictures fascinating as it appears that the 9th hole wasn't just found there, but crafted out of difficult terrain and genius.

The second thing is the progression of the photos and the caption under the 9th hole post construction, where it clearly states that both tiers and the swale were putting green.  When married to the charcoal layer only found under the putting surfaces at Yale, it leads prudent men to only one logical conclusion.  The 9th green was built with the front and back tiers and swale as putting surfaces.

I'd love to see other construction photos to see how some of the other holes were hewn from the raw land.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

How are you coming with dating and sourcing your favorite picture?  I asked Ran where he got it from - he thought it was from Tom MacWood, but he wasn't sure and he didn't know where it was published or on what date.  Back to you.


There are more construction pictures out there.  Do I have to do all your research for you?    Try this link.

https://webspace.yale.edu/Yale-golf-history/galleries/construction-gallery/Webpages/gallery-01.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

My favorite picture was taken AFTER the course opened for play, and most likely, not long after some of the other photos you posted were taken.

If you look carefully, I think you'll see that perhaps just a few weeks separate the photos.

But, the caption on the photo taken shortly after the course was completed in conjunction with the existence of the charcoal layer in the entire putting surface is proof positive to any prudent mind that the green was built with both tiers and the swale as part of the putting surface.

Hope that helps and thanks for the link