Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?

[Bill Brightly]

Jim,

Excellent research! That photo tells us that someone in the marketing department for GM was a golfer, and probably belonged to a Macdonald or Raynor golf course.

You also have proven that long ago St. Louis CC adopted the name Double Plateau for their Biarritz. After some thought, I guess that is no big deal and actually kind of cool. I still think it is wrong, and the fact that great golfer like Chick Evans called it a double plateau does not mean the same thing as Macdonald calling it a Double Plateau, which I highly doubt.

But the most interesting question to me is if the front section was originally designed as putting surface, or if it was altered shortly after construction. As a member of a club that converted the front section of our Biarritz to putting surface, it does not take long. It took us two years to have the front section become a passable putting green. I bet back in the twenties there was much less difference between the maintenance practices on putting surfaces versus fairway approaches. They could probably just cut the grass a little shorter and declare it part of the green. So I have a far easier time believing that St. Louis CC made this modification rather than Macdonald or Raynor deciding to drastically alter the way they designed their long one-shotter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill & Jim,

The front portion of the Biarritz at Yale has a charcoal layer.

Only the putting surfaces on all the holes have a charcoal layer.

The charcoal layer is a feature introduced PRIOR to seeding, it's part of the construction process and not a product of maintenance practices.

This indicates that CBM/SR INTENDED the front portion to be a putting surface.

The critical question I forgot to ask is, did the swale have a charcoal layer.

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
Can you talk about the 17th at Westhampton? I know you have never liked it, but it seemed to have all the Biarritz qualities to me this year.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

I thought you went to Yale to play golf... I did not realize that you had an auger in your bag! I do not know about the use of charcoal in golf course construction. What was the purpose? Do you think it was used to improve drainage and create a firmer surface? Or did it have something to the way grass might grow with charcoal in the soil?

Here is the biggest problem I have believing the front sections at Yale and St. Louis were designed as putting surface: it is SUCH a radical diversion from other Biarritz holes. Why would Raynor build the hole at Fishers Island with a fairway approach? (Or is this one of the holes that Banks built after Raynor died?) My point is you either build the template with both sections as putting surface, or the front section as an approach. Do you really believe that swung back and forth?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I thought you went to Yale to play golf... I did not realize that you had an auger in your bag!

Bill,

I'm quite adept at multi-tasking and can even walk and chew gum at the same time.
\
I do not know about the use of charcoal in golf course construction. What was the purpose? Do you think it was used to improve drainage and create a firmer surface? Or did it have something to the way grass might grow with charcoal in the soil?

Think of it as a "choker" layer.
I believe that they used to burn the wood on site to create charcoal for the greens.
Probes revealed that only the putting surface areas at Yale had the charcoal layer and the front of the 9th had that layer.

Here is the biggest problem I have believing the front sections at Yale and St. Louis were designed as putting surface: it is SUCH a radical diversion from other Biarritz holes.

Not from a quantitative chronological perspective.
In 1914 and 1924 how many Biarritz's were there ?
In addition, you have a contemporaneous, high level competitor telling you that the front portion of the Biarritz was a green, and you have construction evidence dating to 1924 indicating that the front section was built as a putting surface at Yale, so I'm not so sure that the basis for your position is sound.

Why would Raynor build the hole at Fishers Island with a fairway approach? (Or is this one of the holes that Banks built after Raynor died?)

I think the topography and the relationship of the tee to the green may hold the key.
The Biarritz at Fishers Island in no way fits the traditional configuration of a Biarritz with the tee well below and ascending putting surface.
I think the demand at Fishers Island is greater than that at Yale, especially given the setting immediately adjacent to LI Sound and the introduction of pronounced winds.

That site is unique and as such, I think CBM/SR allowed for that in their design and construction.

My point is you either build the template with both sections as putting surface, or the front section as an approach.

In a perfect world you might, but, you're forgetting an important, relative cog, the individual club.
Factors such as money, difficulty, wind, topography and the like may have influenced different clubs differently, with some prefering the entire footpad as putting surface and others with just the back tier as putting surface.

I don't think you can draw a reasonable conclusion based upon the desire for purity of design.


Do you really believe that swung back and forth?

Yes, I do.
And, I would offer as exhibit "A" the 11th at NGLA.
The back tier was not maintained as putting surface, but, as rough
Years ago, when I was playing there, I took Joe McBride, a terrific golfer and member and board member to the 11th green and explained that the back plateau was intended as putting surface, not deep rough.

The convincing part of my argument was when I had him view the 11th green from all 360 degrees.
By doing so, he understood the nature of the entire footpad of the hole and saw that the back portion of the green had the same basic footpad as the left portion of the green, and when viewed from all 360 degrees.

Now part of the problem was that the 1928 schematic and the 1910 scorecard referenced the 11th hole as "Plateau"

But, the physical evidence was overwhelming, and, the 1938 aerial seems to confirm that the back plateau was maintained as putting surface in 1938.

So, Joe McBride eventually prevailed upon the club to change the green and maintain the back tier as putting surface.

What's also interesting is that the scorecard, circa 1910 shows the 12th tee to the left, not the right of the 11th green.
This would make sense to me as it would present the cross bunkers on more of a diagonal, and impossible to ignore/avoid

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
Can you talk about the 17th at Westhampton?
I know you have never liked it, but it seemed to have all the Biarritz qualities to me this year.

Keith,

Regarding the 17th at WCC, I've been engaged in over a 20 year dialogue with member factions and green chairmen at WCC.

Raynor's schematic from 1914-1915 has the word "Biarritz" clearly written above the 17th hole.
In fact, he labeled the "short" and the "redan" par 3's.  He did not label the 3rd, a "punchbowl" par 3.

But, his schematic seems to show most, but not all of the qualities of what we perceive as a Biarritz.
While none of the greens in the 1914-1915 schematic have any contouring, and while the schematic is just that, a case could be made that # 17 was intended as a hybrid "Biarritz"

The back portion/tier of the 17th is rather small in size.
The footpad, including surrounding bunkering is rather large.

My advocacy has been as follows.

Raise the front portion of the green to an equal elevation with the back tier, or perhaps a foot or two lower, thus creating a significant swale, ala Yale.

My method would be to cut and roll up the turf on the front of the green, label it by location, add fill to the front portion and greensmix on top of the fill, then restore the turf in it's original location relative to the other rolls of turf, and given some TLC you would have a more pure version of a "Biarritz".

I was very impressed by the work at Hackensack and think they created/recreated a terrrif Biarritz.
I've advised members of WCC to visit and study the 3rd at Hackensack

For over a dozen years I advocated for returning the 12th at GCGC to it's original configuration, or as close as possible given maintenance requirements, and that project turned out great.  The 12th at GCGC is spectacular, in view, configuration and play.

WCC could do the same thing.
And, there are a good number of members of GCGC who belong to WCC, so they've seen the results and benefits of restoring a great hole.

WCC should enjoy the same pursuit and result.

Hope that helps

[Ally Mcintosh]

Pat, Bill,

Regards the front portion at Yale, I guess I chatted to Mark briefly about this.

As he stated, it was clear from the initial conceptual report that only the back portion of the 9th was "initially" intended as green.... But that doesn't mean that a change didn't occur in thinking between the initial conceptual report and the final product... The construction of the front portion (as Pat points out) indicates the same profile as the greens on site... So either

1. The architect (or architect's representative) decided at some point during detail design or construction that he could maintain the front portion as green, perhaps because the back portion is actually relatively small, severe in slope and lacking in light / air

2. The construction team found it just as easy to build the entire playing area of the hole (given there is no other fairway or approach) using the same method as they would have to build a formal "approach" and a formal "green"

3. The construction supervisor took it upon himself to build the front portion as green

4. Someone changed the profile after the course was open and soon after completion

Given that the front portion is now used by far and away the most often, the decision seems to have had some basis in sense, even if it was coincidence....

[Jim Nugent]

Pat put his finger on it.  From Evans' writing (thank you, Jim Kennedy), the main question to me is whether #2 at SLCC had two greens, or one green that contained the swale.  From the way I understand English, it sounds like it had two greens, separated by the swale.  

If so, that could be one reason the club eventually made the swale part of the green.  Otherwise, when the pin was in the back, a number of golfers must have found themselves on the front green.  They probably pitched to the hole, and some took divots out of the front green.  This would push the club to cut the swale to green height, for maintenance reasons.  

I haven't been at SLCC since 1971.  That said, #15 green never stood out in my memory, while #2 was and is instantly unforgettable.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

Early writings on how to play the hole to the back tier seem to imply that the front tier was putting surface.

Think of how hard that hole would be, circa 1924, if only the back tier was putting surface.

The elevated tee almost thwarts any attempt to land the ball on the front and run it to the back tier.

You may recall, after I hit my initial tee shot to the back tier hole location with a 3-wood, that I hit another ball with a choked up driver in an attempt to land on the first plateau and run the ball down and up the swale to the back tier.
I executed the shot as intended, but the ball, after running thru the swale, on relatively fast greens (2013 vs 1924) got to the top of the swale and rolled back down into the bottom of the swale.

To me, in the context of 1924, I see the hole, with only the back tier mowed as putting surface, more of a par 4 than a par 3, and that's another reason that I feel that Yale's Biarritz had the front tier maintained as putting surface from the outset.

I think the charcoal layer in the front tier is clear evidence that the front tier was intended as putting surface.

Remember, despite the fact that this was an expensive project, the ODG's were rather frugal and efficient when it came to construction

I also wonder if the 12th hole at GCGC had any influence over CBM's Biarritz's

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
It does help me understand what you think would make a better version of the Biarritz. I have never seen the schematic you reference for the "Hybrid" Biarritz, can you elaborate on what was there to make it a hybrid?  Are there any photos etc that would indicate that the changes you would like would be restoring what had been there? Or are you advocating an improvement rather than a restoral?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
It does help me understand what you think would make a better version of the Biarritz. I have never seen the schematic you reference for the "Hybrid" Biarritz, can you elaborate on what was there to make it a hybrid?  Are there any photos etc that would indicate that the changes you would like would be restoring what had been there? Or are you advocating an improvement rather than a restoral?

Keith,

Send me your email address and I'll email you the 1914-1915 Raynor schematic which is crystal clear in terms of quality.

Then we can discuss what I perceive is a hybrid Biarritz, based upon that schematic, and, if you're more adept at posting photos than I, you can post it

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick,

Early writings do NOT confirm your theory about Yale... While I don't have the article (yet) I know it was in the Hartford Courant in 1925. Anthony Pioppi found the article, and here is George Bahto commenting:


 Re: Interested in opinions on The Biarritz style at Yale and Fishers
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2009, 12:39:16 PM » Quote  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Brightly and others:

Concerning the idea of the front section of Biarritz greens being putting surfaces:

Biarritz holes have been a favorite of mine from the "git-go" of my Macdonald - Raynor - Banks research.

When I first began researching and visiting their courses beginning in the late 1980's only a few courses had putting surface before the "Valley of Sin" swale; Yale, Mid-Ocean, Chicago Golf come to mind (there were a few more). To me it was a striking feature, totally different from the Biarritz on my hole I'd been plain for  so many years, so I encouraged other clubs to go down the road of a "double-green" bisected by the swale.

I had (and have) to this time been able to determine what the original Biarritz green was like but given the time line (1888), the ball, the golf clubs, certainly the firm ground and the differential in the height on the Chasm hole, tee to green, I would suspect the green (or the approach to the green) was long and narrow (a cliff on the right). The original hole was 220-yards - the carry over the Bay of Biscay reported to be 160 or so yards, which leaves 60-yards beyond the Bay to the middle of the green.

but concerning whether the Biarritz holes by Macdonald Raynor were ever meant to be a double green and  given that the Yale-9th would be the poster-child for Macdonald-Raynor orginal interpretation, a few months ago friend Tony Pioppi turned up the following information from the Yale archives stating the "green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach" - to me - verifies these hole were never intended to have the double-green.


a portion of the article:

Special to The Courant
The Hartford Courant; Aug 16, 1925 - page B4
New Haven, Aug. 15, 1925

Yale to Open Probably Most Unique and
One of Largest Golf Courses in United States

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bill,

Mark Bourgeois kindly photocopied that article / report for us last month. I asked who wrote it. He believed it came directly from the architect (maybe Banks). If that is the case I agree that the green at Yale wasn't initially supposed to extend to the front portion. But something changed. The question is when and who made the decision. It could well have been the architect himself. Hence my last post above.

[Bill Brightly]

Ally,

You are absolutely correct: something changed. Even if there is a charcoal layer underneath the front section at Yale, that could have been added at the point in time when the club decided to convert the front section to putting surface, perhaps after Raynor had died. If adding a charcoal layer was the preferred way to construct a green in the 20's, it would be no big deal to dig up the front section and prepare a new surface.

We do know this: when Banks took over Raynor's company in 1926, he finished Fishers Island (with a one-tier putting surface) Biarritz and then built his own Biarritz holes at Hackensack, The Knoll, Forsgate, etc. None of his Biarritz holes had the front section as putting surface. So that begs the question: if Raynor (or Macdonald) had already came up with the idea of making both sections putting green, why didn't Banks ever do it?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

You are absolutely correct: something changed. Even if there is a charcoal layer underneath the front section at Yale, that could have been added at the point in time when the club decided to convert the front section to putting surface, perhaps after Raynor had died. If adding a charcoal layer was the preferred way to construct a green in the 20's, it would be no big deal to dig up the front section and prepare a new surface.

We do know this: when Banks took over Raynor's company in 1926, he finished Fishers Island (with a one-tier putting surface) Biarritz and then built his own Biarritz holes at Hackensack, The Knoll, Forsgate, etc. None of his Biarritz holes had the front section as putting surface. So that begs the question: if Raynor (or Macdonald) had already came up with the idea of making both sections putting green, why didn't Banks ever do it?

Alternatively, maybe Banks didn't like the idea of both sections as putting green, hence wrote the Yale report along those lines and was overruled by Raynor or someone else in the field...

Guess it can work both ways?

[Keith OHalloran]

Thanks Pat, I will PM you my email (so miscreants don't get it) and will take a look. I am always interested on the different interpretations that Mac/Raynor/Banks used on different courses and sites.

[Bill Brightly]

Ally,

You are absolutely correct: something changed. Even if there is a charcoal layer underneath the front section at Yale, that could have been added at the point in time when the club decided to convert the front section to putting surface, perhaps after Raynor had died. If adding a charcoal layer was the preferred way to construct a green in the 20's, it would be no big deal to dig up the front section and prepare a new surface.

We do know this: when Banks took over Raynor's company in 1926, he finished Fishers Island (with a one-tier putting surface) Biarritz and then built his own Biarritz holes at Hackensack, The Knoll, Forsgate, etc. None of his Biarritz holes had the front section as putting surface. So that begs the question: if Raynor (or Macdonald) had already came up with the idea of making both sections putting green, why didn't Banks ever do it?

Alternatively, maybe Banks didn't like the idea of both sections as putting green, hence wrote the Yale report along those lines and was overruled by Raynor or someone else in the field...

Guess it can work both ways?

I have played just about every Banks course out there. You can criticize him for following the template formula that Raynor taught him too closely... but not that he deviated from the templates in such a strikingly important manner such as creating two putting surfaces. It is FAR easier for me to believe that some superintendents began maintaining the front section as putting green AFTER Raynor and Banks had finished their courses.

This is from The Evangelist of Golf, p 239, Bahto quoting what Charles Banks wrote about Yale's Biarritz:

"The green proper is behind a a deep trench in the approach. The approach is about the same size as the green itself and is bunkered heavily both right and left... The green is heavily battered at the back and the right and the whole strategy is to let out to the limit... Correct play for this green is to carry to the near edge of the groove or trench and come upon the green with a roll...The disappearance and reappearance of the ball in the groove adds to the interest interest of the play. The carry for this play is 180 from the back tee... (Banks, circa 1931.) "

OK Mucci, you're up...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

You are absolutely correct: something changed. Even if there is a charcoal layer underneath the front section at Yale, that could have been added at the point in time when the club decided to convert the front section to putting surface, perhaps after Raynor had died. If adding a charcoal layer was the preferred way to construct a green in the 20's, it would be no big deal to dig up the front section and prepare a new surface.

We do know this: when Banks took over Raynor's company in 1926, he finished Fishers Island (with a one-tier putting surface) Biarritz and then built his own Biarritz holes at Hackensack, The Knoll, Forsgate, etc. None of his Biarritz holes had the front section as putting surface. So that begs the question: if Raynor (or Macdonald) had already came up with the idea of making both sections putting green, why didn't Banks ever do it?

Alternatively, maybe Banks didn't like the idea of both sections as putting green, hence wrote the Yale report along those lines and was overruled by Raynor or someone else in the field...

Guess it can work both ways?

I have played just about every Banks course out there. You can criticize him for following the template formula that Raynor taught him too closely... but not that he deviated from the templates in such a strikingly important manner such as not creating two putting surfaces. It is FAR easier for me to believe that some superintendents began maintaining the front section as putting green AFTER Raynor and Banks had finsihed their courses.

This is from The Evangelist of Golf, p 239, Bahto quoting what Charles Banks wrote about Yale's Biarritz:

"The green proper is behind a a deep trench in the approach. The approach is about the same size as the green itself and is bunkered heavily both right and left... The green is heavily battered at the back and the right and the whole strategy is to let out to the limit... Correct play for this green is to carry to the near edge of the groove or trench and come upon the green with a roll...The disappearance and reappearance of the ball in the groove adds to the interest interest of the play. The carry for this play is 180 from the back tee... (Banks, circa 1931.) "

OK Mucci, you're up...

That's the report I've seen Bill... One thing wrong though - we know it not to be "circa 1931" but before the course was actually finished in construction. Hence things could have changed before opening, possibly at the architect's request.

That's all I'm saying. It is only one option but it is an option.

[Bill Brightly]

I quoted circa 1931 as published in The Evangelist.

For what it is worth, I think it is very likely that St. Louis CC was the first to begin mainataining the front as putting surface. In The Evangelist, the course drawing shows the hole labeled: like this: "Double Plateau (Biarritz)." I am wondering if those words were written by Macdonald or Raynor, or perhaps George Bahto added the words? I will ask George.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

You are absolutely correct: something changed.

Bill,

That's pure speculation on your part.

We know that the 9th green at Yale was constructed in keeping with the construction of all the other putting greens at Yale.
And, that the charcoal layer is present in the front tier.


Even if there is a charcoal layer underneath the front section at Yale, that could have been added at the point in time when the club decided to convert the front section to putting surface, perhaps after Raynor had died.

Once again, pure speculation.
And not just in the process, but the timing and under who's watch

If adding a charcoal layer was the preferred way to construct a green in the 20's, it would be no big deal to dig up the front section and prepare a new surface.

Yes, it would.

We do know this: when Banks took over Raynor's company in 1926, he finished Fishers Island (with a one-tier putting surface) Biarritz and then built his own Biarritz holes at Hackensack, The Knoll, Forsgate, etc. None of his Biarritz holes had the front section as putting surface.

So that begs the question: if Raynor (or Macdonald) had already came up with the idea of making both sections putting green, why didn't Banks ever do it?

You could say the samething about a number of holes.
The Redan - reverse Redan.

The short.
Has there ever been another short that comes anywhere near duplicating the 6th at NGLA ?

I haven't seen one short that comes close to replicating the "template" at NGLA.
So why didn't Raynor or Banks ever attempt duplicating that green.

Your argument is more along the lines of wishful thinking.

The physical evidence, which in my opinion far outweighs newspaper accounts, which we've learned can be seriously flawed, despite the author, seems to indicate that as far as anyone can tell, the front portion of the Biarritz at Yale was constructed as putting surface.

Archival photos, dating to 1924-1926 could clarify the issue, but, only in one direction, and that's a maintenance direction.

Let the debate continue.

[Bill Brightly]

No Pat, we do NOT know that the front section at Yale was constructed as a putting surface. We hear that some charcoal may have been found there, but we don't know when it may have been put there.

We DO have a first hand account from Raynor's top assistant, Charles Banks, describing Yale's Biarritz. He writes that the proper play is a running shot through the grove (swale) to the green.  Plus a reporter from the Hartford Courant. Both talk about the APPROACH being bunkered on either side, NOT a two-sectioned green.  That is not speculation.  

Raynor built reverse Redans.

Don't try to obscure the argument by brining up NGLA's Short versus Raynor's and Banks'. Macdonald was better than those two, and built far more natural looking holes, especially Shorts. Raynor built his in a very geometric (round) fashion with a very distinctive horseshoe imprint. Banks learned from Raynor and did pretty much the same thing. Macdonald's holes, as you well  know, generally have a more natural look. For example, his punchbowl at The Creek looks incredibly natural, while his protogees often left a more manufactured look.

How could Raynor's assistant fail to describe Yale's hole as having alternative greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

No Pat, we do NOT know that the front section at Yale was constructed as a putting surface. We hear that some charcoal may have been found there, but we don't know when it may have been put there.

Bill, it's not that "some" charcoal was found there, it was throughout the entire front tier and similar in profile to the core samples from all of the other greens.

And, we can make a  prudent assessment of when it was introduced, with construction of the greens as the most likely date, rather than some phantom subsequent date.

You've drawn your conclusion and are trying to create alternative scenarios to reinforce your conclusion.


We DO have a first hand account from Raynor's top assistant, Charles Banks, describing Yale's Biarritz. He writes that the proper play is a running shot through the grove (swale) to the green.  


I suspect his writings were more theory than reality.

Ask yourself, is a ball going to run over the front tier and through a swale and back up onto the back tier when the front tier and swale are NOT mowed as putting surface ?  NO WAY

We tried that and even with fast greens, relative to 1924, the ball wouldn't run on the front tier, then down and up the swale coming to rest on the back tier.

It's a nearly impossible shot, in 2013 and certainly in 1924 with their ball and equipment.

Plus a reporter from the Hartford Courant.

Reporters tended to be highly inaccurate.
We learned that at NGLA and Merion and Pine Valley.

Both talk about the APPROACH being bunkered on either side, NOT a two-sectioned green.  That is not speculation.

The bunkering scheme has no relevance in terms of the putting surface

And, we have the physical evidence clearly showing that the front of the 9th green was constructed as putting surface, just like the back tier and all other greens.  That's irrefutable.  

Raynor built reverse Redans.

Don't try to obscure the argument by brining up NGLA's Short versus Raynor's and Banks'. Macdonald was better than those two, and built far more natural looking holes, especially Shorts. Raynor built his in a very geometric (round) fashion with a very distinctive horseshoe imprint. Banks learned from Raynor and did pretty much the same thing. Macdonald's holes, as you well  know, generally have a more natural look. For example, his punchbowl at The Creek looks incredibly natural, while his protogees often left a more manufactured look.

You're missing the point.
You referenced other templates/Biarritz's and insisted that since they were built in a set fashion, all other Biarritz's had to be built in the same fashion, especially since the "Evangelist" created them.  Yet, nothing could be further from the truth with the original short and all that followed.

So, you can't make the argument you attempted to make.
It fails on the basis of CBM's/Raynor's own work, initially at NGLA and then everywhere else.

How could Raynor's assistant fail to describe Yale's hole as having alternative greens?

Quite simply because he didn't view them as alternate, anymore than he did the greens within greens at NGLA and elsewhere.
Just because you can't ascertain why someone failed to describe a hole to your specifications doesn't mean that the hole didn't exist in the form stated.

The footpad was there, and the construction of the entire present day green offers proof that the front tier was in fact constructed and intended as putting surface.

The key is to find archival photos showing golfers putting on the front tier.
That would cement mine and Scott Ramsey's position.
Not  finding those photos, would not cement yours  

[Bill Brightly]

You suspect Banks' writings were more theory than reality? That is a ludicrous statement. Banks was right at Raynor's side... Raynor taught him what a Biarritz was and how the hole should be played.

THAT is  irrefutable.

Show me evidence that Raynor built Yale's front section with charcoal cinders. Show me a photo of someone putting to a front hole location in the year the course opened. Show me an article that describes the alternative front pin positions, because that would not be a minor detail that a reporter or Raynor's top assistant might miss...

There is NO room for speculation when you read Banks' description of the front approach. He called it an A-P-P-R-O-A-C-H, not the front section of the green...

And it is hardly wild speculation to think that a golf professional (or superintendent) noticed that a front green surface was possible and ordered that modification to be completed. And if he knew that charcoal was used in the construction of Yale's other greens, he might have ordered it done with the former approach.

I am sorry that you were unable to reach the back tier with a low running shot. It is a hard shot to hit. Next time you come to Hackensack, I'll show you how.

But it is not all your fault. All other things being equal, the amount of total roll you get is primarily determined by the first bounce; how the ball is first received by the turf, not how fast the fairway or green is. And prior to irrigation systems fairway approaches were often much firmer than putting surfaces (firmer, not faster.)  Especially if the green was routinely topdressed, fertilized and watered as needed. Think back to the days when you played on hard, sun-baked fairways. The first bounce of your driver was huge, right? Design of Biarritz holes relied upon the knowledge that a well executed shot would roll through the approach. Our old Scottish pro, Charlie Mayo, used to teach the Biarritz shot. I bet your Dad could hit the shot!

[Jim Nugent]

Bill or anyone, with the tee at Yale so elevated, can you play a running shot that lands on the front and chases through to the back?  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bill or anyone, with the tee at Yale so elevated, can you play a running shot that lands on the front and chases through to the back?  

In our group, most of us chose the aerial route first (generally with 3 or 4 woods)…. Then Pat tried a choked down driver – If he’d been a few yards to the right (i.e. on the centreline) then it probably would have worked but as it is was slightly left, it climbed just up and then fell back again.

The greens were quite soft… If they were playing firmer and I had taken my 1-iron in the bag, then I would have fancied the chances of executing the run through shot for sure… But it must be a better option at holes with the tee placed lower…