News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #225 on: September 17, 2013, 07:42:33 AM »
Bryan,

Did you bother to even read the caption under the picture that you presented ?

The one that says, that the hole was  "being planned"

The text of the caption was written PRIOR to the construction of the hole and married to the photo ONLY AFTER the hole was constructed.

And it was constructed with a charcoal layer only found under the putting surfaces at Yale


« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 07:45:33 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #226 on: September 17, 2013, 07:58:52 AM »

Sadly the forum software is being cranky and won't let me quote.  That said, this:
Quote
What I resent most about your posts, is that you have no interest in getting to the truth about the 9th green, you just want to throw mindless counter arguments after mindless counter arguments against the premise, hoping that one might stick. 
just caused me to laugh out loud in the office.  Absolutely tremendous stuff.

Didn't know that you knew how to laugh.

Glad I could help lighten your day


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #227 on: September 17, 2013, 09:00:13 AM »
Such venomous and vitriolic stuff is not worthy of you or anyone else who posts on this board.  How does this stuff contribute to the frank discussion of golf course architecture?  I understand that your modus operandi is to create debate, then conflict, and then to try to figuratively bloody the nose of your presumed opponents.  Why do you do that.  Is your ego inflated?  Does it leave you feeling strong and powerful?  So childish for a guy your age.   :(  

At my age, I don't tolerate fools well, and, unlike the others, I know and understand your motives.



Bryan Izatt,

Do you see the similarity in the text of the articles you're posting ?
They're almost exact duplicates.

In one of the earlier threads on NGLA/PV/Merion, it was explained how newspapers just copied other articles from other newspapers or print.

Sure, they are all similar.  They presumably are all quoting from the same source Banks? Raynor? or ....?  The Hartford Courant came first in August 1925.  The two articles and the picture and caption came shortly afterward in the fall.  Do you think the reporter from the Yale Daily News provided a more detailed description and picture (that wasn't in the Courant) because they were copying from the Courant?  Given that the Yale News is on campus as was the golf course[/b], it seems logical that they got their descriptions directly from the source and not from the Courant and that they took their own picture.

Bryan,

You continue to make enormous blunders which do nothing but fuel erroneous conclusions on your part.
The golf course is NOT on campus.
You'd know that if you ever set foot on it.
That's the problem you have, you make critical evaluations absent first hand knowledge.



Yup.  Enormous blunder.  It's the Yale Daily News and the Yale Golf Course.  They might be more closely linked than either was with the Hartford Courant.

Yes, but you stated that the golf course was on campus, a further indication of your lack of familiarity with the site and the hole in question.
Obviously indicating that you've never set foot on the golf course, let alone the 9th green.


So, we have three descriptions and a picture and caption that were published over a period of several months in the summer and fall of 1925 that describe the green as sitting behind the swale/groove/trench.  
[/size]


First, the three descriptions are the same copy, not original, differentiated text.

Semantic nonsense.  Surely you can do better.  To reply in the same nonsensical vein, I guess "groove" and "trench" are the "same copy". I guess those Yale Daily News couldn't even stick to the prescribed copy.

It's not "semantic nonsense".
In addition, did you bother to read the caption under the photo, the one that states that the hole was not constructed, that it was "being planned".
The text about the hole was written prior to construction and only married to the photo after the hole was built


How quickly you forget the same basic photo with the caption that clearly stated that the swale and the front tier were all putting surface.


I didn't forget it.  I posted it from Ran's course profile.  Did you forget the picture and caption published in September 1925 that I posted that is supported by two text articles in the Yale Daily News and one in the Hartford Courant?  Oh, and by the way, how are you coming along with dating and sourcing the publication that your (Ran's) picture came from.    I've posted two articles and a photo from the Yale Daily News.  What have you contributed, except a half explained story about a charcoal layer and nonsensical arguments.  Honestly, I would have liked to hear more about that charcoal coring study.


Your caption was written before the hole was built, the caption from Ran's revue was written AFTER the hole was built, providing far more weight and credibility as to the configuration, playl and construction of the hole than a caption written prior to the creation of the hole.  Certainly, even you recognize the difference.




The hole was built when the articles and picture were published.
[/size]

But, you don't know when the articles were WRITTEN, nor the picture taken, only when they're published.
And, as night follows day, we know that the articles were written before they were published
[/size]

Your getting more nonsensical by the line here.  So, are you're saying the articles were WRITTEN long before they were published and the green was built?  The Yale Daily News picture was obviously taken before it was published and after the green was built.  I suppose you nonsensically believe the caption on the photo was also written a long time before the picture was taken.  

Absolutely.
READ the caption under your photo below, it states that the photo is of a hole "BEING PLANNED", meaning that when the caption was written, the hole wasn't even built.

Whereas, the caption in Ran's photo clearly states the hole has been built and the entire surface is putting green





Why would the source - Banks, Raynor?
[/size]

Obviously, you don't know the source, which is it ?  Banks ?  Raynor ?  Neither


Neither do you?  Who wrote the caption under the photo you give so much credibility to.  Oh, and once again, how are you coming along with dating and sourcing the publication that your (Ran's) picture came from.

Whomever wrote the caption, wrote it PRIOR to the creation of the hole, ergo, it's irrelevant and in no way reflective of what was actually built.
The caption under Ran's photo was written AFTER the hole was built and that caption states that the swale and front tier were putting surface.

So, this will be hard for you, but, to which caption would you ascribe more accuracy, the one written before the hole was built, or the one written after the hole was built ?  Don't duck or try to weasel out of the question, answer it.  Yours or Ran's ?



- describe the Biarritz one way and have already built it s a different way?
[/size]

Nice try, but that's pure speculation on your part.
You don't know if the article was written after to construction and from the text, it appears that's not the case.
So your self serving, conclusive question is flawed.
You're being intellectually dishonest, claiming that the article was written after the hole was completed.[/color][/size]

You're just being intellectually dumb and argumentative.  The picture in the Yale Daily News published in September 1925 shows a more or less finished hole.  When would the hole descriptions and articles and caption have been written in your not-so-humble opinion.  Would it have been in the planning stages, before construction, a year prior?  Please clarify your position.[/size]

The caption itself answers that question for you.
The caption was written before the hole was built, it was written when the hole was being planned.
Are you now going to refute your own words,, your own source ? ;D



Self serving?  How is that?  We have 4 pictures, two captions, three articles, all of them more or less contemporaneous and your current half explained charcoal layer.  
[/size]

That's not what we have.
We have your photo and your caption that clearly indicates that the text was written prior to the creation of the hole.
We have Ran's photo and caption that was clearly written after the hole was built.
We have the charcoal layer that is throughout the entire footpad, a layer ONLY found under all of the putting surfaces at Yale.
And, we have the physical fact that it would be impossible for tractors towing gang mowers to mow that front tier and swale as fairway.
The evidence that the front tier and swale were putting surface is overwhelming to a prudent person.
But, you have other motives which supercede prudent reasoning.



Based on most of the pictures and articles, it is my opinion that the front portion was originally conceived and built as an "approach".  At some point, unknown at this point, the approach and swale/trench/groove got turned into part of the green.
[/sizse]

Nonsense, look at the photos you posted and the dates you state that they were taken, in 1925.
As of 1925, the front tier and swale are maintained as green.
So now you're claiming that the charcoal layer was added after the green was built ?  Please, stop the nonsense and deal with facts.
You're becoming even more desperate for wild theories that deny the caption on Ran's photo of the "as built" green.



The charcoal layer story is interesting and raises questions about when and how that happened and whether it was part of a change in design philosophy for the hole or a change in the initial construction.
[/size]


It's not "interesting" it's a physical FACT
Of course it was part of the design of the green and reflective of the intent that the entire footpad should be putting surface.


At the moment I'll go with what I see as a preponderance of the other contemporaneous evidence. [/color][/size]

There is no "preponderance of other contemporaneous evidence" as proven above.
Your captions were written PRIOR to the construction of the hole, and married to a post construction photo.
Ran's caption was written AFTER the construction of the hole.
So which of the contemporaneous articles is more accurate ?
The one written BEFORE the existance of the hole or the one written AFTER the existance of the hole ?


Your opinion appears to be different.  When and if some additional evidence is uncovered I'm certainly prepared to alter my opinion.  Is that too self serving for you?  


Bryan, go back and read what I've posted in this reply.

1.     You presented photos with captions written BEFORE the photo was taken, BEFORE the hole was even created.
        Ergo the caption is a forward looking projection and not reflective of what was actually built.
2.     Ran's photo and caption are AFTER the hole was built, and therefore reflective of what was actually done.
3.     The photos themselves show the swale and front tier mowed as putting surface.
4.     Heavy equipment, tractors towing gang mowers couldn't get access to the front tier and swale.
5.     Heavy equipment, tractors towing gang mowers couldn't mow that front tier and swale
6.     There's a charcaol layer at a depth of 12 inches throughout the entire footpad, back and front tier and swale.
7.     The charcoal layer only appears beneath the surface of putting greens at Yale



A prudent logical person would say that that your premise is silly.  


A prudent person would be "honest" and not careless with his facts.


Are you calling me a liar?  Just because I disagree with your opinion does not make a liar.  

I said that you were being intellectually dishonest because you created a false premise to reach your predetermined conclusion.
Your question was flawed in its structure and only intended or predisposed to provide an answer you wanted.
[/size]

And, did you get the gang mower thing from the Seth Seance?  Seems like a large supposition.  and, the picture above shows me that the mowing pattern is different.

Look below, at the extreme upper left of the green, just above the swale.
Look at the green line and the rough to the left of it
Look at that mowing pattern, it shows the continuation of the green line down into the swale.

I don't see that.  You see something.  C'est la vie.

Then LOOK again, it's as plain as the nose on your face and just as obvious.


Proof positive that the green continued from the back tier, down into the swale.
Even without the Charcoal layer, the photo YOU produced clearly shows the swale as green.

I don't see it.  You're entitled to your opinion.  But that's not proof positive.

It is if you open your eyes and examine the photo.
The truth is, you don't want me to be right, but, the photo clearly shows the green line descending into the swale.
And, it's your photo, not mine.
Look again and if you can't see it, have someone with better vision point it out to you.




You're either obtuse or a flaming moron, or both.

Can you not discuss a topic without ad hominem attacks.  Do you have to metaphorically bloody a nose to try to win a debate or in this case a discussion?

Your denial of the photographic evidence which you presented calls, or rather screams, for calling you obtuse or a flaming moron.
Are you telling us that you can't see the left side green line from the top tier descending into the swale ?
For you to maintain that you can't see it is ............... well ............. intellectually dishonest.
It's there, just look at how the green line descends into the swale in the picture you presented.


Look at the picture you posted.
Do you see the size of the mowing strips.  Does that look like the work of a gang mower ?
Do you see any way for a tractor, dragging gang mowers to get to an from that green ?
Do you see anywhere where the tractor towing gang mowers could turn ?
Do you see how impossible it would be for a tractor and gang mower to mow the steep inclines created by the sharp swale ?

What I resent most about your posts, is that you have no interest in getting to the truth about the 9th green, you just want to throw mindless counter arguments after mindless counter arguments against the premise, hoping that one might stick.  

I've presented a couple of articles about the use of charcoal in greens in that period,


None of which are germane to the use of charcoal at Yale.
And, you presented them as a refutation of the method used at Yale



two articles and a captioned photo from the construction period
[/size]

That's NOT TRUE.
The captions are from PRIOR to the construction of the hole.
The caption even states so.
The captions you presented are about a hole "being planned", not a hole under construction or a hole "as-built"
[/size]


 and posted Ran's picture and an enlargement of the picture that David and Anthony found.  
[/size]


And Ran's photo and caption, both taken and written AFTER the hole was built, clearly state that the entire footpad, the front tier, back tier and swale were built as putting green.  And to further confirm that fact, we have the entire footpad with the charcoal layer in it.



You've talked i generality about a charcoal layer.  How exactly does this demonstrate your interest in getting to the truth.  How does it demonstrate my lack of interest?  


I didn't talk in "general" about the charcoal layer, I talked specifically about the charcaol layer.
I gave you it's depth below the surface, it's measurement and it's location throughout the golf course.
You can't get more specific than that.


Rather than discover the truth, you want to destroy the premise and the discovery process that would accompany it.
That's the work of a flaming moron.  Nah, it's beyond that, that's the work of a colossal moron.

Could you try to work on a new epithet.  Moron is so boring.

That's why I elevated your status to "flaming" moron, bordering on "colossal" moron


We're all ignorant, just on different subjects, but, you're so out of your league on this stuff that it's frightening.

Don't be frightened.  The sun will rise tomorrow.  It sure would be helpful for the discovery process if you could date and source that picture of Ran's that your putting so much stock in. [/size]

The photo and caption tell you the date, it's AFTER the hole was built.

Not like your caption, which was clearly written PRIOR to the hole being built, when it was "being planned



And, honestly, I'd like to learn more about the charcoal layer discovery.


What ?  Now you're being honest ? ;D
What's there to learn, soil probes/cores and excavation show the existance of a charcoal layer throughout the golf course, ONLY under the putting surfaces.


You can't design and build what you can't maintain.
It wouldn't last.[/size][/color]

We agree on that.

Alas, progress.
OK, if we agree on that, tell me how tractors towing gang mowers could get to that green and secondly, if they got there, how they could mow that front tier and swale without destroying the front and back tier and swale ?

And please, look carefully at the left side of the photo YOU posted and you'll see the continuation of the left side green line, from the back tier, descending down into the swale.

But, first, I'd go to the eye doctor for a checkup.


« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 09:07:08 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #228 on: September 17, 2013, 09:30:09 AM »
All these pretty colors in such a nice thread. Which one is red, yellow, blue? That last post is dizzying.

So the conclusion, a Double Plateau is a green which both pads are cut green height and a Biarritz the front pad is not supposed to be pinned? I know the Biarritz at Old Macdonald the front section is not supposed to be pinned.
Mr Hurricane

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #229 on: September 17, 2013, 09:35:28 AM »

All these pretty colors in such a nice thread. Which one is red, yellow, blue? That last post is dizzying.

But, with geometric like logic  ;D


So the conclusion, a Double Plateau is a green which both pads are cut green height and a Biarritz the front pad is not supposed to be pinned?


Jim, I don't think that's an apt description.

I think the configuration and alignment of the plateaus is critical, not the mowing pattern.

In addition, I may have found another original Biarritz with the entire footpad cut as putting surface.
Stay tuned.


I know the Biarritz at Old Macdonald the front section is not supposed to be pinned.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #230 on: September 17, 2013, 10:53:39 AM »


In addition, I may have found another original Biarritz with the entire footpad cut as putting surface.
Stay tuned. [/size][/color]
[/quote]

It better not be The Creek... (Biarritz drawn on far right of this photo with just the rear section as green surface.)


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #231 on: September 17, 2013, 10:57:24 AM »
Bill,

It's not, The Creek, but, I do so love that golf course.

I view The Creek's 11th hole as a hybrid or quasi Biarritz.
Not so sure that I can analyze the 11th from the photo of the schematic.

Between the tees and almost 90 yard green and the WIND, the hole presents incredible variety and challenge.

You could locate the hole such that you could play every day for 100 days and not have the same hole location.... easily.

And, the WIND make some of those hole locations incredibly challenging.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 10:59:07 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #232 on: September 17, 2013, 11:48:32 AM »
The more I thought about the photo below, combined with recently playing the hole, the more I thought that the ONLY way to maintain the footpad was to hand mow it.

That swale is so steep and so deep that no other equipment, circa 1926 could maintain it at a height that would allow a ball to run from the front tier, through the swale and onto the back tier.

Think about it.

There's absolutely no way that a tractor, pulling gang mowers, could maneuver and cut the front tier and swale without doing extensive damage to both, and, to the back tier.

The swale and front tier had to be hand mown.

Look at the mowing pattern in the front tier in the photo below.
Look at the widths of those cuts.

Look at how the left side of the putting surface on the back tier, curves and descents down into the swale.

In order for a ball to land on the front tier, roll on the front tier, down the swale, through the swale and back up the swale onto the back tier is if those areas were closely mown.

So, in 1926, what equipment could closely mow those areas.

Certainly not a tractor pulling gang mowers.

It had to be hand walked mowers.

Greens mowers.

ERGO, that entire footpad had to be mown as green just as the caption on Ran's photo reads.


The steep, deep swale may have dictated that the entire footpad be maintained as green/putting surface.

Please read the caption below and note that the caption is written AFTER the green was built, as is the photo.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 11:53:29 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #233 on: September 17, 2013, 12:15:34 PM »
Sadly the forum software is being cranky and won't let me quote.  That said, this:
Quote
What I resent most about your posts, is that you have no interest in getting to the truth about the 9th green, you just want to throw mindless counter arguments after mindless counter arguments against the premise, hoping that one might stick. 
just caused me to laugh out loud in the office.  Absolutely tremendous stuff.

Me too.  Self awareness does not seem to be one of Patrick's strengths.   ;D ;)

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #234 on: September 17, 2013, 12:34:11 PM »
The swale and front tier had to be hand mown.
Quite happy to accept this.
Quote

It had to be hand walked mowers.
Again, happy to accept this.
Quote

Greens mowers.
Probably the only hand mowers on site, so OK again.
Quote

ERGO, that entire footpad had to be mown as green
But that doesn't follow.  Why couldn't those hand mowers be raised to fairway height?  Do you know that the mowers on site at the time weren't capable of adjustment to fairway height?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #235 on: September 17, 2013, 12:37:06 PM »
Geeze Pat, have you ever heard of altering the height of cut with a push mower? I'm sure your landscapers could do this for you on your tough, brown is beautiful, front lawn... So Yale could have used push mowers with different cutting heights...  I think they had some pretty smart guys out there...

We ALL know that at some point the approach AS DESIGNED was altered to become a putting surface. The question is when and was Raynor was part of the process? There is absolutely no proof that he was. In fact, there is strong evidence that he was NOT, because we have the words of his top assistant who was on the site.

Based upon Cornish & Whtten's book, here is what Raynor was working on while Yale was being built:

Yale, Knollwood, Southampton, The Creek, and Fishers in the NY-CT area.
MPCC and Cypress Point in CA, Waialea in Hawaii, Lookout Mountain in Georgia, Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh, Yeaman's Hall in S.C., Blue Mound in WI, Everglades in FL and Augusta CC in Georgia.

Clearly he was relying upon site supervisors at each course while he traveled all over the country. Once the major earthmoving was done at Yale, he had little reason to be there, and PLENTY of reasons to be elsewhere. So it is easy to envision that the powers that be at Yale made the change, perhaps before the course opened, or perhaps after because the members found the hole too difficult. With an approach footpad that was shaped just like a green, even a moron could come up with that change...and so they did.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #236 on: September 17, 2013, 12:40:28 PM »
Bryan,

Did you bother to even read the caption under the picture that you presented ?

The one that says, that the hole was  "being planned"

The text of the caption was written PRIOR to the construction of the hole and married to the photo ONLY AFTER the hole was constructed.

And it was constructed with a charcoal layer only found under the putting surfaces at Yale




I got your point.  You didn't have to waste all that maroon ink hammering away at it.  I read the caption as talking about how the hole concept was supposed to play.  I don't read that to mean that the caption was written, or based on writing, that significantly pre-dated the construction of the green.

The first writing of the hole description, that has been found, is the Courant article in August 1925.  Let me know when you find an earlier version of the course description.  Speaking of which, when do you believe that construction of the 9th hole began?  It looks to be nicely grassed in by September 1925.  When do you think that work on construction of any part of the course began?

You keep ignoring my question about the date and publication of the picture and caption from Ran's course profile.  It would help to know when that was published.  If it was in 1925 it would be persuasive.  If it was 1926 or later it would not be the proof positive that you'd like it to be.

I still don't see the mowing lines in the enlargement the same way you do.  Let's agree to disagree.

I too would like to find the truth.  This has nothing to do with proving you wrong.  Your paranoia is getting the better of you again.


Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #237 on: September 17, 2013, 12:56:18 PM »
Henry Leach's description of the Cliff hole, for those who haven't seen it:


Nearly all who have never even seen it have heard of the Cliff hole of Biarritz, have studied pictures of it, and speculated upon its peculiar difficulties. No hole on the continent of Europe has nearly such a reputation; indeed, it is perhaps the only one with a special celebrity. I have been asked questions about it in America. I have seen and played it, examined it thoroughly, and thought it out. It is a queer thing, quite different from any other hole I know. It needs such a shot to play it properly as is not demanded elsewhere. And yet it requires absolute skill, the proper shot must be played and played thoroughly well, and it is practically impossible to fluke it. Why, then, should this not be reckoned a good golfing hole? The circumstances are these: The teeing ground is on the lower level, and it is only some fifty yards from the base of the cliff. The ground in between is rough and stony. The cliff here is about forty yards in height, and, if not vertical in the face, bulges outwards frowningly at the top, while a thin stream of water trickling down at one side seems to add a little more to the fearsomeness of the thing. At the top edge of the cliff there is grassy ground sloping quickly upwards for about a dozen yards until a line of wire is reached, and there the green begins. The fact that the green (which is tolerably large and in two parts, an upper and a lower) then slopes downwards away from the player does not make matters easier. Beyond it is another precipice, but wire netting is there to save the ball from this, and there is some wooden palisading to keep it out of trouble on the left. Then there is a local rule saying that if the ball reaches the top of the cliff, but does not pass the wire, it must be teed again, with loss of distance only, the man not being allowed to play it from the tee side of the wire. (He would do so at peril of toppling over the cliff!) But all these things do not make this awful hole much easier in the play. One day I sat on the edge of the cliff and watched the people playing it, and the ball that reached the green and[Pg 306] stayed there was a rarity. It can be done. Braid and Taylor and Vardon would do it all the time, and it is no trick shot that is wanted. You might hit hard at the ground in front of the wire and make the ball trickle on, but that would call for more than human accuracy. Or you might sky your ball up to the heavens and let it fall straight down on to the green, and that would be superb. But champion Taylor would take his mashie and play, perhaps, some fifteen yards above the cliff with all the cut that he could put upon the ball, and then he would be putting for a two. A difficult hole follows, but after that the work is easier.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 12:58:33 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #238 on: September 17, 2013, 12:59:29 PM »
And to get back to the topic of this thread, the fact that Chick Evans called St. Louis CC a double plateau means little to me. Not only was he a great golfer, but he also owned Charles Evans, Jr, & Associates, Consulting Golf Engineers. He even offered a school: Course of Study in Golf Architecture. The advertisement for the class was headed "Chick" Evans (World-Famous Golfer.)

So that tells us two things: he fancied himself an architect, and he promoted his architecture skills with his playing prowess. As we know, that doesn't always work out so well...Maybe he was the one who suggested that the front section at SLCC be converted to green?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #239 on: September 17, 2013, 01:08:13 PM »
The swale and front tier had to be hand mown.
Quite happy to accept this.
Quote

It had to be hand walked mowers.
Again, happy to accept this.
Quote

Greens mowers.
Probably the only hand mowers on site, so OK again.
Quote

ERGO, that entire footpad had to be mown as green
But that doesn't follow.  Why couldn't those hand mowers be raised to fairway height?  Do you know that the mowers on site at the time weren't capable of adjustment to fairway height?

Mark,

That's not how greens were or are mowed.

You don't mow a green, then, on site, change the height of the mower.

And, if you LOOK closely at the photo you see a continuum of the mowing pattern from the back, upper tier as it descends down into the swale.

There is no "line of demarcation seperating the cut on the back tier from that on the swale.
If you look at the crown of the swale as it becomes the back tier, it's all the same.
There is no distinction in the cut.

Now ask yourself this question.

If you mowed the front tier and swale to a higher cut, where would the border between the two cuts be ?
Certainly not within the swale, but at the top of the swale into the upper tier as you'd need room to turn your greens mowers inorder to cut the back tier as green.

In addition, you and Bryan and even Bill keep ignoring the fact that the front tier and swale contained the charcoal layer, and when combined with other factors, they overwhelmingly lead to the conclusion that the entire footpad was mowed as putting surface.

If you've ever played Yale, and I'd like you to answer that, you know how incredibly steep and deep that swale is.

Your problem is that you want to see me proven wrong and therefore are approaching this with a closed mind.
Rather than look at the facts and logic and analyze same, you automatically look to deny the individual presentations and the impact of their being combined.

Had Tom Doak put forth this premise and the individual exhibits, you'd be giving him your white knee socks and telling him what a great discovery he made.

Everything, the photos, the captions after the hole was built, the physical properties of the green, the mowing patterns and the charcoal layer lead to but one conclusion, the entire footpad was built and maintained as putting surface.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:22:39 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #240 on: September 17, 2013, 01:21:47 PM »

Geeze Pat, have you ever heard of altering the height of cut with a push mower? I'm sure your landscapers could do this for you on your tough, brown is beautiful, front lawn... So Yale could have used push mowers with different cutting heights...  I think they had some pretty smart guys out there...

Bill, you know as well as I do that you don't change blade height in the field
Secondly, where's the line of demarcation between the cuts on the back tier.
You know that there would have to be several feet on the upper tier so that the mowers could turn around, yet no such line exists.
The back tier and the slope are all one cut with no line of demarcation, ergo the back tier and swale are the same cut, putting surface


We ALL know that at some point the approach AS DESIGNED was altered to become a putting surface.


That's NOT true.
The entire footpad was designed and built as putting surface.
The front tier, swale and back tier all contain the charcoal layer and that was no accident, it was a deliberate construction feature.
That is undeniable


The question is when and was Raynor was part of the process? There is absolutely no proof that he was. In fact, there is strong evidence that he was NOT, because we have the words of his top assistant who was on the site.

That's irrelevant.
The entire footpad was built as putting surface as evidenced by the charcoal layer


Based upon Cornish & Whtten's book, here is what Raynor was working on while Yale was being built:

Yale, Knollwood, Southampton, The Creek, and Fishers in the NY-CT area.
MPCC and Cypress Point in CA, Waialea in Hawaii, Lookout Mountain in Georgia, Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh, Yeaman's Hall in S.C., Blue Mound in WI, Everglades in FL and Augusta CC in Georgia.

Clearly he was relying upon site supervisors at each course while he traveled all over the country. Once the major earthmoving was done at Yale, he had little reason to be there, and PLENTY of reasons to be elsewhere. So it is easy to envision that the powers that be at Yale made the change, perhaps before the course opened, or perhaps after because the members found the hole too difficult.


So now you're admitting that when the course opened, the entire footpad was constructed as, and maintained as putting surface.


With an approach footpad that was shaped just like a green, even a moron could come up with that change...and so they did.
So we agree, that on opening day, the entire footpad, back tier, swale and front tier were built and maintained as putting surface.

Correct ?


Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #241 on: September 17, 2013, 01:34:31 PM »








Annotated:

Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #242 on: September 17, 2013, 01:47:25 PM »
Mark,

I don't agree with where you've determined the swale begins and ends.

I should have paced the green

What's the distance to carry, from the back tee to the front of the front tier putting surface ?

Thanks

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #243 on: September 17, 2013, 01:54:24 PM »
Henry Leach's description of the Cliff hole, for those who haven't seen it:

. . .

Jim,

The "Cliff" hole was a different hole entirely from the "Chasm" hole.   Most of the course at Biarritz (all of the course originally) played above the ocean cliffs, and the Chasm hole was one of these holes.  It played from one bluff to another over a cliff-lined "chasm," with the ocean well below.  

But a handful of holes played in what is called the "Chambre d'Amore" which is down below the ocean cliffs close to sea.  The tee for the "Cliff" hole was down in the Chambre d'Amore and the green was up above.  So the golfer on the tee literally faced a cliff, and the green was totally blind above it.  (This "Cliff" hole is perhaps the original site of the well traveled golf legend, where the caddy who informed the golfer of a hole in one was generously rewarded, thus sparking a rash of report hole-in-ones by other caddies.   I've read the legend about a number of blind par threes, but I think this might have been the site of the earliest story I have seen.)

So now I think we are dealing with three different holes at Biarritz;  the famous Cliff and Chasm holes, and the not so famous (and poor) hole which inspired CBM to built the hole eventually called known as the Biarritz.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #244 on: September 17, 2013, 03:04:14 PM »
Thanks Dave!
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #245 on: September 17, 2013, 03:27:57 PM »
David,

Is it your position that CBM again combined concepts and produced an enhanced hole at # 9 at Yale, as they did at # 4 at Fishers ?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #246 on: September 17, 2013, 03:45:38 PM »
David,

Is it your position that CBM again combined concepts and produced an enhanced hole at # 9 at Yale, as they did at # 4 at Fishers ?

I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but I don't really have a "position" on what happened at Yale.  

CBM's Biarritz concept, as he and Whigham described it, was for a hole of about 210-220 yards (which was then just out of range for the carry of most drivers) and ideally featured a plateau/hogback, followed by a 30 yard swale, followed by a green.   The idea was that the aggressive and arrogant golfer who tried to carry the green but hit an almost perfect shot would land in and get stuck in the swale, while a less aggressive golfer could try for a perfectly executed straight running shot, landing on the hog hogback/plateau and running through swale and onto the green.  These holes also often featured a bunker or trouble short of the first hogback plateau (a lake in Yale's case) and it has been speculated that this was a representation of the "chasm" but I think it more likely that this feature was more to keep a golfer from accidentally skulling a shot yet still reaching the green.  (Not unlike the reason for CBM's addition of water to the Eden concept.)  

Banks' early description of the hole at Yale seems fit with CBM's ideas for a Biarritz.  As for when the first plateau became green, I have no idea.  
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 03:47:21 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #247 on: September 17, 2013, 06:36:18 PM »
Patrick,

I am saying that Raynor designed the hole exactly the way David described it above, the way Banks described it, the way Mark measured it on Google Earth.

I don't know who decided to change the approach to green, and I don't know when, and I don't know why there is charcoal there.
I know it is a cool hole, but it is not the way Raynor and Macdonald conceived it.

Sorry that you think they made the swale too deep.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 07:32:50 PM by Bill Brightly »

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #248 on: September 17, 2013, 07:21:49 PM »
Pat,

This is really going to disappoint you.  In fact, I'm not sure you're ready for it but, yes, I have played Yale.  And yes, the Swale is deep.  Far deeper, for instance than that on 16 at NBWL which you are no doubt familiar with.

However, the problem with your post is that the picture simply does not show a continuity of cut through the Swale.  There are not mowing lines continuing through the Swale.  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. 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.  Perhaps a greenkeeper could weigh in here?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?
« Reply #249 on: September 17, 2013, 10:42:59 PM »


I am saying that Raynor designed the hole exactly the way David described it above, the way Banks described it, the way Mark measured it on Google Earth.

They may have initially designed it that way, but that doesn't appear to be the way it was built


I don't know who decided to change the approach to green, and I don't know when, and I don't know why there is charcoal there.
I know it is a cool hole, but it is not the way Raynor and Macdonald conceived it.

I don't disagree that the hole was originally conceived as you state, but, that's not how the 9th at Yale was built, and that's what counts, the finished product.


Sorry that you think they made the swale too deep.

I don't know why you would think that's my position.
I happen to love the depth of the swale.
The deeper the swale the more challenging the hole.