[Jon Cavalier]

I had the opportunity to play Garden City Golf Club this past week.  It's quite a wonderful place, from the clubhouse to the locker room to the patio to the pro shop.  And the golf course is magnificent and unique.

But while the course at GCGC has many striking and unique attributes, the current iteration of the 12th green stands out as particularly interesting and perhaps controversial.  It is the only green that I have ever seen to incorporate both inverted bunkers and large internal mounding.  The mounding is entirely contained within the putting surface and is very pronounced.  As the photos below show, it is one of a kind.

I don't know a great deal about the specific history of this hole, except to say that my understanding is that Travis designed the green in the same way that it currently sits.  There is a an old arial photo hanging in the clubhouse (along with a museum-like quantity of other amazing relics) that clearly shows the mounding within the putting surface.  RTJ Sr. then came along at some point and leveled the green out, got rid of the mounding, installed some new bunkering and lengthened the hole.  Only recently was the hole restored to its present, and largely original, form.

I am very curious as to the thoughts of those on this board regarding this green.  Garden City's remaining 17 greens are without exception excellent and challenging, but they tend to tilt predominantly from one side to the other and their internal contours (with the exception of the 4th) are largely subtle.  There are no other greens on the course that even approach the kind of mounding that is present on the current 12th.  Likewise, the only two inverted bunkers on the property that I saw were on 12.

I, for one, absolutely loved this hole.  I thought the inverted bunkers were an interesting touch and, based on what the caddy told me, a very effective hazard for balls that are far enough offline to reach them.  I thought the mounding presented great visuals from both the tee and the surrounds, and made for some really exciting opportunities.  And I am very pleased that the club recreated Travis's green.

I was told, however, that some members absolutely despise the current version of 12.  So, what do you guys think? 

Here are the photos:

From the tee (note the inverted bumkers on both sides, the deep cross bunker fronting the green, and the mounding on both sides within the putting surface):


Approaching the green:


Inverted bunkers, cross bunker and mounding:


Cross bunker and mounding:


From front left of green showing cross bunker and inverted bunkers:


From front right of green:


From front right (inverted bunker and moundings):


Greenside right showing mounds:




Greenside left:


Back left view:


In my opinion, great course, great hole - what say you guys?

(Pics of other holes available - let me know if interested).

[Jeff Bergeron]

Every course needs a handful of edgy greens. If this is a restoration of the original green, I'm all for it. Who did the restoration? How many other greens did RTJ ruin?

[Jon Cavalier]

Every course needs a handful of edgy greens. If this is a restoration of the original green, I'm all for it. Who did the restoration? How many other greens did RTJ ruin?

Again, I'm far from an expert on GCGC history, but I believe this is a restore of the Travis green and that it was done by Doak. And it's also my understanding the RTJ altered only the 12th green. But if someone here knows otherwise, I would love to be corrected.

[jeffwarne]

Thanks for those great photos.
I know it's been discussed here, but those are shockingly cool pictures of the 12th hole.
Of course there are members that despise the restored green-they're called legacies(or Spalding)

[Greg Gilson]

Jon, thanks for the great photos of 12. I would love to see those you have of the rest of the course. There was another thread recently about Garden City but your photos look great & I never tire of remembering this wonderful course. The course, club (& # 12) are all unique and wonderful. I would love to play there more. Thanks again.

[Mark Saltzman]

Always liked this picture...

[Matthew Rose]

Are those bunkers hard to maintain?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Paging Pat Mucci

[Steve Lapper]

Every course needs a handful of edgy greens. If this is a restoration of the original green, I'm all for it. Who did the restoration? How many other greens did RTJ ruin?

Again, I'm far from an expert on GCGC history, but I believe this is a restore of the Travis green and that it was done by Doak. And it's also my understanding the RTJ altered only the 12th green. But if someone here knows otherwise, I would love to be corrected.

Before Pat chimes in, I'll add that it was Jim Urbina who did 99% of the  work leading to it's present iteration. It does look and play significantly better that it's previous form and the inverted bunkers are not proving difficult to maintain.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

I might argue with you a bit about your assignment of credit.  Jim built the green, with the help of a local contractor.  I was only there a couple of days out of the two weeks it took to build, but it was up to me to tinker with it and ultimately sign off on it.  That usually counts for something more than 1%.



Jon:

I've been consulting at Garden City for 24 years.  From day one, the biggest question was always whether or not to restore this green, and if so, how.  It was a polarizing green in the old days -- if you go back to articles about the course from the 1920's, discussion of the 12th dominates them -- and there was little doubt that it would receive mixed reviews if we put it back.

Mr. Jones actually redesigned three greens on the course ... the others were the 5th and the 14th.  We restored those two 15 or 20 years ago, but the 12th was deemed too controversial at the time.  The Jones green [like the Travis green] was nothing at all like the rest of the course, requiring a long, high shot with some degree of stop; it appealed only to a few low handicappers who thought it a good test.

There were a couple of threads here years ago about the possible restoration of that green ... I believe Pat Mucci and Tommy Naccarrato called me out for not having stood up for it.  In fact, it had always been part of my master plan, but the superintendent at the time saw it as impossible to maintain, and the green chairman was unsure of the fallout.  At one point they asked me to come up with an alternate plan to rebuild it and make it more like the other 17 greens, but I dragged my heels on actually building that, telling them I didn't want a Doak green in the middle of Travis' work.

The impetus to make the change came when the current superintendent, Dave Pughe, volunteered that he thought he could maintain the green, if we would tone it down enough that he could mow it.  Jim Urbina worked with him to accomplish that -- I think the mounds in the green today are somewhere between 6 and 12 inches lower than the original, and less steep at the base -- and I am happy to see from your pictures that Dave seems to be having no trouble maintaining the turf properly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Always loved photos of that old green, and it reminded me of (if memory serves, there was some remodel going on at the time I played and maybe some temp re-routes) 17 at Lahainch, which had two much smaller ridges, one each side of the green.  Missing just off the green required a putt up an over that you could barely stop near the pin, although the far ridge kept you on the green.

Glad to see 12 at GCGC restored, and probably the right amount of softening to make it practical, and similarly playable to the old days. 

I am wondering if it's a topsoil green, or some kind of mix?  If mix, did you add any amendments to hold water on the hills?  Any pop up heads to give it extra water?  Or just a QCV so he can hand water if required?

[Will Lozier]

I have to say the inverted bunkers look out of place, almost a novelty feature.  Do balls actually stay on (in) these?  On the other hand, the cross bunker looks timeless and the green looks like it creates numerous outrageous and super fun shotmaking opportunities.  This is clearly a massive improvement.  

Was there any consideration of tweaking the original - i.e., not including the inverted bunkers?  Curious to know the features of the hole that draw the most ire.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks.

When I read the description, I thought I'd dislike it.

When I first saw the photo, I felt that I should dislike it -- being so clearly manufactured on this a famously flat site.

And then I looked at it for a while longer, and I realized that I liked it.

And after a bit more looking, I could see how interesting it would to play -- and then I really liked it.

And then I thought: ah, good craftsmanship can trump an design idea any time.

You learn something every day.

[Tim Martin]

The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?

[Gary Sato]

The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?

C&C has at least one at Streamsong.

[DMoriarty]

A few early photos of the hole . . .





This one is from 1949 . . .



I've always wondered if perhaps if horseshoed mounds were the Travis version of the Macdonald horseshoe green most commonly associated with the Short Hole.   (The green was built before the 1908 season, the same time Travis and Emmet were both working with CBM at NGLA) While the GCGC version is obviously longer, the strategic concept seems similar.   

I wonder if there is any overseas green which might have served as a model for this?  This was after all the age where it became quite popular to emulate features from abroad, so it is interesting at least that Travis, Emmet, CBM, and Barker were building par threes (of various lengths) with horseshoe shaped mounding within the greens.

I see above Jeff mentioned the 17th at Lahinch.  Does that green have horseshoe mounds or parallel mounds?  Any other candidates?

[Howard Riefs]

The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?

C&C has at least one at Streamsong.

Green side on Red #7

[Jeff Bergeron]

Given the inherent complexities of club politics, I would call this green restoration an unqualified success.

[Tyler Kearns]

The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?

Tim,

Inverted bunkers can be found at NGLA as well, No. 9 & 17 come to mind.  Personally, I don't like the look, although the picture from Streamsong looks more appealing and natural than the one reproduced at Garden City.

TK

[Rob Marshall]

The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?

Tim,

Inverted bunkers can be found at NGLA as well, No. 9 & 17 come to mind.  Personally, I don't like the look, although the picture from Streamsong looks more appealing and natural than the one reproduced at Garden City.

TK

The inverted bunker at Streamsong looks like a natural dune. From the picture of Garden City the inverted bunkers look anything but natural. Looks like a pitchers mound.

[Steve Okula]

Judging only from the photos, the inverted bunkers at GC are visually jarring, and starkly unnatural.

Why would anybody want bunkers like that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The convex bunker/s pictured are not isolated to the 12th hole at GCGC.

They're also present at a number of holes at NGLA.

I suspect that the newness/brightness of the sand provides the primary antagonism toward the feature.
What's interesting is that most only notice the convex bunker/s when they get to the 12th hole, completely missing them earlier in the round.

The bunkers are neither "jarring, and starkly unnatural" and fit in quite well with the elevated spines in the 12th green.

Should the "restoration" have been a "faithful" restoration or rather a hybrid restoration based upon the opinions of a few morons who have never stepped foot on the site ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I've seen the photo below previously, along with others that are very similar.

Are you positive that this is the 12th green.

Early photos of # 1 and perhaps other holes reveal sleepers shoring up the banks of the green.

In looking at a number of early aerials of # 12, I'm not so sure that this picture is of that green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not in agreement with the descriptions of how the 12th green came to be restored, but, at this point, all that matters is that the green has been functionally restored.

Now onto the 7th fairway/bunker and a restoration to 1936 !

[Mark Saltzman]

I'm not in agreement with the descriptions of how the 12th green came to be restored, but, at this point, all that matters is that the green has been functionally restored.

Now onto the 7th fairway/bunker and a restoration to 1936 !

Pat, a fight worth fighting. That would be another fantastic change!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()