[DMoriarty]

Patrick.  Yes, I am pretty sure it is the 12th green. It was labeled the 12th green in the magazine. Also, scroll to the right and you can see the right mounds in the green. 
_______________________________________________________


I like the look of the sand mound in the picture, but now that Steve Okula mentions it, I can see what he means . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

There are other greens with nearby mounds.

And, if you look closely, those mounds aren't maintained as putting surface, leading me to believe that it's not the 12th green.


In addition, based on the flanking mounds, the photo is taken looking either east or west.

As you can see from the photo below, when looking east or west there are NO trees in the backround.



And, I can't find any evidence, in any early photos, that the bunker immediately adjacent to the green, had sleepers shoring up the banks of the green.

Photos are often mislabeled.
There are other photos of the 1st green that resemble the sleepers in this green.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  The image is from the October 1913 American Golfer.  Travis's magazine.  The caption: "Mr. John G. Anderson (on the left) and Mr. Jerome D. Travers on the 12th green."

As for the sleepers, that aerial you reposted is from 1949.

Take a close look at the older aerial.  There appear to have been sleepers.

[Steve Lapper]

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.

Tom,

  I meant no slight to you, and undoubtedly you do deserve a great deal of the credit for this gem. I was simply ascribing the lion's share of the physical (shaping) work to Jim. My bad  if it was taken any other way.

[Jon Cavalier]

Guys,

I'm glad you liked the photos - thanks for the comments. As requested, I'll post some of the others from that day.

Tom, Pat, David and others - thanks for the great discussion of this striking hole. I've enjoyed the education on this very interesting hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,  The image is from the October 1913 American Golfer.  Travis's magazine.  The caption: "Mr. John G. Anderson (on the left) and Mr. Jerome D. Travers on the 12th green."

David,

As you and I know from prior experience, photos are often mislabeled.

As for the sleepers, that aerial you reposted is from 1949.
Take a close look at the older aerial.  There appear to have been sleepers.

My eyes aren't as keen as others, but the photo below appears to show slopes between the sand and the putting surface, whereas the sleepers present a steep vertical wall absent any slope.


In addition, there are NO trees to the left (east) and right (west) of the green below.

And, in the first photo, there's no "offset" between the bunker and the green.
In the earlier aerial, the "offset" is quite pronounced.

There are too many consistencies to conclude, absolutely, that the photo of the golfers on the green, was taken on the 12th green.

The photo you posted appears in the history of GCGC.
On the prior page, a photo of the 1st hole, with sleepers fronting the bunker also appears.
Look at both of them and notice how the green starts within a foot or so of the sleepers, with NO "offset".
I'd appreciate it if you could post that photo of the 1st hole showing the sleepers.

Also examine the geometric, absolutely straight line presented by both sets of sleepers.
Do you find those extended straight lines in any of your aerials ?
I don't see them, but, again, my eyes aren't the best.

What do you think ?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

We just might have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't have much doubt that the photograph is of the 12th green, as labeled. For me the mounds are the giveaway. Their shapes and locations match the images in the aerials.  Scroll right in the picture (to a part cut off in the GCGC book) and look at the mounds on the right, including the little pointed mound front right.  They match the mounds in the aerials.

As for your other observations, I don't see it that way. 
- The sleepers do not look "absolutely straight" to me.  They look curved from front left to right.
- I don't think the green starts within a foot or so from the sleepers.  I see a narrow swath of rough, then a wider swath of shortgrass, then green.  It is a flat angle so it is tough to judge how much space there is, but it is looks to be much more than on the 1st green.
- I can't tell how far away those trees are, but they look significantly back to me.

As for the other photo of the sleepers adjacent to the 1st green, I know the photo you mean, but I don't have a digital version to post (and my scanner is not working.)   

It is interesting that the mounds don't appear to be quite mowed at green height, but looking at them it shouldn't be too surprising.  They look like they were cut pretty close, probably as close as could be expected given their steep nature.

[Bruce Katona]

Frankly, I like the look of 12 green at GCGC......why not use an inversted bunker?  The internal green contouring is really interesting.

I assume it was done (originally nad again now) for a very specific reaso, not done "just to do it".

[Mark Fedeli]

how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?

it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?

it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.

I was wondering the same thing. I saw the one at Streamsong Red, in fact a playing partner was in it, but that had the feel of a dune and was pretty compact with the associated vegetation. These look like a pile of sand. Is there mounded earth underneath?

[Tom_Doak]

how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?

it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.

I was wondering the same thing. I saw the one at Streamsong Red, in fact a playing partner was in it, but that had the feel of a dune and was pretty compact with the associated vegetation. These look like a pile of sand. Is there mounded earth underneath?

The inverted bunker(s) at Garden City are actually built mostly out of gravel, with a bit of sand covering the top, so they don't blow away quickly.  This was Jim Urbina's idea and it seems to be holding up very well.

The mounds at Streamsong were leftovers from the quarry operation ... just piles of native sand.  During construction they had a bunch of weedy grasses on them and I wondered how they would be treated in the end.  It's difficult to maintain them that way, because golfer's footprints and wind erosion will take their toll ... I would guess that they'll have to be restored periodically.  The ones at Garden City may not, as it's pretty hard for a ball to wind up lying on one of them.  They seem more of an obstacle than a hazard, really, but I haven't had a chance to watch very many people play the hole to see if they work as we visualized they would.

[Tom_Doak]

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?

Jeff:

Believe it or not, that's a USGA green -- gravel layer and twelve inches of mix.  The most difficult to build I have ever seen.

I don't believe the soil was amended prior to seeding.  I am sure Dave Pughe is treating them differently in order to manage the moisture, but don't know the details of his program ... I should find out.  I'd guess that hand watering is a big part of the program.

[Andrew Buck]

Do members typically chip if they are outside the mounding on the green?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do members typically chip if they are outside the mounding on the green?

Andrew,

So much depends upon hole location as it relates to the spines, and whether or not you're on the green, fringe or rough.

You can use anything from putter to all of your other clubs.

I typically use a 3-wood, unless I'm in the rough.

If the hole is cut behind the near spine, the best you can hope for is a 10-15 foot putt.
If the hole is cut in front of the far spine, your choices are many.

It's a terrific hole, one that makes you think if you're outside of the spines and one that should make you think, based upon hole location, as to where you want to miss the green.

Rarely have I seen shots go long, but, a few do.

It's fun to look at and more fun to play, although, it may be a little too long, either that or I'm getting too short.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

In my limited play, I haven't seen anyone's ball come to rest on the convex bunker, nor have I heard of anyone's ball coming to rest on the convex bunker.

The configuration and construction seem to guarantee deflection rather than residence.

[Jon Cavalier]

how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?

it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.

The sand is pretty firm - it won't collapse if you walk on it - but the top layer is soft and loose enough to hold a ball.

Our caddy told us that he sees shots end up "on" the bunker occasionally, and that those players that do have a hell of a time hitting a recovery shot.

To the earlier points about other inverted bunkers - the mounding at Streamsong looks, to me, like a natural sand protrusion. The ones at Garden City look exactly like man made bunkers that have been overfilled with sand. As Pat pointed out, Garden City does have other Streamsong-like sand protrusions, but nothing like what I call the inverted bunkers on 12. The difference is easily apparent in person.

[Morgan Clawson]

Jon/Pat -

In your 6th and 7th pictures there are some grassy mounds in the background by another green. Did those start as inverted bunkers perhaps?

Very cool hole.  It would certainly be one to remember.  And that's saying a lot given the fairly flat land that it sits on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon/Pat -

In your 6th and 7th pictures there are some grassy mounds in the background by another green. Did those start as inverted bunkers perhaps?

Morgan,

In what reply # do those pictures appear ?

Very cool hole.  It would certainly be one to remember.  And that's saying a lot given the fairly flat land that it sits on.

[Jon Cavalier]

Jon/Pat -

In your 6th and 7th pictures there are some grassy mounds in the background by another green. Did those start as inverted bunkers perhaps?

Morgan,

In what reply # do those pictures appear ?

Very cool hole.  It would certainly be one to remember.  And that's saying a lot given the fairly flat land that it sits on.

Morgan:

I think you're referring to this one:


Those mounds are next to the 6th green. Here are better photos of those mounds:




I think these sand piles are more like those used at Streamsong (discussed above) rather than "inverted bunkers."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

The shame is, that over time, grass has replaced sand in depressions and on mounds.

The photos from 1936 show far less grass and far more sand.

The angle of the photo depicting the sandy mounds in the backround is not one the golfer typically views.
And, those mounds are about 200 or so yards removed from the 12th green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

We just might have to agree to disagree on this one.

We do.


I don't have much doubt that the photograph is of the 12th green, as labeled.

For me the mounds are the giveaway. Their shapes and locations match the images in the aerials.  Scroll right in the picture (to a part cut off in the GCGC book) and look at the mounds on the right, including the little pointed mound front right.  They match the mounds in the aerials.

As for your other observations, I don't see it that way. 
- The sleepers do not look "absolutely straight" to me.  They look curved from front left to right.

But, in the aerial, they're definitely sloped whereas, in the ground level photo they're purely vertical.
How do you explain that ?


- I don't think the green starts within a foot or so from the sleepers. 

Okay, I'll give you six feet or so, but, the aerial reveals that the green doesn't start for a good ten (10) yards

I see a narrow swath of rough, then a wider swath of shortgrass, then green. 

The aerial shows a good ten yards or more of NON-Green between the slopre/sleepers and the putting surface.
You can gain some perspective by the size and juxtaposition of the golfers

It is a flat angle so it is tough to judge how much space there is, but it is looks to be much more than on the 1st green.
- I can't tell how far away those trees are, but they look significantly back to me.

David, there aren't trees behind that green for hundreds of yards.
Those trees look to be within 50 or so yards to me

As for the other photo of the sleepers adjacent to the 1st green, I know the photo you mean, but I don't have a digital version to post (and my scanner is not working.)

When your scanner is up and running it would be great if you could post it.   

It is interesting that the mounds don't appear to be quite mowed at green height, but looking at them it shouldn't be too surprising. 
They look like they were cut pretty close, probably as close as could be expected given their steep nature.

They certainly look to be consistent with the putting surface in the aerials, whereas they appear very shaggy in the ground level photo.

Do you have a date for that photo ?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  I am pretty sure there was only one green at GCGC with giant mounds on the putting surface like those shown in the photos.  

To briefly address your other other points . . .
 - Your eyes must be a lot better than mine, because I cannot tell whether or not the sleepers were sloped in the old aerial.  Nor can I tell whether or not they were straight up and down in the American Golfer photo.  
- Whether there are trees now is irrelevant.
- The ground level photo is from the 1913 U.S. Amateur.  The mounds look a bit shaggy but this doesn't really surprise me.  It is not like they could run a mower over them, and I don't think wire weed-whackers had been invented.  
- Here is a photo of the photo you requested.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,  The image is from the October 1913 American Golfer.  Travis's magazine.  The caption: "Mr. John G. Anderson (on the left) and Mr. Jerome D. Travers on the 12th green."

David,

As you and I know from prior experience, photos are often mislabeled.

As for the sleepers, that aerial you reposted is from 1949.
Take a close look at the older aerial.  There appear to have been sleepers.

My eyes aren't as keen as others, but the photo below appears to show slopes between the sand and the putting surface, whereas the sleepers present a steep vertical wall absent any slope.


In addition, there are NO trees to the left (east) and right (west) of the green below.

And, in the first photo, there's no "offset" between the bunker and the green.
In the earlier aerial, the "offset" is quite pronounced.

There are too many consistencies to conclude, absolutely, that the photo of the golfers on the green, was taken on the 12th green.

The photo you posted appears in the history of GCGC.
On the prior page, a photo of the 1st hole, with sleepers fronting the bunker also appears.
Look at both of them and notice how the green starts within a foot or so of the sleepers, with NO "offset".
I'd appreciate it if you could post that photo of the 1st hole showing the sleepers.

Also examine the geometric, absolutely straight line presented by both sets of sleepers.
Do you find those extended straight lines in any of your aerials ?
I don't see them, but, again, my eyes aren't the best.

What do you think ?

Like Patrick, I do not think the top photo is the 12th. If you look at the aerial view and other photos of the 12th the mounding is in a horseshoe around both sides and the back of the green. On the bottom photo there is no rear mounding which leads me to believe it is not the 12th.

Jon

[DMoriarty]

Jon I think the horseshoe had an opening in the back right, or at least the mounds were substantially smaller.   This is more visible in the 1949 aerial.

[DMoriarty]

Here is Travis in 1908 recounting how he had a ball stop at the very apex of one of the mounds, and then holed the next shot.  He also offers a good description of the hole.

(Jon, note he describes the mounds as on "either side of the green.")

Playing the twelfth hole at Garden City the other day, I put my tee shot in the bunker to the right—where it usually goes—and in playing out, lodged the ball on the very apex of a conical mound about three feet high, which had stymied my approach. How the ball managed to stay there is an absolute mystery. I suppose I could try it a million times again, from any distance, and with any club, without getting it to stay right on the very pinnacle. And wonders did not cease there! From the top of that mound I holed the ball with a mid-iron! The hole is one hundred and eighty-six yards from the middle of the tee to the middle of the green. The tee is some twenty-two yards in depth, the theory of the hole being that a full shot is demanded, involving a carry of at least one hundred and sixty yards, the tee-plates being moved backward or forward, according to the wind. It is a very difficult hole. On either side of the green are large mounds, beautifully turfed, some five feet at the highest point, tapering down to nothing. Over these mounds a ball may be putted or pitched. Immediately in front, about ten yards from the edge of the green, is a very deep bunker with big sand piles on either side and a sand bunker semi-circling the green about 20 yards equidistant from the edge of the green. During the last Amateur Championship, this hole came in for a great deal of criticism, both favorable and otherwise, and was variously dubbed, the Camel; the Dromedary; the Goat; the Sea Serpent; the Sacred Cow; the Hog's Back; the Razor Back; the Gate of Hell; the Humps; the Hummocks; the Hillocks; Travis's trap; and Travis's travesty. As somebody very truly observed, a hole which lends itself so easily to so many names must have undoubted merits. It is one of the hardest holes I know of, anywhere.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()