Lido - A Redux

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter - that sounds like a very cool hobby. The following might be of some use (though you may have it already - I haven't read through the thread) as the overhead photo has some distinct contours and the holes are all well described
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1915/gi34k.pdf

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter P. -


Not sure if you realized it, but that's the very same article copied in the first post of this thread.


Peter F. -


I don't think there's much more out there than what is included here.  If the photos ever surface that were taken when the course was closed, that would be a treasure trove.  If you do find anything else, I'd be interested in seeing it.


Sven

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven,


Many years ago, I took it upon myself to go my own research on Lido, as I felt some of Uncle's George's findings had a few holes in them, or just weren't complete, more speculative instead of providing actual facts.  Don't get me wrong, George (And Gib's) research was VERY good, but there was some things missing; issues that others should look into. 


One of these findings was a lady historian who produced some things that were of great interest; then, I found something else which no one had come upon, and that was when the property was going to be sold after the war, the person that was behind the development of the house was none other the Paul Castalano, whose estate was right near the Lido Hotel!  We can pretty much draw up our conclusions as to those dealings, if they were true, which, I had newspaper accounts that they were!  I will try to dig them up!

[BCrosby]

Would love to see what you might have, Tommy. I am intrigued.


Bob

[Bret Lawrence]

Here is another George Trevor article from The New York Sun-July 29, 1933.  A few of the prior articles on the thread were also written by Trevor.

[Joel_Stewart]

Timely topic - especially as it's been reported in the past that Mike Keiser has told Mosaic he'd pay for a Lido reproduction if Mosaic gives him the land.

I wonder who'll build it.....

Jim Urbina is the architect.

[Peter Flory]

Thanks for the responses.  Even if there are blindspots, just having that confirmed will save me aggrevation. 


Here is a summary of what I can see in these threads picture wise:
1) First: No pics
2) Plateau: No pics
3) Eden: 2 good pics.  1 of green and 1 of hole
4) Channel: 2 pics, both from teeing ground.  Color photo even. 
5) Cape: No pics
6) Dog's Leg: Pic of fairway
7) Hog's Back: 1 pic from distance of fairway.  1 pic of partial green.
8. Ocean: Great pics of shortened version of hole.  Of original, there are 2 photos, both from well behind tee looking toward green.
9) Leven: There is 1 pic that shows the pool in the foreground and the fairway and green well in the background.  Not bad though. 
10) Alps: There is 1 pic of the approach/ green site. 
11) Lagoon: There are 2 pics, both showig mainly the teeing ground from behind and forward. 
12) Punchbowl: There is 1 pic of the green. 
13) Knoll: No pics
14) Short: No pics
15) Strategy: No pics
16) Redan: No pics
17) Long: No pics
18) There is a sideways pic of the fairway

What will make this job easier is that the site is small at 115 acres and that my understanding is that it is very flat in the grand scheme of things.  i.e. I'm assuming that the total elevation change on the whole property is within 15 feet and only consists of ripples?  Also, the water table is going to be level.  On 99% of courses, this is not the case and it makes it harder to model. 

What is that plasticine map?  Was that a photo of an actual clay relief?  Or was it an illustration?  Either way, is the understanding that it was an accurate representation of the undulations within each hole?  I see blueprints mentioned- is that something separate and if so, are those public?


Based on everything I've learned, it sounds like the original version of the 8th hole was superior to the one that was moved inland.  It's tempting to do the modified version since there is a perfect photo of it, but I think I'll take a shot at the original.  I can imagine how great it must have been with the wind whipping in from the right.  That shorter hole does look striking in its own way as sort of a stadium style hole. 

Just to give you a feel for the quality of finished product, here is what Augusta and Chambers Bay look like after users replicated them with the software. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whk45rr5oNE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJ5HdRW0I0

[Tommy Naccarato]

Would love to see what you might have, Tommy. I am intrigued.


Bob

Bob, of course, having trouble finding, but it goes into great detail of how Costalano was buying the land with the idea to turn it into housing.  This was from the old New York Times on Proquest

[Jim_Kennedy]

.

[Peter Flory]

Not sure if anyone has done this yet, but here are some aerial overlays to show exactly where each hole was.  Notice that on the lagoon hole, the current water feature shares some of the old shape. 

100% opacity
Pics deleted due to paywall.

[Peter Flory]

One of the articles mentions that the superintendent (Charles Mayo I believe) photographed every hole from every angle before the course was closed so that it could potentially be restored post war. 


Are those pictures lost to history? 

[Matthew Rose]

I'm bringing back some lost courses via computer design for PC and simulator play (as a hobby).  I have 3 courses in front of Lido (OFCC #3, Illinois Golf Club, and Mill Road Farm) and each one takes months, but want to start assembling information on Lido.  I've read all the threads here and searched online, but want to tap into the knowledge of this forum so that I can work smarter.  Getting the designs perfect in 2-dimensions is easy if there is a good arial, but getting the 3rd dimension right is very difficult, even with perfect ground level photographs. 

What software do you use, Peter?

I've been using the Perfect Parallel software for a couple years and am quite fond of it; previously I worked with the Links designer but found the learning curve exceptionally steep, though I eventually figured it out. I don't read the forums there much anymore, but (to keep this somewhat on topic), there's a gentleman over there named John Brooks who uses the Links designer to re-create real courses that have closed in the past few years. The PP developers have also mentioned plans to release courses for the Perfect Golf game that are based on real designs that were never built. One example was Nicklaus' Olympic routing.

The software we have now allows you to use real elevation data, so the idea of re-creating virtual lost / never built courses on reproduced land plots is very exciting. Lido seems like the perfect candidate for such an experiment.

[Peter Flory]

I use The Golf Club software.  I do have Perfect Golf's software as well and it is better if you have Lidar data, but for the projects I'm working on, that isn't available (or it is disturbed by the houses that have been built over the land).  I find The Golf Club's software easier to use otherwise... just wish they had the Lidar import feature. 

For Lido, the overhead is clear enough that it can be reproduced.  There won't be any topographical information as far as I know.  I'm not sure if that plastacine clay model that was produced is accurate at all in terms of the ripples or if it was meant to be representative.  The best source of information would be actual photographs and it's tantalizing to read that someone close to the course took a full set for this exact purpose... but I'm guessing they were probably thrown away years ago by his heirs. 

With some of the talk about reproducing Lido in real life, it is also tempting to think about how it could be on the plot next door to it.  The land is slightly smaller, but I'm sure with a little creativity, the holes could be rearranged a bit to fit.  The only hole that bordered the water to the south (the par 3 8th) was eventually blocked by the pier/ boardwalk structure anyway. 

[Craig Disher]

One of the articles mentions that the superintendent (Charles Mayo I believe) photographed every hole from every angle before the course was closed so that it could potentially be restored post war. 


Are those pictures lost to history?

Probably. I contacted the club where Mayo worked after he left Lido and the historian said as far as he knew Mayo left no personal records. Contacting his family also led to nothing. People usually save photographs so it's possible they're still around but if they ever appear it will be by chance.

[Peter Flory]

Thanks for confirming that Craig.  I'll stop wondering. 

[Mike Hendren]

Having played The Lido this week I’m bringing this excellent GCA All-Star thread forward.  Primarily due to Barney’s contention early in the discussion that  if Lido had indeed been all that, it would have survived.


I’m fully aware of the forces that contributed to its early demise but somehow wonder if it was just too damned difficult (perhaps impossible for medal play) for all but the best “professional” amateurs of the day.   The course pre-dated the sand wedge by a dozen years, was lengthy at sea level and was vulnerable to stiff ocean breezes, not to mention challenges with the turf. 


I wonder: Was the original Lido “great” but not “good?”  Then again I must give the opinions of Hagen and Darwin great weight. 


One thought comes to mind however:  Rich folk don’t invest good money after bad. 


Changes in the game and its architecture are well-suited to the courses resurrection.  I had a blast - I drove the ball very well as a 15 capper and carded a 90. They don’t call me Bogey for nothing. 


I’ll sign off before The Emperor logs in and calls me a dumbass.  Not that he’d be wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

The reason for the demise of the course was much simpler than everyone says.  There was a public road you had to hit across with four tee shots, and it was getting busier every year.  Just look at a Google Earth aerial photo today and try to imagine how the course could have survived with that routing!


By chance, I played golf w Rich Mack (our client at Streamsong, who now owns Forest Dunes) on Wednesday, and he mentioned this project.  I hadn’t realized it was actually anywhere close to happening back then.  Pardon me for saying I think it worked out better as it did. 

[Joe Zucker]

I had a chance to play the Lido earlier this summer and have spent a lot of time mulling the course.  It is a fascinating course with tremendous scale, but I'm not sure I loved playing it (the staff and caddies told me I had an average level of wind, which was about ~2 clubs).  To start, I'll say its good, really good, but top 100 course might be too much. 


I found the course to be extremely difficult. I'm a good player by most definitions and there were multiple times I was faced with a shot I couldn't hit.  There was absolutely no way to reliably hit the ball near the day's pin.  It was so different from what I am used to on almost every other course (and maybe that's a good thing!).  First, the firmness meant landing anything on the green was guaranteed to go over, unless you were straight into the wind.  Secondly, the randomness of the humps in the green run ups made it difficult to predict how the ball would behave.


In another thread a few weeks ago, it was asked why don't good players like randomness?  My reason is that they want to be rewarded for their superior skill.  Anything that negates that ability frustrates them.  I felt this a lot at the Lido.  I felt I had a right to be able to hit the ball close to a pin given where I'd hit a drive or the angle I had.  The Lido tests the mind to a great degree.


Perhaps this review is as much a commentary on my mental approach to golf as the course itself, but I found that the course asked profoundly different questions than any course I've played.  Far different from other firm links courses.  Far more extreme than even it's sister course NGLA. 


The classic course assessment "Would I rush back to the 1st tee after walking 18?"  is a no for me. I'd love to play again and I suspect the course would reveal itself to me over time, so that I would like it more.  But in sum, I found the Lido to be extreme, perplexing at times, and frustrating.  Sometimes these were pleasurable feelings, other times I felt the course went one step too far. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

I found the course to be extremely difficult. I'm a good player by most definitions and there were multiple times I was faced with a shot I couldn't hit.  There was absolutely no way to reliably hit the ball near the day's pin.  It was so different from what I am used to on almost every other course (and maybe that's a good thing!).  First, the firmness meant landing anything on the green was guaranteed to go over, unless you were straight into the wind.  Secondly, the randomness of the humps in the green run ups made it difficult to predict how the ball would behave.


In another thread a few weeks ago, it was asked why don't good players like randomness?  My reason is that they want to be rewarded for their superior skill.  Anything that negates that ability frustrates them.  I felt this a lot at the Lido.  I felt I had a right to be able to hit the ball close to a pin given where I'd hit a drive or the angle I had.  The Lido tests the mind to a great degree.

Oh man, Joe, I really appreciate this comment. I couldn't agree with you more, but from the opposite perspective. The Lido is basically an archetype of a high-luck & high-skill course. I just really like courses that make recovery, and playing to the least-bad position, part of the game. That makes match-play exciting, while making stroke-play frustrating. I just really had so much fun there even though I got my butt kicked every single round.

I really think the cultural shift to stroke-play may have different expectations in architecture. I think Bernard Darwin wrote about that in his time, but I can't remember.

[Tom_Doak]

I found the course to be extremely difficult. I'm a good player by most definitions and there were multiple times I was faced with a shot I couldn't hit.  There was absolutely no way to reliably hit the ball near the day's pin.  It was so different from what I am used to on almost every other course (and maybe that's a good thing!).  First, the firmness meant landing anything on the green was guaranteed to go over, unless you were straight into the wind.  Secondly, the randomness of the humps in the green run ups made it difficult to predict how the ball would behave.
[size=78%] [/size]

Joe:


Are you SURE you were hitting the ball to the right places off the tee?  Did you have a caddie steering you?


I am not defensive at all about the design since it's not mine.  But for that very reason, you should be careful in what you say.  You are complaining to the ghost of C.B. Macdonald, and I suspect he is less charitable than me  ;-)

[Joe Zucker]

I found the course to be extremely difficult. I'm a good player by most definitions and there were multiple times I was faced with a shot I couldn't hit.  There was absolutely no way to reliably hit the ball near the day's pin.  It was so different from what I am used to on almost every other course (and maybe that's a good thing!).  First, the firmness meant landing anything on the green was guaranteed to go over, unless you were straight into the wind.  Secondly, the randomness of the humps in the green run ups made it difficult to predict how the ball would behave.

Joe:


Are you SURE you were hitting the ball to the right places off the tee?  Did you have a caddie steering you?


I am not defensive at all about the design since it's not mine.  But for that very reason, you should be careful in what you say.  You are complaining to the ghost of C.B. Macdonald, and I suspect he is less charitable than me  ;-)

I think so! At least some of the time. There were several times where I had an opening to the green or pin and still felt I didn't have the shot to hit it near the hole.  But perhaps you're right in that I was lulled into thinking I had it in position A. 


I'll give two examples to defend my case.  On #3 (the Eden) the pin was middle right over the bunkers.  After landing a wedge in the middle of the green on #1 an watching it bound over the green, I saw there was no way an 8/9 iron at the pin would hit and hold.  I hit a sensible shot just left of the bunkers that landed on the front of the green and rolled to the middle leaving a ~50 foot putt.  Given the conditions on that day, I have trouble seeing how I could hit it any closer than 50 feet. 


Secondly, on #10 (Alps) I hit it out to the right and had ~110 yards in.  The pin was in the front left and blind from my ball.  I (and 2 other players in my group) hit full wedge shots that landed on the front part of the green pin high and bounced up to the back tier.  The hole was down wind and given the firm conditions, I don't think there is any way I could have kept the ball on the lower front tier. 


I'll reiterate that it might very well be fine (or even good) that the best shot possible that day is on the wrong tier or 50 feet from the hole.  It's just different and hard to get used to given 99% of courses we regularly play.  I think Matt's point on stroke play is a good one. If I had played a match against someone and totally forgot my score, the chess match against my opponent and the course would be heightened even more.  Next time I'll find an opponent! 

[Tom_Doak]

I'll give two examples to defend my case.  On #3 (the Eden) the pin was middle right over the bunkers.  After landing a wedge in the middle of the green on #1 an watching it bound over the green, I saw there was no way an 8/9 iron at the pin would hit and hold.  I hit a sensible shot just left of the bunkers that landed on the front of the green and rolled to the middle leaving a ~50 foot putt.  Given the conditions on that day, I have trouble seeing how I could hit it any closer than 50 feet. 

Secondly, on #10 (Alps) I hit it out to the right and had ~110 yards in.  The pin was in the front left and blind from my ball.  I (and 2 other players in my group) hit full wedge shots that landed on the front part of the green pin high and bounced up to the back tier.  The hole was down wind and given the firm conditions, I don't think there is any way I could have kept the ball on the lower front tier. 

I'll reiterate that it might very well be fine (or even good) that the best shot possible that day is on the wrong tier or 50 feet from the hole.  It's just different and hard to get used to given 99% of courses we regularly play.  I think Matt's point on stroke play is a good one. If I had played a match against someone and totally forgot my score, the chess match against my opponent and the course would be heightened even more.  Next time I'll find an opponent!

Okay.  Neither of those situations is all that uncommon there, I suspect.  No way for you [or me] to get it close; a great ball-striker would be able to get it closer, but couldn't always count on it.  Jimmy Humston, the superintendent at Lido, is a great ball-striker . . . I wish we had him in this conversation.


Your comment is the reason why most American courses are soft . . . because good players like you feel entitled to get their ball close even in adverse conditions, and management generally succumbs to the pressure.


I guarantee you there are days and hole locations when you wouldn't be able to get it closer than 50 feet on the 11th hole at St. Andrews, though I like it better than the Macdonald / Raynor versions of it, precisely because there are more slopes to try and corral the ball downwind.  The difference is, nobody in St. Andrews complains; or if they do, nobody listens!

[Thomas Dai]

Your comment is the reason why most American courses are soft . . . because good players like you feel entitled to get their ball close even in adverse conditions, and management generally succumbs to the pressure.
I guarantee you there are days and hole locations when you wouldn't be able to get it closer than 50 feet on the 11th hole at St. Andrews, though I like it better than the Macdonald / Raynor versions of it, precisely because there are more slopes to try and corral the ball downwind.  The difference is, nobody in St. Andrews complains; or if they do, nobody listens!

“Entitled”.


A fine word to describe so many players attitudes these days.

I recall David Duvall’s speech after winning The Open where he described a locals words of praise after he’d played a recovery shot from the rough while playing in an earlier Scottish Open.

See - 50 secs into - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d0jem4wVzV4&pp=ygUYZGF2aWQgZHV2YWwgb3BlbiBzcGVlY2gg



Atb

[Sven Nilsen]

How many people back then were playing Lido at a length comparable to where folks are playing the WI version today?  I would suspect very few.

[Joe Zucker]

I'll give two examples to defend my case.  On #3 (the Eden) the pin was middle right over the bunkers.  After landing a wedge in the middle of the green on #1 an watching it bound over the green, I saw there was no way an 8/9 iron at the pin would hit and hold.  I hit a sensible shot just left of the bunkers that landed on the front of the green and rolled to the middle leaving a ~50 foot putt.  Given the conditions on that day, I have trouble seeing how I could hit it any closer than 50 feet. 

Secondly, on #10 (Alps) I hit it out to the right and had ~110 yards in.  The pin was in the front left and blind from my ball.  I (and 2 other players in my group) hit full wedge shots that landed on the front part of the green pin high and bounced up to the back tier.  The hole was down wind and given the firm conditions, I don't think there is any way I could have kept the ball on the lower front tier. 

I'll reiterate that it might very well be fine (or even good) that the best shot possible that day is on the wrong tier or 50 feet from the hole.  It's just different and hard to get used to given 99% of courses we regularly play.  I think Matt's point on stroke play is a good one. If I had played a match against someone and totally forgot my score, the chess match against my opponent and the course would be heightened even more.  Next time I'll find an opponent!

Your comment is the reason why most American courses are soft . . . because good players like you feel entitled to get their ball close even in adverse conditions, and management generally succumbs to the pressure.

Yeah, I think you're right.  Entitled is certainly a word you can use to describe how I feel.  A lot of players (including me) feel that way a lot of the time. 


Where I'll push back is that is that I prefer a course where the shots are possible, but maybe very difficult or imprudent to try given the potential penalties.  I'll use Pinehurst #2 as my favorite example in that I made a lot of bogeys in the 3 times I've played it because it's really hard.  But on almost any shot from the fairway, I felt I could hit it relatively close 1 out of 5 times.


Whereas at the Lido, many shots felt impossible.  On one hand, it was disappointing to know I had no chance and resign myself to aiming 50 feet left of a pin.  On the other hand, I appreciate that this course tests an entirely different approach to the game.


I can't imagine playing this course 100 years ago.  It is fun to be challenged in a way that is not the typical execution test soft American courses are set up.  The course just seems a little too turned up and severe to be fully enjoyed.  NGLA is much more in proportion from my perspective.  Regardless, I look forward to going back.