Lido - A Redux

[Bill Brightly]

Thanks for posting, Anthony.

Look at that classic MacRaynor greenside bunkering around the green in the lower right corner! Green complexes like that will stand in such beautiful contrast to what Doak, C & C (and soon to be Hanse) have built. Just imagine the post-round arguments over beers as to which course is preferred! Maybe the boldness of Lido's features will outweigh the bitching about Doak's "crazy" greens?

Perhaps it is an outright copy of Bandon. Who cares? There are SO many golfers on the East coast who can't easily get to Bandon. Build it, they will come!

[Bill Brightly]

Bill:

If you read the second article I posted, it gives the names of the three winners, Mackenzie, Edmonson and MacIver (unfortunately, the only article I don't have is the one announcing the winning designs).  Raynor is not listed.

As I noted above, Raynor's Prize Dogleg won its "prize" for an entirely different contest, that being the design for the 9th hole at Ocean Links.  Bahto had this one wrong as well, as do the good folks at Essex County.

Go back and read the description of the 6th hole in the first article posted in this thread.  If the hole had been designed by Raynor as part of the same contest that produced Mackenzie's design used as the inspiration for the 18th, CBM would have noted it.

Sven

OK, so Lido's 18th hole was designed by Mackenzie. I find that incredibly cool, and that fact is one more strong reason I want to see Lido rebuilt!

And Raynor's Prize Dogleg comes from another contest.  That hole is not present at Lido. (Makes perfect sense, why would Raynor enter a contest for a hole design when he was second in charge at Lido?)  George got it wrong, and he was involved with Gil on the restoration at ECCC (NJ) so their website is wrong. But there are similarities between the second place winner and Raynor's Prize, so I can see how that might have caused confusion.

[Tom_Doak]

It should be noted that there are some similarities between one of the runner-up entries in the article above (the Walsham entry) and the 6th Hole at Lido.  It is possible that Macdonald and/or Raynor designed the 6th using that entry as their inspiration.  The holes aren't exactly the same, and the green complexes appear to be very different (note the criticism in the article about the blind approach).

Sven

It has always been very clear to me that the 6th at Lido was based on the Walsham hole.  I just assumed that Raynor just picked that as his "prize dogleg hole" because he liked most of it [apart from the one criticism mentioned]. 

It is also apparent that the 15th at Lido looks very much like Tom Simpson's unofficial entry to the competition, as I pointed out to George B. many years ago.

We discussed using one or both of those holes as possible templates for Old Macdonald, but my take was that they weren't really "Macdonald" holes at all, so it didn't make sense to use them for a course that was about Macdonald.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From the sounds of the land moving and what not they would apparently seem to want Fazio for a replica of Lido...

What land needs to be moved at Streamsong in order to duplicate a flat course like Lido ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

The one question that I have yet to find any information on is why, so soon after building NGLA on the model of an ideal course, did they build Lido on a much grander scale?

In his write up of an ideal course prior to the creation of NGLA, Macdonald specifically notes 6,000 yards as the magic number, using examples of the great courses he had visited.  How do they tack almost 10% more on?  Sure, there were a couple of new original holes that may have played longer than the holes they substituted in for from NGLA, but that doesn't get you an extra 400 yards.

Even more curious is that they continued to build courses in the 6,000 yard range after Lido.

Knowing what we know about CBM, this break from theory seems out of the norm.

I don't believe it's any real break from theory - in the article CBM says the yardages are from center of tee to center of green, and that with "Proper teeing space and putting greens each hole could be lengthened at will by 20 or 30 yards"

Additionally, the categories he used to enumerate the "Ideal" course have a point total of 100. Length of holes has a value of 12 points, with the 10 or so remaining characteristics accounting for the other 88 points. He's also talking about the relative merits of many great holes in the article, and then chooses 18 holes which he says are "about right assuming the run of the ground and the hazards are correct". I believe he could have chosen a couple of those other great holes and still had an 'ideal' with something other than the 6,017 yards he 'settled' on, and I think that is reflected in the yardages of some of his other courses.

Piping Rock - 6,128 / St Louis - 6,381 / Sleepy Hollow - 6,131 / Greenbrier - 6,250 / Shinnecock - 6,128 / Links Club - 6,313

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:

The point was that he was building a course that could be stretched out (to 6,693 yards) to offer a championship test.

When the project was conceived, it was on the tail end of an ongoing debate about the ideal length of golf courses.  Bendelow was pushing for courses to keep up with the ball, others believed in allowing courses to be more playable.  A few years before, the new great championship course, East Lake, was actually shortened.

I'd like to know more about the reasons for why he opted to build such a test.  From the sound of it, he had free reign with the project.  Perhaps there was some kind of directive given.  Perhaps he saw where the game was heading, especially amongst the elite players.  Or perhaps he sought out the challenge of designing a course that was a challenge for the pros and playable for the duffs.

I guess the question I'm asking is why did he do this on this project?  Was it because he thought it was the only "real" seaside links course he would get to build?  Did they know from the get go this wasn't going to be a retreat for him and his millionaire friends, and he didn't need to expand beyond a members course design?  Or was there another reason?

Sven

[Bill Brightly]

Sven, in the article you posted that CBM wrote, he says the tees "can be shortened or lengthened by 30 to 40 yards." Those are huge tee boxes for the time, right?

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, in the article you posted that CBM wrote, he says the tees "can be shortened or lengthened by 30 to 40 yards." Those are huge tee boxes for the time, right?

Bill:

I'd agree, assuming they were set up as runway tees (by the course map, some of them look like elbow tees) .  My guess is that the difference on the scorecard between the front and back distances gives you a pretty good idea of the teeing area. 

Its a concept that works great on a windy site.

[Sven Nilsen]

Here's the only photo I could find of a tee box.  By the way, Sarazen claimed he never played the Lido well.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread.

This probably would have been one of the shorter tee boxes, as the 11th only had a variance of 32 yards.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sven,
The 'Regular' tees weren't anything out of the ordinary CBM playbook.

[John Kavanaugh]

So, a bunch of guys who hate huge clubhouses with stretched out championship courses now want to replicate a course that had a huge clubhouse and was stretched out to hold championships. It does make sense cause anyone with half a brain in 2525 would want to rebuild Torrey Pines South. The press clippings are without a doubt inspiring.

[Bill Brightly]

So, a bunch of guys who hate huge clubhouses with stretched out championship courses now want to replicate a course that had a huge clubhouse and was stretched out to hold championships. It does make sense cause anyone with half a brain in 2525 would want to rebuild Torrey Pines South. The press clippings are without a doubt inspiring.

Pat, deal with this guy, ok?

[Peter Pallotta]

Reading this thread I was struck by the thought that earlier in his life CBM might have faced a question that very very few architects before or since have ever had to face. After his ideal golf course, NGLA, had proven itself ideal, he may have found himself wondering, "Well -- where do I go from here? What can I possibly do next? How do I top that?"  And maybe in a changing world, golf-wise and socio-economically, the only mountain left to climb was renewed 'relevance'  -- a modern day technological marvel and championship test for the greatest golfers of that (modern) day. When I think of it like that (and of course it is the rankest of speculations), I'm with JK, ie don't even think of recreating Lido today. Its whole underlying goal and intention is not what we need.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
The 'Regular' tees weren't anything out of the ordinary CBM playbook.

Jim:

Not sure what you're getting at here.  The regular tees at Lido were the back tees elsewhere.

Look at it this way.  Here's a breakdown of the lengths of similar holes for NGLA and Lido from the longest posted yardages (in that order):

Alps:  376/414
Eden:  160/175
Redan:  185/206
Short:  125/148
Punch Bowl:  410/433
Cape:  305/378
Long:  525/563
Plateau:  405/421
Narrows (First at Lido):  358/384
Peconic (Leven at Lido):  311/357

Throw in a 235 yard Biarritz, and it becomes evident that there was something going on here that was different from what he had built previously.  I'm trying to figure out why that was.

Sven

[The numbers are taken from the scorecard for Lido posted above and the earliest NGLA scorecard I've seen.]

[Sven Nilsen]

Reading this thread I was struck by the thought that earlier in his life CBM might have faced a question that very very few architects before or since have ever had to face. After his ideal golf course, NGLA, had proven itself ideal, he may have found himself wondering, "Well -- where do I go from here? What can I possibly do next? How do I top that?"  And maybe in a changing world, golf-wise and socio-economically, the only mountain left to climb was renewed 'relevance'  -- a modern day technological marvel and championship test for the greatest golfers of that (modern) day. When I think of it like that (and of course it is the rankest of speculations), I'm with JK, ie don't even think of recreating Lido today. Its whole underlying goal and intention is not what we need.

Peter:

How do you know what the underlying goal and intention were?  And why do you dismiss the following (it was included in an article earlier in the thread):



Isn't this exactly what people talk about here?  Courses that can be challenging for the pro, yet playable for the duffer?  

As Jim alluded to, Lido from the middle set of tees was pretty much NGLA.  What's wrong with NGLA?

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Here's why I think CBM built the Lido the way he did.

No American had won the Open.  And he didn't think they would until they had the chance to take on the challenges of links golf US.

He had already built the "ideal" holes, now he could build them in a place with ideal conditions.

When others suggested that any American heading overseas should do their training at Lido, that is exactly what CBM was looking for.

Sven

[DMoriarty]

Not sure what you're getting at here.  The regular tees at Lido were the back tees elsewhere.

Look at it this way.  Here's a breakdown of the lengths of similar holes for NGLA and Lido from the longest posted yardages (in that order):

Alps:  376/414
Eden:  160/175
Redan:  185/206
Short:  125/148
Punch Bowl:  410/433
Cape:  305/378
Long:  525/563
Plateau:  405/421
Narrows (First at Lido):  358/384
Peconic (Leven at Lido):  311/357

Throw in a 235 yard Biarritz, and it becomes evident that there was something going on here that was different from what he had built previously.  I'm trying to figure out why that was.

Sven

[The numbers are taken from the scorecard for Lido posted above and the earliest NGLA scorecard I've seen.]

Sven,  I don't think the original NGLA scorecard distances represented the back tee yardages for every hole.    For one example, the card listed the Alps hole as 376 yards, which was the distance from the middle of the middle tee. The hole reportedly measured 410 yards from back tee box.  So while the original card listed the course at 6324, the actual distance as we would measure today was longer.

While I don't doubt Lido was a little longer than NGLA, I don't think it was substantially longer.

[Sven Nilsen]

David:

Point taken on what was shown on the NGLA scorecard, but I still think Lido was "substantially" longer, or at the very least "effectively" longer.  

Even if all of the similar type holes were close to the same, the original holes at Lido were longer than their counterparts at NGLA based on the types of shots you were meant to have into the greens as found in the descriptions of both courses.  

And the course played to a lower par number (especially if you consider the Channel hole played as a par 4 from the Championship Tees (466 yards) as opposed to a par 5 from the Regular Tees (505)).  You get an extra 100+ yards just from the fact that NGLA only had 3 par 3's.

Even if we bump NGLA's yardage up a bit, 6,600 at Par 73 is much shorter than 6,700 at Par 71.

Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Sven, could you or anyone post the scorecards for Lido and NGLA, that show distances from the tips back then?

btw, I thought Lido was par 72.   

[Sean_A]

Sven, in the article you posted that CBM wrote, he says the tees "can be shortened or lengthened by 30 to 40 yards." Those are huge tee boxes for the time, right?

Bill:

I'd agree, assuming they were set up as runway tees (by the course map, some of them look like elbow tees) .  My guess is that the difference on the scorecard between the front and back distances gives you a pretty good idea of the teeing area. 

Its a concept that works great on a windy site.

The added length is not all about the tees.  The greens too are important in the possibility of adding length...hence the reason CBM measured holes from centre of the tee to centre of the green. CBM hints at greens being on the larger side to help with elasticty...either shorter or longer. 

I agree with with Sven, I think CBM was dipping his toes in championship waters...hence the course is a bit longer than his stated ideal of 6000ish yards.  Mind you, it doesn't take much of the ish to come up with a course with the same yardage as Lido's daily tees...6300ish yards...its only 5% difference. 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

Here's a theory:  the extra par 3 at Lido, compared to NGLA, was the Biarritz.  From the tips it measured 234 yards, and apparently was harder than hell as first laid out. 

Also it doesn't look like Lido had a Sahara, which at NGLA played well less than 300 yards IIRC. 

So if NGLA really tipped out at 6600 yards, and Lido at 6700, the playing difference may have been even less than the 100 yards: Lido's extra par 3 was almost like a real short (real difficult) par 4, and at least one par 4 at NGLA was like a real long par 3.  I recall in one of the opening matches at NGLA someone eagled the 2nd (11th at the time?), on his way to an astounding 73 or so. 

It seems to me the par 73 at NGLA might have played, in some ways, like par 72... and the par 72 at Lido, in some ways, played like par 73.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, could you or anyone post the scorecards for Lido and NGLA, that show distances from the tips back then?

btw, I thought Lido was par 72.  

Jim:

Lido was Par 72 on the scorecard, but if you look at the Channel Hole you'll see that it was actually shorter from the championship tees than from the regular tees.  I made the assumption that it was played as a par 4 from the tips.  That would make the par 71.

From the sounds of it, the 71/72 at Lido played more like a 76/77. 

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's a theory:  the extra par 3 at Lido, compared to NGLA, was the Biarritz.  From the tips it measured 234 yards, and apparently was harder than hell as first laid out. 

Also it doesn't look like Lido had a Sahara, which at NGLA played well less than 300 yards IIRC. 

So if NGLA really tipped out at 6600 yards, and Lido at 6700, the playing difference may have been even less than the 100 yards: Lido's extra par 3 was almost like a real short (real difficult) par 4, and at least one par 4 at NGLA was like a real long par 3.  I recall in one of the opening matches at NGLA someone eagled the 2nd (11th at the time?), on his way to an astounding 73 or so. 

It seems to me the par 73 at NGLA might have played, in some ways, like par 72... and the par 72 at Lido, in some ways, played like par 73.

Jim,

Circa 1910, I don't think that NGLA played "like par 72".

Today, yes, but not in 1910

[Jim_Kennedy]

Comparing Lido and NGLA:




Sounds like both stack up well against one another, and "Tomorrow's" article makes just that case.