Lively Little Levens from Lundin to Long Island

[Jason Way]

There is a hole at Canal Shores that I think has Leven-ish potential.  Might tinker with it in the spring.  Those musings, in addition to the fact that it is my favorite template of the non par-3s, made me want to learn more about it and its origin.

Brett Hochstein and Jon Cavalier were kind enough to collaborate with me on a deep dive into the Leven, posted here:

https://geekedongolf.com/2017/11/18/my-favorite-template-with-brett-hochstein-jon-cavalier/

I searched around in the archives here, and the only specific thread I found on the topic of the original went off the rails quickly into a debate about something else (gotta love this DG), so I'll ask this group for your thoughts.  Does the Leven stand up in the context of today's game?  Which of the MacRaynor templates is your favorite, and why?  For Jon, it's NGLA's 17th.  For me, it's CGC's 5th (the fronting mound/bunker is sublime and that green!).  Any other classic or modern short 4s of note employing these strategic principles and/or features?

Interested in your perspectives...

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Jason, and Brett and Jon. That was a very good and informative read.
I often find myself thinking (when I learn about these great old golf holes) how hard - and dare I say, “penal” - even the most strategic of these original templates must’ve been back in the day.
Can today’s average golfer fully understand and appreciate what *yesterday’s* average golfer routinely took for granted?
Brett’s description of a green encircled/protected by 4 bunkers and guarded on the right side by the deepest one, at the end of a golf hole that technically might not be a “long” par 4 but that still would’ve been a challenge with the early equipment, and that would’ve made executing the right strategy very important, was a striking example.
A question back to you and those who’ve played the American/MacRaymor versions: which one do you think most closely replicates the *playing experience* of the original, as originally played?
Peter

[JC Urbina]

Jason,


I thought your pictorial and descriptions were informative.  The photos and sketch really depict in 2 dimension the Leven in its entirety but until you have seen the original it really doesn't do the hole justice.  I have sent some of my photos of the 16th hole at Lundin Links  to others who have asked about the inspiration behind the Leven Hole, but your sketch really helps tell the story.

Regarding Yeamans Hall, when we were re-doing the greens this past spring and summer I went through each hole and removed most of the non historical bunkers except for the 2nd hole.  I thought the bunkers that the former super Jim Yonce had added served a dual purpose.

1- It added startegy to a hole that did not have any on the right side of the fairway and secondly it acted as a burn like the one on the right side of the fairway at Lundin Links.  I told the committee  I wanted to keep these bunkers.

Although the fronting mound on the left side of the 2nd green at Yeamans is no where the size of the original, the way we reshaped the front left quadrant of the surface gave the green additional strategy. The farther right you play your tee ball the better angle into the front left corner of the green..  You have to remember Seth Raynor never saw the original template hole so I have always taken any of the Leven Holes that Seth Raynor did with admiration, even if  he only understood the strategy courtesy of Mr Macdonald.  I am sure if Seth had seen the original he would have strenghtened the look of the fronting "Dune"

My favorite Leven inspired hole tomorrow.  It is the only Leven Hole with a natural creek "Burn" on the hole.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is a previous thread about the Leven hole.  Not sure if this is the "off the rails" one you are referring to.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48740.0.html

[Sean_A]

Jason

I admit to be being underwhelmed by the 16th.  The terrain and concepts are sound, but technology has seriously blunted the design.  I am afraid unless there is a good headwind the hole for many is about blasting over the burn and staying right if the green can't be reached.  I will also say the hole is quite dangerous with modern technology as the second(?) green and 17th tee are on the right.

Most of the bunkering is hard to understand.  Its a mess of sand short of the water for short hitters to cope with.  The bunker just shy and past the burn don't make sense....there is already water there.  I don't know why there are bunkers to the left rear of the green stopping balls from maybe going OOB.  The man-made features let the hole down quite a bit. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Diagonal burns/ditches/streams etc are fine....as long as not used excessively. Offset greens as well.
Shame the game has moved on in terms of equipment/distance lessoning the effect they can sometimes have.

atb

[Tom_Doak]

Lundin Links is a beautiful course, but it seems to me that other courses would be better off trying to make the most of their property instead of paying homage to this particular hole ... especially since hardly anyone has seen the original, and even those people have some trouble trying to understand how it played in the 1870's, when C.B. Macdonald admired it.

[Niall C]

I’ve never played the hole but from the photos and plan I’d certainly agree with Seans comments. I assume that these bunkers are a much later addition ? The other thing for me is that when CBM saw this hole, presumably on his 1906 tour (?), I suspect the tee would be the one immediately behind the preceding green.
 
That being the case, the angle of the burn has become much less acute than it originally was, allied to the fact that with modern equipment the percentage of carry on a shot is much higher than it was back then, has the effect of putting more emphasis on pure distance rather than direction. Before when say 40% of distance of a drive comprised run, then getting the right direction, and shape, must have been crucial.
 
Jason
 
Great thread and fantastic plan from Brett to help explain the hole. The description of the concept – was that from George or was it something CBM said ?
 
Niall


ps. Just read TD's post - did CBM see this in 1870's ?

[Brett Hochstein]

I’ve never played the hole but from the photos and plan I’d certainly agree with Seans comments. I assume that these bunkers are a much later addition ? The other thing for me is that when CBM saw this hole, presumably on his 1906 tour (?), I suspect the tee would be the one immediately behind the preceding green.
 
That being the case, the angle of the burn has become much less acute than it originally was, allied to the fact that with modern equipment the percentage of carry on a shot is much higher than it was back then, has the effect of putting more emphasis on pure distance rather than direction. Before when say 40% of distance of a drive comprised run, then getting the right direction, and shape, must have been crucial.
 
Jason
 
Great thread and fantastic plan from Brett to help explain the hole. The description of the concept – was that from George or was it something CBM said ?
 
Niall


ps. Just read TD's post - did CBM see this in 1870's ?

Niall, not sure about the italicized quote, but everything in the "Inspiration" section is from me. 


Sean and Tom make some good points that perhaps I should have noted.  When looking at the hole, I was doing so from my imagined lens of 100+ years ago and treating the burn like it was something very in play for even the strong hitters. Because of the rough though and slope of the fairway after the burn, it still sort of is in play, as I think it would be kind of foolish to just hit a full tee shot out there, unless you can play a very controlled draw.  That new bunker still rankles me a bit though.  There really ought to be some more reasonable space to leave your shot there.  The safety thing has to be the issue though; the 2nd green's location is unfortunate in this regard.


Back to the length issue, I think this would be an even more fun hole to play with hickories and an older ball, perhaps like the ones they give you at Kingarrock. 

[Brett Hochstein]

Jason

I admit to be being underwhelmed by the 16th.  The terrain and concepts are sound, but technology has seriously blunted the design.  I am afraid unless there is a good headwind the hole for many is about blasting over the burn and staying right if the green can't be reached.  I will also say the hole is quite dangerous with modern technology as the second(?) green and 17th tee are on the right.

Most of the bunkering is hard to understand.  Its a mess of sand short of the water for short hitters to cope with.  The bunker just shy and past the burn don't make sense....there is already water there.  I don't know why there are bunkers to the left rear of the green stopping balls from maybe going OOB.  The man-made features let the hole down quite a bit. 

Ciao

I couldn't really figure out the nearside bunkering either.  It just seems too penal on the short hitters trying to gain the advantage down the right on the tee side of the burn.  If the bunker in the center flips about 8-10 yards to the right, it would be much more interesting and give some room to work a ball into that corner.  The ones on the outside I guess are defending the ideal angle, but I don't know if they are accomplishing that any better than the dune covered in rough right there.  The new bunker on the other side of the burn is disappointing, but as you allude I don't think it is defending the strategic play on the 16th hole as much as it is the 2nd green.

[Jack Carney]

Thank You very much for the read - outstanding and on one of the least understood of CBM's templates. Modern equipment has softened the teeth of the design but I have always respected the thought behind the design. My favorite is the NGLA 17th as that where I was introduced to it. I also very much like the 11th at St Louis, primarily as the added uphill approach increases the importance of the position off the tee and therefore utilizes the design quality intended much more than most in todays game. Excellent green as well. It is also one of the best holes on the course.

[Rick Lane]

Thanks for the really interesting thread.   In the article, it shows the 6th at Yale as a version of this.     Do you think the 3rd at Yale has some of these characteristics too?  It asks you to flirt with water right, or else be totally blind with a large hill left.    According to the Yale review on this site, the green used to be a double Punchbowl, but the hill left was always there it seems.

[Jason Way]

Thanks for chiming in gents, and thank you Bryan for finding that other thread.  Not sure why that one didn't come up in my search.  It's not the one I was referring to.

Great thread and fantastic plan from Brett to help explain the hole. The description of the concept – was that from George or was it something CBM said ?

The description is from George, but I think that he was pretty closely sticking to the way that CBM noted the characteristics of the hole.  Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can tease out the distinction if they like.

[Rich Goodale]

Bryan's #29 post above on the 2011 thread is the closest to the truth.  I first played Lundie over 30 years ago and several times in the 80's and 90's with a long term member/friend, and when we got to 16 he told me that the options were: 1.  Carry the hill on the left side (which made the tee shot blind, but the green reachable) for the long and headstrong; and 2.  Hit a safe club down the right hand side, hugging the burn, for a 2nd shot wedge over the bunkers.  I was pretty long those days, and had a a few successful Option 1. strategies with a persimmon Orlimar driver, leaving only a simple pitch and run to the hole.


Back in the early days of this forum (c. 2000 for me) I passed on this information to the authors of "The Evangelist..." (Bahto/Papazian), and I know for a fact that neither of them had ever played Lundie prior to the publication of their tome in 2002, nor did they know then that the "Leven" hole was in fact now part of Lundie and not Leven.


I have only played NGLA once (2001) and it seemed fairly obvious to me that 17 was not a replica of the Lundie 16 "Leven" when played from the modern tees left of the NGLA 16th green and a hole length of 370 or so, but could/would have played so in the 1910's  if the tees were forward and to the right of NGLA 16 green with a hole length of 250 or so, which I believe was the case.


Rich

[Tom_Doak]

Back in the early days of this forum (c. 2000 for me) I passed on this information to the authors of "The Evangelist..." (Bahto/Papazian), and I know for a fact that neither of them had ever played Lundie prior to the publication of their tome in 2002, nor did they know then that the "Leven" hole was in fact now part of Lundie and not Leven.


I have only played NGLA once (2001) and it seemed fairly obvious to me that 17 was not a replica of the Lundie 16 "Leven" when played from the modern tees left of the NGLA 16th green and a hole length of 370 or so, but could/would have played so in the 1910's  if the tees were forward and to the right of NGLA 16 green with a hole length of 250 or so, which I believe was the case.

George B. had never been to Scotland at all until 2007 [I think] when I convinced Mike Keiser to pay his way to go with me for a tour of Prestwick, St. Andrews, Scotscraig, North Berwick, Leven, Machrihanish [which didn't interest George since there were no template holes there], and, yes, Lundin Links.  He was interested in Lundin's 16th, but both of us were more taken by the 17th, which we thought might be the model for the 16th hole at NGLA [especially if you can imagine what it was like to play it as a full two-shot hole in the early 1900's].


Also, the forward-right tee on the 17th at NGLA is indeed the original tee, though I believe it was closer to 300 yards than 250.

[Marty Bonnar]

‘Scotland’s Gift - Golf’ has the 17th at NGLA, “resembling 17th, or Alps, Prestwick”.


Cheers,
F.


PS and the description of NGLA’s 16th is: “Suggested by 7th Leven, which is only 240 yards, with burn running at a bias, and green guarded by sharp hillocks”.

[Jason Way]

In the thread to which Bryan shared a link is another link to a long thread about Old Mac which contains some wonderful discussion and debate about the Leven there:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44207.315.html

That stuff is gold.  I highly recommend going down that rabbit hole.  And then, before you go back out on a golf course, I highly recommend taking Tom's advice from post #367:

"While I enjoy participating in the Discussion Group here, and I am generally happy to answer questions about what we've built, the one down side is that people spend too much time analyzing our work, and not enough time just enjoying it.  On a great course, half the fun is trying to figure it out for yourself."

Love it.

One of the things that interests me the most about the Leven and the other templates is that they are NOT replicas.  The deviations from the original, and even the deviations from the versions at NGLA, are often some of the most interesting parts to me because they are a clear indication of creative choices made in the field.

[Sean_A]

I too think OTM's 17th is the far more interesting hole (at least these days), but into the wind it is a serious ball breaker to safely reach the upper left fairway.  There is virtually no where else to go with that burn cutting across the fairway.  I cheated and played to the far right side in the 2nd fairway.

Brett

I don't see the furthest right bunker doing anything to protect #2 green...there is water between the burn and the green.

BTW...who is the orginal designer of Leven..prior to OTM?

Ciao

[Brett Hochstein]

One of the things that interests me the most about the Leven and the other templates is that they are NOT replicas.  The deviations from the original, and even the deviations from the versions at NGLA, are often some of the most interesting parts to me because they are a clear indication of creative choices made in the field.

This is a great point and what has gotten me more into template holes as quality design.  The proliferation of social media posts and sites like this sharing images of such holes has really made me realize that each version is (in most cases) a unique adaptation rather than a straight copy.  It is probably this underlying quality that makes the holes endearing even more than the overall concepts themselves. 

[JC Urbina]

Jason / Sean / Brett


The realization for me as I said in my original post was the admiration I had for Seth Raynor in the case of all of the template holes he built.  He had not traveled to see the original holes as they were drawn by C.B. Macdonald.  Yet Seth continued to adapt these concepts to each piece of land he was handed. 


I am currently studying the routing of Midland Hills CC  in the Twin Cities, the Alps Hole # 15.  The contour he used in the routing to create this hole was amazing!  You have to see the (Hole) to believe it.  It was that adaptation on the templates that made me marvel at Raynor's ingenuity.


In my opinion the 1st hole at Lundin Links was used for the inspiration of the first hole at The Mid Ocean Club.  The hole reaching out to the coast line and the green playing a dominate role on the skyline.  Maybe the first infinity green in the world, HA!

[Niall C]

Here's a question - what provides the template for Raynor, is it the hole CBM based his template on or is it CBM's idea of that hole ? 


Niall

[Sean_A]

Jason / Sean / Brett

In my opinion the 1st hole at Lundin Links was used for the inspiration of the first hole at The Mid Ocean Club.  The hole reaching out to the coast line and the green playing a dominate role on the skyline.  Maybe the first infinity green in the world, HA!

It could be. 


I wonder if the 16th wasn't a much straighter hole with the burn more running along the hole rather than a bold cut across the fairway. 


Ciao 

[Nigel Islam]

I love CBM and Raynor, and I love almost all of these holes. Having said that, I have some questions regarding the MacRaynor interpretations of the Leven hole:


1. NGLA #17; What is supposed to be the burn on Peconic? The bunker complexes down the left?
2. Yeamans #2; Should the left bunker be oriented opposite to encourage carry down the left?
3. SLCC #11; Isn't right the preferred choice on the tee shot irrespective of the mound?
4. Blue Mound #16; Why would anyone intentionally have to challenge the mound on the right?
5. Boston Golf #6; I agree the mounding is reminiscent of Peconic, but it lacks a fairway feature?
6. Fox Chapel #12; Is the right fairway bunker representative of the burn?

[Nigel Islam]

I think these holes might use the leven concept as well:


#5 Old White
#10 Creek Club
#6 Essex County Club


Thoughts?

[Jason Way]

Your questions point to a general question that is what was being debated in the Old Mac thread.  At what point do the features of a hole deviate too far from the original to rightly be considered a template? 

Jon and I traded messages along those lines regarding Shipwreck at Boston Golf Club.  He comes down on the side that it is a Leven.  Given that the strategy from the tee is essentially reversed with regard to the greenside mound, I am not sure that I agree, but there certainly seems to be Leven inspiration there.