[Peter Flory]

And here is the 8th hole with the model flipped upside down.  So, now the light really is coming from the top to the bottom of the image.  For me at least, this helps me see it more accurately. 





When viewing it in inverse, I originally thought that the upslope to the green was the black shade and that the front of the green must have crested over and sloped temporarily to the back. 


Now, with the correct perspective, the valley goes down in the black shade and rises back up in the white.  So, the green really starts much further back than my draft. 

When I overlaid the Vanity Fair diagram and the plastacine, I noticed that the VF diagram had a shallower green and I couldn't figure out why.  Well, this is why.  It was correct and I was just assigning too much green to the plastacine because I was going all the way down to the trough of the valley my mistake (thinking it was the peak).  Now, they are in agreement. 

Also, the VF diagram unmistakably shows a square green.  And that is not stylized because it is the only one shown like that.  I believe that the vertical dark line on the plastacine above does show the line of the green on the inland side (to the right of the 8 on the image above).  You can also see a horizontal line that seems to show a very slight rise that could mark the start of the green.  These seem to agree with the shape and size of the VF diagram.  I'll try to overlay them and post if I can get it so that it isn't too muddled. 

Re the plastacine- can anyone clear up questions that I have about it?  I've been making assumptions that may not be true:
- Was it done as a blueprint for the course or was it done after the course was built to reflect the course (i.e. what was the purpose of it)? 
- Was the model actually shaded or was it put in a room with an angled light source and photographed? 
- Who built it?
- What happened to it?  Seems like the type of thing that would be tough to throw away... but also a pain to store. 

[Peter Flory]

Craig, if the various maps and plasticine models are accurate, the back tee of the 8th hole should not be right next to the 7th green.  That's why I wonder if there was a second, closer tee on the 8th, and that's what we might see in the photo.

I have been assuming that it sas either a replacement tee or a shorter tee that was added later.  I have seen mention where they were marketing Lido as 3 courses- a Championship course, a course for the average player, and a very short course for the novice.  While I think that language came way later as they were trying to shake off the reputation of it being a "he-man" course, it seems possible that they could have added shorter sets of tees pretty early on to provide relief. 

By the way, here is the merge/ overlay of the plastacine with the VF over the top of it.  They are in perfect agreement now.  Because I thought the plastacine had a depression for the horseshoe, I read the topo lines of the VF as also being a depression.  But now I know they were signaling a rise.  I'll be doing this for each hole going forward. 




And one last thing to address Craig's comment about the building being further behind the green that it appears.  That is correct.  Based on the 1926 aerial, I show that the back edge of the green was 87 yards from the closest point on that building/ clubhouse.  I didn't know that when I did my draft of the hole and I have the building much closer to the green.  I'll adjust accordingly and it won't look so crowded with normal focal length. 




That's it for tonight for me.  36 more holes tomorrow.  Just played Streamsong black for the first time in pre storm/ tornado warning winds.  Was a lot of fun, but also draining. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:


The scorecard for the course had tees at 234, 175 and 168 yards.


Sven

[Drew Groeger]

Peter,
I was going to ask the same thing: what ever happened to the plasticine model? Or models? The reason I say models is it appears there are differences between the model shown in the Vanity Fair article and the one shown in the Golf Illustrated article, particularly in the rough around the island fairway to 4 and the rough on 5 (as well as the placement of the 6th tee shown in both).

I would assume they pre-date the construction of the course since the VF article is from February 1915 (cannot recall the date of the GI article). Or perhaps the images are of the same model that had been re-worked over time. That is why they used plasticine in the first place, because of its not-drying capabilities. As a humorous aside, maybe at some point someone picked up the model in a dubious matter and added a thumbprint to a green. Instant punchbowl!

So I would be wary of relying too much on the plasticine model images for specific mounding/undulations, more so for intent I guess. And at the same time, I realize for many of the holes the plasticine model and a few aerial pics are all you have to go on .

[Jim Nugent]

Another small detail: it looks to me like the building behind the 8th green does not line up squarely with the hole.  i.e. I think it angles away at about a 45 degree angle or so, from the line between the tee and the green. 

Thanks, Sven, I bet the tee we see in several of these photos is one of the up tees, which you could probably see from the tips. 

[Craig Disher]

On the overlay it will be possible to see where 234 yards puts the back tee. It's possible that the 1922 photo was taken from the 234 tee and the golfers are standing on the one at 175.

[Jim Nugent]

It's possible that the 1922 photo was taken from the 234 tee and the golfers are standing on the one at 175.

The angle doesn't look right to me for that: you'd have to hit your tee shot on #8 over the 7th green, which I don't think they did.  Based on the maps, the back tee should be further back, and closer to the ocean.  Draw a line from the right half of the building to the golfer who just hit his shot on #8, and extend it back another 50 yards or so.  IMO that's about where the back tee was. 

[Peter Flory]

I have the tee at 235 yards and in the location that the plastacine and VF show it.  In most of the screen shots that I take, I mess with the depth of field a bit so that you can see details all the way to the flag. 


Re: the clubhouse, I'm very tempted to just delete it since it wasn't originally there.  I'll first try putting it in the correct location and angled the right way and will show what it looks like with and without it. 

[Peter Flory]

Just a quick post for the night-

Here is a particularly good and detailed musing on the 8th hole from a newspaper article by George Trever (titled "Lido Starts Golf Season").  The version that I have is very difficult to read, but here is my translation of the parts relating to the 8th:

The salty tang of the seas lends savor to Lido's short eight, a fascinating one shotter which parallels the Atlantic.  Only a few years ago this use to be one of the world's classic short holes.  It called for a sharply hit iron of 180 yards to a green that sat astride the low dunes bordering the beach.  The tee was also perched on the dune crest, the entire line of play following the coast.  A slice off this tee meant a sloshy tramp out onto the beach, with the odds in favor of finding your ball buried in the fine, white sand.  The green sloped from right to left, the "down kick" acting as an incentive to the bold chap who oblivious of the yawning expanse of beach, dared aim his shot well out to the ocean side. 

That eight hole was too good to last.  Winter tides steadily undermined the exposed green.  Churned to a frothy meringue by January winds, the waves enveloped this green one night as neatly as Von Moltke encircled MacMahon's ill-fated army at Sedan.  When the waters receded, Lido members discovered they were minus an eight hole.  So much real estate had been dredged away by the tides that the green committee decided to reduce the eight to a mashie niblick pitch of 140 yards.  In its modified form the eight is only a pale ghost of the old layout.  The green itself never has been successfully reconstructed.  A salty film of spray, flung duneward by the Atlantic, kills the type of grass that makes velvety putting surfaces.  Winter blasts raise havoc with bulkheads and breakwaters.  it would cost a Pittsburgh fortune to recreate the old eight and preserve it intact against a churlish sea and a cantankerous breeze. 

We almost forgot the wind!  It was the blustery off sea gales that made the short eight such a tantalizing problem.  Club values would change with every shifting breeze.  Now a mashie iron would get you home, now a lusty spoon which would be essential.  When alarm signals were set along the coast the wind-borne particles of sand stung your face like needles.  A refreshing, exuberant breath-catching hole that short-lived (shifty?) old eight!"

Here is one more very interesting excerpt from the article:

"During the construction quick sand devoured a team of horses attached to a dump cart, the driver barely escaping.  No attempt was ever made to excavate the horses- their skeletons still lie beneath the sixth fairway.  After struggling that far, many a tortured dub has wished himself down there with them."

[Bret Lawrence]

Here is a clip from 1930 noting the golf house was now located in the south wing of the building behind the 8th green. The building was called the Ventian Pavillion at this point.  If you look closely, the building is actually the same building you see in the early photos of the Biarritz.  However, two towers have been added to the sides of the building and it has been detailed to fit in with the Spanish mission style architecture surrounding it.


New York Times-June 22, 1930:




Notice how you can see the tower in the background that sits on the Boardwalk


In 1933, you can still make out the original building behind the green, but the angle is different and there is a lot more construction surrounding the building.  Notice the original roof line broken up by a stone arch above the doorway and you can still see the broad chimney that sat in the middle of the triangular roof.


Golf Illustrated-March 1933:

[Mark Fedeli]

Man, I wish I could mainline this thread directly into my veins. Loving it so much. Great work to Peter and to everyone else who is contributing. Reminds me a bit of the terrific Biarritz thread from a few years back that Sven was a big part of. Much conventional wisdom was dispelled.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Man, I wish I could mainline this thread directly into my veins. Loving it so much. Great work to Peter and to everyone else who is contributing. Reminds me a bit of the terrific Biarritz thread from a few years back that Sven was a big part of. Much conventional wisdom was dispelled.

That was my favourite thread ever on this website.

[Mark Fedeli]

Man, I wish I could mainline this thread directly into my veins. Loving it so much. Great work to Peter and to everyone else who is contributing. Reminds me a bit of the terrific Biarritz thread from a few years back that Sven was a big part of. Much conventional wisdom was dispelled.

That was my favourite thread ever on this website.

Same! I think this means Peter should recreate the original Biarritz course when he’s done with Lido.

[Jim Nugent]

Man, I wish I could mainline this thread directly into my veins. Loving it so much. Great work to Peter and to everyone else who is contributing. Reminds me a bit of the terrific Biarritz thread from a few years back that Sven was a big part of. Much conventional wisdom was dispelled.

That was my favourite thread ever on this website.

Same! I think this means Peter should recreate the original Biarritz course when he’s done with Lido.

The problem there is choosing which version.  They constantly changed the course, more than once erasing some fascinating holes. 

Maybe a time-composite version, that used the best holes, even if they never all existed at the same time.  e.g. I'd love to see the Cliff hole, the Chasm hole, and all the beach holes (including the one the template is based on).  IIRC, several holes crossed each other -- that could be interesting as well.

Like you guys, I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.  Hope Peter is willing to share some of the other Lido holes too.   

[Mark Fedeli]

The photobucket issue has robbed it of some of its impact, but here's the Biarritz thread for those who are curious or missed it the first time around: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.0.html


The whole thing is worth a read from start to finish. A lot of truly compelling drama in there. And if you're like me, it might cause you to spend a few hours on Google Maps Street View exploring the location of the Cliff Hole.

[Peter Flory]

Like you guys, I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.  Hope Peter is willing to share some of the other Lido holes too.

Jim- I'll post everything that I do when I make some progress.  This may be a 1 hole every few weeks kind of project since I'll take as much time as it takes to try to get them right. 

My next step is #8 v3, which I hope to get to this weekend.  I know what to do, but just need a solid block of time to carefully re-do it.  I've already moved the clubhouse to the correct footprint, but that was an easy tweak. 

The Biarritz course does look like it would be a lot of fun to do.  But I have a few on my hit list before I could get to that.  I am about a third of the way through Mill Road Farm (which is looking really good) and have barely started Olympia Fields #2 and #3 courses.  Without considering the Biarritz course, my future plans were to tackle Ocean Links and possibly Boca Raton- South.  Not set in stone though.   

[Jim Nugent]

Peter, where are you getting the info for Mill Road Farm?  Like Lido, I think this one will interest lots of GCAers. 

[Peter Flory]

Peter, where are you getting the info for Mill Road Farm?  Like Lido, I think this one will interest lots of GCAers.

The Nature Faker was the big source.  I also did a lot of elevation study off of Google Earth and going to the property (some of the contours are still there and the general elevations are the same).  So far, I've only made progress on 5 holes.  It's on ice until Lido gets done.  When I get back to it, I'll open up a thread. 

[Peter Flory]

Sorry for the delay.  Got extremely busy with work projects.  I finally had time tonight to deconstruct #8 v2 and produce the real version with the hogsback in all of it's glory.  To summarize, I was viewing the plastacine lighting direction incorrectly and oppositely and that caused all sorts of confusion- mainly I thought there was a horseshoe shaped depression in front of the green when there was really a pronounced elevated hogsback.  With my blinders on, I also misinterpreted the photos to see what I wanted to see. 

Here are some photos of the new build.  I'm experimenting with atmosphere/ weather a bit too and am showing low sun angles to make the shaping more discernible.  From the line of the tee, the new shaping really adds that deceptiveness to the depth of the green.  The Biarritz valley is invisible until you are almost upon in. 

[Peter Flory]

Also, here are couple of snap shots that I took of #1 with similar lighting.

I did a one click alps to the left for fun, just to see how visible that it will be when it is done.  I'm also in process of toning down the undulations on #1 based on additional angles that I have seen.  I think that I got a little too carried away based on the image that I used and the extreme shadows.  In particular, the ridge just over the road and the initial section of the hole needs to be lowered.  The 2nd hole will have a heroic tee shot over a blind ridge with facing bunkers, but the first hole shouldn't have the same dynamic. 





I'll probably be moving on to the 10th hole next since it connects to #1... and since it should be a really fun one. 

[Jim Nugent]

Better and better, at least to my eye.  Seems like you're making it less groomed and symmetrical, more wild, which looks more realistic to me based on the photos. 

[Peter Flory]

Quick update- I knocked out a decent first draft of #9, which I think will end up being the easiest hole on the course to do because of the flatness.  The only to-dos are to lower the green and the tee a bit more.  I also built out the clubhouse area with the driveway in, the circle drive, and some other touches.  Put dunes along the Atlantic shore to mimic how they are now and how they probably have always been. 

For #9, I thought that the hole would be a bit boring from the player's perspective, but it actually looks like a delightful little hole with the nice backdrop of the yet-to-be developed waste area to the East. 

From the elevated vantage point, you can see that the easier drive is to the left side of the fairway.  Going right required a slightly longer carry to get past the last trap.  In this pic, you can also see the sand dunes up the coast line to the right of the clubhouse. 


From the player's vantage point. 


If you take the safer drive to the left, you're left with an approach over the greenside bunker and the green pitch won't help you stop the ball.  Over is more sand.


Say it's down wind and you hit a big drive, you'll have a down wind half shot that's you'd have to perfectly execute. 


If you drive it out to the right, you can bounce the ball on, which could be a really nice option when it's windy.  In this photo, it shows that angle, but for a drive that doesn't clear the 2nd fairway bunker.


Will take a pause for a few days and then start another connecting hole when I get back to it- probably #10. 

[Peter Flory]

I have done a lot of inspecting, measuring, and comparing to see exactly what changed when they built the cabanas/ boardwalk along the South end of the course. 

We all know that the 8th was moved inland and that the 9th tee was also moved. 

But I wasn't giving enough thought to what else shifted.  It looks like 5-10 yards was lost on the back end of the 7th green.  It is hard to tell exactly, but based on the plastacine model, the back of that green originally extended a few yards into what became that cabana structure.  The modified green did still have some space after it with that structure in, so the total reduction in the back of that green is what I've been measuring.  I am putting a lot of credibility in the plastacine model, because it aligns so perfectly with the rest of the course.  Every visible ripple in the fairways seem to be represented in the model identically.

But the most interesting change that appears to have happened when they crammed the holes inland was on the 18th green.  That picture that we were marveling at with the big humps toward the back left side was a very modified version of that green.  I believe that the original version of the green was as it was on the Plastacine model and drawings of the course. 

Version 1: 1916.  with my overlay into Google Earth, the green was 21,084 sq feet! (if it ever existed per the model and diagrams)

Version 2: 1926.  The aerial from this year is fantastic and it is clear that the green is about 11,400 sq feet.  The 9th tee has been moved off the back of the green to make room for a middle iteration of the 8th hole.  The boardwalk had not yet been built. 

Version 3: 1940 aerial.  It appears as though they added a barrier to the back of the green to protect the players on the 9th tee, which had been crammed even closer to the 18th green to make room for the final version of the 8th hole.  The 18th green in its final form was only about 7,000 sq feet.  So, that cool feature in the green that we see in the photo was definitely not CBM/Raynor, but was sort of the equivalent of what tight courses do when they install a net to protect players on a tee. 

But here is the part that I'm not sure of.  I'm posting an image below that shows the original diagram for the hole vs the final version of the hole.  Note that the cluster of 3 traps to the left of the green (from the perspective of a player hitting their approach) migrated.  So, either 1 of 2 things happened: 1) the hole was not built to the plastacine and diagrams only at the green (the rest is identical), or 2) when they crammed in the 9th tee box and borrowed from the back of the green, they moved in those bunkers to keep the same dynamic as the original version, just on a smaller scale.  As you can see, if they left them in the original location, they wouldn't serve much purpose and they would lie just at the end of the 9th tee, which would be awkward. 

Supporting that theory is one other anomaly.  That is that the middle bnker on the front right hand side of the green (from the perspective of a player hitting their approach) also ended up in a different spot than the diagram.  It looks like when they shrunk the corridor on the approach, they also moved that trap to allow an approach to bounce in... again to preserve the dynamic of the original hole, but on a smaller scale.

So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I'm going to assume that the original hole was built to spec and that they moved the bunkers when they shrunk the green.  If I'm wrong, then at least I am preserving MacKenzie's concept. 



You can see the manufactured ridge from left to right cut through the original version of the green.  That ridge separated the final usable portion of the 18th green from the 9th teeing ground. 

I am not showing the entire image of the hole diagram with the aerial, but it really does match up to the foot going all the way back to the tee.  Every single detail of the hole matches the diagram except for the ones that I point out above. 

[Jim Nugent]

Peter, my guess is that the plasticine model is not 100% accurate.  Mainly because it was made in 1915, before they finished building the course. So while it captures the major elements, it likely could not foresee exactly what ended up on the ground. 

I suspect the map produced below is more accurate.  It was made after the course opened.  So they didn't have to estimate what Lido should look like, after they finished their massive sculpting, ground moving and molding.  They could reproduce what actually was on the ground.  The differences are not much, but may be significant, in terms of actual size and precise locations...
 

Next is an aerial of Lido, taken in 1940.  Both the photo and the map, btw, come from Sven's excellent Lido thread of a few years ago...



Looking at both these graphics, I think #8 originally went almost exactly where the row of cabanas sits in the aerial.  #8 green, I believe, was just to the right of the green in the aerial, again right smack in the middle of the cabanas. 

i.e. they shifted #8 over to the left, shortened it some 70 yards or so, and built cabanas where the original used to rest.  Those cabanas probably protected the entire hole against erosion and ocean damage. 

They may have moved the ninth tee a bit, but I doubt by much.  For one, the next photo, from 1933, says the 9th tee is below the photo.  It was so much in play that someone drove off it and hit another golfer on the 8th green. 



I also don't believe they moved the 7th or 18th greens.  They may have shrunk them a bit.  But again comparing the map with the aerial, they look pretty close to the same size to me, and in the same locations, too. 

[Peter Flory]

Jim,  I'm not saying that they ever moved the 7th or 18th greens- just that they both shrunk.  I think the back of the 7th was probably damaged with the same events that took out the 8th green.  And then I think that went they put in the cabanas, they couldn't have the green go right to the edge of the buildings, so they shrunk the back and put in some rough to provide an area to chip from.  The aerials show shrinkage. 

On 18, it is extremely clear that they borrowed the back half and made it the tee for #9 and added a buffer ridge.  The 1926 aerial shows one version and the 1940 aerial shows the other.  I just can't tell if the 18th green was originally much bigger in 1916 (I'm having the same issue with the green on #1).  And I'm wondering if they shifted the bunkers inward.  The 1926 aerial seems to show that it is possible that they shifted the traps in and then let the old ones grow over (notice how the shapes parallel each other).  Also, in the 1926 version, I am viewing the grass behind the green as a sort of temporary tee for #8 and then the rest makes room for the tee shot to the interim version of the 8th hole.   




The hand drawn routing wasn't perfectly to scale and the artist behind it didn't attempt to get the shape of the tees or the greens very accurate- I've overlaid it with all of the different aerials, the plastacine map, etc.  It doesn't line up in every case with parts of the course and other landmarks that couldn't have changed (i.e. it is a drawing, not a survey).  Also, its diagrams of the greens look like they are all smaller than the actual greens, based on all sources.  However, even the drawing seems to show the relative spacing between holes and it is fairly close to the plastacine version. 

here is the southern portion of the course with plastacine vs drawing (both are fit into google Earth as overlays and unskewed to align to various landmarks).  I also show the 1940 layer a bit so that you can see where the cabana line was in relation.  You are correct in that the old 8th was right where the cabanas were.  You can also see that the 7th green would have extended all the way into the cabanas. 



I can tell that the drawing doesn't come close to capturing the magnitude of the 18th green because you can see the bunker that wraps around the back of it.  In 1926, the green hugged that bunker.  On the drawing, it does show the initial position of the trap left of the green on the approach, not the later version where they are much closer. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()