[Patrick_Mucci]

Which hole at NGLA seems the least manufactured, and why ?

And,

Which hole at NGLA seems the most manufactured, and why ?

And,

Is there a distinction in their playability ?

[JDoyle]

The 3rd hole, IMHO, is the least manufactured hole.  The Alps hole is one my favorites.  I do not know the specific history of the hole, but I have experienced it as a player.  CBM obviously wanted to import this style of hole from what he had seen and enjoyed in Europe.  In searching the property he found the perfect spot for his Alps hole.  The hill on top of which the 3rd green sits was not created, it was a natural formation that CBM used as a natural obsticle.  The blind approach to the 3rd is one of the best shots in golf.  CBM certainly forces strategy from the background to the forground of the players mind.

The 4th hole seems the most manufactured to me.  Knowing the military history of the Redan hole I have a hard time accepting this style as anything but manufactured.  The effect is a brutal hole that is more penal than a natural hole.  I think it is one of the best one shooters anywhwere - a brute and yet awesome.  But certainly man made.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JDoyle,

When I first began to go thru this exercise, # 3 seemed like a good choice to me too, but then I thought about the lay of the land along the cart path behind the green, how it falls off into the woods below, and the protective, raised berm immediately behind the green, and I began to wonder, was I being fooled by the first 90 % of the hole, and, was the green natural, or manufactured.

As I thought about the green, it's contours, and steep drop off on the far right side, I thought that maybe CBM had deceived us into thinking that this was a natural green complex, and that from behind and to the right of the green it seems far more manufactured.

What are your thoughts on the green complex ?

[SPDB]

Pat - 10 as the least manufactured.

Max? tough choice. Maybe 8?

3 is really manufactured on the green end. Appropriately, on such a manufactured course, it is the best greensite on the course, in my estimation.

[Charles_P.]

There are many I feel vie for the least manufactured distinction.  For me, however, the most manufactured stands alone -- the 11th, largely because of the green and its surrounds.  Perhaps the flattest area of the course, the green sticks out as the least natural (the road and berms don't help matters, either).

As maybe a tangent, I feel that people really exaggerate the manufactured nature of NGLA.  In a time when people often just mowed tees and greens and stuck a hole in the ground, it is certainly manufactured (CBM did coin the moniker architect for golf courses, didn't he?).  However, reading Scotland's Gift, it sounds like he was working with the land and the only manufacturing comes into play with greens and bunkers.  Of course, Lido was a different story entirely...

[TEPaul]

There's no question in my mind that the green and green-end on #3 is probably the most manufactured green out there in terms of quantity of cut and fill to create it. That green and green-end is immense and again if you look at it's whole right side, back, berm and the land below it to the right which may have been mostly a massive shallow cut operation and out beyond that to the right which is clearly natural grade you can see the apparent extent of it. All one has to do to tell is start over at the left off the green and pick up what is natural grade there and follow along over to the right side and way out to the right of the green. If one stood to the right of that green I might say that up to 10-12 feet or more on that green above you is built up and manufactured from what once was natural grade there.

The other green that's an amazing concentrated manufacturing effort is #8. Just stand fifty yards in front of that green (natural grade) look out to the right (natural grade to the right of that cut operation), look at the long running ridge before #8 going all the way down the hole dividing it with #11 and then go around the green and back behind that cut operation way back there. For some reason instead of taking down the natural ridge to the left of the green, Macd/Raynor took all the fill from the low side to the right (instead of the high side!?) and kept pilling it up to level off the green against that ridge on the left which runs all the way down between #11 and #8 and probably extending back behind #8 some before diminishing once upon a time. Matter of fact, it appears very probably that they added to the elevation of that natural ridge by piling more fill on top of it for the entire left side just off #8 which includes an even higher 9th tee. Look about 30+ yds out behind #8 sometime and you'll see what appears to be a huge cut operation. Look at that massive old obsoleted bunker about 40 yds short and right of #8 and you can see where another massive amount of fill came from. It's obvious in comparison to the natural grade out in the woods to the right. Kye Goalby and I spent about a half hour on and all around that green one time trying to figure this very thing out.

I don't think the redan was all that manufactured in terms of fill for the green. I think all the fill needed to shape that green came from the front and rear bunkers exclusively. The rest is just a running right (high) to left (low) natural ridge where you can find natural grade pretty easily by looking just to the right and left of the green.

To me holes #5, 9, maybe 10, or even 18 may not have that much going on as far as manufacturing is concerned other than some bunkers dug and some shaping on the green and green-end. One thing is for certain at NGLA, though, and that is Macd/Raynor did not seem to care that much about hiding architectural engineering and manufacturing and just like all those old courses whatever fill they did need to create things they didn't go very far to cut and get it!

But a few other holes are harder to tell and that's basically part of the mystery (and secret?) of the look and feel of the place!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

# 5, # 10, # 11 and # 18 initially sprang to mind on the minimal side, when I began this exercise.

#8 was high on the list of manufactured holes as was # 6.

# 16 was an enigma to me, as were some of the other holes.

On # 9, I always felt that the fill for # 8 came from the left side fairway bunker complex, due to the volume, hence I excluded # 9 from my minimalist holes, especially off the tee.
Stand behind that green when you get a chance, it looks far more manufactured then from the fairway.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I have looked behind #9 green and if you ask me it looks like a very broad and shallow cut operation back there. I'd suspect it probably was to build up the right side and that green as I bet naturally the area that green is in was a bit too much left to right natural slope. Look out left and then a ways to the right of that green and you might see what I mean. The right side of that green might be about 3-4 feet above what grade was on that rightside there once.

You're not kidding about #16. That hole is a total enigma to me about what once was and is now. Is it mostly natural or really some major earth movement throughout? I have no real idea, but I suspect it might be mostly natural. I just think there's some wild and crazy natural topography running in a thin band down the north side of the island at least all the way from Friar's through NGLA, and around over near the beginning of the back nine at Shinnecock. It would include the natural dune ridge on #18 NGLA, the ridge across the 2nd, maybe even the fairway bowl there and all those wild bowls on #16.

You should have seen what the dunes land looked like at Friar's before the course was built. I thought if I walked down in there I might never find my way out the topography was so wild.

But that #16 at NGLA--that would be almost my first pick anywhere to really know what it looked like on that hole naturally!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The right side fairway bowl would seem to be man made.
How much fill was removed, and where it went is the mystery, and, was the green site excavated or natural.

Could it be that the fill was used for the 15th or 4th green or right and left side 17th tees ?

Or was the entire fairway complex manufactured ?

[JDoyle]

Patrick,

To tell the truth I didn't spend enough time thinking about the green complex on #3 when I chose it as my "least manufactured".  I was thinking more about, as you said, the 90% of the hole from tee to green.  But now that you and Tom have pointed it out I can see some subtle manipulation; especially on the right.

I almost went with #18.  That hole simply moves you from the gate area adjacent to the 17th green to the top of the hill where the green was destined to be located.  What a great hole.  It's a mystery until the very end.  And a real adventure not dumbed-down by a membership crying "unfair".  Awesome, never change a thing.

The punchbowl is my favorite of the 10 or so Raynor/Macdonald icons that have been repeated on many of their courses.  I especially love the 16th at NGLA and #4 at Fishers Island because they are so dramatic and well maintained.  However, I find it hard to believe that they are natural.  Just that fact they we are debating it is a fitting tribute to how well #16 fit in with its surrounds.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It wouldn't surprise me at all if almost the entire NGLA 16th topographically is almost all natural. I wouldn't be too inclined to say something like that if I hadn't checked out the natural contour on Flynn's topo for some of Shinnecock's back nine and also the preconstruction site at Friars. I tell you that narrow band running all along the north side of that East end of Long Island had some super wild natural topography! You wouldn't have believed it unless you saw it. Well, you did see it at Friar's after construction! I'd defy you to tell me what Coore and Crenshaw actually did or didn't do up on those back nine holes at Friars! Even I don't know and I saw it both before and after!  

[TEPaul]

JDoyle:

We can all be pretty darn sure that the overall mid-bodies of the golf holes on courses that were built before 1910 like NGLA didn't have much of anyhing done to them in the way of earth moving. Those guys didn't have D-8s and such. All they basically did back then is cut bunkering and maybe shaped a few formations right around them and basically that was it. Almost all the earth moving on courses of that vintage was reserved for the greens and green-ends and some tee earth moving on the other end of the holes. That's one of the primary reason they look so natural in their mid-bodies---because they are!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'll stick by my assessment regarding the right side fairway bowl on # 16, I think it is clearly man made.

The green site, and 17th tees fascinate me.

My guess would be that the fronting mounding short of # 16 is man made, with bunkers cut into it, as is the front part of the punchbowl green.

It would also seem that the front left fairway area on # 9 might have been scalloped out for the fill.

The next time we get the chance, we should go out there together and spend some time examining the features.
I'll bet that we make a number of discoveries that will surprise and  please us.

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci/TE Paul,

Are the road hole and redan versions at NGLA manufactured at all?

In other words, did MacDonald want those two holes there whatever, or do they just fit right in?  

And if they are manufactured to any degree, does that lessen them in your eyes, even if the work was well done?

[TEPaul]

Mark F.

I believe that the redan green is set on a natural ridge that perhaps was somewhat more rounded naturally where the green is and has a natural right to left fall. I'd think all that is manufactured there is the green that got the necesary fill from the cutting into the ridge of the deep front and rear bunkers. I'd think that bunker "cut" produced enough fill to shape the green UP to the extent it is to create the kind of filter with the ball it has. I'd think the shaping on the green was basically bringing the green up all along the fronting bunker and the rear bunker enough to create a funnel effect (which is the classic redan shot) and to level the green enough for function. There might have been a bit of fill used on the high side off the green in the kicker area and to the right of it but on the low left side it looks like the green flows pretty gradually into natural grade of the right to left fall of that natural ridge. Basically I think MacDonald found just about an ideal natural "situation" of topography for the kind of green-end that is!  

Macdonald basically needed what the British call a natural "situation" to create these template holes. Somewhere in his book he mentioned he did not build a Biarritz at NGLA because he couldn't find a place for it.

The road hole is pretty obvious. All the bunkering is created obviously on the fairway. The fill from the cut of the bunkers is used to form the bunker faces and some mounds there.  The tee is built and the green is one of the most obvious manufacturing efforts I've ever seen on a golf course. Basically the green is sort of a highly engineered "platform" on a very flat piece of terrain. It looks like the fill to create that platform was simply taken by the cutting the bunkeringl in the green-end area. Most came from the enormous bunker behind the green obviously.

The other greens out there that look highly engineered to me are #2, #3, #6, #9, #11, #14, #15.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark F,

I would agree with TEPaul's assessment of #7.

As you walk from #8 tee to the fairway on # 8 and look back, the manufacturing becomes more apparent.

With respect to # 4, I think TE and I may disagree.

I think it is more manufactured.

While it's true that a ridge or rise exists by the 5th tee and front right of # 4, the hole green rises, not unlike a volcano, from the surrounding terrain.

When discussing the lengthening of # 5, TEPaul himself says that the land falls off precipitously.

If you view the green site from the tee, 15th and 16th fairways, the fronting bunker, and the rear bunkers, I think you'll conclude that it's much more manufactured then TEPaul's view.

# 8 is also one of the most manufactured green sites on the property in terms of volume of dirt.

I don't have any problem with the manufacturing of a hole.
I think the litmus test is in the design elements and merits of the architecture of the hole, not, how they were arrived at.

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci,

And how much you enjoy being there as well, I guess.

Maybe "engineered" is okay, as well, given other factors you mentioned, but, say, sloppy or careless isn't.  In Paul Daley and David Scaletti's book on The Sandbelt, Paul writes a nice essay on what exactly IS the sandelt, hypothesising that there should be more courses included, not less.  

However, one of the features of the acknowledged Sandbelt courses is that the artificial construction is indistinguishable from the natural, and at a course like Southern, even though it had some fantastic greens and nice bunkers, a lot of the construction work on the newer holes is awful - big ugly "dumped" mounds etc, and so you can't help but feel out of place on them.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark F,

A number of the green complexes are obviously created, and some of the greens have wild, artificial contours, but somehow, they don't feel out of place.

Perhaps some know how to create a manufactued complex that does't seem in conflict with everything else, and is FUN to play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()