What Should be the Fate of the Pond on the Sixteenth at Garden City?

[rgkeller]

The existence of the pond to the left of the green on the sixteenth hole at Garden City Golf Club is being discussed.

Should it stay or should it go?

[TEPaul]

I think I just might bet my entire life and my entire fortune too on the fact that we will hear from one Patrick Mucci on this subject!  

[RJ_Daley]

How big of a factor was it in mitigating the effects of the infamous drought experienced in 2001-02?  Perhaps someone could post the url of the aerial of that course so we can see at least how it is situated.  A ground level view would really be great.  We can tell Pat that many of us are quite experienced in GCA through pictures...  

Tom, don't bet so much.  Perhaps this was Mucci's plan for all these years in yanking your chain... getting you to bet the ranch, then clamming up to collect the biggest of all prizes!

[rgkeller]

The pond at the sixteenth is very small, roughly circular and perhaps fifty feet in diameter and a few feet deep at most.

[RJ_Daley]

Does it help take water off the course?  If it was found to be non-useful, how is it proposed to be eliminated?  How does it stay filled, or does it?  What say the environmental regulators about filling it or draining it?  Do they require mitigation, if they allow it at all?  

[T_MacWood]

Go...if feasible.

[GeoffreyC]

TEP  - I think you just found a way to silence Pat Mucci.  I don't think he will chime in here now  

[rgkeller]

Does it help take water off the course?  If it was found to be non-useful, how is it proposed to be eliminated?  How does it stay filled, or does it?  What say the environmental regulators about filling it or draining it?  Do they require mitigation, if they allow it at all?  

The pond stays filled naturally except in times of drought, when it is augmented with a tap. There are no environmental issues. The area was lined about twelve years ago when Lake Cornelia was lined to prevent seepage. It presently is very natural looking with assorted beasties living there. It is a lateral hazard, very much in play for a pulled approach shot and requiring a drop in deep rough.

The pond has been there for a least twenty four years. An older member told me that it was decided some years before that to create the pond because the area was always marshy and wet, apparently from a undergound spring of some sort.

[A_Clay_Man]

RG- Perhaps you just want to limit the discussion to the few who know what the hell your talking about. If so great.

But could you please be more descriptive, and as RJ requests, provide more info on the Pros and Cons of the reality? Thanx

[T_MacWood]

Because Travis had a big bold bunker (3 b's) that guarded the left side of that green, extending back in the direction of the drive (not too far from the pond). It was a major factor in the strategy of the hole (unlike the pond) and from a strictly artistic point of view, it was aesthetically pleasing--it was perhaps the most stiking bunker on the course (at least one of the most striking).

If I had a say (and I don't), I'd eliminate the pond (if feasible) and re-establish the bunker.

[Peter_Herreid]

Although every one knows you can't make thorough evaluations from photographs   , I thought these would at least add some context...

16th Green from the left side of the fairway...


16th Green from the 17th tee...


Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

In viewing the 1936 aerial, there is no pond, only bunkers and sand waste areas.

The entire area around that pond appears bone dry.

I suspect some misguided green committee inserted the pond for reasons known only to them.  Perhaps they liked blind water hazards or were trying to make the golf course tougher.

It should go, primarily to kick off a sincere restoration effort.

What does Tom Doak think about the idea ?

[RJ_Daley]

The pond has been there for a least twenty four years. An older member told me that it was decided some years before that to create the pond because the area was always marshy and wet, apparently from a undergound spring of some sort.

From the above statement, and the pictures, I'd say that pond ain't going anywhere... unless you have some sort of real environmental regulatory clout.  
 
 

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

In viewing the 1936 aerial, there is no pond, only bunkers and sand waste areas.

The entire area around that pond appears bone dry.

I suspect some misguided green committee inserted the pond for reasons known only to them.  Perhaps they liked blind water hazards or were trying to make the golf course tougher.

It should go, primarily to kick off a sincere restoration effort.

What does Tom Doak think about the idea ?

I doubt that DS, JT, and NF lied to me about the water levels in that area preceeding the placement of the pond. I can personally attest to the fact that prior to the lining effort the "pond" would periodically fill and dry into a mudhole depending on the rainfall. Bunkers there would have to employ some sort of draining system.

IMO the sixteenth is a beautiful hole and the pond adds both beauty and a legitimate playing hazard, completely in the context of the course.

You would have to ask Tom Doak about his opinion. While you are at it, ask his opinion about the bunker to the front left of eight (built in the mid 1980's), the mounds to the right of seventeen (added in the late 1980's), the bunkers to the right of seventeen (added in the late 1990's), the fifth green (redone in the early 1990's), and the bunkers behind and to the right of the ninth green (added in the late 90's and early 00's.)

None of these additions restored a thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

What makes you think I favor any of the items you listed.

Memories are sometimes not as clear as photographic evidence, especially as members age.

If you look at ALL of the early photos of # 16, you will see that water or marsh are not to be found, but bunkers and sand are.

I clearly favor a restoration to 1936, with some flexibility for length.  Look at the 1936 aerials and tell me how a pond on
# 16 falls within the context of the golf course.

[rgkeller]

And why, in your opinion, did GCGC reach its architectual pinnacle in 1936?

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

It's not that GCGC reached its architectural pinnacle in 1936, it could have been other years, but, there is an abundance of evidence, especially photographic, to tell us how the golf course was configured, before many of the changes made by green committees were forced onto the golf course.

1936 is also significant from a historical and traditional standpoint.  The USGA conducted the Amateur at GCGC that year.

I doubt anyone could restore the golf course to 1928, 1938 or 1948 due to the lack of documentation and photographic evidence.  But, 1936 presents a unique opportunity to marry the architecture to the history and traditions of the club, and as such presents the ideal target year.

[rgkeller]

Such a viewpoint, then, eliminates any improvements that were made to the course in the years since 1936.

Restoration for the sake of restoration is insanity.

Any attempt to replicate the bunkers to the left of sixteen will prove to be impossible (there is a reason that the remaining left bunker was shallowed out) and, would in any case make the hole worse - not better.

God save us all from fanatics of all kinds, restoration fanatics included.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

Could you cite those improvements ?

Take a look at the 1936 aerial and hole # 14 and tell me if you think the current hole is an improvement.

Take a look at the 12th hole and tell me if you think the current version is an improvement ?

Take a look at the 7th hole and tell me if the current version is an improvement ?

One has to ask the question, to what architect should GCGC be true ?

Emmett
Travis
Jones
Various green committees
Doak
Future architects

I think there can be but one answer.
Emmett/Travis

And then, what year ?

1936 seems logical, and is easily documented.

Lengthening can be accomodated, as many early architects built in elasticity in their designs.

A great example of restoration efforts and results can be found just a few miles east, at NGLA.

GCGC should follow their example, and not fall victim to the idea of design and archiecture by referendum.

[ChasLawler]

In simple words Pat - is it possible that some of the changes at GCGC made after 1936 were for the better?

If your answer is yes - then why would you painstakingly restore the course according to the 1936 aerial and lose some of the later changes which improved the architecture of a course?

If your answer is no - then that's your opinion and I'd accept that.....

[Lynn_Shackelford]

A couple of thoughts on an interesting subject.  It is possible for change to take place that improves a course.  So restoration does not have to take place in every instance.
However, can one escape from this hazard as it is today?  No.  Can it be filled in today?  Probably not, it is a wetland I strongly suspect.  I think it dominant's one's thinking in playing the hole and helps make it a unique hole on the course.  My preference would be to see it be a low spot which has some muddy spots during wet months, soggy enough in the summer to make recovery shots possible but difficult.  I wouldn't spend too much time on the hole as it was 60 years ago unless it was better then.  Besides, I gave David Moriarty a stroke on this hole and won the hole when he foolishly pushed his ball into the hazard.  On the tee I favored the right side (actually came over the top) and played conservatively on the 2nd shot.  I respected the hazard and won the hole.  It seemed like a good match play hole to me, that could be even better if one could recover from the water area with a great shot.  And of course keep the grass cut low enough so one doesn't need to spend 10 minutes looking for an opponent's ball.

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

Could you cite those improvements ?

Take a look at the 1936 aerial and hole # 14 and tell me if you think the current hole is an improvement.

Take a look at the 12th hole and tell me if you think the current version is an improvement ?

Take a look at the 7th hole and tell me if the current version is an improvement ?

One has to ask the question, to what architect should GCGC be true ?

Emmett
Travis
Jones
Various green committees
Doak
Future architects

I think there can be but one answer.
Emmett/Travis

And then, what year ?

1936 seems logical, and is easily documented.

Lengthening can be accomodated, as many early architects built in elasticity in their designs.

A great example of restoration efforts and results can be found just a few miles east, at NGLA.

GCGC should follow their example, and not fall victim to the idea of design and archiecture by referendum.

The present twelfth is a mess and should be restored.

The seventh can be largely fixed if someone would make the greenskeeper mow the fairway properly and move it to the right after the cut.

The present fourteenth is at least the third version. It has finally become presentable although, for some reason, it was designed with a series of small pot bunkers and mounds that appear near no other green on the course.

The present ninth is a mess because a series of superintendents, green committees and architects kept adding things to the hole and now we have a huge green surrounded by superfluous and poorly conceived bunkers.

The latest, and I believe the fourth, attempt at the fifth hole leaves us with an iron/iron hole with an indistinguished green that has settled in spots - just as the green it replaced did.

The eighteenth green is much smaller than it once was, the deep bunker in front was once well into the green on both sides. And Lake Cornelia was much much higher and very near the front of the green.

The Sixteenth, however, remains an excellent hole, perfectly suited to the land and engulfing the low and wet spot into a small and effective hazard. A big improvement indeed.

GCGC should be faithful to Walter Travis' influence and vision. He believed that poor shots should be penalized. Nothing on the present sixteenth violates anything Travis ever did.

[T_MacWood]

rgkeller
"GCGC should be faithful to Walter Travis' influence and vision. He believed that poor shots should be penalized."
I agree.

"Nothing on the present sixteenth violates anything Travis ever did."
Just because the pond is penal doesn't justify it nor make it in character with GCGC or Travis.

I'm not aware of a single improvement made to the course since 1936, I am aware of a handful of unfortunate changes (IMO), changes that I don't believe were in character with Travis and the historic GCGC, including the pond on 16.

What are some of the improvements since 1936?

[rgkeller]

The pond at sixteen.

The second bunker to the right of sixth fairway.

The third bunker to the left of sixteenth fairway.

Additional length at eight, six, fifteen, and three.

The irrigation system.

[T_MacWood]

rgkeller
That pond was an improvement over the Travis bunker it replaced--how so? What other improvements?