Garden City Golf Club #16 Overlay

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Sometimes you only get one bite at the apple in a given time frame.

If a discussion/debate is underway to presently decide if the pond should stay or go, if the pond stays, it's doubtful that the issue would be considered again in the foreseeable future, no matter how much information you brought to the table.
You must answer when opportunity knocks, and not knock, when nobody is home nor listening.

Given the luxury of time, I'd certainly prefer your method, although, I find it to be purely academic.

As I stated earlier, the concept of restoration at GCGC is fraught with difficulty due to the nature of GCGC's architectural evolution, not unlike GMCC.

Some could favor restoration to Emmett, others to Travis, others to a combination of Emmett and Travis.  

And then, to what exact frame in time would you restore the golf course.  1899, 1911, 1925, 1936, 1948 or some other year

To me, there is but one answer, 1936, the year the US Amateur was held at GCGC.  A year where the club has abundant photographic evidence, aerial and ground level, of exactly what the golf course was like.

1936 should be the architectural roadmap for the future.

Research may not provide sufficient data that would allow you to determine exactly what existed in 1899, 1911, 1925 or other years.  GCGC knows what existed in 1936, the year the US Amateur was held at GCGC.

Targeting 1936 would clarify a restoration effort beyond refute, which may not be possible if you targeted other years.

TEPaul,

In general, wouldn't it make greater sense to provide this information, specifically, to an officer who is an advocate of restoration, rather then an opponent or neutral party ?

[T_MacWood]

I have shared the my info. And as I gather more info I'll share it too. I do lot that doesn't make onto GCA...and I prefer it that way.

No I don't think they should ask me what to do...when they have all the information they will know what to do.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Are you saying you've shared whatever you have with them regarding hole #16, the pond situation and the area to the left of the green, who did what why and when before it? It seems like Pat and rgkeller aren't aware of that evolution to a good degree of accuracy. Is anyone at the club aware of those things that anyone's aware of? How about Joe Donohue? Something ought to be around to fill in those gaps. How about aerials--does the club have something like a good stagger of chronological aerials from the Met area or perhaps even the National archives? I hope the club has or can come up with more than just articles and things like general comments from people like even Darwin and Hutchinson. How about club committee and board minutes? They can sure help to develop an evolutionary understanding of the who, when and why of chronological aerials and such. It seems to me from the history books that the club is at least certain on what Emmet originally did in detail.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If, and I repeat IF 1936 is an ideal year to restore to, isn't everything else purely academic ?

Did Gulph Mills restore the golf course to the original Donald Ross design, or did they pick a point in time that incorporated Maxwells revisions as well ?

If they picked the latter, wasn't understanding the architecture on the Ross holes that Maxwell altered, purely academic ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I guess it depends on what you mean by "acacdemic". But here are a couple of dictionary definitions of "academic".

"Theoretical; not practical or directly useful".
"Learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense and practicalitly".

So yes, I suppose if they just picked some year before doing all the evolutionary research that could be available it could be considered "academic".

But instead of responding with something sort of oblique just give me a good reason not to do all the research that could ever be available into a really good design evolutionary booklet first? Just give me one good reason not to do that first! Armed with something like that selling a really good Emmet/Travis restoration to the club and its membership has got to be easier---unless of course it turns up some really good reasons not to do that in some particular areas and if that's true it's better to know that first too!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It may complicate rather then simplify a restoration effort.

Targeting 1936 is rather simple, uncovering everything about the golf course's history may be impossible, time consuming and diversionary, serving to postpone any restoration effort.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It was the photographs that provided the supporting evidence, and GCGC has abundant photographs, aerial and ground level of the golf course circa 1936, which is one of the reasons that I favor restoration to that year.

The photos may not be formalized into a booklet, but the body of evidence they present remains irrefutable

[Jeff Goldman]

Folks,

  When restoring a bunker that's no longer there, do you take into account the fact that it won't play as it did (and was designed to) because of advances?  Obviously, taking technology into account is done with respect to length, but these days good players would rather be IN a bunker than be in rough along side of it.  By restoring the bunker as it was, are you really restoring the course to how it played or is the change mostly aesthetic?  Obviously, this doesn't apply to bogey golfers like me, but will the bunker really affect the strategy of play by people who no longer consider them hazards?

Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

How does that apply to a greenside bunker ?

TEPaul,

There is also paralysis thru analysis.

If a goal is a 1936 restoration, everything else is moot.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Goldman:

That's an excellent question and a very relevant one if one wants to begin to get into things like original design intent and what it's playability once was when doing a restoration.

That very thing--eg how do you compare the original difficulty of a bunker, a greenside bunker, for instance, to when it was originally done to today? That very subject is specifically why I latched onto Chip Oat like a leach at NGLA about four years ago.

I'd never met him before but he belongs to Merion and we started discussing Merion's bunker restoration project going on at that time. Chip said did Merion consider that went those original bunkers were built getting out of some of those bunkers was like doing it with something like a 9 iron (because SWs, particularly the sophisticated ones we have today didn't exist)?

I mean, what a good and relevant point that was. I don't know that Merion did consider that and I don't know if Chip knows either but I'll tell you something---many of those Merion bunkers are a lot more architecturally deep than they were way back then so even with today's sophisticated SWs it may almost be comparable today to getting out of them way back then with what today would be something like a 9 iron.

Good point and good question!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
There is also paralysis thru analysis."

Pat:

Maybe in your experience but not in mine in restoration architecture. What there is without really comprehensive research, though, is a whole lot more potential for mistakes and a whole lot more potential in having a divided membership stay divided on the subject of restoration. How many years has it been that GCGC has been trying to do this type of project?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

rgkeller tells us that it's been going on for a long, long time, way, way before I became a member.

Is your question, what has been the progress and results since he became a member in 1980 ?  Perhaps he can fill you in with respect to the restoration research and results from 1980 to current date, a time frame that he has first hand knowledge of.

How much research was done prior to my membership ?
I couldn't answer that, but rgkeller could.

I can only accurately relate to some of the activity since I've become a member. And, you have to discount the hearsay I've heard from other members with respect to what took place earlier.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What you and rgkeller and the rest of the membership need to agree to do is to get that research done starting now. If you don't all of you might still be dicking around arguing 23 years from now.

But hey, I'm not the member, you guys are. But if there's anything I can do to help you guys and GCGC do that research collecting and compiling I'm here and more than happy to help. Once you have it then you all can analyze it completely and go for it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Some people aren't advocates of restoration, and time spent trying to convince them to change their minds is time wasted.

"a man convinced against his will, is unconvinced still."

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Would the elimination of the pond make for a greater course?I play there several times a year and think this is an unbelievably minor issue.  The sand my be the original hazard, but the real key is that the left is guarded by a hazard.  There is probably 60+ feet of green to the right of the pond, making an errant shot into the pond a terrible mistake or a brutally bad shot--grounds for a penalty. It would be an understatement to say that the course has a penal nature--especially in May and June.  A more important issue would be 11 and 12 greens.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

RMD,
Understanding the context of your post, it still doesn't address the issues regarding the width of the hole on that left side, as well as exactly where the fairway should be on the right. I think this is clearly evident in the photos--the unmistakable left side which may not have totally been fairway but was a line to the hole, maybe even more of a direct line that had hazards--all sorts of them from sand to asparagus in the way.

Now the question here is seems to be if you want Travis and Emmet properly represented as far as the original design is concerned. I think Pat is reasonable in his thoughts. Much more reasonable then he has ever been. For RG Keller to claim that his is a misguided thought serves no purpose other then his own vanity. The trees were never there when there were no problems and now that they are they influence even more wetter conditions of that area underground. Steve Lang might be able to help here and tell us if tree roots help contribute less drainage. (If he can assist us "restoration guys.") But the fact remains that whether its a bunker or a pond--the strategy of the hole is different then it was in 1936 or 1926 or 1916. It is now a hole that demands one dimensional play--hit it straight to a second shot that is well guarded from left ot right with deep rough, sand, and a pond. The blinding fairway cop bunker for the tee shot is also gone, as well as the bunkers way left of the fairway. I dare RG Keller to tell me what the purpose was for all of those features. My contentions were that from the tee, one was supposed to experience fear of getting it over the massive bunker and safe in the fairway and not deep into one of the many sand hazards throughout various parts of the fairway. We live in an age where drivers are not only longer, but more straight as well as efficient. The amount of mishits during those years gone by were a factor of play. Thanks to technology and lack of sport, most Americans don't want those types of hazards threatening them from the tee anymore. They want rewards and demand hat luck is not a part of the game, nor should ever be. The spirit of the game dies with this thought, and that's why many despise the modern game so.

The 16th was probably a demanding golf hole in the eyes of Emmet or Travis. It's principal in the routing was that one could get himself back into a match with two holes remaining, yet its spirit--what is left of it, has enabled it as simply--"It's still a good golf hole, so leave it alone" Even with the many who discount the neccessity for reclaimation, it still ties to shine through glimpses of what it could be returned to and eople should be crediting Pat Mucci's spirit and passion as one of the most important tools.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RMD,

What is the cant of the fairway in the drive zone

What is the cant of the area in front of the green and pond ?

What is the cant of the front of the green ?

All right to left ?

What type of shot do those features usually produce and result it ?

[Jeff Goldman]

Folks,

Sorry to be so late in replying, but Tommy answered Pat's question better than I could anyway.  I think a hole like 16 at GCGC should be restored to the original regardless of how much easier the hole is.  The reason is, as I've been telling people at Olympia Fields when we discuss proposed changes to the South course, that Emmit and Travis or Park or whoever only designed a small number of holes and courses, and they aren't making any more.  Once one is gone, it's probably not coming back.  GCGC apparently has a chance to bring one back.  

As to Pat's question, the same considerations as to playability hold for greenside bunkers.  Wouldn't the restored bunker on 16 play much easier than it did 60 years ago?  Wouldn't the strategy of the hole be much different, at least for good players?  I could even see some making a strategic choice going for a part of the green that would leave a missed shot in the bunker rather than in greenside rough.  Obviously, I don't know how the hole plays, but it is something to consider.

At Olympia Fields, I've been told that they made the decision to change the bunkers so that they played as they once did, and decided to forego making sure that they looked like they once did (I cannot yet confirm that this is true, but I'm going to review the historical stuff and photos etc. the club has this winter).  It is a tough decision, because once changed, the original is likely gone forever.  Since I think members of clubs with historically important courses do have a duty to protect such jewels, it's not an easy question.

Jeff Goldman  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

In general, any recovery shot from the left side of the green is easier then a recovery shot from the right side of the green because of the right to left pitch of the green.

Doesn't every greenside bunker at every golf course play easier due to the development of the Sand-Wedge circa 1933 and the L-Wedge more recently

Should every greenside bunker at every golf course be reconfigured because of this ?

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat, you make a good point about every bunker playing easier - isn't that why Pete Dye said he uses so much water?  That's an additional reason to favor restoring a course "as original," because we cannot stop playing conditions, but we can preserve the integrity of what the designer did.  

  Do newer courses take into account the fact that bunkers don't play as hard as they used to by making bunkers deeper, or set closer of farther from the green to make recovery more difficult?  Does it matter that bogey golfers now can play classic courses as originally intended while better golfers really don't?  Or is a better answer one some say was taken occasionally by Donald Ross - intentionally making shots from a bunker shot easier, and fooling people into playing to the opposite side for safety, only to find that they have a more difficult shot to get close to some hole locations (downhill for instance)?  Obviously, I've no answer, but I do think it is something to think about.

Jeff  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

The impact of technology on bunker play was rather rudely made apparent to me on the 16th hole at GCGC.

I believe that I was in the quarter or semi finals of a member-member tournament at GCGC and we were two up with four to go.  We lost # 15 to a par and headed into # 16 1-up.
One of our opponents drove into the woods, the other into the left side fairway bunker which has a pretty good lip/face.  
My partner and I were down the middle.  The fellow in the bunker, about a 12-15 handicap, took out a fairway wood/metal.  My partner turned to me, smiling and said, we should win this hole and go dormie.  
I remembered the old Chinese proverb:  
Wood in trap, mean wood in head, and thought the same.

Our opponent proceeded to hit his metal wood out of that fairway bunker, from about 165 yards to about a foot from the hole, for a natural 3, net 2.  He also birdied # 17,
and we were history.

Technology has made bunkers a prefered lie in many cases.
And, the only reasonable defense that I can see as viable has to do with the maintainance practices employed by the club.

I've favored a non-raking approach as an attempt to restore the punitive nature of bunkers.  I believe that Friar's Head has no rakes on the golf course, making extracation from bunkers potentially more random and challenging, and I applaud that philosophy.

I don't know that modern courses make architectural adjustments for the new equipment, at least I haven't seen any discernable pattern with respect to bunker depth or face height as an intended offset.

Bunkers would seem to be less strategic, less penal in nature due to equipment changes, and the only low cost counter-effort would seem to be to leave them natural, raking them once a month or so.

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul et al:

I still don't know if a return to the original "degree of difficulty" for the Merion bunker project was ever a formal criteria or a fortunate accident.  Since it worked out just fine in that regard, IMO, I've never asked.

You and I have also discussed the strategic merits of #16 at Garden City.  In my view, the green should be reconfigured so that the ideal angle of approach is from the LEFT side, not the right.

As to the original topic of this thread, I favor the pond over the bunker as it's more penal.  Furthermore, I'd like to see that pond go right up to the edge of the green.

I don't really care how the pond got there or why.  I just like it.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

There is no question that the right to left cant of the fairway is a serious factor.  I think 16 with a wider fairway would help restore some of the missing shot making options--angles on running the ball up to the green.  There really is not much room on the right today, unless the course is extended into Mr. Dehler's backyard.  I agree that the left should be extended as much as possible.  A wider fairway may appear easier, but the greed factor of trying to get as left as possible for a better 2nd shot angle will possibly make the hole play tougher.  Is there any probelm with the restoration of the cop bunker?  It would surprise me if there were a controversy over its restoration.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- Loved the story about your lost match. But you should know that it had nothing to do with modern equiptment. If it was 1936 and your partner had made the same comment about your impending victory, the result would've been the same.

Ask Mike Nuzzo for the latest confirmation on the viability to speculating while in the midst of a match.

[T_MacWood]

chipoat
You are obviously not a fan of Devereux Emmet.