Garden City Golf Club #16 Overlay

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Jeff Goldman raised the issue of deepening bunkers, including # 16, in light of the advent of sand and L wedges and I responded to his specific concern.

What you are missing is:  I don't care who's bunker it is on
# 16, and that question may never be answered.

I favor a sympathetic restoration to 1936.

What you also miss is that on two occassions Emmett had an opportunity to install a pond, and rejected that concept on both occassions.   Likewise, Travis had an opportunity to install a  pond on # 16 and he too rejected that concept.
In 1936 a clearly defined bunker exists.
That bunker can be replicated quite easily.
The pond is contrary to the design principles of Emmett and Travis as evidenced by their actual work on the golf course,
They rejected a pond, and so do I.
I favor restoring the greenside bunker to its configuration
circa 1936, the year the US Amateur was held at GCGC, a year where abundant photographic evidence exists.

It's quite simple, and yet you continue to make the process complicated, or simply don't understand the issue, which was, does the club keep the pond, or eliminate the pond
If you're faithful to the design principles of Emmett and Travis as exhibited in their work at GCGC, a prudent or logical person must conclude that the bunker must go, since they never located a pond near that green.

[TEPaul]

"Is there historical precidence for making bunkers more difficult as technology improves?"

Tom MacW;

There's historical precedence going as far back as Merion 1999!   From others I've seen I would also say Mountain Lake, Fox Chapel, some at GMGC and certainly the bunker left of greenside right of #8 PVGC.

"Were Merion's bunkers actually much more shallow in the early years becoming much more penal over time based on sand splash or is that a wive's tale?"

That's no wife's tale and that kind of thing depends on the particular bunker. Obviously bunkers that get the most play such as fronting bunkers are going to have the most sand splash evolutionarly build-up over time. Examples of how excessive this can be are Merion's #8, #13 and PVGC's #17. And then when a club gets to that point where they completely redo the drainage and sanding they may go down to the original bases and then bunkers that have increased height through sand splash and are back to their original bases really get deep.


"If it is true hasn't the technology more or less evened out that evolution?"

I think that's very true. But one has to look at it on an individual bunker basis. I'm a pretty good sand player and I have a 60 and sometimes even a 64 degree wedge but I swear there are some vertical faces of such height around these days I doubt I could go straight out. I know I was even on NGLA's #13 Eden in qualifying this year and it took me four shots to get out of the Strath bunker!  

I should've used my head on the first shot and come out in some other direction.

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

  Actually, I did not really raise the issue of deepening bunkers in light of technology, but made the point that doing so may not matter a whit to good players, as shown in the US Open.  I asked whether the play of the hole should be taken into account when restoring something like a bunker, and that there could be 2 ways to do it - restore the bunker exactly as it was intended to be "in the ground" by the architect, or restore it in some manner to "play" as it played at some prior time.  These are 2 different things, and latter obviously might mean deeper bunkers.  

  However, it seems to me that no matter what is done to restore the "playability" aspect for better players, it's only a temporary solution given advances in technology, and would result in the loss of the original "in the ground".  Playability cannot really be restored (again, for really good players).  Therefore, in general the best solution to me is to restore it to how it was, not how it played.  To the extent it can be restored as a hazard (via extra sand, sand type, raking practices etc.), that's a plus.  My liking of the new bunkering at Olympia Fields may contradict this, but so be it.

  Incidently, would you consider the restored bunker at GCGC to be a real hazard?  would it affect the play of the hole as intended by the designer(s)?

Jeff Goldman

[ChipOat]

Pat Mucci and Tom MacWood:

#16 at GCGC is a wonderful hole to many (including H.B. "Dickie" Martin) - but not to me.  Conversely,there are many holes on this earth that I think are strategically superb but that leave others singularly unimpressed.  #2 at Merion is a good example of that in my experience.

That's why there's chocolate and vanilla ice cream (and this DG).

Tom MacWood:

1) I don't get your point but I'll try again.  St. George's was conceived by (and the course designed by) D.E. as an NGLA wanna-be.  My admiration for that course is the best example I know to demonstrate that I am more a fan of Emmett than not.  The reference to Inwood is only a way of comparing the quality of St. George's in my mind to another LI course that I have been known to praise on this DG in the past.  I know that Inwood is (largely) the work of Herbert Strong.

2) I don't know why it's taken so long for some courses to return their bunkers to their original degree of difficulty - especially since it seems to have worked so well at Seminole.  Of course, I have long thought that the world would be a better place if only my suggestions on just about everything were followed.  Obviously, my wife and children are not the only one's who disagree.

3) As to why Merion needed to do more than just deepen the bunkers:  I wasn't part of the decision or implementation processes on that project so I don't know nearly as much about the details as might be supposed by some.  And, unlike MANY others, I'm not uncomfortable with the overall results.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Go ahead, feel free to answer all those questions."

Tom:
I'll do that. You answered a lot of mine in another post and I'll try to answer yours. But you should try to answer your own questions as well.

"Regarding the bunker deepness issue...you brought that up when you comapred the pond to Merion deepening their bunkers."

Indeed I did and I think it's a very relevant point particularly when one considers both the potential fact of a wetness issue in that area as well as some of the concerns regarding a preference for comparable penalty to a pond that have already been expressed on this website by members of GCGC and others.

"Tommy is correct. Travis wrote about the short hitter taking a straight line, "On the other hand, the poor player--who in the majority of cases is such by reason of lack of length--need not tempt fortune by essaying the hazardous shot to the right; ample room is permittied him to the left, or even on straight line to the hole if he is sufficiently accurate. Then he has to decide whether he will'go for' the green on his second."

Tom, if either you, TommyN or the club has that kind of specific written material from Walter Travis himself on GCGC's #16 I certainly think one of you should produce it on here and Pat Mucci should produce it for the club to consider presenting to the membership. If the club is as into their Emmet/Travis heritage as much as you say they are that would be very persuasive documentary evidence about what they may want to do restoratively to that hole one would think. I'd like to see it on here. Is there any problem with presenting that historical Travis evidence on here? Or are you an Emmet advocate?  



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Golfman,

If you'll look at the size of the bunker, and it's proximity to the green, you can see that it's a real and large hazard, not as penal as the pond, but a genuine penalty to errant or risky shots gone awry.

The pond is precariously close to the green, especially when you factor in the surrounding slopes leading into the pond.

Had either Emmett or Travis wanted to place a pond there, I'm quite sure that they would have put one there,
but evidently, they felt it inappropriate, and didn't put a pond there, choosing a bunker instead.

Chipoat,

I'm not so sure that your position is tenable.
It's not a question of taste, vanilla or chocolate, it's a question of true or sympathetic restoration, versus membershp preferences du jour, and there is an inherent threat to the architecture if you champion the latter.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

From looking closely at the first two aerials on the first page it appears certain that the pond is in just about the exact position of the front half or perhaps as much as the front 2/3 or the old bunker. Other than that small indentation on the left of the old bunker the pond and the old bunker appear to cover almost the exact same ground. The very small bunker now on the high left side of the green is the very top piece of the old bunker.

It looks like that green has shrunk a bit too!

And who added that third bunker in the midsection of the hole next to the road? Why don't you restore the bunker on the short right side that's gone too as well as that short top-shot, fore or carry bunker? Why don't you restore those bunkers way out short left too?

Matter of fact, if you're so into restoring Emmet/Travis before doing any real detailed research into what may or may not have worked once and what may or may not work now why don't you just show the club that first aerial and tell them if they're so into the heritage of Emmet/Travis just restore every single thing that can be seen in that aerial?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Because that wasn't the issue on the table.

The issue on the table was the pond, the pond and only the pond, not collateral issues that you've brought up that only divert the focus from the pond, which was THE sole agenda item.

The removal of the pond would seem to be a positive first step in a long and difficult restoration journey.

Why are you having difficulty grasping the issue at hand, and seperating it from all others ?

[T_MacWood]

TE
What are you talking about...I just presented here?

I'm Emmet advocate on the bunker by the 16th green.

chipoat
What I'm trying to determine is where you were coming from when you said "In my view, the green should be reconfigured so that the ideal angle of approach is from the LEFT side, not the right" on a thread that is debating the club's choice of re-establishing Emmet's bunker or do nothing at all. One thing for certain--pro-pond or anti-pond--GCGC and its membership has tremendous respect for Travis and Emmet and doesn't take or make changes lightly.

Of course you have never had a problem pulling the trigger...be it Emmet at GCGC, MacKenzie at ANGC, Wilson, Flynn and Valentine at Merion or Macdonald at NGLA....you have no problem with change and in fact defend change (and in some cases devise your own changes).

I'm conservative by nature...especially when talking about work that is unversally admired and has been preserved relatively unaltered for decades. You say you are a fan of Emmet, and a fan of Merion, and a fan of Macdonald and the NGLA, but a fan in my opinion--out of respect--would attempt to understand what the architect (who he is supposedly a fan of) was trying to accomplish with his design (#16 as an example) and wouldn't take alteration to his work so lightly. You strike me as more a casual admirer of Emmet (and architecture)....nothing wrong with that but, I'm not sure I'd want a csaual admirer making decisions at GCGC (or Merion for that matter)

I thought you were trying to say Inwood was Emmet, my mistake. My other question was regarding St.Georges...are you cetain Emmet designed the course for friend...I was under the impression Emmet's estate in that same neighborhood? Is the friend Emmet himself?

[T_MacWood]

I suspect the narrow left corridor was designed by the Old Man for the Old Man himself during certain conditions...he evidently had superhuman accuracy (and was not a long hitter).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I believe the theory, as espoused by others, of playing left of the left side fairway bunkers is seriously flawed.

It would seem that the risk reward on the drive could be two fold.  Carry the right side bunkers, requiring a longer tee shot resulting in an easier unobstructed approach shot, or play just right of the left side fairway bunkers, requiring a shorter, but more aerial approach into a more favorably pitched green.

There is no way that the hole was designed with the play of the drive into that narrow, precarious sliver of fairway left of the left side fairway bunkers, especially with the fairway canting right to left.

Altering the angle of the green is a hideous idea.

And, grounds for my fears about architecture de jour (sp?).

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I'll take your word for it. It was Travis's theory, not mine.

"On the other hand, the poor player--who in the majority of cases is such by reason of lack of length--need not tempt fortune by essaying the hazardous shot to the right; ample room is permittied him to the left, or even on straight line to the hole if he is sufficiently accurate. Then he has to decide whether he will 'go for' the green on his second."


Sufficiently accurate being the key phrase. As I said I suspect it was designed by Travis for Travis, perhaps when conditions were unfavorable for him (and his short drive) to go right. Travis was supposedly ultra-accurate (and a short hitter) and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

If that quote is from Walter Travis I think the club should consider restoring that hole to what he speaks of. Doesn't that sound to you like there must have been fairway to the left of those bunkers in the middle of the hole?

Why do you suppose then Pat Mucci is not willing to admit that? Do you suppose that he or anyone else at GCGC has bothered to read and seriously consider that letter or whatever it is from Travis? And what about what Travis had to the left of #16 green? Why wouldn't you be for restoring that?

[Chris_Blakely]

Tom,

I do know about St. George's, it was designed for several of his (Emmet's) friends.  He accepted no fee for his work, was the clubs first green chairman for its first couple years and was the club's champion several times.

I hope you are not confusing St. George's with Sherrewogue, which was Emmet's 9hole estate course built on the estate of Emmet's wife Ella's that he moved into upon marrying into the Smith Family.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I agree, they should consider restoring the width of the fairway at some point...but they are considering the bunker-pond issue now and IMO that issue is more important.

I would not be in favor of re-establishing the golf course to circa 1906 when Travis added the nutmeg graters (I don't consider them one of his more successful experiments). IMO the changes made by Emmet and Tillie after Travis improved the golf course. In my view the high point of the course was between (aproximately) 1932-50 -- I agree 1936 is a very good date to shoot for.

[TEPaul]

Tom or Pat:

When was the 16th hole changed from a par 5 to a par 4 and shortened? And was it Travis who did that? It looks like the green was moved shorter and to the left of where Emmet original built it in 1898. It seems the hole is maybe 30-40 yards shorter today than originally (I should look at my card but I can't find it right now). Do you think the back tee is today in the same position (in that little property cut-out) that it was in the original Emmet hole?

It appears that Travis, in his quote above, speaks of the hole as a three shotter--or is he saying that only in the context of the "short hitter" that he seems to be talking about? Or do you think #16 was a par 5 when Travis made that quote? I also see that Travis wanted to make #17 a par 4 1/2 on the card (or did). Also, in Emmet's orignal design #17 was a shorter hole than #16.

[T_MacWood]

TE
When Travis began redesigning the course in 1906 it was 414 yards, par-5. It was a hole that could be reached in two--under normal conditions--by most golfers. The 17th was 417 yards, par-5.

In 1900 the 16th was 446 and the 17th 434. In 1905 the 16th was 422 and the 17th 444.

[T_MacWood]

Chris
I was confusing his estate, which I think was in nearby St.James with St.Georges. If I'm not mistaken Emmet's wife was the sister of Stanford White's wife.

[Chris_Blakely]

Tom,

You are correct in that the golf links at Sherrewogue (St. James, LI) was laid out on the Emmet's estate and Stanford White was married to one of the sisters of Emmet's wife.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

What I'm trying to determine is if and when the 16th green may've been moved. It appears to me from the most recent history book that Travis apparently began working on the course as early as 1901 and certainly apparently 1902 in preparation for the 1902 US Open. It seems the course was lengthed by over 300 yds from 1900 to 1902. It appears this must have been Travis according to the history book. It also appears somewhere around the middle of the first decade that Travis doglegged #16 and it may've been shortened at that point. That would probably mean the present green is Travis, not Emmet whose #16 green appears to have been perhaps 30-40 yds to the right and farther on than the present green.

In other words, if the entire present green and its surrounds is Travis that should be significant for the club particularly as to what surrounds it. Does that mean the bunker to the left of #16 where the pond is now was Travis and not Emmet? At the very least a member such as rgkeller seemed interested in knowing who built that bunker that may be restored. Who do you or Pat Mucci think built that bunker and did either of you know that #16 green and its entire surrounds may've been designed and built by Travis?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Travis began working on the course in 1906. He detailed the changes he made and moving the green was not one of those changes. Emmet redesigned the green in the late 20's--the bunker is Emmet's.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Then who was responsible for lengthening the golf course between 1900-1902? Was that Emmet or was that Travis? If one reads the lastest history book and the beginning of the chapter entitled "A life dedicated to golf" it does seem to imply that might've been Travis following his victory in the US Amateur at ACCC in 1901. The history book, at least, implies the idea of lengthening the course was Travis's due to the increased length of the "bounding billy". Do you suppose he came back to GCGC from the Am victory and impressed upon Emmet to lengthen the course?

But regardless of who did it it appears to me that the 16th green is not that close to where it originally was in the original 18 hole Emmet course from 1898 which would mean it was moved, redesigned and rebuilt in another spot. It does look to me as if that green was moved left and short of where it once was. Would you agree with that?

[A_Clay_Man]

As a total outsider looking in... Why is the restoration of the cross-carry waste area in front of the tee not on the table?

That seems like a better feature to restore, first, since the pond is virtually non-existent from a playing perspective.

It seems clear from the issues raised in this thread that Forrest's position on uncertainty of restoration, is applicable in this case. Without a concensus on what makes this hole play best or the design styles of the many tinkerers, the debate will never end at GC. Which seems like a restoration in itself. The diametrically opposing sides of the green committee chairs. no?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I don't recall if the history implies that or not, but he didn't begin altering the course until 1906. I wouldn't get too caught up in the pre-1906 golf course...there is very little left of that golf course thanks to Travis.

There was a lot of tee movement in the early years prior to Travis...for example the 12th was a short par-4 280 yards.

[TEPaul]

"As a total outsider looking in... Why is the restoration of the cross-carry waste area in front of the tee not on the table?"

Adam:

According to Pat it's not on the table because it isn't on the AGENDA! The only thing on the agenda is whether or not to remove that pond. Anything else apparently the club or Pat or both considers to be only 'collateral issues' that only serve to divert the "agenda". One thing seems certain to assume is that GCGC is not interested in rushing into anything to do with restoration. Frankly, that's a massive understandment. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I'd think it wouldn't be all that hard if Emmet/Travis restoration is what they're interested in if they couldn't just put a bit more on the "agenda" and on the "table" at one time!