Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: V. Kmetz on October 21, 2009, 12:08:25 PM
-
The 9th at Yale and the 5th at Fishers Island are two of the more noteworthy Raynor entries for this style. I don't where I inured it, but I had always believed that one main function of the style was to use the approach and the front "section" of the green to sling the ball through the trough to rear pins, and also demanding control of the lower, more "running" shot to remain on the front level. It seems to me upon several rounds of both the Yale and Fishers versions that these practically demand aerial shots, which seems to contradict that design principle.
Of course both are a visual feast and offer a unique golfing sensation but I was wondering:
1. Am I understanding the strategic principle of the hole correctly?
2. If so, don't the Biarritz appearances at Mountain Lake, Carmargo, Yeamans, Shoreacres (of these I've only played Yeamans) fit the strategic intents with much greater diligence?
3. Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?" They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else." (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)
If any of you have occasion to respond, I'd love to know your thoughts.
cheers
vk
-
The Biarritz holes built by Macdonal, Raynor and Banks were built around 100 years ago before the introduction of the irrigation systems that we take for granted today in the US. Try to imagine hard-packed fairway approcahes guarded on both sides by menacing bunkers. The clubs and balls would not permit a carry to the green, so running your ball between the bunkers, then down and up the swale, was the only way to get it to the green.
Sadly, today's equipment and balls create the option of flying the ball to the green, and today's maintenance practices allow for greens that will hold these shots, even 3-woods and drivers. Much of the architectural intent of these holes has been lost, especially for long hitters.
On the other hand, there is a very strong movement to maintain the front portion of these green complexes as putting surfaces. Although the pin should rarely be placed up front, this creates a far firmer and faster approach than fairway height grass, so many of the shorter hitters now can reach the back section (usually 200-240 to the flag.) With the front sections maintained as mushy fairway, these players could never get it to the back section. So at least for players who can't carry to the back, the holes are being restored to the original intent.
-
BB,
I understand and agree with everything you stated. I just don't understand how Yale or Fishers ever exemplified the precepts and historical intents behind the design style. There's no mushy fairway or maintenance practices that have altered the shot "value" we both understand, there's Griest Pond and the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, one's slightly downhill and one's more strenuously uphill. Given the limitations of the golfing equipment in the era they were designed, I can't imagine hitting a brassie, spoon or long iron with a post-Haskell ball to them without the context being "penalty," not "strategy."
cheers
vk
-
V.,
If you want to see a great, and somewhat unheralded, Biarritz check out Charles "Steamshovel" Banks' #12 at Tamarack Country Club in Greenwich, CT.
-
Not sure I understand the importance of "penal" vs. "strategic" when discussing a one shot hole.
The strategy is to hit a straight, low running shot with enough force to roll through the swale and stop on the green. You are penalized pretty heavily if you miss it in the bunkers thaat line the approach. But I don't see that as putting the hole in the "penal" category.
I dont see the water at Yale as being a factor except for a real mishit.
-
3. Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?" They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else." (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)
Willie Dunn's chasm hole at Biarritz required the player to hit across a deep chasm. So I don't think that the holes at Yale or Fishers are bad because of the forced carry (and you don't have to carry the ocean at Fishers, do you?). From the members tees, I think the "chasm" carry is more like 160 at each course, though the uphill nature at Fishers makes it effectively longer. I agree it's a pretty penal hole.
-
BB:
I believe you're right; there is no importance between penal and strategic on a one-shotter...if it's an ordinary or poor golf hole. A great golf hole, that is more than its whistles and bells - to me - would have a strategic choice at its core. Just because a one-shotter has already eschewed the strategy of a driving tee shot and already placed you safely in the fairway (the Par 3 tee box) does not mean there's nothing strategic left to consider for the Approach you are left with. And...as often as not..the great Par 3s place you not in the ideal position to approach the green if it were a Par 4 or 5, but one slightly askew to that spot, but giving back the concept that you put the ball on a peg for this "altered from optimum" approach" position.
With intelligent design of green complex topography and placement of teeing grounds, a great one-shotter will have different dangers and opportunties based on the wind and pins. I know a beautiful 130- 150 par 3, over water with a broad wavy folded taco green, two bunkers and a wide tee box that calls for cuts and draws and higher, longer shots and shots that hold the wind and fall right or left; ones with lots of spin and ones that you want to land dead. It's not even a superb, all time hole - but it's a quality design and has loads of strategy in the precise quality of the stroke onto it. As an enjoyment or hole that makes you think as opposed to the fear of merely "low, straight, running shot" over water to a wild green.
Even I accept the fact that Yale's forced carry over water is only 140 yards, Fisher's isn't and if you stated the Biarritz concept perfectly (I believe you did) the last thing those holes seem to inspire is "a straight, low running shot with enough force to roll through the swale and stop on the green."
I love them both and enjoy playing them, but I just wondered if anyone else thought the flatter non-carry ones were more rewarding to play?
JM: Technically it's not the ocean that's carried per se, , it's a small inlet on the bluffs, but the effect is the same. Do you or anyone have pictures of the Dunn Biarritz? I've always wanted to see it.
-
V
You may be right, many great par 3's don't have you in the ideal position to approach the green. (That's one of the things I like best about Redans, by the way!)
However, one of the cool things about a Biarritz is that you are placed in the PERFECT place to approach the green. The problem is, it is the longest approach shot you will likely have all day. And you can see all the trouble quite clearly, whether it be the "chasm," the bunkers, the swale, or that pin way in the distance. If you like golfers to feel discomfort on the tee, a good Biarritz fills the bill!
Don't forget the strategy of simply playing the hole as if it required two shots to reach the green, something that the ODG's probably thought about far more than we do as golfers today. In that respect, it is a pretty benign par 4: long or middle iron to the approach area and a short wedge to a huge green.
I also think you need to remember that the Biarritz was almost always one of four very unique par 3 holes. We all know the excellence of the Redan, the simple yet precise requirment for accuracy on the Short, and the daughnting mid-iron challenges presented by the Eden. When you add in the extremely long par 3 Biarritz, I'd say the archy has done a good job testing your ability to play par 3's, wouldn't you?
-
JM: Technically it's not the ocean that's carried per se, , it's a small inlet on the bluffs, but the effect is the same. Do you or anyone have pictures of the Dunn Biarritz? I've always wanted to see it.
Not sure about past conditions, but the only time I've seen the 5th at Fishers the carry was pretty much across grass & rough. No real inlet carry unless you're playing a significant draw.
Bill,
Great description of the approach to the biarritz.
-
3. Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?" They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else." (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)
vk
It's not really so bad to have a shot like this nowadays. With modern equipment and golf balls the shot doesn't ask nearly as much in the way of pure distance as it did when first designed. In fact, many great par 3s ask this from the golfer, e.g. 5 at Pine Valley
-
BB:
In that respect, it is a pretty benign par 4: long or middle iron to the approach area and a short wedge to a huge green.
bb
I agree with the probable surmising of many one-shotters as two-shotters by the Golden Age designers - the key relationship (imo) is to a score of "4." I just would like to know where to hit my ball if I'm not going for the green in one. I think at Yale and Fisher's, especially the latter's Biarritz, there's only the long straight option - which I thought was not a mark of greatness.
I repeat, I enjoy both of those courses and those holes are always a kick, but if you miss 20 yds (60ft) left or right from the center of the green, you might not even find it (again, less so at Yale). If it's a match, I care a lot less...but as well-regarded exemplars of a particular style, they both elicit far more fear than delight or golfing opportunity in my game.
That doesn't appeal to me, even if it is one select occurrence intended to be a the "Long, Straight Test" of the Short, Eden, Redan et al.
cheers
vk
-
VK,
Did you know that when Raynor built Yale, the front section of the green was actually fairway?
So he really did give you a safe play: the landing area over the water, short of the swale...
I'm not sure when they converted the front section to putting surface. I believe that was the first course to do so.
If you don't think it is a great hole, you are entitled to your opinion.
It certainly is one of the hardest par 3's anywhere, is quite unique in its design (even among Biarritzs), demands great skill to hit the green, a par is far from certain even if you hit the green in regulation, is picturesque, and is the hole that most people think of when the topic of Yale comes up. To me, that ticks off many of the qualities that most great holes share, but what do I know?
Sounds like a wayward tee shot knocked it off your favorite hole list ;D
-
BB:
I am aware that many intact or restored Biarritzes have morphed in and out of having the front section appear as green or fairway (at Fishers it has been fairway during my 8 playings) but I did not know that was the case at Yale. What year did that change to green surface? Though it might be a "gimmicky" annex to the original philsophy, I kind of like the marvel of it; the drama of the contours are so rarely found and the prospect of a slamming 90 foot putt down and back up through the trough is singular.
My fondest 9th at Yale story: I've played it 20-25x and made everything from 8 to 2. I would say that the pin placement has been back (yea!) and front (boo!) a near equal amount of times. But in the mid 90s when I was playing it most, I ran into a stretch of visits when the pin had already been in the front three times in a row (boo!) Upon a fourth visit, it was there again and I was truly disappointed, so I took a 3-iron and played towards the back anyway. I guess being so blithe about not making a score, but playing a shot, I hammered it a little long. The rough lie was pretty clean but I had never played from the back to the front and I had no idea of distance control coming downhill through the trough. I decided it was safest to play a little 7 yard "hop" with a PW figuring as long as it couldn't help but go down and through, which it did...right back up, braking 50% through the trough and steering in for a birdie.
Can't stress enough to you and the readers of this thread that I sincerely enjoy both holes; so stirred am I at the sight of the 9th at Yale (first played in 1994) that I often think it might have been the culmination-tipping point when the design of what I played became more important than my swing or score. I merely want to engage the one-and-only discussion group that could speak intelligently to the concept.
As always we learn and here I've learned that Dunn's original necessitated a handsome carry over a chasm and that "fright" is intended to be in the equation as replicated by the MAC/Ray/Banks style.
I welcome any other views of what's been discussed.
cheers
vk
-
Willie Dunn's chasm hole at Biarritz required the player to hit across a deep chasm. So I don't think that the holes at Yale or Fishers are bad because of the forced carry (and you don't have to carry the ocean at Fishers, do you?).
As I understand it, no one knows if the chasm hole had a Biarritz green. Or, really, if CBM modeled the Biarritz after this hole.
At Yale, the tee sits some 50 feet or more above the green. I have never played there, but that would seem to make it real hard to hit a low runner. Someone on this site said the strategy is to hit a tee shot that lands on the downslope of the gulch. That is supposed to fling it onto the back shelf. Talk about target golf. You better have perfect distance control.
-
I've never seen photos of the original chasm hole. I think that Classic Golf Hole Design (Cornish & Graves) has a sketch of the original hole that includes a swale in the center of the green, but this may have just been speculation on their part.
I don't think that the swale is intended to be used to sling the ball to the back. It seems that the way the hole should play is to always have the hole in the back tier. Those that couldn't play a long accurate carry could either lay up to the front and then face a challenging putt. The running shot would be a way to play the hole, but not the only one. Of course, this is just my own speculation but CBM often spoke of giving the weaker player a way out. Seems the front part of a Biarritz green does that.
-
Having never yet had the pleasure of a round at Fishers Island, I can only comment on the 9th at Yale. It is certainly one of my favorite par 3s anywhere, demanding a player's best long iron or fairway wood shot of the day. I've played it twice with the pin in back, twice with it in front. While it's an interesting shot to a front pin, it's a completely different hole a such times. Still a good hole in its own right, but not as thrilling as when the pin is in back.
The real problem is that they have yet to reach the point where the green is so firm that it is necessary to land the ball in front in order to hold the green to a back pin. It's getting there, but not quite yet as of this August.
-
How many rounds a year are played at Yale? You would think that a world class University, with a massive endowment (although it took a nice hit recently) would be able to support top-notch maintenace of the course.
-
How many rounds a year are played at Yale? You would think that a world class University, with a massive endowment (although it took a nice hit recently) would be able to support top-notch maintenace of the course.
Jud--
Yale currently enjoys very good conditions (a few low-lying troublesome areas still) while getting a good amount of play from members and Yale students, faculty, and personnel. It is a whole lot better since many original features and shapes have been restored out there, thanks to Scott Ramsey, the Superintendent. Things will only improve under his supervision, I suspect.
-
good to hear, I only played out there once in '95 and it was a bit sketchy....
-
Jud--
You owe it to yourself to take pains to return when possible. It is a revolution that has happened there. The profile on this site was updated recently; hif you haven't already, you'll notice that the pictures show some appreciably better-looking holes than those your memory of 1995 will supply.
--Tim
-
Bill Brightly and others:
Concerning the idea of the front section of Biarritz greens being putting surfaces:
Biarritz holes have been a favorite of mine from the "git-go" of my Macdonald - Raynor - Banks research.
When I first began researching and visiting their courses beginning in the late 1980's only a few courses had putting surface before the "Valley of Sin" swale; Yale, Mid-Ocean, Chicago Golf come to mind (there were a few more). To me it was a striking feature, totally different from the Biarritz on my hole I'd been plain for so many years, so I encouraged other clubs to go down the road of a "double-green" bisected by the swale.
I had (and have) to this time been able to determine what the original Biarritz green was like but given the time line (1888), the ball, the golf clubs, certainly the firm ground and the differential in the height on the Chasm hole, tee to green, I would suspect the green (or the approach to the green) was long and narrow (a cliff on the right). The original hole was 220-yards - the carry over the Bay of Biscay reported to be 160 or so yards, which leaves 60-yards beyond the Bay to the middle of the green.
but concerning whether the Biarritz holes by Macdonald Raynor were ever meant to be a double green and given that the Yale-9th would be the poster-child for Macdonald-Raynor orginal interpretation, a few months ago friend Tony Pioppi turned up the following information from the Yale archives stating the "green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach" - to me - verifies these hole were never intended to have the double-green.
a portion of the article:
Special to The Courant
The Hartford Courant; Aug 16, 1925 - page B4
New Haven, Aug. 15, 1925
Yale to Open Probably Most Unique and
One of Largest Golf Courses in United States
The ninth hole is over the northwestern end of the Greist pond and has it original on the Biarritz course in France.
The green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach which is of about the same area as the green. The approach is bunkered heavily on the right and left and the fairway is the lake. This hole is one of the most interesting of the course and is deceptive because of the full water play although the hole is not a long one.
-
GB and all,
Thank you for the overview. Are there any available "viewable" materials concerning the original Biarritz?
Does the course and/or the hole still exist?
Whether it does or not, could the specific site be viewed from Google Earth to at least get and overhead on the general ground?
Cheers
vk
-
George Bahto, I'm unclear if you think the chasm hole had a swale, either on the green or right before it. Other than the chasm itself, I mean.
-
The 9th at Yale and the 5th at Fishers Island are two of the more noteworthy Raynor entries for this style. I don't where I inured it, but I had always believed that one main function of the style was to use the approach and the front "section" of the green to sling the ball through the trough to rear pins, and also demanding control of the lower, more "running" shot to remain on the front level.
I believe that you're laboring under a false opinion.
The play of a Biarritz relies heavily on the topography, the relationship, elevation wise, between the tee and the green.
The 9th at Yale has a high tee, low green.
The 5th at Fisher's has a low tee, high green, thus the two holes play nothing alike.
In addition, the 5th at Fisher's has a pronounced spine in the putting surface behind the trough running from 12 O'clock to 6 O'clock, a feature that 's absent at Yale. In addition, the rear putting surface at Yale differs materially from the putting surface behind the trough at Fisher's.
It seems to me upon several rounds of both the Yale and Fishers versions that these practically demand aerial shots, which seems to contradict that design principle.
I'd disagree with that statement as well.
Yale demands an aerial shot due to two factors.
1. The highly elevated tee and the much lower green.
2. The body of water fronting the green.
The 5th at Fisher's easily accomodates a running shot, especially a low driver.
Of course both are a visual feast and offer a unique golfing sensation but I was wondering:
1. Am I understanding the strategic principle of the hole correctly?
NO
2. If so, don't the Biarritz appearances at Mountain Lake, Carmargo, Yeamans, Shoreacres (of these I've only played Yeamans) fit the strategic intents with much greater diligence?
The Biarritz at Mountain Lake has the tee and the green at almost the same elevations, therefore a running shot to the back tier is more likely due to the topography and the natural trajectory of the tee shot with a long club.
3. Don't the forced carries and rugged topography between tee and green at Yale and Fisher's render the hole much more purely "penal?"
NO, the topographies are as different as night and day.
The tee shot at Fisher's encourages a low running shot, the tee shot at Yale will not tolerate a low shot or it will fall short of the green, into the water.
They both seem to say, "Hit it straight, at least 160, or else." (at Fisher's that bumps up to nearly 180 yds)
Both tee shots require fairly straight tee shots, but then again, so does every par 3.
Fisher's can be a far more daunting tee shot due to the winds sweeping off the water.
A choked up driver, hit low is a great shot at Fisher's.
I would never attempt that shot at Yale.
If any of you have occasion to respond, I'd love to know your thoughts.
-
The Biarritz holes built by Macdonal, Raynor and Banks were built around 100 years ago before the introduction of the irrigation systems that we take for granted today in the US. Try to imagine hard-packed fairway approcahes guarded on both sides by menacing bunkers. The clubs and balls would not permit a carry to the green, so running your ball between the bunkers, then down qand up the swale, was the only way to get it to the green.
Agreed.
Sadly, today's equipment and balls create the option of flying the ball to the green, and today's maintenance practices allow for greens that will hold these shots, even 3-woods and drivers. Much of the architectural intent of these holes has been lost, especially for long hitters.
Not at Fisher's where irrigation is mostly absent.
On the other hand, there is a very strong movement to maintain the front portion of these green complexes as putting surfaces. Although the pin should rarely be placed up front, this creates a far firmer and faster approach than fairway height grass, so many of the shorter hitters now can reach the back section (usually 200-240 to the flag.) With the front sections maintained as mushy fairway, these players could never get it to the back section. So at least for players who can't carry to the back, the holes are being restored to the original intent.
The front portion or front tier of the Biarritz at Fisher's was NEVER intended to be a putting surface.
The Biarritz at Mountain Lake has both tiers mowed at green height, as does Yale.
Currently, so does the 11th at The Creek, although the trough is fairly benign.
Piping Rock's front tier and trough could be mowed at green height, as is the modified Biarritz at Westhampton.
I doubt that the Knoll's Biarritz ever had the front tier mowed as green.
-
An undated photo of Yale's 9th by Edwin Levick (1869-1929) from the NYPL.
(http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=414741&t=w)
-
Dave,
Great picture, thanks.
Try hitting a low runner into that green, irrespective of where the hole is cut.
Not exactly the shot of choice for the prudent golfer.
-
Jim N: there is no way of knowing because of the lack of information - we've been trying to figure it out for years.
In my personal opinion - repeat, MY PESONAL OPINION ........ in early years the Macdonald Biarritz holes wee referred to as "Macdonald's Folly" and the "Valley of Sin Hole"
Given CB's love of TOC, I believe he CBM used the swale influence of 18-TOC, using it preceding a (single) green. I can't verify it - perhaps someday some information about the original green at Biarritz, FR will surface.
As I stated earlier, due to the nature of the approach and green area of the original hole, I think the green and its approach had to be much longer than it was wide
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/ChasmPaintingadjustedLATER8-2002.jpg)
-
I think the old picture of Yale's clearly shows that the front section was fairway, a safe play or the conservative player to approach the green/. I would love to know who came up with the idea of making a putting surface out of the approach area. It is a perfectly fine hole playing to the front section, just not a Biarritz.
Posters keep asking if the original Chasm hole in front had a similar green. I don;t know the answer, but from George Bahto's research I bet it did not. I believe that C.B. Macdonald comined the "chasm" feature of the tee shot in France with a swale the he liked someplace else, and he decided to combine the feature on his Biarritz holes. He then taught that concept to Raynor and Banks.
I think it is very cool that Fishers has eschewed fairway irrigation and their Biarritz plays much like it did in the Golden Age. I wonder if Fishers has consider maintaining the front section as a putting surface. I would love tohear Donnie's response.
-
George-
Thanx for the responses. Very educational stuff.....
-
Bill,
There is way too much slope to ever drop the front to putting green height. A ball would never come to rest on the front section.
-
Bill Brightly & George Bahto,
If you look at the picture David Moriarty posted, you'll note how steep the back tier at # 9 at Yale is.
While it may have made an interesting putting surface in the 40's, it doesn't make for an interesting putting surface at today's speeds.
The back tier is a steeply sloped green.
With today's speeds hole location is a problem, as is putting on the slope.
I don't know the date of David's photo, but, if it was taken during or slightly after the aftershocks of the depression, or, during or after WWII, cost might have been the overriding factor in not mowing the swale and first tier to a putting surface, rather than the architect's intent.
The Biarritz at Fishers Island has a unique feature not found amongst many, if any, Biarritz's.
Namely, a spine, running from 6 O'clock to 12 O'clock.
That spine seperates the back tier and provides a smaller target relative to hole location and a far more difficult putting surface on the 2nd tier.
The only time I've seen a similar feature in a template hole is the Redan 3rd green at The Knoll, which has a spine running through the mid section of the green.
-
Patrick,
The listed photographer (Edwin Levick) died in 1929 so it is fairly likely that the photo was taken before then.
-
I cannot myself, figure a way to post the image but these are the coordinates to use for a Google Earth/aerial photography apps you may have to view an overhead of what was most likely the "Biarritz" hole:
43 degrees, 29' 33.55" N
1 degrees, 32' 54.11" W
This will have you directly over the perspective of the painter of Mr. Bahto's posted image
A Wikipedia entry on the town of Biarritz didn't promise much, but delivered this little nugget:
"The golf course, near the lighthouse (Le Phare), was created in 1888 by British residents."
If you achieve a view of the area, you will see an existing golf course immediately to the SE, you may be able to make out the lighthouse (even in flat photography) approximately 500 yards WNW of the coordinates above.
It seems fairly obvious that at some point over 122 years, the course eschewed the Chasm hole (for development opportunities in a wealthy, resort town?), conglomerating to its SE.
None of that may help us see what CBM saw or was copying in incorporating the concept into his design, but:
1. intersecting his comments on model golf holes in "Scotland's Gift..." pg 184: "15. 210 yds Suggested by the 12th Biarritz, making sharp hog's back in middle of course. Stop 30 yards from hole bunkered to right of green and good low ground to the left of plateau green."
along with
2. the general appearance of the painting and dimensions from aerial photography of the presumed site
plus
3. the Biarritzes primarily designed/located by CBM (he was the only one of the MAC/Raynor/Banks trio to actually see the Dunn hole?)
as opposed to
3a. those primarily/solely produced by Raynor/Banks...
a few things seem to come in focus...
A. the "Carry Chasm" part of the shot seems mostly advantageous for its visual inspiration, not as a "shot value" of the hole. I conclude this because it appears that the "Carry Chasm" part of the Dunn original was at most 60-80 yards, and because the CBM-titled efforts (that I'm aware of) don't have the prodigious (140 - 160) carries that the Raynor ones have, if they even have penalty carries at all.
B. the balance of mystery and camouflage of the Valley of Sin-style trough fronting the "green" ("rear portion" where approach is mowed as green) seems to be the effect(s) most on CBM's mind for the shot. The extra-long geometric rectangle of the entire complex laid over heaving ground adds a perverse sense of the rational to what is usually an irrational experience of fortune and anxious anticipation of result.
C. In the albeit flimsy survey of Google Earth topographical features and the perspective of the painting, I get the feeling that the original was played ultimately from "flat to flat," briefly across the chasm, perhaps 10-12 feet uphill, made slightly more so by the "plateau" green he references in "Scotland's Gift,"
D: Theoretically (but maybe practically) speaking, I think Raynor's 5th at FI is probably "closest" to replicating or capturing his boss and mentor's original sight of the Dunn hole at Biarritz. This is in the single most general sense I can infere. The chasm carry is significantly longer and the ground along the left is more foreboding as well as it being (I suspect) a fair more amount uphill than what CBM saw. But the vast sea to the right, the "perch to perch" general feel of both shots, and the visible (but still mysterious) drama of the target contours probably have more symmetry between the Dunn hole and any in the MAC/Raynor canon.
E: Whether this is all idle speculation or cogent commentary, I have experienced a new appreciation for the MAC/Raynor oeuvre - even though my regard of their work was of the greatest respect already. Even if I'll never see absolute proof of the original, and never know if one of them got it more right in any one Biarritz entry, we still have these great holes - we call "Biariitz." We can play around with what we like...have the front be part of the green, have it not; we can make it a anxious hit across and near a wondrous hazard or it can be on a flat plain with perspective skewed in that manner. Even if we elect to feature NO bunkers paralleling the sides of the rectangular plateau of green and have closely mown grass for 40 yards around, we still have the lesson and the fun of landform alone as a legitimate, enjoyable, essential challenge of play. Though hundreds of other noteworthy holes - too numerous to mention, but Augusta's 14th green does come to mind - demonstrate the landform-first concept, there's something so...ridiculous...about a large trench in the middle of the target area (whether its fairway or green). Then you think, "Geez, someone designed this!" and this calibrates with the deep rectangular appearance of the target plaza and thin bunker lines of the sides. That is the soul of the "engineered style;" where the rational tools like compass and T-square are noticable in trying to capture the irrational and ridiculous fortune of St. Andrews and the vintage links .
I really thank everyone for their contributions to date, and their patience to endure my speculations.
cheers
vk
-
Just an update from way back...
Jud Tigerman suggested I check out the 12th at the Ch. Banks-designed Tamarack CC in Greenwich CT for an example of an unheralded and superb Biarritz...
Boy was he ever right on...what a beautiful Biariitz style. I'll try to post some pictures in the near-future.
I haven't played Tamarack in 25 years, and back then playing any private course was a stolen privilege and furthermore I did not possess and comparative or qualitative faculties. But in the latter years of my golf education, I had heard the course renovations (1999-2002?) were spectacular. I was supposed to play it in July 2003, but that fell through and I hadn't given it much thought until Jud's comment.
All I have got to say from my two-hour walking tour today is that it will be the first private course I will seek the privilege to play in 2010. Because it is just down the street from where I often work, I felt a little stupid for not having played it a dozen times in the last years.
I admit an absolute and complete bias for the CBM-Raynor-Banks "family tree" of architecture. I like the GB-European hole models; I like the elements of geometric and engineered style; I like broad, large greens with dramatic swells; I like sharp grass platforms looming over the large plain of a hidden sunken bunker; I like the humor of ridiculous contour ner a green complex. All of these elements are the most stimulating to my golf sensibilities and Tamarack seems to have it all.
Again, i did not play the course today and hadn't played it in 25 years so I can't speak with the experience of a couple of rounds...maybe it stinks...but I sure can't wait to try and find out. Visually, and intellectually it is everything a course of this "School" of architecture should be.
Collectively, the one-shot holes seem as strong as any of CBM or Raynor groupings; the 3rd Eden is akin to Fisher's 11th imported to a Parkland style; the 7th "Redan" owes a lot to 13 Yale, though this one has a cleaner, defined "look'. The 12th Biarritz is a close cousin to Raynor's Westhampton version (but unique in this precise setting) and the 15th "Short" has all the technical elements with a nice quiet corner at the northern edge of the property.
Can't wait to play it and test out all this premature praise, but man - it looks like a winner!
cheers
vk
-
VK-
thanks for the props! Tamarack is an unheralded gem at this point. I have had the good fortune to play it several times a year as one of my best friends is a member. This is certainly the best biarritz I've played, and I've played a bunch of 'em. The course might even deserve a full-blown Ran writeup...
-
JT:
It certainly does deserve a profile. i have a lot of writing projects on my plate, golf and otherwise, but if members like the Siwanoy profile I have coming up, I would certainly like to play this a few times and give such a piece a fair crack.
Visually, I was stunned. My hazy memories of this place were at a time when golf was just young-man slashing through the bowling alley trees of the 1940s - 80s era courses, but to see it today, I cannot believe the ardent Banks-Raynor-CBM notables on the board don't jump up and down about this course. The topography has engineered drama, but outside of 6, 8 and 17, it isn't a bad walk. the tree removal from the pines of my hazy memories is shocking and wonderful. Views of golf everywhere, interesting landforms, the template holes, i mean how could George Bahto not be talking about this course everyday?
But again, I must play it a few times before i give it the true review...but oh how promising!
cheers
vk
-
Here is a 1930s aerial of Tamarack's Biarritz. You can see the steep drop off on the side, the narrowed run-up in front, the long flanking bunkers and the three bunkers on the line between the tee and the green. Much of the flankers are gone in a modern aerial view, and so are two of the fronting bunkers.
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?
CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=6888&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=2353&DMY=2415&DMTEXT=%2004045&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
VK-check your messages....
-
Here is a 1930s aerial of Tamarack's Biarritz. You can see the steep drop off on the side, the narrowed run-up in front, the long flanking bunkers and the three bunkers on the line between the tee and the green. Much of the flankers are gone in a modern aerial view, and so are two of the fronting bunkers.
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?
CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=6888&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=2353&DMY=2415&DMTEXT=%2004045&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
Jim,
What a great looking aerial.
Do you know why the flanking and fronting bunkers were removed, and when.
Was the entire footpad mowed to green height ? or just the back tier ?
-
Bill Brightly and others:
Concerning the idea of the front section of Biarritz greens being putting surfaces:
Biarritz holes have been a favorite of mine from the "git-go" of my Macdonald - Raynor - Banks research.
When I first began researching and visiting their courses beginning in the late 1980's only a few courses had putting surface before the "Valley of Sin" swale; Yale, Mid-Ocean, Chicago Golf come to mind (there were a few more). To me it was a striking feature, totally different from the Biarritz on my hole I'd been plain for so many years, so I encouraged other clubs to go down the road of a "double-green" bisected by the swale.
I had (and have) to this time been able to determine what the original Biarritz green was like but given the time line (1888), the ball, the golf clubs, certainly the firm ground and the differential in the height on the Chasm hole, tee to green, I would suspect the green (or the approach to the green) was long and narrow (a cliff on the right). The original hole was 220-yards - the carry over the Bay of Biscay reported to be 160 or so yards, which leaves 60-yards beyond the Bay to the middle of the green.
but concerning whether the Biarritz holes by Macdonald Raynor were ever meant to be a double green and given that the Yale-9th would be the poster-child for Macdonald-Raynor orginal interpretation, a few months ago friend Tony Pioppi turned up the following information from the Yale archives stating the "green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach" - to me - verifies these hole were never intended to have the double-green.
a portion of the article:
Special to The Courant
The Hartford Courant; Aug 16, 1925 - page B4
New Haven, Aug. 15, 1925
Yale to Open Probably Most Unique and
One of Largest Golf Courses in United States
The ninth hole is over the northwestern end of the Greist pond and has it original on the Biarritz course in France.
The green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach which is of about the same area as the green. The approach is bunkered heavily on the right and left and the fairway is the lake. This hole is one of the most interesting of the course and is deceptive because of the full water play although the hole is not a long one.
George,
I believe that many of the greens that Raynor built had a cinder layer directly under the putting surface, and in those instances where there is a cinder layer in the putting green construction, there are no cinders under the turf in front of the biarritz swale. Now if there are biarritz greens with cinder layers out there, in the turf in front of the swale, then perhaps those holes represent a version of the hole that was meant to be maintained as putting turf before the trough. That would be an extraordinary find.
-
Patrick,
I don't have solid answers to your questions but if I was to hazard a guess I'd say the drainage. In the modern aerial the upper flanking bunker stops short of the swale and doen't continue to the back of the green. That's the wide end of the swale.
On the lower side, the narrower end of the swale, the flanking bunker stops, but a small bunker remians just past the swale.
Again, it's just a guess but I think drainage had something to do with it.
If you look at the 'first' section of the footpad, the one before the swale begins, you'll notice that the color is darker in this section then the one after the swale. This usually means longer grass when looking at these old aerials, although sometimes it has to do with angle. These two surfaces are on the same plane so i think it's more likely length of grass.
I will look for the 1965 aerial to see if the bunkers were removed by then.
-
Pat,
Here's 1965. As you can see the upper bunker was mostly gone, like today, and two out of the three that were short of the green are also missing. The lower bunker had a small section filled in, right by the swale. It looks like both sections are mowed at the same (or nearly) height at this time. The little areas of 'white' in the bunkers are snow, also seen bordering the woods.
I think you can make out a horshoe feature on the back section in both the '34 and '65 aerials, although it seems much clearer in the '65 photo. Nothing definite, but it looks like one to me. It's "U" shape is a bit lighter than the rest of the surface.
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=9642&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=1844&DMY=4704&DMTEXT=%2000217&REC=2&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
George,
I believe that many of the greens that Raynor built had a cinder layer directly under the putting surface, and in those instances where there is a cinder layer in the putting green construction, there are no cinders under the turf in front of the biarritz swale. Now if there are biarritz greens with cinder layers out there, in the turf in front of the swale, then perhaps those holes represent a version of the hole that was meant to be maintained as putting turf before the trough. That would be an extraordinary find.
[/quote]
Bradley - you're right, in many cases Raynor used that cinder layer, both mostly to locate the edges of the green and partly forf drainage
I was with the super at Shoreacres, Tim Daves, as we probed to see if the fron section ans swale were to be green - no trace of any cinders. The same at Piping Rock where Rich Spear has probed the front to see if there were cinders - none.
I think I'll ask Scott Ramsey to prob Yale's front section
-
George,
Whigham's statement (quoted in your book) makes it clear that the front section wasn't intended to be part of the green, doesn't it?
I posted this on the other thread, but might be more appropriate here. Below are Merion's 17th, the plasticine model of Lido's Biarritz, and Piping Rock's Biarritz. The Lido's was listed at 220 yards, while the white line and yellow line of the other two are each 230 yards.
Look how crazy the first section (the "hogsback") was at the Lido.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/BiarritzThree.jpg?t=1259811449)
-
George,
Bradley - you're right, in many cases Raynor used that cinder layer, both mostly to locate the edges of the green and partly forf drainage
I was with the super at Shoreacres, Tim Daves, as we probed to see if the fron section ans swale were to be green - no trace of any cinders. The same at Piping Rock where Rich Spear has probed the front to see if there were cinders - none.
I think I'll ask Scott Ramsey to prob Yale's front section
George,
I think that would lay to rest any questions regarding the grassing intent of the biarritz hole. If that section was intended to be kept as putting surface, it would have cinders under it, as apparently that material was being used as a standard layer in Raynor's construction of putting surface. Personally, I think maintaining that section before the trough at putting green height does nothing to detract from the fun of playing that hole. But it certainly adds to the cost of maintaining it.
I was with Tim Davis one day on the front of 17, and he was showing me how he traces the putting green perimeter with a soil probe. I just love that kind of stuff.
-
Pat:
I'll tell you why I think some of those huge flanking bunkers on original biarritz holes were lost or obsoleted over time. That would include both flanking bunkers before the swale at Fox Chapel's biarritz, apparently Tamarack's and others. I think it was the very same reason some of the huge bunkers completely encircling other Macdonad/Raynor greens such at the Short (17th) at The Creek were partially lost over time.
It has to do with basic practically as unfortunate as it may be because golfers just did not want to walk through those bunkers to depart the green and they sure didn't want to walk all the way around them---given the fact that those flanking bunkers on either side of most biarritzes ran for just about 80 YARDS!!!
And what probably REALLY exaccerbated this problem and was responsible for the obsoleting of some or parts of these kinds of massive flanking and green encirling bunkers?? The onset, beginning in the 1950s and really increasing in the ensuing decades---of THE GOLF CART!!!! :'(
In the old days you could walk straight up a biarritz and exit the green at the back if you were a walking golfer but if you were riding it's a whole different deal, unfortunately.
-
Bradley:
By cinders are you talking about charcoal? If so, there was apparently a whole different reason or at least a double reason for that.
-
Pat,
I’ve looked at all the Biarritz holes in Ct for the year 1934 along with some of the plans in George’s book and most of the bunker configurations are different.
-For instance, at The CC of Fairfield there were no bunkers at the ends of the swales, 3 separate bunkers on the left side of the hole and 4 separate bunkers on the right, with the cross bunker in front.
-At Yale GC the left side bunker stopped just past the swale while the one on the right stopped short of it.
-Piping Rock’s was full along the right side, but separated into two on the left side and starting at the back plateau
-Southhampton’s looks to have been full on both sides.
-St.Louis looks like 3 separate bunkers on the left and none on the right.
It seems that it could be drainage in some cases, the advent of carts in others (although the there were walking corridors between some of these bunkers that predated carts by a few decades), and maintenance must have had some influence.
One other possible reason is that the shot of choice was a low fade, if I read George correctly, and the back bunkering at Tamarack may not have been getting much use, so the club may have seen it as a small loss.
-
We have an aerial photo from the 1940's at Hackensack (Banks) which show the front left bunker removed, and it is very easy to see the outline of the old bunker. The front right portion was removed a year later. Story is this was a cost cutting measure during WW II, and I always suspected that it came from Tillinghast's USGA advisory visit.
I've posted this 1930 picture before, but I just love it, so I'll post it again:
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/HoleNo3-sepiatone.jpg)
-
Pat,
Meant to say 'push' shot. Probably a freudian slip, when I try it I fade. ;D
Bill,
What's a nice photo, thanks for posting it again.
Is that a twosome holding up the foursome? :)
-
Pat:
You will definitely find this hard to believe but The Creek's Biarritz apparently had sand bunkers on either side of it originally. Just think about that for a moment and you'll realize that is really insane! ;)
It sort of looks like the Macdonald/Raynor record shows to some extent that if you put those two around some complex hydrological problems some things were not going to work out so well, and that is surely pretty ironic with Raynor since he was certainly a very competent professional surveyor/engineer. This seems to have been the plight of some of the holes of The Lido and definitely a few of them at The Creek. At The Creek, the fix itself actually cost more than it cost to build most any entire golf course. It also looks like the reason for Macdonald's departure!
-
Bill Brightly:
That is quite a photo of that Hackensack Biarritz in 1930. Just look at that thing and tell me how any golfer is going to get off something that big to the next hole without walking right through the sand in one of those formal bunkers. There was quite a bit of that originally on holes like that in the early days but I would love somebody to show me any photograph of a hole where that kind of thing lasted into the 1960s and 1970s and on with formal bunkering. What you will see is either wholesale sectional bunker removal or at the very least segmentation that's created by strips of grass walkways.
My suggestion with Fox Chapel's biarritz was for them to restore those two big flanking bunkers before the swale (all gone now) and just put grass walkways through the massively long bunkers on either side right out of both sides of the swale.
-
Tom,
You mean do this?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Hackensack%20Biarritz%20Construction/HGC3afterwork001.jpg)
-
Here's what it looked like before. After Gordon worked on it in the 60's...(but we had already started the process of maintaining the front section as putting surface)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Hackensack%20Biarritz%20Construction/P1010037.jpg)
-
The description of Yale's Biarritz published in Yale's magazine, published soon after the course was built:
Number 9. 225—210—190 yards. Par 3.
Has a water carry of 163 yards from the back tee. The green is guarded by a deep trench across the front; the approach is narrow, flanked by bunkers with water jutting in on the right front. The fairway is Lake Griest. This hole is copied from Biarritz and is the driver hole.
If the trench guarded the green "across the front," then the green must have been behind the trench, right?
ASIDE: Jim Sullivan, I am not sure if you are reading this thread, but notice that the approach was described as "narrow." Looking at the photos (previous page and below) it was hardly what we would think of as "narrow." In fact it looks to have been close to 30 yards wide; wider than the green. But it does seem to be what we would fairly shallow, meaning that there isn't really too much room between the beginning of the approach and beginning of the swale (at least when one considers what comes before the approach.) This reminded me of the early description of the "hog's back" approach where it is possible that the hog's back might be across the line of play instead of with it.)
-
I am.
Are you suggesting that the entire "approach" on that hole is representative of the Hogsback?
The Wigham definition better fits #17 at Merion than any other "Biarritz" I've seen (on here, or in person) and that's curious to me. Nobody would ever try to land the ball in the trench at Yale or any others posted here. Did CBM, Wigham, Raynor decide the defined hole was too dificult and they did not use the hogsback feature (whichever direction it may have been)?
-
Is that a twosome holding up the foursome? :)
Is it possible that these holes were,because of length and/or difficulty, treated as drivable 4-pars where it was common practice for the group on the green to wave ahead the group on the tee?Kind of like the hole in Connecticut(?) on the PGA Tour?
-
Jm,
I don't know, but most of these holes are on private courses so that's probably not much of an issue. One thing I do know, when you get done playing a Biarritz you don't find anyone on the next tee. ;D Good hole to stretch out the field.
-
Jm,
I don't know, but most of these holes are on private courses so that's probably not much of an issue. One thing I do know, when you get done playing a Biarritz you don't find anyone on the next tee. ;D Good hole to stretch out the field.
The problem is that when nobody's waiting on the next tee,there's usually somebody waiting on the current tee.
You're probably right about the small membership part.But,if pace of play was such an issue in the day,maybe waving ahead the group behind was part of their solution.Maybe the philosophy was "you're not going to hit this green in regulation anyway so go ahead and fire and we'll putt out while you're walking to your chip/bunker shot".
All this from a 70 year old picture which,for all I know,just shows a guy swatting at an insect.
-
But it's been fun. In retrospect I think it's a threesome waiting, and it looks like Bob Toski taking a (practice) swing. ;D
-
Gentlemen
If you want to see a great example (at least I think it is !) of a Biarritz then go to the Courses by Country section and click on Silloth on Solway in England. The very first photo that comes up is a side view of the 4th green (the Biarritz hole). Further on in the review there are further pics of the green, one of which shows a bit better the swale that runs half way through the green.
It might not look much but I can assure you on a links course where there is hard firm turf, that swale makes it very hard to judge the right distance to the pin whether it was before or after the swale.
The ground in front of the green gently slopes down from a bit of a hogs back as well as tending to shed poorly hit balls towards the pits on either side of the green. In summer you are generally hitting a half wedge for the second shot and it can be an achievement just holding the green. In front of the hogs back short of the green there is a depression in what is now the landing area in the fairway. Depending on where you land you have an obscured view of the green which makes it even harder.
The Course by Country review gives the course provinence to Willie Park but the original layout was by Davy Grant, a good East Lothian lad, and I think from memory of the clubs history that one of the Dunns might have had a hand. Anyway MacKenzie came along and suggested moving the tee back and the hole now plays 370 yards from the back tee although you can still see the original tee and I reckon it plays 220/230 yards although haven't checked. From the original tee location you have to play directly over the depression.
If you look at the hole on google earth, the location of the original tee is right of the path just before the fairway.
George Bhato - fyi it might be worth contacting Silloth to see if they can tell you whether the front section before the swale was intended to be green. Apparently when they built the greens at Silloth, as at a lot of early links courses, the put a layer of clay underneath to trap water. The club have in recent years rebuilt a couple of the greens and I suspect have tested most of the greens to determine whats underneath. It is possible that they have tested the 4th and might be able to tell you whether or not the front section has clay underneath.
I would suspect it wasn't as Cecil Leitch, the famous Silloth golfer from the early part of the century used to refer to Silloths pocket handkerchief size greens.
Niall
-
I have played most of the Raynor and MacDonald Biarritz holes. IMO the only one that really still plays the way that it was originally intended is the 4th hole at Lookout Mountain. Only the back half is green but the topography of the hole is such that it plays slightly dowhill and very much down mountain so that any running shot that lands short will bound forward through the swale on the green. When it is dry and firm a ball that lands on the green, even in the front, most often will come to a stop over the green leaving the player with an extremely tough recovery.
I really enjoy the varied clubs that you can hit on some of the full length Biarritz greens. One time on consecutive rounds at Shoreacres I hit a 9 iron followed by a 3 wood which imo is great fun. But the only Biarritz that I have played that actually still plays as described is the one at Lookout Mountain.
-
Ari:
You make an interesting point there----eg that most all biarritzes today have green-space before the swale (with perhaps Lookout Mountain being the sole exception) while research seems to show that none of them had green-space before the swale originally. Pretty ironic really.
-
Niall:
I just checked out your post and the fourth on Silloth. That's a great looking green but I don't see it as a biarritz even though I guess I can see why you might say that. Does the club refer to it as a biarritz?
If Ran did that course review he mentioned it was something like PV's first green and that certainly isn't a biarritz. I'm afraid if we get too general about these kinds of things we will begin to lose the differences and distinctions in golf architecture which is most of the interest.
That is precisely why I think the promotion or attribution of Merion's 17th hole on here, at least by one contributor, as a biarritz is not just untrue but sort of counter-productive. I think it's an attempt to pigeonhole something into a concept that just doesn't fit into that concept.
-
Ari,
Why do you think the clubs changed their mowing patterns, and when?
-
Niall,
Thanks for the description of the 4th at Silloth on Solway. Looks like fun. On their website they call it the Mill; when was it called the Biarritz?
Here is a photo from Ran's review. . .
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Silloth4g.jpg)
Are you saying the swale is the area where the pin is located?
-
Ari,
Donnie Beck mentioned earlier on this thread that FI diesn't mow the front of their Biarritz at green height.
Does that make two? ;D
-
Ari,
I forgot EssexCCC. The front of their Biarritz is mowed at fairway height. So we have 3. :)
-
Mid Ocean's front section was at fairway height when I was there in '07.
-
"Ari,
Donnie Beck mentioned earlier on this thread that FI diesn't mow the front of their Biarritz at green height."
Who on here even knows the so-called front section of FI's biarritz that well? Of any of the Macdonald/Raynor biarritzes that one is far more akin to what the actual chasm hole of Le Phare in Biarritz was probably all about than any other Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or am familiar with. The swale on that one is nowhere near as abrupt or prominent compared to all the other biarritzes and frankly whatever one would conider a front section on FI's biarritz is unpinnable anyway because its grade is too steep to be pinable and I can pretty much confirm that having spoken once with Donnie Beck about it.
-
Tom,
I think you should go back and read what Ari said, that he thought only LM's Biarritz played as intended. Why don't you ask Ari how he knows what was intended?
You surely seemed to know when you answered him by saying, and I'll quote you: "You make an interesting point there(Ari)----eg that most all biarritzes today have green-space before the swale (with perhaps Lookout Mountain being the sole exception) while research seems to show that none of them had green-space before the swale originally. Pretty ironic really.[/b]"
So the intention in question was green space versus no green space. FI is not green space, the Superintendent says so, and it wasn't green space when I played it. Since then a couple others have been mentioned, bringing the total to 4 so far, not the 1 that Ari thought was the case.
The point about the front being unpinnable is moot, Donnie has already mentioned that, and anyways, that's what the whole question was about, i.e. maintaining the front space as was intended.
-
I am.
Are you suggesting that the entire "approach" on that hole is representative of the Hogsback?
I am. On that hole that and about every other biarritz type hole. Whigham was envisioning balls landing on the hog's back and running through the dip. The dip was the space between the hog's back and the plateaued green. So the front landing area (usually set up above the surrounds) is the hog's back.
The Wigham definition better fits #17 at Merion than any other "Biarritz" I've seen (on here, or in person) and that's curious to me.
Can I quote you on that? Or at least make up a misleading, over-the-top paraphrase? "Jim Sullivan, the Philadelphia golf expert, declares Merion's 17th to be most authentic Biarritz hole in existence. Club embraces high praise, commissions life size bronzes of CBM and Sullivan."
Seriously, I think that the model of the Lido's biarritz was a very good representation of what they had in mind, although the swale is not quite 30 yards like Merion's is at its widest.
Nobody would ever try to land the ball in the trench at Yale or any of the others posted here. Did CBM, Wigham, Raynor decide the defined hole was too dificult and they did not use the hogsback feature (whichever direction it may have been)?
I agree that nobody would have except at Merion and at the Lido (if the hole resembled the model.) But they wouldn't have had to because there was room enough on the other holes to land short of the swale. As I said elsewhere, they may have chopped off the "sharp hog's back" part and made it into a plateau.
-
Sorry if I missed it but I read through the thread quickly, but where does Mid-Oceans Biarritz stand with the others being discussed?
Are fronting "carry" bunkers considered a required element?
-
front of their Biarritz is mowed at fairway height: add The Knoll - Sleepy Hollow - Blind Brook there a many more
interesting, when I stated there were just 2 or 3
-
Thanks George.
When I first heard about Mid-Oceans version it was described as the best (at that time) because of the way the bunkering was done. It has just stuck with me all this time and now I have a place to get a valid opinion.
Gotta luv this site.
-
"Ari,
Donnie Beck mentioned earlier on this thread that FI diesn't mow the front of their Biarritz at green height."
Who on here even knows the so-called front section of FI's biarritz that well?
Of any of the Macdonald/Raynor biarritzes that one is far more akin to what the actual chasm hole of Le Phare in Biarritz was probably all about than any other Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or am familiar with. The swale on that one is nowhere near as abrupt or prominent compared to all the other biarritzes and frankly whatever one would conider a front section on FI's biarritz is unpinnable anyway because its grade is too steep to be pinable and I can pretty much confirm that having spoken once with Donnie Beck about it.
TEPaul,
All Biarritz's are not created equal.
One must consider the topography that the hole resides on.
At FI, the slope of the area fronting the trough differs from that at Piping Rock.
Each Biarritz is unique rather than monolithic.
The putting surface at FI is very unique.
Some Biarritz's have internal countouring in the back tier, like the one that Jim Kennedy posted or the 13th at The Knoll
Piping Rock's, Mountain Lake's and The Creek's have fairly flat putting surfaces.
As to the area of the trough, some are shallow, some are deep and some are medium.
The area fronting the trough is largely dependent upon the terrain.
In some cases it's flat, in others it's sloped.
Where it's sloped, it's extremely doubtful that that area is mowed to putting surface.
I think it's almost critical that the area fronting the trough and the trough, if not mowed to putting surface height, should be mowed to fairway height or tighter, since that will accomodate a running shot more efficiently.
Another factor is the differential in elevation between the tee and the green.
Yale has an elevated tee and a lower green.
While FI has an elevated tee, the green is elevated even higher.
Others, like Mountain Lake, have little in the way of a differential.
The elevation differential limits the options of play.
ie, at Mountain Lake you can hit a low running shot into any tier or the trough.
That luxury doesn't exist at Yale or FI.
Interestingly enough, I thought the green at FI reminded me a little of the green on the 1st at Yale.
They seem to be two greens in one.
-
Here is a 1930s aerial of Tamarack's Biarritz. You can see the steep drop off on the side, the narrowed run-up in front, the long flanking bunkers and the three bunkers on the line between the tee and the green. Much of the flankers are gone in a modern aerial view, and so are two of the fronting bunkers.
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?
CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=6888&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=2353&DMY=2415&DMTEXT=%2004045&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
Jim Kennedy,
Is it possible that the trough and front tier are mowed at putting surface height ?
Remember, the darker look could be the angle of the sun on a sloping front tier and trough ?
-
TEPaul,
I think, out of sheer luck, that you identified the principle reason that many flanking and surrounding bunkers were eliminated or divided, THE CART AND THE ANGLE OF APPROACH AND EXIT.
David Moriarty,
With respect to plasticine models, we shouldn't assume that the plasticine model is representative of what was put into the ground.
The 12th at NGLA is a perfect example.
I think it's also incorrect to take Whigham literally in the context that the concept of a Biarritz, or any template, didn't evolve or morph over time.
In my limited experience of examining templates, there's no "static" or fixed master mold, where the features are congruent.
Similar in general terms ? Yes, but, with enough deviation that the hole is unique in its own right..
A great number of "templates" vary greatly, yet they still maintain their general concept.
I've always been fascinated by the 6th green at Piping Rock and the 17th green at Westhampton.
Especially the treatment at the back section of the green.
-
Niall,
Thanks for the description of the 4th at Silloth on Solway. Looks like fun. On their website they call it the Mill; when was it called the Biarritz?
Here is a photo from Ran's review. . .
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Silloth4g.jpg)
Are you saying the swale is the area where the pin is located?
David
It has never been called the Biarritz as far as I know but then the original hole at Biarritz wasn't called the "Biarritz" (assuming that it is the original of course, and not a version of a previous hole). "The Mill" is a reference to the structure which forms the backdrop when you approach the green.
The "swale" that goes through the green is mild compared to the CBM/Raynor swales (I'm saying that from what I've seen on here as I haven't played any of the US ones) but then its an earlier version (and by another designer) before features became exaggerated in subsequent versions (thats a theory on my part).
Its interesting point about naming holes as I'm not sure that UK golfers are that much into the history and have much idea about model holes. For instance the 9th at Silloth is clearly another Postage Stamp, not an exact replica, but you can still clearly see the parentage (nb - Willie Fernie visited Silloth to consult in 1912) but isn't referred to as the Postage Stamp.
Unfortunately I do't have any pics but have made a mental point to take some next time I'm down.
Tom P
See my answers to Dave above. I don't know why Ran referred to it as being like PV no. 1 as I've never played there but as I said in my earlier post, the hole was changed at the suggestion of Dr MacKenzie when 150 yards were added and it turned into a slight dogleg.
We can still see where the original tee is (and indeed we still have a plan) and assuming all the other features haven't changed appreciabley then for my money it is definitely from the Biarritz family if not the CBM side of the family.
Niall
ps. I really will need to learn how to post pics/graphics
-
Pat:
Even though I've been very familiar with all the biarritzes you mentioned except Yale's for many years thanks anyway for that comprehensive explanation. I'm sure it will help others who really aren't aware of those holes understand them better.
"TEPaul,
I think, out of sheer luck, that you identified the principle reason that many flanking and surrounding bunkers were eliminated or divided, THE CART AND THE ANGLE OF APPROACH AND EXIT."
Yeah, thanks, Pat, I guess that could be considered a really good and really lucky guess on my part, huh?
-
Pat,
I was also looking at the sharply defined front edge of the darkly shaded area when making my guess, but, there are other areas of the photo that have darker shades of grass too, while being on the same plane. So yes, it's possible.
-
Niall:
Thanks for that explanation on your last post, particularly when you mention that the hole at Silloth may come from the same biarritz family.
My problem with that is what is meant by the biarritz family? Is it the very long carry over something like that inlet of the Bay of Biscay on that "Chasm" hole at Le Phare in Biarritz France which may not have had any prominent swale (sort of like FI's Biarritz) or is it essentially the pretty prominent and abrupt swale on most all the Macdonald/Raynor biarritz holes that are constructed in fairly level areas?
There is a big difference to me and if we start just melding all these vast architectural differences and distinctions into the same mold or family I think after a while we begin to lose most of the interest in all this which actually is those various architectural differeneces and distinctions.
If we push that kind of thing too far after a while most everything will be into a sort of "compare" context and we will begin to lose the more important "constrast" context of golf course architecture.
-
"With respect to plasticine models, we shouldn't assume that the plasticine model is representative of what was put into the ground.
The 12th at NGLA is a perfect example."
Pat:
That is very true. There is quite a bit about the way that original cape hole and green (and its surrounds) was compared to that plasticine model of that original hole. For instance, there were a few interesting bunkers in front of that green (on a direct line from tee to green) that do not appear on the plasticine model of that hole.
I think most of those plasticine models (of NGLA and The Lido) were probably done after the fact for perhaps decorative and display purposes but I can't be sure of that.
And I completely agree with you in what you said to Moriarty in your post #78. I think his tendency with these kinds of things---templates, architectural concepts etc, etc, is and has always been to sort of torture and force the important distinctions and differences into some similar mold or concept so as to be able to continue to assign the attribution of them to Macdonald and Whigam somehow. That kind of attempt just works toward the premises and conclusion of that controversial essay he wrote about Merion that most everyone seems to view, at this point, as dangerously speculative and pretty specious because of it.
But ultimately there is probably nothing wrong with that----because in the process of debating all these architectural details and differences and distinctions I think we have seen a good deal more of what Wilson and his committee actually did in the beginning at Merion East.
-
Can I quote you on that?
David,
You can quote anything you like.
Remember though, that the most interesting part to me is it does not seem any in the CBM family built a Biarritz that fits the playability description.
"Whigham was envisioning balls landing on the hog's back and running through the dip."
I disagree completely, please reread and/or post that description.
The Hogsback was intended to steer balls to the side hazards. The point was to carry the hogsback with a controlled low shot (the push shot) that would then run up the bank.
-
Whigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''
I was wrong...it says the ball is to land short of the dip, which means on the hogsback...that's not possible at Merion (and I doubt ever was).
-
Sully:
Well, I'll be damned. So Whigam in that description you just posted was talking about a "hogs-back" on that portion of Piping Rock's biarritz before the swale was he?
Well, who the hell am I question H.J. Whigam but I have a very good photo from the tee on that hole from the year that course opened (1913) and I only grew up on that course. It's very clear to see that there's a small mound at the far right side of that plateau fairway area that looks to be less than a foot high--but it's probably less than 2% of that entire area. That front section fairway area is probably 30 yards long and about 25-30 yards wide and there's some very gentle undulations in that area (both lightly convex and concave) but that entire area is essentially a flat plateau fairway area and it is definitely no "hogs-back" like the tee shot area of the fairway of NGLA's 5th hole is hog-backed (By the way, NLGA's 5th hole is named "Hogsback" because if your tee shot lands on about the left half of that really wide fairway it might filter left all the way off the fairway).
The other thing to note is that hole (Piping Rock's Biarritz (9th) is nothing at all like Merion's 17th for a whole host of reasons!
PS:
As I noted some time ago on this website that particular hole is where I (with a clinic of about ten kids) learned how to play the classic run-up "Biarritz shot" back in the early 1950s as about a 8-10 year old from Piping's wonderful old teaching pro, Spence (Spencer Corte)! He hit that shot numerous times for us as well as all the rest of us kids did and believe me unless the shot landed within a few yards of either side of that fairway area the ball definitely would run into that swale and right up onto the green if it had what they all called back then the proper "weight." Furthermore, I've only played that course and hole hundreds of times over the last five decades with hundreds of people so what the hell do I know about it. ;)
-
The truth is Tom, I don't know what to make of any of it.
Reading the description of how to play these holes interests me but the work in the ground never seems to quite stack up.
I personally don't care if Merion #17 was supposed to be a Biarritz or not, nor do I care if CBM picked the spot or Hugh Wilson took the playability description (such as Wigham's) and saw that it fit this particular location.
Maybe we can discuss the different playability considerations when a Biarritz has an abrupt trench like all the ones you and I have seen compared to the "30 yard dip" in Wigham's definition.
-
"The truth is Tom, I don't know what to make of any of it."
Sully:
I can certainly understand that and particularly if you've never seen Piping Rock or its biarritz hole but I sure as hell have and as of now I sure know what to make of all this, as well as what to make of this comparison ON HERE between this hole and Merion's 17th which I've also known so well for about the last thirty years.
Thank you very much, Jimbo, for posting that description of Whigam's. Until this morning I had no idea what he was talking about and I surely did not know he was talking about Piping Rock's biarritz hole. How ironic is this----eg that I grew up on that golf course?! ;)
-
We want some trench stories...
-
"....nor do I care if CBM picked the spot or Hugh Wilson took the playability description (such as Wigham's) and saw that it fit this particular location."
Sully:
I can understand that you don't really care and why but this is just a discussion going on here and as of now it's obvious the chronology just doesn't lie. How could either Macdonald or Whigam be giving Wilson a description of a golf hole (the 9th at Piping Rock) that wouldn't even be conceived of or built for about 2-3 years AFTER CBM and Whigam were meeting with Wilson or MCC at Merion East and talking about its 17th hole that was created in 1911?!
This time I couldn't agree with Moriarty more--------God I love THE FACTS!! ;) 8)
-
"We want some trench stories..."
Like what kind of trench stories? Like I first got lucky or laid in the trench or swale on Piping Rock's biarritz when I was about ten years old? Unfortunately not. The closest I came to even any thoughts like that was when watching that young Cutting girl hit her first shot on the fairway on the first hole after actually asking me if she could tee it up. I said I guess so but I thought she was just going to roll it, not put a wooden tee under it in the fairway. :o But just the way those incredibly long and lithe 11 year old legs of hers (particular in the back) went up into those little very short tennis shorts was pretty awesome for sure when she got up over that ball.
-
"Maybe we can discuss the different playability considerations when a Biarritz has an abrupt trench like all the ones you and I have seen compared to the "30 yard dip" in Wigham's definition."
Sure we can discuss it. Who do you want to discuss it with---just you and me or you and me and Moriarty and a number of others on here whether they really know these holes or not?
Whatta think? You tell me. Do you think he will tell me that despite decades of experience with these two holes that whatever I say about them is just speculation and that he won't accept anything but VERIFIABLE FACTS?? ;)
-
"....nor do I care if CBM picked the spot or Hugh Wilson took the playability description (such as Wigham's) and saw that it fit this particular location."
Sully:
I can understand that you don't really care and why but this is just a discussion going on here and as of now it's obvious the chronology just doesn't lie. How could either Macdonald or Whigam be giving Wilson a description of a golf hole (the 9th at Piping Rock) that wouldn't even be conceived of or built for about 2-3 years AFTER CBM and Whigam were meeting with Wilson or MCC at Merion East and talking about its 17th hole that was created in 1911?!
This time I couldn't agree with Moriarty more--------God I love THE FACTS!! ;) 8)
Tom,
The blip in your logic train there is that Wigham could easily have had that playability description in his mind long before he referenced Piping Rock...right? The Piping Rock reference is just a single quote from some undetermined point in time.
-
"Sully:
Anything is possible but you (or you and Moriarty) are apparently using the Whigam's description of Piping Rock's biarritz as a conceptual idea for a golf hole that was created a few years before the hole Whigam was describing was even conceived of or done. Do you deny that?
So if CBM and Whigam had some other hole and that concept Whigam described using PR's biarritz in mind when they were at Merion in 1910 and 1911 why didn't they describe that one?
So maybe you think there is a BLIP in my logic but if that is what you two are using as logic to connect some biarritz concept to Merion's 17th hole I would say there is about a 30 yard long and 25-30 yard wide DIP or TRENCH or MASSIVE SWALE before the actual green surface in your logic! ;)
"The Piping Rock reference is just a single quote from some undetermined point in time."
That's the beauty of "timelining" Sully with this golf architectural research. It is not some undetermined point in time because Whigam could not be describing a golf hole to Wilson in 1910 or 1911 that would not even be conceived of or built until 2-3 years later----or not unless you know some way that time goes backward that I haven't heard about yet. But since some on here seem to argue the hell out of some of these subjects using this logic of "Well, it's not IMPOSSIBLE, is it?" then who knows---maybe it is possible that time, as we know it, goes backward! ???
-
Tom,
Please see my last sentence in post #85 to gain an understanding of my current thoughts about Merion's 17th fitting Wigham's description of a Biarritz.
Tell me what you think about Wigham's description of the Biarritz, and specifically Piping Rock's #9. How could he describe something so far off what you say was on the ground on opening day? Please leave David and Merion out of this part, I'm curious why Wigham might describe something that just is not there.
-
"Please see my last sentence in post #85 to gain an understanding of my current thoughts about Merion's 17th fitting Wigham's description of a Biarritz."
Gottcha. Thanks. Then we agree. If Moriarty doesn't agree then who cares and what's the point of you continuing to discuss this with him? Just agree to disagree with him----it isn't the first time and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. As to this fellow Kennedy, I have no idea at all where he's coming from on any of this so what he thinks is sort of irrelevent I guess.
-
"I'm curious why Wigham might describe something that just is not there."
Sully:
I have no idea at all about that so what's the point in speculating? Just look at the 1913 photograph (the year the course opened) as well as the hole today and decide for yourself why Whigam may've described that section of that hole like that.
Frankly, this isn't the first time some of us have wondered about the validity and credibility of some of the things H.J. Whigam wrote, and this is a really good example of why. Obviously the other one was when he mentioned in a eulogy to him twenty nine years after the fact that CBM designed Merion East.
-
As to this fellow Kennedy, I have no idea at all where he's coming from on any of this so what he thinks is sort of irrelevent I guess. -TEPaul
I have never thought that Merion needed any protection from anyone who wants to examine its history, you somehow think that its reputation cannot survive the questions.
Hopefully you have more respect for Merion than you show on this site.
-
George,
Whigham's statement (quoted in your book) makes it clear that the front section wasn't intended to be part of the green, doesn't it?
I posted this on the other thread, but might be more appropriate here. Below are Merion's 17th, the plasticine model of Lido's Biarritz, and Piping Rock's Biarritz. The Lido's was listed at 220 yards, while the white line and yellow line of the other two are each 230 yards.
Look how crazy the first section (the "hogsback") was at the Lido.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/BiarritzThree.jpg?t=1259811449)
David,
Again very well thought out points and photos. But what does the photo in the middle of the shroud of turin have to do with a par three?
Anthony
-
"I have never thought that Merion needed any protection from anyone who wants to examine its history,"
Good for you, Jim Kennedy; on that I couldn't agree with you more.
-
"Again very well thought out points and photos. But what does the photo in the middle of the shroud of turin have to do with a par three?"
Good point, Anthony. Maybe someone played that PLASTICINE MODEL in the middle photo----maybe Whigham did and his ball bounced off some hogs-back and into one of those flanking bunkers, but....... ::) ;)
-
If a hogs back ound was placed 30 yards in front of the swale that would eliminate the
Whigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''
Am I the only person who is puzzled by this quote? I mean, if a hogsback of any significance was located where Whigham has described it here, wouldn't it force a trajectory that would be too high to run through the trough?
To my understanding, that hogsback would force an aerial shot, which contradicts everything else about the design of the biarritz. They were all built as the longest par three in the CBM collection. And I think all of them started out with one tee location, which means that every player, of various length, was playing what was then a fairly long one shotter.
The hogsback would favor the long hitter, and eliminate the controlled push shot which a shorter hitter could play to match the long hitters ball.
Also the hogsback might hide the players view of the ball running through the trough, which is proably the funnest shot in golf to watch.
-
Unless the hogsback is only a foot high and off to the side as Tom Paul described at Piping Rock...
-
Bradley,
I think it was mentioned elsewhere that the hogback may have been placed perpendicular to the line of play. If that was the case Whigham's remark that it was 30 yards from the green, and how the hole should be played, makes perfect sense.
The hogbacks inthis case may have met the same fate as the ridges on some Biarritz greens.
-
But Jim, Wigham's description calls for the ball to land on the hogsback and then run through the dip (30 yards I guess) which seems like an awful lot to do as opposed to hitting it just a bit higher and landing in the low of the dip still with some run...no?
-
Jim,
If the hog's back ended 30 yards short of the green that would be well short of the dip. So maybe the reality is lateral or perpendicular or a combination of the two (which is what a flesh and blood hog's back looks like ;D ), and adapted to the conditions of the site. His could have meant the high point too when he mentioned the distance from the green. Just a guess.
-
"Unless the hogsback is only a foot high and off to the side as Tom Paul described at Piping Rock..."
Sully:
If that pretty small little bump or moundy thing that one can just make out from the tee within that large and rather flatish area of the plateau fairway before the swale (btw, which is on about the same level as the green surface behind the swale ;) ) in that photography of PR's Biarritz in 1913 is what Whigam called a "hogs-back," I will guarantee you that Whigs would have been a whole lot more accurate in his description if he had called it a "Teeeeny-Weeeeny little Piglet-back" who had been born about twenty minutes before that photo was taken.
But who really knows? Maybe Whigs felt that if the club gave that teeeny-weeeny little piglet's back about a decade or so to grow it might eventually turn into a full-grown Hogs-back that covered most of that substantial fairway area before the swale.
-
Maybe Tom.
Sort of like calling the 3rd at Pine Valley a Redan, I don't quite get the point of putting a label on somehting that doesn't match the definition...at all.
-
Sully:
I think I might've just figured out why Whigs mentioned the ideal run-up shot on PR's biarritz should be a bit of a push shot (their terminology back then for a lowish fade). I've got to go get a haircut but I'll explain it to you when I return with my new buzzcut.
-
With respect to plasticine models, we shouldn't assume that the plasticine model is representative of what was put into the ground.
I agree. But right now I am more concerned with understanding their early concept than how the concept evolved. And like written or drawn plans, Plasticine models can give us a very good idea of the designer's early vision. They are particularly useful where, as here, the designer was working off some prior conception or model, but that conception evolved away from the original. In other words, since I am trying to understand their early concept the plasticine may be more useful than what was actually put into the ground.
I think it's also incorrect to take Whigham literally in the context that the concept of a Biarritz, or any template, didn't evolve or morph over time.
I agree and am very aware of this. But again, I am trying to understand their early conception of the hole; their ideal if you will. It obviously evolved and morphed over time, but I think most people assume it did not. They look at a Raynor Biarritz and automatically assume that it exactly exemplified the original concept. This isn't the case, which is why I am looking at Whigham. By comparing what he wrote to what was actually built we can see how the concept was flexible and changing from the very beginning.
In my limited experience of examining templates, there's no "static" or fixed master mold, where the features are congruent.
Similar in general terms ? Yes, but, with enough deviation that the hole is unique in its own right..
A great number of "templates" vary greatly, yet they still maintain their general concept.
I completely agree, and have been saying this for years now. These were general concepts applying basic fundamental principles of time tested golf holes. Like CBM wrote about the Redan Concept, they could be applied in infinite ways depending upon the site.
_______________________________________________________________
It has never been called the Biarritz as far as I know but then the original hole at Biarritz wasn't called the "Biarritz" (assuming that it is the original of course, and not a version of a previous hole). "The Mill" is a reference to the structure which forms the backdrop when you approach the green.
Understood. Your original post gave me the impression that the hole was called the Biarritz, but I must have misunderstood.
When you call this a Biarritz hole because you feel it is similar in concept, or do you think that it was actually inspired by a hole at Biarritz?
___________________________________________________________________________
Whigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''
I was wrong...it says the ball is to land short of the dip, which means on the hogsback...that's not possible at Merion (and I doubt ever was).
Jim, I think he was contemplating being able to run it over at least part of the hog's back, but given the length of the hole and the size of the dip (30 yards across) many golfers would surely be able to hit on the down-slope of the hog's back which would make things much easier. They generally measured from the middle of greens, so on a hole of about 220 yards it would only take a carry of about 175-180 yards to clear get on the down slope or into the dip, so I don't think that they all would have had to run it over much of the hog's back. Land it on the down-slope, maybe, but not run it over the whole thing.
As for whether this was possible at Merion, I am not sure why it wouldn't have been. As I have said, I think that area above the steep down-slope used to be maintained as fairway. If this is so, and if the steep drop was cut down as well, then why couldn't one hit a ball short and bounce/run it on?
Also, I suspect that Whigham's description was of the hole at Biarritz and not of Piping Rock. It is very close to CBM's earlier description. When I get a chance I'll try to track down the original source and see.
Maybe we can discuss the different playability considerations when a Biarritz has an abrupt trench like all the ones you and I have seen compared to the "30 yard dip" in Wigham's definition.
It seems to me that, with a more abrupt dip that wasn't far across, a landing area large enough to get the ball on or near the ground would be a necessity because a ball it into the swale in the air on or on a big bounce will probably kill into the up-slope. With a dip which is further across and has a less steep up-slope, less landing area would be needed because there would be more room to land the ball on the downslope of the swale or it the bottom and still have it run out.
_________________________________________________________
Bradley, if the hog's back was as Whigham described then it would only take a carry of175-180 yards at most to carry the hog's back. Definitely some carry was required which was the real trick, I think. You had to make the carry and still make it run.
_______________________________________________________
Jim,
If the hog's back ended 30 yards short of the green that would be well short of the dip. So maybe the reality is lateral or perpendicular or a combination of the two (which is what a flesh and blood hog's back looks like ;D ), and adapted to the conditions of the site. His could have meant the high point too when he mentioned the distance from the green. Just a guess.
JimK, As I understand it, the "dip" is the low land between the hog's back and the green. CBM described the Biarrits as a hog's back stopping 30 yards before a plateaued green. It is difficult to know if he was measuring from the high point or not.
-
David,
True, but I don't think there are any Biarritz holes with a 30 yard wide swale, so the point of any ridge woud be well back from the dip.
Also, here is what constituted a push shot, according to Walter Travis:
"Like a great many others, he (Whigham) confuses this with a stiff-armed shot. They are totally different. In the push-shot proper the ball has a low trajectory, with comparatively little run, not with "plenty of run," in contradistinction to a great deal of run resulting from the stiff-armed shot. Not only is the action of the ball different in each case, but the strokes are radically unlike. In the one case the swing is vertical and the handfinish only a comparatively little way in front of the ball and without any turn-over whatever of the wrists. In the stiff-armed shot there is very little, if any, flexion of the elbows, or wrists, in the backward swing, and after the ball is struck, with a flat swing, the club is carried well out with stiff arms and the wrists are turned over."
-
David,
True, but I don't think there are any Biarritz holes with a 30 yard wide swale, so the point of any ridge woud be well back from the dip.
The swale planned for the Lido looks to have been close to that if one measured from the high point on the hog's back.
Also, here is what constituted a push shot, according to Walter Travis:
"Like a great many others, he (Whigham) confuses this with a stiff-armed shot. They are totally different. In the push-shot proper the ball has a low trajectory, with comparatively little run, not with "plenty of run," in contradistinction to a great deal of run resulting from the stiff-armed shot. Not only is the action of the ball different in each case, but the strokes are radically unlike. In the one case the swing is vertical and the handfinish only a comparatively little way in front of the ball and without any turn-over whatever of the wrists. In the stiff-armed shot there is very little, if any, flexion of the elbows, or wrists, in the backward swing, and after the ball is struck, with a flat swing, the club is carried well out with stiff arms and the wrists are turned over."
I've seen that and have it filed under examples of how Travis was becoming increasingly petty when it came to CBM and HJW, especially the part immediately before what you posted. I think Travis would have fit in well here.
-
At next years Greenbrier Classic (July 26th - Aug 1st) The PGA Tour will be playing the newly (2006) restored Biarritz on the Old White. I personally want to see how it plays. I am encouraging the Tour to pin the bottom of the trough one day to see what happens. Any one want to take wagers on a hole-in-one?
Has the PGA Tour ever played a Mac/Raynor course on a regular basis before? Trivia buffs?
Lester
-
"Has the PGA Tour ever played a Mac/Raynor course on a regular basis before? Trivia buffs?"
Lester:
The course the tour has played on a regular basis in Hawaii is a Raynor I believe. I think it's called Waialae.
-
Lester,
If its a Mac/Raynor, and not a Raynor/Banks, wouldn't it be OW for Sam Snead's Pro-Am?
-
"I've seen that and have it filed under examples of how Travis was becoming increasingly petty when it came to CBM and HJW, especially the part immediately before what you posted."
Travis became increasingly petty when it came to CBM?!? ;)
Hmmm. ???
I wonder if anyone even wonders if he may've had some good reason to be. Assuming Travis appeared to be petty towards CBM from around 1914 to 1915 and on and not around the end of the first decade of the 20th century, I can pretty much guarantee that it was not about the Schnectedy Putter issue. Anyone have any idea WHAT it may've been about later? ;)
-
"Also, I suspect that Whigham's description was of the hole at Biarritz and not of Piping Rock."
Is it even possible that someone could actually read Whigam's statement and then claim that Whigam was talking about a biarritz hole at Biarritz France and not the ninth hole at Piping Rock? I can hardly see how since Whigam started his remarks by saying this biarritz hole is new to this country (which is true since Piping Rock's ninth hole was the first biarritz done in America) and after his description of the hole Whigam ended his remarks by saying 'This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.' ??? ;)
By the way, you can see on the posts above the person who just made that statement about PR's hole as described by Whigam is the same person who manufactured QUOTATIONS on here from me and then proceeded to use them to accuse me on this website of 'altering original documents of Merion GC.' ::)
-
Lester,
Don't keep us hanging too long. ;D
-
The description of the hogsback that we have been attributing to Whigham here was actually written by Travis, ostensibly as direct quote of something that Whigham had written in Town & Country. It is possible, don't you think, that Travis didn't get every word of Whigham's Town & Country article verbatim? Does anyone have copy of the actual Whigham article?
-
If a hogs back ound was placed 30 yards in front of the swale that would eliminate theWhigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''
Am I the only person who is puzzled by this quote? I mean, if a hogsback of any significance was located where Whigham has described it here, wouldn't it force a trajectory that would be too high to run through the trough?
Bradley Anderson,
I think some have misinterpreted Whigham's words/description.
I believe the "hogsback" he's referencing is the entire footpad of the land mass immediately preceeding the swale.
I've noticed that a number of these footpads/land masses slope toward the flanks near their edges, giving them a "hogsback" flavor.
I believe this feature was intended to direct marginal, low tee shots (runners) toward the steep, deep flanking bunkers, while allowing more accurate tee shots to proceed through the swale to the back tier.
If one studies the 16th fairway at NGLA, you can see how that center landmass, (spine or hogsback) directs marginal tee shots to the flanks.
I believe that CBM, SR and CB wanted to incorporate that feature in their Biarritz's.
NGLA is replete with "hogsbacks"/spines, in both the greens and fairways.
Hole # 5 is named, "hogsback".
CBM, SR, CB used this feature to deflect marginal shots toward the flanks which were usually sloped, some steep and deep slopes leading down to bunkers or the bottom of bowls.
Some, if not most of the fronting footpads on Biarritz's have that "hogsback/spine" structure and function.
I believe this is what Whigham was referencing.
To my understanding, that hogsback would force an aerial shot, which contradicts everything else about the design of the biarritz.
I disagree. I don't think it forces an aerial shot at all. In addition, at 220 yards, how many in the first decade or two of the twentieth century could carry the ball 180 to 200 yards ?
I think you're contexting the word, "hogsback" in a severe, limited form, rather than a subtle, broader or less obvious form.
They were all built as the longest par three in the CBM collection.
Agreed
And I think all of them started out with one tee location, which means that every player, of various length, was playing what was then a fairly long one shotter.
Agreed.
The hogsback would favor the long hitter, and eliminate the controlled push shot which a shorter hitter could play to match the long hitters ball.
Long holes tend to favor the long hitter.
Also the hogsback might hide the players view of the ball running through the trough, which is proably the funnest shot in golf to watch.
I totally disagree.
Why would a "hogsback" feature, narrow or broad, that runs tee to green obstruct any view ?
Balls approaching the swale were visible, then not visible when the entered the swale, then, hopefully reappearing if the ball had enough momentum.
The "hogsback" would not impede the view of a running ball.
-
The description of the hogsback that we have been attributing to Whigham here was actually written by Travis, ostensibly as direct quote of something that Whigham had written in Town & Country. It is possible, don't you think, that Travis didn't get every word of Whigham's Town & Country article verbatim? Does anyone have copy of the actual Whigham article?
I don't have a copy but will try to track it down when I can. I doubt Travis got it wrong, because it is very close to CBM's description of the original hole.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Patrick, I tend to agree with you that the first plateau was the "hog's back." My only reservation is that CBM described the feature as a "sharp" hog's back. So if the entire plateau was a hog's back then they defintely changed their thinking on this one early.
-
Tom P
The 4th at Silloth is definitely a Biarritz and I'm sticking to that story ! Seriously though, I had always thought that the hole owed more than a little to the Biarritz design. I had always thought of Biarritz holes in terms of the green complex, front and back green with swale/ridge/dip bisecting it and deep penal hazards on either side. The test being to get to the portion of the green on which the flag was on by means of running through the dip or being careful not to go to far and go into it.
This has been an excellent thread as it has opened up my eyes to other elements of the design (or at least elements that CBM took out of the original hole). And if I am reading this thread correctly a Biarritz had the following;
1 - length c. 220 yards which was a two shotter back in the day
2 - first half of the fairway comprised some large natural undulation, either a bay or something else
3 - hogsback/ridge in front of green (30 yards ?)
4 - green complex as I describe above
For my money the hole at Silloth ticks all the boxes. Certainly the swale in the green is not as exaggerated as some of the CBM holes but then the CBM holes probably don't have flanking hazards anything like as severe. I think its interesting what different designers can take from a hole and use as inspiration.
David
Whether or not this hole was actually seen by the person building it I can't really say. It would also be hard to say when and who designed the Silloth hole as well. I had a look at my Silloth club history last night and you have a diverse group of pro's/architects/designers involved ranging from Davie Grant who was commisioned to lay out the course, to Mungo Park (Willie Park Jnrs uncle) who helped him and stayed on as greenkeeper/pro for first year or so, to Hugh Kirkcaldy, to Willie Park Jnr himself, to Fernie and eventually Mackenzie and we know it definitely wasn't him as he changed the location of the tee.
Unfortunately none of these guys left much by way of literature, apart from Willie Park, to give us much of a clue. Not sure if Park (Willie or Mungo) or Grant ever went to Biarritz but they would certainly have known the Dunns.
What I think we can surmise is that the hole almost certainly wasn't influenced by CBM/Raynor etc which is where I think it gets interesting seeing how it compares to their Biarritz holes. I also can't think of another Biarritz hole that I've seen in Scotland.
As I said above, excellent thread.
Niall
-
David Moriarty,
I think you will find different versions of the "first plateau".
Some are flat, some slightly rounded and others noticeably rounded..
As I stated earlier, I don't believe that the "template" holes were fashioned with a "cookie cutter" method, thus I think you'll find ample variations.
Whether those variations represent an evolutionary trend, or a capitulation to the land form at the site would be an interesting study.
I believe that the hole demanded length and accuracy on the tee shot, with recovery skills demanded should the tee shot be marginal or errant.
I think you have to consider a few factors when examining Biarritz's.
The elevation differentials are one.
The elevation of the first and second tier is another.
The higher up these tiers were, the dryer the ground.
The third factor is the lack of fairway irrigation systems.
If seasonal rainfall was typical or less than typical, firm conditions usually prevailed in the summer months.
This effectively "shortened" the playability of the hole, allowing for considerable run (provided the topography co-operated), thus, golfers, with an accurate tee shot, could hit well short of the green and still make the green.
I think the play of Biarritz's changed dramatically when irrigation systems became the norm.
The once dry, firm and fast first plateau became lush and green, thwarting running shots.
I think irrigation systems more than anything else changed the play of a Biarritz, and in so doing, changed the philosophy concerning the maintainance of the first tier (plateau)
With ample irrigation I think it became quickly apparent that the front tier needed to be mowed tigthly if any run was to be provided.
One progression, and perhaps the natural progression, of tight mowing on irrigated fairways next to a green, is to mow them at close to, or green height.
I think irrigation of the front tier (plateau) lead naturally to maintaining that tier (plateau) as putting surface.
It made all the sense in the world, for a variety of reasons.
1 It now allowed for the intended running of the ball on lush green surfaces.
2 It introduced the entire swale as a possible hole location, adding tactical value to the hole
3 It introduced the entire front tier as a putting surface, exponentially adding tactical value to the hole.
4 It produced a very unique hole, a hole of rare appearance and quality, a hole with many options.
5 It allowed the short hitter to tolerate and enjoy the hole, versus the longer, lusher version.
6 It allowed the architecture to fulfill its intended purpose.
That's my premise and I'm sticking to it
-
"The description of the hogsback that we have been attributing to Whigham here was actually written by Travis, ostensibly as direct quote of something that Whigham had written in Town & Country. It is possible, don't you think, that Travis didn't get every word of Whigham's Town & Country article verbatim? Does anyone have copy of the actual Whigham article?"
Bradley:
Is that right?
If so, great find. You know you should definitely moonlight as a private GCA investigator as some of these self-proclaimed expert researchers/analysts/writers on this website seem to get a bit fast and loose with what they try to pass off as VERIFIABLE FACTS, don't you know? ;)
-
PM.
excellent point...once again the dreaded sprinklers... :-\
-
"Bradley Anderson,
I think some have misinterpreted Whigham's words/description.
I believe the "hogsback" he's referencing is the entire footpad of the land mass immediately preceeding the swale.
I've noticed that a number of these footpads/land masses slope toward the flanks near their edges, giving them a "hogsback" flavor.
I believe this feature was intended to direct marginal, low tee shots (runners) toward the steep, deep flanking bunkers, while allowing more accurate tee shots to proceed through the swale to the back tier.
If one studies the 16th fairway at NGLA, you can see how that center landmass, (spine or hogsback) directs marginal tee shots to the flanks.
I believe that CBM, SR and CB wanted to incorporate that feature in their Biarritz's.
NGLA is replete with "hogsbacks"/spines, in both the greens and fairways.
Hole # 5 is named, "hogsback".
CBM, SR, CB used this feature to deflect marginal shots toward the flanks which were usually sloped, some steep and deep slopes leading down to bunkers or the bottom of bowls.
Some, if not most of the fronting footpads on Biarritz's have that "hogsback/spine" structure and function.
I believe this is what Whigham was referencing."
Pat:
I couldn't agree with you more about some of the hogsback effect on some of the fairways of NGLA. Only problem with your analysis is NGLA never had a biarritz and there just isn't that same kind of hogsback feature and definitely not the effect of it, either playability-wise or otherwise to even remotely the same degree as those NGLA hogsback fairways you mentioned on any of the fairway sections before the swale on any of the Macdonald/Raynor biarritzes I've ever seen or played or heard of and that includes quite a lot of them, certainly including Piping Rock (the biarritz in question here ;) ) which as you know I grew up at.
-
David Moriarty,
I think you will find different versions of the "first plateau".
Some are flat, some slightly rounded and others noticeably rounded..
Patrick,
This is a great point. The elevation of the Ocean hole at Lido looked to me more like something on the elevation of a knoll hole than a biarritz, but then when I learned that it was in fact a biarritz it made perfect sense to me that they would make it high like that on account of the fact that it was so close to the ocean--there is no way they could have drained the trough unless the whole thing was way up there in the air. And even then it ultimately fell away on the waters edge. Apparently at that height, the biarritz concept was so severe that they ended up moving the tee to 165. Of course the wind had a factor in shortening the Lido version as well.
That Lido version was probably the oddest place that they ever tried to make that hole concept work. And I would nominate the Yale version and the Mid Ocean version as the second and third oddest places.
A good biarritz called for just the right terrain--porous enough to drain the trough, and yet flat enough to keep the tee and green elevations even. Because when the green and tee elevations are too far off, the hole requires more of an aerial game shot than a ground game shot, compromising the principles that make that hole play best.
-
Tom,
What is the elevation difference between the tee and green on the 17th at Merion? It looks like the tee is 10 feet or so below the green.
-
Pat:
I couldn't agree with you more about some of the hogsback effect on some of the fairways of NGLA.
Only problem with your analysis is NGLA never had a biarritz and there just isn't that same kind of hogsback feature and definitely not the effect of it,
I'm aware of that.
Evidently you missed my reference to # 16 and other holes at NGLA which do have "hogsback" features.
either playability-wise or otherwise to even remotely the same degree as those NGLA hogsback fairways you mentioned on any of the fairway sections before the swale on any of the Macdonald/Raynor biarritzes I've ever seen or played or heard of and that includes quite a lot of them, certainly including Piping Rock (the biarritz in question here ;) ) which as you know I grew up at.
Obviously, when you played NGLA your matches were over before you reached the 16th hole.
The "hogsback" landform that exists in the DZ of the 16th fairway is similar to the footpad and structure of the first tier (plateau) in a Biarritz.
The similarities in form and function are obvious.
Hit a straight drive at the target and you're rewarded, hit a marginal or poor drive and the "hogsback" feature diverts and deflects your ball down, well below the "hogsback" fairway, leaving you a blind shot to the target, which is exactly what happens on Biarritzes.
As to NGLA having the same degree of "hogsbacks" you need to replay the 5th hole, named, "hogsback" to see how the convex nature of the fairway, subtle as it may be in some areas of the DZ, diverts and deflects balls down, well below the upper fairway, leaving them blind shots, just like Biarritzes.
That feature also existed about 40-90 yards short of the green, fronting the turbo boost on the right side.
Unfortunately, in order to block out the view of the maintainance and dorm facilities at Sebonack, NGLA had to create a large mound or berm that destroyed that particular "hogsback"/spine that diverted balls hit left of it toward the green and balls hit right of it into a bunker that NLE.
To repeat, the "hogsback" in the DZ of the 16th fairway parallels the "hogsback" presented in the structure of the first tier (plateau) of a Biarritz.
Many fairways at NGLA have this feature.
Since NGLA was amongst CBM's earliest work, I'm sure he incorporated the "hogsback" feature into many of his subsequent works, even Biarritzes, even though there is no Biarritz at NGLA.
-
Bradley,
The Biarritz at Yale has the same amount of drop from cliff to cliff as the original. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it's one of the 'oddest places' to site one?
.....and how did you arrive at this conclusion: "...when I learned that it was in fact a biarritz (Lido's) it made perfect sense to me that they would make it high like that on account of the fact that it was so close to the ocean--there is no way they could have drained the trough unless the whole thing was way up there in the air."
The hole looks to be as ground hugging as is possible.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Lido8thBiarritzZoom.jpg?t=1259815251)
Thanks in advance for your answers.
-
Tom,
The Whigham quote that Travis lifted from Town & Country stated "There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green.....''
The hogsback described here would have been positioned right were the fairway sits before the trough. It does not make any sense at all. For the term hogsback certainly implies abruptness and significance of height, don't you think? It would only make sense if the landing area in front of the trough was higher in the center than on the sides--just high enough to feed the hazards. The trajectory that most people would be hitting on that hole would not require something as abrupt as a hogsback to accomplish that.
I just can't visualize how you clear the hogsback without being too high coming in to run through the trough.
-
Bradley,
I think Biarritzes can also function well where the green sits above the tee.
It's when there's a substantive differential down to the green that play on the hole is forced to the aerial mode.
-
Just by looking at that photograph of that Lido Biarritz (even at a distance and from the tee) it is just not that hard to tell how and how much it was raised up above say sea-level (which is fortunately visible to the right ;) ).
However, even accurately estimating how much it was raised above say sea level does not tell us much about its effectiveness to endure for long where it was. The fact is that hole got completely clobbered. Some of the same types of problems happened to Macdonald/Raynor 8-15 years later on the North Shore of Long Island and The Creek Club. The fix app. 6-8 years after that course was created was incredibly expensive for that time.
-
Please, that greensite isn't more than 10' above sea level. It doesn't even reach the height of the first floor of the house behind it.
This still doesn't answer the Yale question.
-
Jim,
I admit that I am biased by the fact that the only biarritz I have played is #6 at Shoreacres. On that hole there is very little elevation difference between the tee and the green. The tee sits just high enough to command a view of what is before you. The trough sits two feet lower than the green. And the green sits about two feet above grade. But now if my memory serves me right, the trough is cut in to the grade a half foot or so with a place for water to drain to the left side. In either case, however you do the math, the entire hole sits remarkably close to grade.
The engineering of that trough is critical to the success of the hole. At least that's what I think.
The biarritz hole is a challenging hole to build because the trough has to drain in order for the hole to work. But if you have to raise the whole structure up artifically, I think you are compromising the design intent, because of how the raised surface doesn't receive the trajectory of the ball as well as the green that is closer to grade.
-
"The hogsback described here would have been positioned right were the fairway sits before the trough. It does not make any sense at all. For the term hogsback certainly implies abruptness and significance of height, don't you think? It would only make sense if the landing area in front of the trough was higher in the center than on the sides--just high enough to feed the hazards. The trajectory that most people would be hitting on that hole would not require something as abrupt as a hogsback to accomplish that.
I just can't visualize how you clear the hogsback without being too high coming in to run through the trough."
Brad:
I guess I just don't know how to explain it well enough on here but Piping Rock's biarritz just does not and apparently never did have some significant "hogs-back" feature in that substantial fairway area before the swale.
I have a photograph of the hole from 1913 but unfortunately I don't know how to post photographs on this website. But I'll try to describe it for you again.
That fairway area before the swale has some very gentle undulations in it (concave and convex obviously) but essentially it is a fairly flat plateau fairway area above the depressions on either side of it and it is on basically the same level as the green behind the prominent swale (the swale itself is probably 35 yards wide and about 10-15 yards in length. It is also about five feet deep throughout). The plateau fairway area looks to be about 30 yards wide and perhaps 25-30 yards in length. On the far end of the fairway area before the swale over on the right side is a small gentle mound that is visible from the tee but it most definitely does not constitute some hogsback feature that could cast a ball either way from the middle of that entire fairway area before the swale.
The hole has a very large cross hazard in front of that fairway area. I cannot tell on this photo if it has sand in it; I doubt it as the large flanking bunker on the left of the green itself does not have sand in it at that point (1913 the year the course opened).
Actually the biarritz bunkering on Piping's ninth hole may be a bit unusual as I don't think the hole has ever had a sand bunker on the left of the fairway before the swale but in this 1913 photo it certainly does have a massive sand bunker on the right of both the green and the fairway area before the swale. To me the reason for that is pretty obvious as the fairway area on the 8th hole comes right to the biarritz bunkers on the right (this is a feature of the 8th hole that was obsoleted many years ago).
But again, there is definitely no prominent hogs-back feature in the center of the fairway area before the swale and if some on here try to tell you somehow there is some prominent hogsback feature in that entire fairway area, I can tell you right now they are just wrong.
Brad, The Creek Club's historian found this photo of Piping's ninth hole and provided it to me a few years ago and I believe it was once posted on this website but I just don't know how to find it. It is in a 1913 article on Piping Rock by Devereau Emmet in I think Golf Illustrated.
-
Please, that greensite isn't more than 10' above sea level. It doesn't even reach the height of the first floor of the house behind it.
This still doesn't answer the Yale question.
Jim,
This was reported to be one of the toughest holes at Lido. Certainly the wind was also a factor, because the ball had to be played out over the ocean and blown back on line. That is probably why the shortened it. But I think it was also because the elevation of the green did not receive the shots too well when it was at 220 yard.
What is the question about Yale? I missed that one. But I won't back on till this evening.
-
Bradley,
Thanks for the answer, I think it helps to show just how adaptable the Biarritz can be, from flatland to a 30' elevation change, and from shallow swales to deep.
I don't think that the height of the green complex matters as long as the tee height complements it.
-
Tom,
I have that Dev Emmet article somewhere in my collection. I'll try to post it tonight---if I can find it. :P
I was just reminded of the fact that I am in a relationship with a family here--you know chidren and a wife. Doh!
-
"That is probably why they shortened it."
Bradley:
Why did they shorten the Lido Biarritz from the original 220 yards to 160?
Well, the generally told story is because that hole got really clobbered by the sea and the sand but if you just look at that plasticine model of the whole course or even that on-ground photo on this website you will probably see why it was shortened. Assuming that tee on the on-ground photo was at 160 yards just look at those golfers standing on not the 8th tee but the 9nth tee!!! Then go back and look at that plasticine model again and imagine how dangerous that combination of tees must have been FROM 220 YARDS!!! ;)
By the way, Brad, the area of most of the tees on Piping's ninth hole are probably 15-20 feet above the fairway and green but believe me it was no problem at all to land a ball on that fairway and filter it into and out of the swale and onto the green as long as you kept it low and got the "weight" right. I ought to know as I've done it scores of times starting back in the early 1950s and going forward. And there was definitely no "hogs-back" feature that cast my golf ball from the center into the hazards on either side. I mean there may be some on here who will still try to tell you that's the case because of CBM's or Whigam's or Travis' remarks but they have not played that hole hundreds of times as I have, have they? ;)
-
There's a forty year interlude between the time you started playing the course and when the hole was built. A lot of things happen insuch a long period of time.
Perhaps we'll see why Whigham described it as he did when the photo appears.
-
Sure, there was a forty year interlude between the time that hole was built in 1913 and when I started playing it in the early 1950s but the point is the architecture of that hole looks the same in that 1913 photo as it did when I began playing it in the 1950s, and continued playing it for decades as well as basically what it looked like the last time I saw it this year. So, Jimboohoo Kennedy, if you're gonna try to tell me that you know something or you're going to see something when that 1913 photo I have appears on here, that I don't about that hole or that my descriptions of it are wrong, I'm just going to tell you you're spitting in the wind again as you have so often on here when responding to me. The fact is you seem to want to be constantly argumentative and antagonistic on here with me, and apparently for no other reason other than to be argumentative and antagonistic. Go ahead, keep it up with posts with implications like the last one, and that ridiculous one on here regarding what I said to Ari Techner. Your response on the latter one was a total argumentative waste of time that frankly made no understandable point or sense at all.
-
Tom,
I'm not questioning your 50 year old impressions of the hole, I'm questioning Whigham's, and it seems that the only way to find out why he described the hole the way he did, 40 years before you saw it, is through that photograph.
-
Jim,
I admit that I am biased by the fact that the only biarritz I have played is #6 at Shoreacres. On that hole there is very little elevation difference between the tee and the green. The tee sits just high enough to command a view of what is before you. The trough sits two feet lower than the green. And the green sits about two feet above grade. But now if my memory serves me right, the trough is cut in to the grade a half foot or so with a place for water to drain to the left side. In either case, however you do the math, the entire hole sits remarkably close to grade.
The engineering of that trough is critical to the success of the hole. At least that's what I think.
The biarritz hole is a challenging hole to build because the trough has to drain in order for the hole to work. But if you have to raise the whole structure up artifically, I think you are compromising the design intent, because of how the raised surface doesn't receive the trajectory of the ball as well as the green that is closer to grade.
Bradley, I totally disagree with your premise, as does the architecture at FI, especially when you factor in the slope/grade of the putting surface and fronting terrain. Biarritz greens raised above the tee don't offer, incrementally, that difficult of an approach, versus a Biarritz where the tee and the green are at the same elevation.
In addition, most golfers don't have the fire power to hit to the center of the back tier.
-
"........I'm questioning Whigham's, and it seems that the only way to find out why he described the hole the way he did, 40 years before you saw it, is through that photograph."
There is no question about that at all. And other than that small mound on the far end of the fairway over towards the right and some very gentle undulations (both convex and concave) on that fairway that is over-all fairly flat, if someone on here carefully analyzes that 1913 photograph and the way the hole was in the 1950s and on, and is today, and still believes what they see constitutes some prominent "hogs-back" feature that casts the ball either right or left off the center into one of those flanking hazards I would suggest they make an appointment with a really good optomitrist at the absolute soonest! And if that still doesn't work, I would advize they take a couple of weeks off and give up golf course architectural analyses altogether.
By the way, here's an interesting bit of historical trivia on Piping Rock that happened on that hole and sort of reflects the latter advice I just suggested.
It was on this hole many years ago that the indomitable grande dam, Mrs. Grace, was playing with Sam Snead in a pro-am. Mrs. Grace was not having a good day on the previous eight holes and so on the biarritz, she, in apparent desperation, asked Sam Snead to tell her how to play better. Snead said: "Lady, my advice to you would be to take two weeks off and then just quit the game for good."
Apparently, Mrs Grace was so incensed by that she sent Snead packing so he only played nine hole and had to walk from the biarritz across the polo fields and back to the clubhouse to get his things and depart, never to be allowed to return to Piping Rock for all time to come!
-
The first plateau is a hog's back in and of itself. I think it's fair to say his description is correct if the photo shows undulations ( the convex and concave you mention are visible) that would serve to kick the ball in the directions Whigham reported.
I feel sad for people who ask a question, and when confronted by an answer they don't like, cannot help from being spiteful. Too bad.
-
Piping Rock 9
-
Alright, I found that photo. Looks like that hogsback was exactly where Whigham said it was. HA!
-
Thought you were with the kids ;D
-
By the way, thanks for posting the photo.
-
Thought you were with the kids ;D
We were just heading out for a hike and my boys told me, dad you have to put that photo up there. Pretty funny. ;)
-
Art Linkletter made millions off boys like yours! ;D Have a good aftenoon.
-
"Alright, I found that photo. Looks like that hogsback was exactly where Whigham said it was. HA!"
Bradley:
Thanks for posting that photo of the ninth of Piping Rock. But, "I'll be damned and go to Hell," if you're assuming that big wide perpendicular dark green area at the front of the fairway area before the swale is the "hogs-back" feature or some "hogs-back" feature on that fairway, it isn't. That is the front section of a big wide basically cop-bunker! ;)
There is probably 35-40 yards of fairway area from that bunker to the beginning of the swale. If someone hit the top of that bunker their ball is not going to get deflected either right or left into flanking bunkers as if there was some hogsback actually ON that fairway---it's more likely to just stop dead in the longish grass on the top of that bunker that's about 50 yards from the green!
By the way, that big wide cross bunker about 35-40 yards before the swale isn't there any more. :-*
So much for this hogs-back discussion at Piping Rock's biarritz. That photo is from Devereau Emmet's review article of Piping Rock in Golf Illustrated in 1913. :'(
Brad:
I've got an old aerial of Piping on my computer or in my files. If I can get it to you I will, unless of course this thread's Piping biarritz discussion gets as irrelevent and tenuous as the discussion on here trying to prove Merion's 17th was a biarrtiz or biarritz concept. ::)
-
Thanks Bradley, terrific photo. Now for your next trick, can you give us an aerial from the same era?
I wonder if the course ever "achieve[d] the distinction of being one of the best holes of its length in America?"
-
Tom Paul,
First, you should go back and read Whigham's description, it's amazing how neatly he described what's on the grouind in the photo.
Second, you ought to try accepting the fact that you have just been proven incorrect about this whole hogback question, quit whining about it, and take your medicine like a man. Now you are starting to look like the old woman who couldn't accept the truth about her golf game when Snead presented it to her.
-
"Second, you ought to try accepting the fact that you have just been proven incorrect about this whole hogback question, quit whining about it, and take your medicine like a man. Now you are starting to look like the old woman who couldn't accept the truth about her golf game when Snead presented it to her."
Jim Kennedy:
Can you point out specifically the "hogs-back" feature on that substantial fairway that reputedly kicks the ball right or left into those flanking hazards?
But first let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. How many times have you ever seen Piping Rock?
2. How many times have you ever seen its biarritz?
3. How many times have you played that hole?
4. How many times have you tried to land a ball short of that swale on that fairway section?
5. How many times have you ever seen anyone try to do that?
Thanks in advance for your cooperation in answering those questions accurately and honestly! ;)
-
There is probably 35-40 yards of fairway area from that bunker to the beginning of the swale.
In the modern aerial there is just about thirty five yards from the top of the hog back to the front of the green.
Whigham was off a few yards, you're way off.
By the way, that big wide cross bunker about 35-40 yards before the swale isn't there any more. :-*
It sure is Tom, unless they removed it in the last year or so. I just measured the distances using the one from Bing aerials.
So much for this hogs-back discussion at Piping Rock's biarritz.
For you Tom, I'm sure it will be now that you've been proven wrong.
-
p.s. Badgering me won't make you correct, but if it makes you feel better keep going.
-
I think you guys may be “misinterpreting” what CBM called a Hog’s-Back in his original description in Scotland’s Gift.
I think (he and Whigham) when referring to Hog’s-Back meant THE ENTIRE APPROACH AREA SHORT OF THE SWALE as being the “Hog’s-Back.
I think, if had his way, he would have (and may have) built these frontal sections (now turned green on many courses) with a definitive falling off to the side bunkering but if they were like that, I doubt if many “push-shot” balls would have bounded straight forward (as intended).
I have a green blue of a Biarritz green drawn by Charlie Banks that show two long diagonal mounds, about a foot high, in the frontal fairways - these to deflect, as well.
The Biarritz green at the Knoll still has these two great features and I do not remember any other greens with these two deflection mounds.
The frontal bunker (Piping Rock and on other courses) were to simulate the Bay of Biscay carry.
Again the Knoll has this bunker intact - I just restored it a year or so ago. The carry at The Knoll over that bunker is about 135-yds ...... SIMULATION OR REPRESENTATIVE the key words
aside: Charlie - Hog’s Back!! Not a good choice of words.
-
Thanks George. I stand corrected.
-
Thanks GeorgeB and nice to speak with you today about this:
I hope your explanation finally puts to rest this suggestion by a few on here that Piping Rock's biarritz hole ever had or has some "hogs-back" feature that ever cast a golf ball landing on that front fairway section sideways from the center or whateer into those flanking bunkers (actually only a depression on the left).
As far as accurately interpreting what some statements put on here by CBM, Whigam or even Travis meant, that is not something I want to speculate on----I only know it didn't exist at Piping Rock and it sure didn't exist on the 17th at Merion.
So, I hope this is the end of it. Again, thanks.
"p.s. Badgering me won't make you correct, but if it makes you feel better keep going."
Well, I hope you don't feel that getting George to explain to you the architectural realities of Piping Rock's biarritz is badgering you.
By the way, have you ever tried to land a ball on the front section of Piping Rock's biarritz and run it onto the green? Have you ever seen anyone try to do that? Just some pretty basic questions which I hope you don't think are badgering you considering what you've said on this thread.
-
Now wait second here. I've castrated hogs with my uncle Louis, so I think I know a hogsback when I see one, and that raised up ground in front of the fairway sure looks like a hogsback to me. ;D
-
Brad:
Did you and Uncle Lou castrate any approximately 30 yard wide cross bunkers? ;)
If so maybe the tops of them do look like hogs backs when they get castrated. Do you think Charlie and Whigs invented hogs or at least the golf architectural concept of them or their backs too?
-
Jim,
I admit that I am biased by the fact that the only biarritz I have played is #6 at Shoreacres. On that hole there is very little elevation difference between the tee and the green. The tee sits just high enough to command a view of what is before you. The trough sits two feet lower than the green. And the green sits about two feet above grade. But now if my memory serves me right, the trough is cut in to the grade a half foot or so with a place for water to drain to the left side. In either case, however you do the math, the entire hole sits remarkably close to grade.
The engineering of that trough is critical to the success of the hole. At least that's what I think.
The biarritz hole is a challenging hole to build because the trough has to drain in order for the hole to work. But if you have to raise the whole structure up artifically, I think you are compromising the design intent, because of how the raised surface doesn't receive the trajectory of the ball as well as the green that is closer to grade.
Bradley, I totally disagree with your premise, as does the architecture at FI, especially when you factor in the slope/grade of the putting surface and fronting terrain. Biarritz greens raised above the tee don't offer, incrementally, that difficult of an approach, versus a Biarritz where the tee and the green are at the same elevation.
In addition, most golfers don't have the fire power to hit to the center of the back tier.
Patrick,
To be clear, I am suggesting that an uphill biarritz is harder than a downhill biarritz. Would you not agree? Let me guess--you probably won't agree.
-
Tom,
True story. My uncle Less had the nickname Killer, on account of his fierce temper, and what he did to a bully on the playground after he caught the bully picking on a smaller kid.
Well my uncle Louis, the hog farmer, and my uncle Less were playing basketball in the barn where they had a hoop. Louis was taunting uncle Less pretty hard---this was when they were boys--so Less goes in the house and gets his shot-gun. My grandmother asked Less "where you going with the gun?" Less says "I'm goin' to shoot Louis".
The crazy thing about that story is my grandmother didn't say "no Less, you put that gun back right now". She just opens the window of the house and yells out to the barn "run Louis.....Killer's got a gun!"
So that was my uncle Louis that I used to help with his hogs. And actually they were very small when they were castrated. You wanna talk about some high pitched squealing....wow.
But seriously, I defer to George on any of these issues. Yet still, hogsback is not the term that I would use to describe the area in front of the biarritz trough.
-
"Bradley, I totally disagree with your premise,"
Bradley:
Does Patrick Mucci ever do anything on here other than disagree with everyone and anyone's premise?
Talking about shotguns---one time on Long Island there were about a thousand starlings flying around in front of the house on what was called Valentine Farm and my grandmother who was a quite thin woman but what a shot she was goes down to the gun closet in the den, takes out a 4-10 shotgun, walks halfway up the stairs and opens the massive window halfway up the stairs and fires off a couple of shots at the starlings with the shotgun on her hip just like John Wayne in the movies.
I think my mother and father and everyone else in the house thought the revolution had begun.
-
here is a portion of a C Banks blueprint showing the two deflection "mounds" ("spines") on the frontal section
I'd love to hear from anyone who still has some semblance of them on the Biarritz green
- perhaps Fishers Island? Donnie Beck??
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/biarritzgrnportionof-whampton-Oneck.jpg)
-
Thanks GeorgeB and nice to speak with you today about this:
I hope your explanation finally puts to rest this suggestion by a few on here that Piping Rock's biarritz hole ever had or has some "hogs-back" feature that ever cast a golf ball landing on that front fairway section sideways from the center or whateer into those flanking bunkers (actually only a depression on the left).
TEPaul, I don't recollect anyone claiming that any feature would deflect a ball sideways.
George Bahto has basically confirmed everything I stated about the "Hog's Back" feature and Biarritzes.
As far as accurately interpreting what some statements put on here by CBM, Whigam or even Travis meant, that is not something I want to speculate on----I only know it didn't exist at Piping Rock and it sure didn't exist on the 17th at Merion.
Merion's topography on # 17 is vastly different from # 9 at Piping Rock.
When I next visit Piping Rock, I will pay special attention to the flanks of the first tier on the 9th hole.
I'd be willing to bet that they're beveled near the edges, diverting balls down into the bunkers and rough below the fairway level.
Well, I hope you don't feel that getting George to explain to you the architectural realities of Piping Rock's biarritz is badgering you.
I thought I explained the architectural realities before George ;D
By the way, have you ever tried to land a ball on the front section of Piping Rock's biarritz and run it onto the green?
Have you ever seen anyone try to do that?
Just some pretty basic questions which I hope you don't think are badgering you considering what you've said on this thread.
As I stated earlier, not all Biarritzes are created equal, or in a cookie cutter mold.
When I described the swales found in Biarritzes, I stated that some had mild depths, medium depths and extreme depths.
Piping Rock falls into the latter category, thus, the running shot, unless low and hot, has difficulty negotiating the swale and arriving on the putting surface of the back tier.
That process, of running the ball on the first tier, down and up the swale to the back tier is largely dependent upon maintainance.
Without irrigation that process is made easier.
With irrigation, the first tier and swale must be tightly mowed (fairway or green) in order to allow for that process.
-
Jim,
I admit that I am biased by the fact that the only biarritz I have played is #6 at Shoreacres. On that hole there is very little elevation difference between the tee and the green. The tee sits just high enough to command a view of what is before you. The trough sits two feet lower than the green. And the green sits about two feet above grade. But now if my memory serves me right, the trough is cut in to the grade a half foot or so with a place for water to drain to the left side. In either case, however you do the math, the entire hole sits remarkably close to grade.
The engineering of that trough is critical to the success of the hole. At least that's what I think.
The biarritz hole is a challenging hole to build because the trough has to drain in order for the hole to work. But if you have to raise the whole structure up artifically, I think you are compromising the design intent, because of how the raised surface doesn't receive the trajectory of the ball as well as the green that is closer to grade.
Bradley, I totally disagree with your premise, as does the architecture at FI, especially when you factor in the slope/grade of the putting surface and fronting terrain. Biarritz greens raised above the tee don't offer, incrementally, that difficult of an approach, versus a Biarritz where the tee and the green are at the same elevation.
In addition, most golfers don't have the fire power to hit to the center of the back tier.
Patrick,
To be clear, I am suggesting that an uphill biarritz is harder than a downhill biarritz.
In what sense ?
In running the ball from the front tier to the back tier ? On that I'd disagree
In being able to carry the ball deeper into the green ? On that I'd agree.
Would you not agree?
Yes and No.
As I stated, you have to be function specific.
My response to you was in the context of running the ball along the front tier, through the swale, onto the back tier.
On downhill Biarritzes, that's almost impossible.
Let me guess--you probably won't agree.
That's right, and wrong ;D
-
George Bahto,
I think The Knoll contains some terrific template holes, perhaps even to the degree that some represent the ultimate evolution of some of the templates.
The 3rd hole, the Redan and the 13th hole, the Biarritz both have noticeable spines or contours within the putting surfaces.
I fell in love with both holes the first time I played them.
The 13th was always more of a challenge because it required a longer, more accurate shot, without the architecture correcting marginal shots, as a Redan can do.
I believe that automated irrigation systems ruined or diminished the architectural intent on Biarritzes.
With the basic footpad of a Biarritz being elevated, that footpad tended to be dryer, thus accomodating the running or low tee shot.
The moment automated irrigation systems were introduced it changed the play of the hole, making it far more aerial.
While it took a long, long while, I think clubs with Biarritzes finally came to the conclusion that the front tier and swale had to be mowed to tighter heights in order to restore the original architectural intent, in terms of playability.
When properly maintained, a Biarritz is a hole that's exciting, challenging and fun to play.
George, the thing about # 13 at The Knoll is that just getting on the back putting surface doesn't guarantee a par.
The contouring in the putting surface, call it a spine or a horseshoe like contour, makes two putting, when you're on the opposite side of the contour, very difficult, so, just hitting the green in regulation is just the begining of the examination.
-
"Well, I hope you don't feel that getting George to explain to you the architectural realities of Piping Rock's biarritz is badgering you."
"I thought I explained the architectural realities before George. ;D"
Pat:
If you did I guess I must have missed it. ;) The first statement was from me to Jim Kennedy anyway who seemed to be saying there was some kind of "hogs-back" feature on that fairway section on Piping Rock's biarritz. I just wanted to mention to him that I hope he doesn't think it was badgering him that I got George Bahto to explain to him that there really is no hogs-back feature on that front fairway section at Piping Rock. I only say that because after that photo of the biarritz at Piping in 1913 was posted by Bradley, Kennedy was telling me I should admit like a man that I was incorrect all along and some other petty bullshit that is part and parcel of some of his responses to me lately on this website. :-*
Patrick, since you are the guy who seems to like to quote C.B. Macdonald's remarks on here so often that to really know a course one pretty much needs to see it and play it in all kinds of conditions and wind and weather etc, why don't YOU ask Kennedy how many times he has played Piping Rock's biarritz or even if he's ever seen the place? I mention that to you and ask you to ask him about that because I already asked him the straight-forward question on here a couple of times and he seems to be avoiding it for some reason. Do you have any idea why that would be? ;)
-
I've always felt that Patrick's knowledge and life experiences are under-utilized on here. Instead of provoking him with our stupid statements we should be asking him questions.
Here's one for you Patrick: what was that 8th hole at Lido REALLY like when you played it?
-
TEPaul,
I've already accepted what George said, and that's a pretty interesting drawing of those deflecting ridges that he posted.
If playing Piping Rock's Biarritz since the '50s was relevant to the discussion you'd have a point, but it wasn't, so you don't. The discussion was about the configuration of a golf hole as it was described by Whigham in 1916, not in 1956 when you started playing it. For someone who says they are as familiar with Piping Rock's Biarritz as you say that you are, I don't know how you could have made the statement, as you did, that the front bunker doesn't exist any longer. A quick look at any modern aerial shows that it does. That pretty much dispatches much of your rationale for 'playing knowledge' when talking about holes in their proper era, unless of course, you were playing it in 1916.
You always seem to be the fellow who talks about taking things of an architectural nature in context, I guess it didn't suit your purpose this time.
-
I've always felt that Patrick's knowledge and life experiences are under-utilized on here.
Instead of provoking him with our stupid statements we should be asking him questions.
Here's one for you Patrick: what was that 8th hole at Lido REALLY like when you played it?
It's REALLY like a 404 yard par 4, slight dogleg right, bunkers right off the tee, with a narrow green of 19 yards and a depth of 35 yards with flanking bunkers, with a good deal of wind to contend with..
Hope that helps.
P.S. I never get provoked by "stupid" questions, there's too many of them to get excited about.
-
Jim Kennedy:
Rationalize your way out of it any way you can; you're very good at that. Piping Rock's biarritz and some "hogs-back" feature and effect on it was the point and that's what the point of my trying to explain it at various points in time and getting that photo of it posted was about. There isn't one on it and there never has been, and you should just admit it and forget about it. You said I was incorrect about that for some reason when you've probably never even seen it and you had no idea about it. Why was that? ;)
-
Pat said: “The 3rd hole, the Redan and the 13th hole, the Biarritz (at The Knoll) both have noticeable spines or contours within the putting surfaces.
I fell in love with both holes the first time I played them.
The Redan (3rd) always bothered me because, although it has an excellent “kick-in” shoulder, a proper angle of play, proper length, and has that interesting spine running through it, etc., the front Redan bunker was only about “eye-high” deep - simple shot for a decent player.
When I restored the hole there was about 7-foot of sand had been added into the bunker, probably back when Mr. Aiello owned the course in the 50's and 60's. Well of course we took it down to the original depth and even had to put a slight grass shelf in the front right section so you could at least get out of it without killing yourself.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/knoll3before.jpg)
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/gbin3bunkeKnoll.jpg)
-
George,
7 feet of sand ?
That's a lot of refills.
Was excessive sand the rule at The Knoll or was the 3rd hole an aberration ?
The 13th was always a special challenge, from the tee, on recoveries and putting.
It was a hole you recalled in terms of its uniqueness and challenge.
It was one of the first Biarritzes I ever played.
I think # 2 at ECW might have been the first
The Knoll has great putting surfaces and is one of the most underrated courses I've ever played.
Many years ago we were trying to swap courses but the daughters opted to sell to Bloomfield College.
Why Bloomfield College wanted the property is beyond me. It proved disastrous for the College and the Membership.
The daughters also rejected numerous bids from seperate factions within the membership.
What did Bloomfield College pay for the course/property ?
What did Parsippany pay Bloomfield College for the course/property ?
What was the impetus to build another 18 holes (east) in 1961 ?
The cost to build and maintain would take decades to recapture, and that may have been an impossibility.
http://www.golfobserver.com/features/Flemma/FlemmaKnoll1_030108.php
-
George,
7 feet of sand ?
Was excessive sand the rule at The Knoll or was the 3rd hole an aberration ?
That was an aberration - one of the problems is that when it is that deep, you do not enter the back of the bunker at ground level but have to actually climb down into it .... it was hard and very deep. Some of the members went nuts when I took it back to the original depth. One guy was trying to sue the town because he fell off the face and down into the bunker
There were a few more bunkers that were filled a bit but no to that extent, notably #2 that huge left greenside. It was filled in about 2-3 feet, as was thee right side bunker on the Biarritz.
The Knoll has great putting surfaces and is one of the most underrated courses I've ever played.
Many years ago we were trying to swap courses but the daughters opted to sell to Bloomfield College.
Why Bloomfield College wanted the property is beyond me. It proved disastrous for the College and the Membership.
The daughters also rejected numerous bids from separate factions within the membership.
What did Bloomfield College pay for the course/property ?
I don’t remember the exact number but 3.5 mil comes to mind.
What did Parsippany pay Bloomfield College for the course/property ?
I think the Town paid 2.5 to 3.5 Mil that was matched by the State of NJ under the State Greenacres program.
What was the impetus to build another 18 holes (east) in 1961 ? No they wanted to expand their college campus which would have been a traffic nightmare - the town rebelled and ended up buying the course.
The lower course was suggested by Gen Sarazen as an adjunct to make some extra money and support the upper course
some of the many celebrities who frequented the Knoll in her hey-day were; Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, Sarazen (a regular), Yankees, Joe DiMaggio, Whitey Ford and most of the team, Dodger team members - Pee Wee Reese, Babe Herman, Rube Walker; Jackie Gleason, Perry Como, Frank Dailey, owner of the great nightclub in Cedar Grove - The Meadowbrook - brought band leaders up there very often. Many pros often played there as well .................... As did Pat Mucci Jr and Sr
-
I wasn't asking because I knew the answer, but I believe Tom Paul has got it. And yes, they did play Sneads tournament there as well.
Lester
-
George:
You might want to think about adjusting downward that remark that 7 feet of sand was removed from that bunker. If that was the case it seems like one could've basically putted the ball out of it. ;)
-
Lester,
Did Macdonald have any input in Hawaii? That course is a RayBanks. 8) ;D
-
Jim,
I would not know. It seems he was less interested in travel later in life so it would make sense. Maybe check Bahto's timeline for a clue on that?
LG
-
Lester,
I thought it was a trick question. ;)
-
Lester:
It seems CBM was not just less interested in travel later in life, it seems pretty obvious he had become a whole lot less interested in most everything (at least to do with golf and architecture ;) ) and most everybody who was part of it. The reasons for that seem to be becoming a lot better know these days----and better yet, it is becoming quite documentable, as a lot of material pertinent to that and not seen in many many decades keeps coming out of the woodwork, so to speak!
-
Tom,
Please elaborate. Or call me at the office to discuss (I need to talk about some other things as well).
Lester
-
Lester:
I've found it's probably better not to elaborate on this DG about certain things to do with CBM's life and times, particularly things to do with other than just his golf architecture as some on here seem to get pretty defensive about it and tend to accuse me of constantly trying to bash the man or whatever. I guess they feel his "legend" should be protected at all costs. It's sort of ironic too as they're the same people who've accused some of us of trying to protect the "legends" of the likes of Hugh Wilson or Flynn or Leeds or whomever at all costs.
I'll call you about it.
-
For a minute, going back to the question about Lido's Biarritz:
During stormy high tides the waves actually undercut the green - that was the main reason it was moved.
-
Georgie Boy:
You're right, that always has been the story with that remarkable Lido 8th biarritz green.
On that note, would you care to comment on the likelihood of Charlie actually sort of "Jumping the Shark" as that thread by Moriarty some years ago suggested, and/or the fact that at The Lido CBM sure did try to Fuck with Mother Nature when he sure as shootin' shoulda known better, particularly seeing as it's pretty hard to miss the fact the Atlantic Ocean was within not that many feet of that particular green? ;)
-
George:
I have an interesting question for you, and I ask you, and not the others on here because I figure you have to arguably have the greatest knowledge of all things to do with CBM/Raynor than certainly anyone else on here.
So the question is---how many courses did CBM actually get involved in designing and constructing holes right on or right next to the water? By that I mean water that obviously has tides and such.
I figure the obvious answers are NGLA's #14, The Lido's 8th and of course some of those lower holes at The Creek.
I realize Mid Ocean's Cape hole's fairway is close to the water (even though the fairway does slope up and away from it significantly) but the green seems pretty high above it.
I ask this because it seems like those aforementioned holes sure did have some real inherent and on-going problems being as close to the water as they were. Do you think by Mid Ocean CBM had learned his lesson the hard way enough and that might be the actual reason some say he did not put enough holes at Mid Ocean close enough to the water?
-
Lester:
It seems CBM was not just less interested in travel later in life, it seems pretty obvious he had become a whole lot less interested in most everything (at least to do with golf and architecture ;) ) and most everybody who was part of it. The reasons for that seem to be becoming a lot better know these days----and better yet, it is becoming quite documentable, as a lot of material pertinent to that and not seen in many many decades keeps coming out of the woodwork, so to speak!
Just what this site needs, even more petty, unsupported rumor mongering aimed at tearing down the reputation and memory CBM. CBM was an amateur architect, not a professional, and as an amateur architect his output and contribution was incredible, starting with the dawn of real golf in America and spanning over three decades thereafter. He was still involved in designing courses as he approached 70 years old, and his seminal book on golf and golf design in America was published when he was 73. Notably, in that book he wrote that he was satisfied that his mission had been accomplished.
Yet for years we have been told about this bitter, petty, egomaniac who turned his back on the game. Yet as is almost always the case with TEPaul and his cronies, no support has been offered. Was CBM hard for some to get along with? No doubt. But he is not alone among great men in that. Was he opinionated? Of course, but doing what he did would have been impossible without strong opinions and the willingness to express them. But beyond this I has seen nothing to justify the constant stream of crap that gets thrown out around here.
It is long past time for gca.com's snarky barnyard hens to quit clucking. TEPaul, Wayne, whoever, should put up or shut up. Make a case based on verifiable evidence or quit maligning the guy. He deserves better than to be constantly torn down by a couple of juveniles who think that pissing on CBM's grave is just about the funniest story (if it is a story) they ever came up with. And by making a case I don't mean droning on about what Great Auntie Miffy thinks she overheard through her petticoat after the 1939 Bleaublood Hollow Cattilion, when Charleston Buffington Wentworth, IV, was speaking to Jack the Stableboy (who incidentally had been with the family for seven decades and was President Taft's favorite caddy because he always carried three double decker turkey and bacon sandwiches in the bag for the President when played at the club, thus the name "Club sandwich.")
Same goes for the asinine legends about how he had a lifesize statue built of himself, and the newest bizarre and irrelevant twist about bit about how CBM just wasn't of the same social status of TEPaul's people, the men for whom he built courses.
----------------------------------------------------
George
So when they first shortened the hole, was it the green that was moved.
---------------------------------------------------
Lester,
Perhaps you and everyone else should ask yourselves why the snarky gossip is appropriate for the website but the proof must only be discussed via back channels? My guess is that like so much of what TEPaul regales us with, it would disintegrate into dust were it exposed to the light of day.
-
Lester:
Catch post #190! See what I mean? It sure didn't take long, did it? ;)
I'll call you on the phone about it. It seems like most of the best and most significant discussion and information on architecture and architects is sort of getting transfered and discussed off this DG these days and there's not much reason left to wonder why, don't you know?! ??? ::)
"Yet as is almost always the case with TEPaul and his cronies, no support has been offered."
For all---the support for it is contained in what have become known as "The Agronomy Letters," and they are available for those dedicated researchers who would like to peruse carefully through about 2,000+ of them for various references by the conversants and contemporaries and friends of CBM (who had worked with him over the years) about him. But perhaps the poster of #190 has not done the research and is not aware of it or perhaps he is aware of it and thinks it would be wiser to just withhold that information from a frank and honest scrutiny of it on here. ;)
But again, Lester, I'll tell you all about it on the phone because as I just said, and just predicted this morning, there seem to be a few on here who just freak out if any truth about CBM's life and times is discussed on here that they seem to think effects his "Legend" in some wrong way! :o ??? ::) :'( :-\ :P :-*
-
Lester,
In GB's Evangelist of Golf it's listed as a Raynor/Banks, with Banks finishing the job. No mention of Macdonald at Waialae.
Looks like Sam Snead's Pro Am might be the only Mac/Raynor that had anything resembling an ongoing Tour presence.
-
Lester:
Catch post #190! See what I mean? It sure didn't take long, did it? ;)
I'll call you on the phone about it. It seems like most of the best and most significant discussion and information on architecture and architects is sort of getting transfered and discussed off this DG these days and there's not much reason left to wonder why, don't you know?! ??? ::)
Since when is pathetic and unsubstantiated gossip "significant discussion and information?" What significant discussion? What information?
If you have verifiable information bring it forward to be discussed. If not then keep the petty rumor mongering and character assassination to the knitting circles, back fences, and back channels. You and Wayne are obviosly more comfortable where your ideas won't be scrutinized.
-
Lester:
Actually, one of the most interesting things of all about CBM and particularly about his rather comprehensive autobiography (published in 1928, and reputedly written in Bermuda in 1927) is the fact that he seems to not even mention so many of the courses and clubs that he was back then and is today reputedly said to have had something significant to do with.
One in particular, is mentioned but so slightly it surely makes one wonder about these things because there is absolutely no question whatsoever how much he had to do with not just its architecture but with the club itself!
-
For all---the support for it is contained in what have become known as "The Agronomy Letters," . . . .
That is it?? Years of badmouthing CBM, claiming he became bitter and disenchanted with golf and golf design, and this is their basis?
They've been referencing a few argonomy letters for years on this issue. I've seen one of their supposedly supporting letters and they have taken it totally out of context and entirely misunderstood it. They have repeated referenced another, but it too is apparently an empty shell-- CBM yelling at someone or something, or Piper asking Wilson if CBM yelled at him. So what? Maybe he yelled at Wilson for not getting the tilt of the Redan correctly. Whatever the letter, it is no basis for portraying CBM as a bitter, self-centered ogre who turned his back on the game. That cannot be their only support, can it? Let's see the support so we can decide for ourselves. We don't need TEPaul telling us what to believe about CBM, do we?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I know we have all heard these CBM character assassinations for so long that most now take them as an challengable chapter of golf history. But ask yourselves, what do we really know, other than what TEPaul and his cronies repeatedly have claimed? What actual proof is there that CBM turned his back on the game? Isn't it about time these guys backed up their gossip with facts?
A few questions to help others consider how easily our views of these men has been influenced around here.
-- How may think that H.J. Whigham was pretty much just a lackey for CBM? Or should I ask how many thought this until a couple of years ago when some of us made a concerted effort to set the facts straight. From whom did you learn that Whigham was a lackey and bag carrier for CBM? What was your factual basis for so believing? How many wonder how and why that portrayal got started in the first place.
-- How many here think that CBM commissioned a life-sized (larger than life?) statue of himself to place in the clubhouse at NGLA? What is your factual basis for so believing? How many wonder why Wayne and TEPaul think it so important to state and/or imply that CBM built a larger than life statue of himself to display at NGLA? Where do you suppose they came up with that?
- How many here have heard (on the threads or through back channels) that CBM was several rings down the social ladder from those for whom he designed courses (and for that matter, down from TEPaul, as well?) How many have heard that he was an just an employee - trading on behalf of others - for the investment house that eventually became J.P. Morgan? What is the factual basis for this stuff? How many wonder why CBM's supposed social status and position of employment are significant to TEPaul? What does it have to do with gca?
____________________________________________________
Maybe Ran needs to start a new Discussion group called GCA LITE especially for TEPaul:. The motto: All the snarky gossip and innuendo you want, but with none of the facts to weigh you down.
-
David,
What makes you think any number of people on here have been swayed by Tom's comments?
Do you think it's possible you're taking this all a bit more seriously than the vast majority on the board?
I don't want to minimize the value of this highly educated group because we can all learn a great deal, but we're not re-writing the Bible.
As you've said, it is a Discussion Group, not a Masters Class.
-
Jim Sullivan,
Fair questions, as usual.
I wish that no one would be swayed by TEPaul's comments anymore, but in the past many have been swayed by him and Wayne and their ceaseless CBM bashing. My views of CBM were certainly swayed by them initially, before I knew better, and even among those who should and/or do know better now, there is still plenty of redual impact left over from years past. Plus we have new posters joining us all the time and many seem to be content to take TEPaul's word for this stuff rather than demand he back up his claims with verifiable facts. There is surely nothing wrong with demanding facts, is there? Can you honestly tell me that your view, past or present, has never been influenced by the many tall tales told about CBM and Whigham?
Do I take this stuff more seriously than many? Apparently so, but I still don't see a problem in demanding this gossip be backed up or dropped. My impression is that there is more to this website than gossip and kissing ass-kissing for access. While we may be in the minority, I think some of us are actually interested in coming to a more accurate and complete understanding of golf course architecture in America.
The endless snarky gossip and rumor mongering has set that this cause back to the point that it is difficult to get people to consider what happened without being influenced by the false impression these guys have worked so hard to create. And while we may not be a Master's class, we aren't a bunch of seventh grade girls gossiping around the lunch table either, are we? This isn't gossip hour or story time, is it? It is a DISCUSSION, and we can't really discuss much if those making all the claims refuse to back them up.
What is wrong asking that we not gossip or trash anyone, living or dead, without offering up verifiable support? If this website is no longer a place for frank, honest, fact-based discussion of golf course design in America and its history, then it isn't the place for me. If we are just here to gossip about and badmouth the living and the dead, then I have nothing to contribute.
______________________________________________________
Lester Geroge,
I don't know of any recurring professinal tournament other than the above mentioned one, but it may be worth noting that CBM did not built his courses for stroke competitions, but for match play. So it makes some sense that they were were not embraced for professional tournaments.
Also, maybe the pros were afraid of being embarrassed by his courses. When Travis took to badmouthing NGLA he even claimed that if the US Open were ever held at NGLA then some of the top professionals would refuse to compete in the tourmament because it was too hard. A very odd statement considering that NGLA was extremely popular with the amateurs, and NGLA's annual Founder's Day ournament (qualifying stroke play then flights of 16 for match play) was a huge success.
In fact, previous to the Master's, the NGLA's annual Founder's Day tournament may have been the most important annual club event in the U.S., and arguably one of the most important annual tournaments in held the East, even perhaps more important even than the Lesley Cup. The fields were an incredible mix of the true captains of industry and many of the top amateur players including top Amateurs from abroad. The field was so deep that one year four of the former National Champions competing in the event failed to qualify any higher than the sixth flight of sixteen golfers.
Also, through a complicated set of circumstances there was very nearly an extremely important professional tournament at NGLA. Had the tournament taken place at NGLA it might have severely impacted the very development of golf in America. But perhaps more on that later, in another thread.
______________________________________________
Lester,
You mentioned the renovation/restoration of the Biarritz at the White Course. How close is the renovation to the original? Do you know whether the first plateau and swale were originally greenspace? I noticed that the hole was not very long now, and assume it lost length over the years. Do you know how long it was originally? How long is it now, after the changes? Also, do you happen to know the original name of the hole, if it had one?
Thanks
-
David,
I think it's somewhere in between, although closer to the Master Class than 7th grade...I just think it should be easier to accept that Wayne didn't really piss on CBM's grave and that they were just breaking your balls a little bit.
I think, in total, you underestimate our ability to weed through garbage and overestimate our interest in doing so.
-
David,
I think it's somewhere in between, although closer to the Master Class than 7th grade...I just think it should be easier to accept that Wayne didn't really piss on CBM's grave and that they were just breaking your balls a little bit.
I didn't even know about the pissing on the grave story until much later, so I doubt it was aimed at breaking my balls. And at this point I don't know whether any of us who weren't there know if he actually pissed on CBM's grave or not. But even if all they did was make up and spread the story about how Wayne pissed on this guys grave, I find it disturbing. At the very least it informs us as to their (or at least Wayne's) veiwpoint on these issues. More importantly, whether or not Wayne pissed on any or all of CBM's, Whighams, or SR's graves, it is a perfect metaphor of what these guys have been doing around here for years.
For years Wayne and TEPaul have pulled out all the stops to tarnish CBM's reputation, making crap up about his personal life, implying he was a drunk and a misogynist, discounting his writing and work hyperbole and puffery, making up absurd stories about him building statues of himself to prove how arrogant he was. Portraying him as a beligerent asshole who turned his back on the game, as only interested in self-promotion, as too egotistical and self-centered to ever help anyone with anything. They have even exaggerated the supposed failings of his work. And as you know because you have been around for a while, this is just touching the surface.
As I said, I used to buy into some of it, but as I have learned more, I have found that almost all of it is pure fabrication. And so far as I am concerned spreading false rumors aimed at destroying a dead person's reputation is just as bad and quite possibly worse that pissing on his grave. Suppose Wayne had simply pissed on CBM's grave but he and TEPaul had refrained from all the other garbage. Wayne would be a jerk for having done so, but CBM's reputation would remain intact.
Is any of it true? If so, then let's see the facts. As it is, these guys have un done real damage to his reputation and the reputations of Whigham and SR and unjustly so. This is especially so among those who care about this stuff the most. And that to me is dispicable, especially given that it was all aparently done just to make a bit bigger spot at the table for William Flynn and friends.
I think, in total, you underestimate our ability to weed through garbage and overestimate our interest in doing so.
I disagree about the former but agree with the later. I think most of you are able to weed through the garbage yourselves, but I don't think many will bother, either because you aren't interested in doing so, or because you don't have the time, or even because you have seen what happens when people take on TEPaul and Wayne. While this occassionally annoys and disappoints me, I certainly understand it, and cannot say I blame anyone.
What I don't understand is frustration when some of us try to put a stop to it and when we demand that these guys back up their claims or stop with the gossip. Sure it is ugly and uncomfortable, but think about where the state of our knowledge about gca would be if we let TEPaul and Wayne dictate the history of golf course design in America to us, as is their wont.
-
To hopefully get us back on track . . .
Forget about the carry over the chasm for a minute. Given the early photo of Piping Rock, and the plan of Westhampton, and the plasticine of the Biarritz at the Lido, and given CBM's and H.J. Whigham's early descriptions of a hog's back, (CBM wrote "sharp hog back") what do you guys think the original green area (including the first plateau and/or hogback) looked like.
Aside: Above TEPaul stated that the bunker short of the first plateau was always present on the 9th at Piping Rock and that what looks to be part of the hogback was actually the lip of the bunker. It sure doesn't look like the lip of a bunker to me for a number of reasons. Was there always a bunker there? In a photo I have seen from about 40 years ago, there was no fronting bunker. If it was there, when did they do away with the bunker? Does anyone have any early photos of the hole showing the bunker?
-
Dave Moriarty,
A while back, Jamie Slonis used a company that has vintage photos.
It was on a thread about Pine Valley, probably the 12th hole.
Certain locations in the country didn't have the chronological photos available, but, I would imagine that western LI would.
That might be a good source for you.
-
"Aside: Above TEPaul stated that the bunker short of the first plateau was always present on the 9th at Piping Rock and that what looks to be part of the hogback was actually the lip of the bunker. It sure doesn't look like the lip of a bunker to me for a number of reasons. Was there always a bunker there? In a photo I have seen from about 40 years ago, there was no fronting bunker. If it was there, when did they do away with the bunker? Does anyone have any early photos of the hole showing the bunker?"
If you trust George Bahto on these kinds of things why don't you ask him about that either on this DG or offline? I asked him on the phone the other day even though I was out on the 9th at Piping Rock this year looking at other things to do with its architecture.
-
1950: (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/PR9th1950.jpg)
-
To clarify my post earlier in this thread;
I did not mean to say that LM was the only Biarritz that I have played where the front part was not green. There are quite a few others that are this way obviously.
What I was saying is LM's Biarritz is the only one I have played where a running shot that lands short of the green and even short of the swale will actually run up onto the green. The strategy on most Biarritzes would be to just fire it all the way back to the pin and have the ball stop. The Biarritz at LM will not do this. Balls that land on the green will normally bound forward and end up long. To hold the green you pretty much need to hit a low runner that runs through the swale and onto the green. That as I understand it was the original design intent of the hole and is a shot that has been lost on most of these holes under current conditions.
-
That's a pretty small 1950 aerial, Georgie, but that cross-bunker before the fairway before the swale is definitely there in 1950! :-X
-
Hey, Ari, for starters, can we all know what exactly you mean when you said "LM?"
Belay that---I see you were talking about Lookout Mountain. I've never seen that one but if one can land the ball short of the swale (best with a low shot) and run the ball into and and out of the swale at LM then Piping Rock's biarritz works the same way as Lookout Mountain. And again, there is no hogsback feature on the fairway before the swale at Piping Rock----never has been.
Fox Chapel's biarritz works the same way as Piping's, as does The Creek's. FC and The Creek now have green space before the swale. Piping doesn't. Neither Fox Chapel nor The Creek have any kind of hogsback feature on them----never have.
-
I'm not exactly sure what hole post #200 is referring to but if it's Piping Rock's biarritz, the perpindicular dark green area one can see in the 1913 photo on this thread is the top of a bunker that was before that approximately 40 yard long fairway before the swale. That dark green area is not some hogsback feature of that fairway before the swale----again it is the top or front face of a bunker (even though in that very early photo it may not have had sand in it as it appears the bunker to the left of the green does not either at that early time (Piping opened for play in 1913---the year of that photo)).
-
here is a portion of a C Banks blueprint showing the two deflection "mounds" ("spines") on the frontal section
I'd love to hear from anyone who still has some semblance of them on the Biarritz green
- perhaps Fishers Island? Donnie Beck??
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/biarritzgrnportionof-whampton-Oneck.jpg)
George,
Fishers definitely has those exact deflection "mounds" The photo flattens them out but I would guess that they are close to 2 ½’ high.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a134/fisupt/Fishers5th.jpg)
-
Donnie,
It's unfortunate that the camera can't pick up contouring as well as the eye can.
One of the things I love about CBM/SR/CB greensites is the scale and depth of the adjacent bunkers.
They are so dramatic when viewed from the tee or DZ.
Who dares play to a hole located at the perimeter of the green ?
What a great challenge, mentally and physically.
-
Pat:
That FI biarritz really is a great one and fairly atypical of most of the rest of the CBM/Raynor biarritzes I've ever seen or played. I guess I've played FI more than 50 times in my life and my experience is you can play the ball onto about 85-90% of the width of that fairway before the swale and the ball will not deflect off that fairway. One thing it definitely ain't is a "hogs-back" feature! I don't deny that the likes of Moriarty or MacWood or Kennedy might try to tell you it's a hogsback feature or hogsback concept as they parse the shit out of some statement that CBM or Travis or Whigam once said about something somewhere but what do they really know since they've probably never even seen Piping Rock or FI or had any experience with that particular shot? ;)
-
TEP,
You've been shown proof of the existence of these spines and it has already been accepted that calling them hogbacks was not the best description, but they are spiny ridges nonetheless.
I notice that you chose to attack DM, TMac and myself, and yet the two men who showed you the proof of the existence of these spines, George, the foremost expert on all things CBM, and Donnie, the superintendent at FI, seem to be immune from your vitriolic and curse laden rants. I wonder why that is? :P
You reveal your true self in every one of these attacks. You're getting smaller and smaller and smaller.....
-
Those deflection spines that are depicted in the Westhampton blueprint are evident in the PR photo below. Apparently the spines were a standard feature, or option (call it what you will) of the biarritz, even in it's earliest version here. If you magnify your screen to 150% you can clearly see a 6 to 18" spine running parallel to the edges of the fairway in front of the trough. Those would definitely deflect balls in to the flanking bunkers if you where on the outside of them. However they would have also directed balls to the center of the trough if you were inside of them. Very quirky.
In my opinion the spine option, and the top bunker in front of the fairway are superfluous to the biarritz hole.
I wonder if George can comment as to whether or not those options were deemed unnecessary by CBM/Raynor over time?
-
TEP,
You've been shown proof of the existence of these spines and it has already been accepted that calling them hogbacks was not the best description, but they are spiny ridges nonetheless.
I notice that you chose to attack DM, TMac and myself, and yet the two men who showed you the proof of the existence of these spines, George, the foremost expert on all things CBM, and Donnie, the superintendent at FI, seem to be immune from your vitriolic and curse laden rants. I wonder why that is? :PYou reveal your true self in every one of these attacks. You're getting smaller and smaller and smaller.....
Jim,
I don't think Tom Paul has been too rough on you on here.
-
No problem Jim Kennedy; as you know I have no idea who the hell you are or where you're coming from and I really don't care what you think; haven't for a while now due to the posts you've put on here for quite some time both to me and in response to things I've said on here about architecture which weren't to you and had nothing to do with you. I have no hesitation in telling you I think you are a piece of shit and a truly inconsequential and petty little piece of shit at that.
Brad,
The above is from an ongoing thread started by Mac Plumart, and it's a typical Tom Paul attack, the kind of baloney that he continues to heap on anyone who he thinks is questioning his 'authority'.
This is the same type of approach he has taken in a slew of nasty personal messages that he has sent to me. When I asked him to stop sending me such abusive messages he said he was just going to keep on doing it in public. It seems he is true to his word.
The above exemplifies his tactics. The choice is yours as to whether or not they are those of a foul mouthed bully or not. I know what I believe.
-
Bradley, I noticed that as well, although I am not sure we can conclude they were parallel throughout that first area.
As for your continued defense of TEPaul's constant abhorrent behavior, might I suggest that you are letting your friendship get in the way of a realistic assessment of what is obviously ongoing?
-
Brad:
Obviously you have a real interest in that Piping biarritz and how it's designed and works in play. I'll email you about it as the only way to truly understand how a hole like that works and the nuances of how it works in play is to hit lots of shots on it. I've done that including a whole lot of the so-called biarritz shots (landing in on the fairway and running it through the swale) as well as watching others over the years. I'll tell you in detail how the shots work pretty much across the width of that fairway. I see no point in discussing something like this on here anymore or posting on this website anymore with some of the people on here and you know who they are. I think you can explain it them when you have the details. Stay in touch.
-
In my opinion the spine option, and the top bunker in front of the fairway are superfluous to the biarritz hole.
Brad, Why do you say that ?
The Biarritz, at its inception and even today, accomodates running shots.
Why would deflective spines, deliberately constructed by the architect, be superfluous to the play of the hole ?
-
In my opinion the spine option, and the top bunker in front of the fairway are superfluous to the biarritz hole.
Brad, Why do you say that ?
The Biarritz, at its inception and even today, accomodates running shots.
Why would deflective spines, deliberately constructed by the architect, be superfluous to the play of the hole ?
Patrick,
I think there is too much going on with the Piping Rock version in the photo. But let me say it differently - there is more going on there than there needs to be. The running shot doesn't need to be caught by that top bunker if it is a tad too low, nor does it need to be deflected with the spines if it is slight left or right of the middle section of the fairway. The trough, combined with the great length of the hole, is enough to make it a great hole.
-
Brad,
We often speak of a hole's length in the context of the back or championship tees, completely ignoring that the hole has other tees which make the hole play much shorter.
This myopic vision tends to prevent many from viewing architecture and the challenge a golfer faces, from anywhere but the back/championship tees.
You have to examine the features and the playing challenge, not from the back/championship tees, where a small percentage of the membership plays, but, from the other tees where the vast majority of the members play.
-
Patrick,
A true biarritz hole only has one tee. It was the long one shotter in the Mac/Raynor collection. The clubs that added extra tees to their biarritz's might as well have filled in the trough while they were at it.
-
Patrick,
A true biarritz hole only has one tee. It was the long one shotter in the Mac/Raynor collection. The clubs that added extra tees to their biarritz's might as well have filled in the trough while they were at it.
I don't believe that your statement is accurate.
How were women expected to complete their rounds, or, were those courses with a Biarritz, 17 hole courses for women ?[/b]
-
Pat: I have a huge collection of original Macdonald / Raynor scorecards and I doubt if there is even one Biarrtiz hole that has more than one tee - the longest tee. I can't find even one that had an alternate (or secondary) tee. Looks like if you couldn't get there - too bad on you!!
I can substantiate this.
I doubt if they were thinking about women's tees at the time - how many women were playing the courses in the teens and twenties?
-
"......how many women were playing the courses in the teens and twenties?"
Georgie Boy:
What a truly remarkable statement you just made there! Are you serious? That kind of thing isn't even remotely debatable; it is completely trackable and documentable. It's not even a matter of how many----it's a matter of the fact that they were and probably a whole lot earlier than you and others apparently realize. Actually, the zeal of women's golf, both tournament and otherwise in this country, probably came close to if not outstripped the men in some clubs and regions.
Furthermore, to get a ball over that bunker at Piping Rock from the front of the fairly long men's tee was probably right around 100 yards or less. As you know, that fairly flat fairway was probably 40-50 yards long before the swale.
-
Tom,
Care to ballpark what percentage of women could carry the ball 100 yards in 1920?
I'd bet less than 50% today, probably less than 20% then...
The implications of that are what interest me in this debate...not specifically about women, but about the very strict and stringent shot demand HJ Wigham described in his quote about the playability of the Biarritz.
-
George Bahto & Jim Sullivan,
I have a hard time accepting the notion that "ONLY" the better or championship golfer was considered and that there were no tee accomodations for the mediocre to poor player.
In "Scotland's Gift" by Charles Blair Macdonald, National's scorecard is reproduced.
It clearly shows three (3) sets of tees.
The "Championship" tees, the "Regular" tees and the "Short" tees.
In addition, a read of Chapter IX in "Scotland's Gift" gives one a feel for CBM's argument against too much length and his penchant for three sets of tee markers.
CBM references distances from the MIDDLE of his tees to the MIDDLE of the green.
From this, I infered that the MIDDLE distance was his "Regular" tee and that there was a "championship" tee at the back of the tee and a "short" tee at the front of his tee.
A review of the schematic of National, which appears at the back of "Scotland's Gift" clearly shows multiple tees and multiple tee locations ON EVERY HOLE.
If we accept that NGLA was THE template for all subsequent CBM/SR/CB courses, is it not logical to conclude that mulitple tees
and multiple tee locations were common fare ?
Hence, I don't buy into the premise
If CBM designed and constructed three sets of tees, to accomodate the wide range of golfers, I'm sure that Seth Raynor and Charles Banks followed suit.
-
Marion Hollins had this to say when planning the Women's National Golf and Tennis Club, circa 1923:
"To get a course on the lines I have outlined it was necessary to agree on a standardization which would permit a good average woman player to get home in two shots on most holes. I held a conference with several persons who were vitally interested and we all agreed that if an average carry for Miss Alexa Stirling's shots could be arrived at a good working basis as to this distance would be arrived at. It turned out that Miss Stirling's drives, over a series of tests, averaged about one hundred and seventy-five yards carry and so this has been struck as the mean average in laying the hazards in front of tecs. By that I do not mean that all carries on the direct line to the green are of that length. That would be poor judgment. Mr. Emmet has just taken that yardage as the point in the fairway where a ball would drop if the tee shot was hit properly. Of course, in many instances generous leeway has been made for the slightly shorter hitters or for shots which were just a little off. Also on every hole there are one or more alternate lines of play besides that of the direct line to the green. This permits the shorter or cannier player to attempt a safer line of direction, although usually it costs an extra stroke to do so."
Harold Hilton explained her game/distance like this:
"There are not a few women players who outdrive her by yards. There are some few who play longer brassies.There are still fewer who play longer iron shots."
I take that to mean she wasn't a slouch, but not the longest, which is why Hollins used her as model.
In the article below there is a quote on the second page saying that "Miss Vare's drives went 220 yards" which seems to include roll. I included it because of the wonderful photo of the 'Short', replete w/the horseshoe still intact.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1922/gi176i.pdf
-
Patrick,
The biarritz is maybe the most egalitarian golf hole by design because the trough allows the low running shot for the player who isn't long. In fact one might argue that it plays more to the mid-distance hitter than it does to the long-distance hitter.
I really think that putting forward tees on a biarritz hole is missing the entire concept of the design. It is the one hole of it's length where brain and braun are on equal footing from 220 yards.
But you make a good point with repsect to the issue of women golfers. That does indeed present a problem.
In either respect, this is why I felt that the Lido biarritz must have been a failure - when they reduced the yardage there to 160, that says to me that they chose a poor location for the hole - probably too windy for that site, and they had to allow for playing the ball out over the ocean and having the wind bring it back on line.
-
Bradley: Lido's 8th, the Biarritz green was moved because they couldn't maintain it along the beachfront because of the green kept washing away during stormy weather.
I'll check but I think it was moved once more to accomodate expansions of nearby buildings
-
Pat: your 3-tee reference by CB was about his way (he thought) of equalizing play between different skills of golfers. (apparently, that scheme of his didn't work out because he (Mac) did not carry that over into later courses he was involved with
as I said I have early scorecards for about 80% of their courses showing Biarritz holes with a single tee, including The Knoll (by Banks)
actually, hardly any scorecards of Macdonald Raynor courses show multiple tees
Occasionally Raynor would put in an optional tee on very long par-4 (like Raynor's Dogleg) or becasue of a long-ish forced carry
-
Jim Kennedy,
I'm always suspicious of distances cited by golfers and the size of fish cited by fishermen.
In 1923, a drive with a CARRY of 175 had to be prodigious, and for a women, extremely doubtful.
When you think of the manufacture of balls and equipment in terms of quality control in 1923, the claim becomes even more doubtful.
At a club I'm very familiar with, there's a stream that cuts across the fairway on a hole.
To carry that stream requires a carry of 234 yards.
If the wind is crossing or in your face, or the air is heavier/wetter, it plays well beyond its 234 yards.
In the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's carrying that stream was almost impossible, except for some very, very long drivers.
Hence, I have a hard time accepting that a woman or decent male golfer could CARRY a ball 175 yards with the ball and equipment circa 1923.
Brad,
Macdonald was quite clear in his writings and drawings, multiple tee markers and multiple tees to accomodate the Championship player, the Regular player and the Short player were an integral part of his designs.
Why would he abandon that design philosophy on just one hole ?
-
Pat,
The quote was from an article Hollins wrote for GI. These were the very best women player's of the day, and Hollins did prove how long she was at Cypress #17.
I don't see why MH would exaggerate Sterling's carry distance in this instance. Even if they measured by pacing out the 175 they'd probably be within 10 yards of that distance.
-
Pat: your 3-tee reference by CB was about his way (he thought) of equalizing play between different skills of golfers. (apparently, that scheme of his didn't work out because he (Mac) did not carry that over into later courses he was involved with
I'm not so sure about that.
I'd like to measure the footpads before drawing any conclusions.
as I said I have early scorecards for about 80% of their courses showing Biarritz holes with a single tee, including The Knoll (by Banks)
George, a scorecard does not represent a comprehensive view or analysis of a golf course.
Many courses had multiple scorecards, one for each set of tees.
The Knoll scorecard you reference lists the 13th hole at 235 yards.
While the hole is slightly downhill, par is a difficult score for a scratch golfer, let alone higher handicaps.
I'm trying to remember the dimensions of the original footpad at # 13 and whether it could accomodate multiple tee markers
actually, hardly any scorecards of Macdonald Raynor courses show multiple tees
That doesn't mean that they didn't exist.
I'd like to examine the old aerials to get a sense of the size of the footpads on those tees
Occasionally Raynor would put in an optional tee on very long par-4 (like Raynor's Dogleg) or becasue of a long-ish forced carry
-
Pat,
Yale's looks to be two, one in front of the other but very close together.
Tamarack's is one box, about half as long as the back section of the Biarritz green.
CC of Fairfield's is one box, about 3/4 as long as the back section of the Biarritz green.
How deep is the usual back section of green, 35/40 yards?
-
...and Grenwich CC's has one tee box about 1/3 as long as the back green section.
-
Jim Kennedy,
Which hole is a Biarritz at CC of Fairfield ?
I'm drawing a blank.
-
Pat,
It's gone now. The did leave the old greenside bunkering in what is now fairway, but on a much longer hole. Here's the Biarritz in 1934.
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=6608&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=1466&DMY=1672&DMTEXT=%2005491&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
Here's a link to mapquest for a modern look:
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Fairfield&state=CT&address=936+Sasco+Hill+Road&zipcode=06824
-
Bradley: Lido's 8th, the Biarritz green was moved because they couldn't maintain it along the beachfront because of the green kept washing away during stormy weather.
I'll check but I think it was moved once more to accomodate expansions of nearby buildings
George,
I had assumed the tee was moved forward from 220 to 160 because the low running shot was impossible in the wind. But you think the yardage changed on account of the green being moved closer to the tee?
-
Jim Kennedy,
Was this one of the holes altered when they changed the configuration of the 9th, 18th and some other holes ?
Is there a history book on CC of Fairfield ?
As you know, I love that golf course and would like to know more about the architectural history.
-
Pat,
Sorry, nothing further from me outside of what I've read about it on this site. I don't know if it was the 30s or the 50s when that hole went bye-bye. The profile does say they are having a club history written.
You picked a winner to love
-
Pat,
I was lookng at the 1965 aerial and the green is still in use, although it looks like it was turned into a longer hole at that time before being lost as seen in the modern aerial. Here's is 1965:
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=9592&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=1325&DMY=1003&DMTEXT=%2000189&REC=2&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
Jim,
That's the 10th hole.
It must have been revised subsequent to 1965 as the green looks nothing like that today.
Today, there's water surrounding that green on three sides.
Today's green is very interesting, with plenty of contour and slope, but, it's not remotely similar to a biarritz green.
-
Pat,
Here is the same green back in 1934. This isn't a Biarritz?
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=6608&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=3384&DMY=3937&DMTEXT=%2005491&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
Same green, 1965. In the new aerial (mapquest) the bunkers that once flanked this green are still visible right by the pond, but the green is no longer there.
(http://cslib.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p4005coll10&CISOPTR=9592&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=700&DMHEIGHT=700&DMX=3005&DMY=2278&DMTEXT=%2000189&REC=2&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
Jim,
That's now a part of the 10th fairway, the green has been moved, back, way back.
Go to "Google Earth" and you'll see the area.
The next time I play there I'll examine the 10th fairway carefully.
-
Pat,
It sure looks like a par 3 Biarritz in 1934. By 1965 it looks to have become a par 4, and in a modern aerial the green is no longer there, and a new hole was created in that corridor with its green placed 130 yards or so west of the 1934/1965 greensite. Some of the old greenside bunkering still remains.
Wonder how they resolved this?
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/05/nyregion/our-towns-tug-of-war-over-a-golf-course-for-a-select-few.html?scp=21&sq=country+club+of+fairfield&st=nyt
-
Pat and Jim: a number of years ago I was pretty involved with CCF hoping to be involved in the restoration.
I have all the old material now but at that time, one day walking the course with then superintendent Pat Sisk (now at Milwaukee), we were going down the 10th fairway and I saw the remnants of a full blow Biarritz hole right in the middle of the fairway - even some of the "dent" of those multiple bunkers were visible. Looking at the old green, I lined up and said to Pat - "two hundred and twenty yards or so behind me, you'll find the tee. Sure enuf back there was the original tee.
Yes this was a Biarritz - it went down the tube when they re-routed some of the holes so the course would begin and end where they had moved the clubhouse
I have the RTJ suggested plans - most of the work was done in house by a very talented super at the time
G Cornish did one hole - I think. I spoke to him about it a long time ago.
RTJ turned the old Alps hole (back in the bushes) into dog-leg right Cape hole over water.
The original Raynor plan was so difficult, Oliver Gould Jennings (Standard Oil exec and founder) rejected the plan and had Seth draw up another version
Good Story - Huge Landfill Operation - Great Course - Interesting Evolution - it’ll be in the "Next Book" :P
-
You guys have me Biarritz'd out
how to play a Biarritz:
Hit a big dog club to the green - hope for the best, stay out of the bunkering, pray for a 3 and move on to the next hole!!
-
George,
You can see the remnants of the Biarritz in the fairway contours.
It's too bad that they felt the need to reroute and redesign some of the holes.
There's nothing wrong with a little walk to the 1st tee and from the 18th green.
-
It's a pretty good walk Pat - - then there was a change in where the driving range is
The present 1st hole was the original 2nd becasue they moved the clubhouse
-
George,
Where was the original clubhouse.
One would think that it had to be along the road leading to the golf course.
I recall seeing an old aerial of the original course but can't recall the location of the clubhouse.
Wasn't there a hole above the Redan, going from the water side toward the center of the property ?
Is it possible, that the cross bunker seen in the old photo, was at the back of the green, and not at the front of the green ?
And, that the hole/green was reoriented by 1965 ?
-
I think the original clubhouse was situated down by the 7-green area, near along the water
in the 30's a plan was drawn showing 5 different (possible) locations for a new clubhouse
That old long-time super (talented) was Fred Emineger
Note: originally on the first Raynor plan, there was a cape hole entirely in the lagoon (the lagoon was to be much larger) .... a real cape hole!
the 6th hole was once an optional fairway hole
Pat: cross bunker? on the Biarritz, I guess you mean ......... no it was on the approach side of the green -
also someone asked about a club history: thee was one dated 1914-1989 by John Field
-
Marion Hollins had this to say when planning the Women's National Golf and Tennis Club, circa 1923:
"To get a course on the lines I have outlined it was necessary to agree on a standardization which would permit a good average woman player to get home in two shots on most holes. I held a conference with several persons who were vitally interested and we all agreed that if an average carry for Miss Alexa Stirling's shots could be arrived at a good working basis as to this distance would be arrived at. It turned out that Miss Stirling's drives, over a series of tests, averaged about one hundred and seventy-five yards carry and so this has been struck as the mean average in laying the hazards in front of tecs. By that I do not mean that all carries on the direct line to the green are of that length. That would be poor judgment. Mr. Emmet has just taken that yardage as the point in the fairway where a ball would drop if the tee shot was hit properly. Of course, in many instances generous leeway has been made for the slightly shorter hitters or for shots which were just a little off. Also on every hole there are one or more alternate lines of play besides that of the direct line to the green. This permits the shorter or cannier player to attempt a safer line of direction, although usually it costs an extra stroke to do so."
Harold Hilton explained her game/distance like this:
"There are not a few women players who outdrive her by yards. There are some few who play longer brassies.There are still fewer who play longer iron shots."
I take that to mean she wasn't a slouch, but not the longest, which is why Hollins used her as model.
In the article below there is a quote on the second page saying that "Miss Vare's drives went 220 yards" which seems to include roll. I included it because of the wonderful photo of the 'Short', replete w/the horseshoe still intact.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1922/gi176i.pdf
Jim
I think I'm right in saying that Alexa Stirling was the British ladies Champion (amateur) so it would seem illogical that Marion Hollins was using her as a template for the average lady golfer.
Niall
-
Niall,
The paragraph I posted were the exact words written by Marion Hollins:
"To get a course on the lines I have outlined it was necessary to agree on a standardization which would permit a good average woman player to get home in two shots on most holes. I held a conference with several persons who were vitally interested and we all agreed that if an average carry for Miss Alexa Stirling's shots could be arrived at a good working basis as to this distance would be arrived at."
This was at the time when Emmet was designing the Women's Nat'l. G&TC. She may not have represented the average of every woman who was playing the game at that time, but MH saw her as the mean for her purposes. Plus, there is the description by HH, saying that there were "not a few women players who outdrive her by yards". Hilton then gives sterling praise to the other facets of Stirling's game, which made up for her lack of disrance when compared to other women amateurs of the era.
-
George Bahto,
The beach club facility is next to the 7th tee.
I wonder if anyone has an original or old scorecard.
That might help in locating the original clubhouse.
If # 8 was # 1 and # 7 # 18 that would seem to build a strong argument for it's location east of the current beach club.
And, there's a road leading to that area.
CC of Fairfield's Redan is quite interesting.
Unfortunately, I find their "bottle" hole a little disappointing.
Perhaps the flat nature of the hole contributes to that.
Some club history books are lacking in the area of architecture and architectural history.
Many seem socially oriented, which is a shame because it's the old "golden age" courses many find so fascinating, the ones that have passed the test of time.
-
http://cslib.cdmhost.com/custom/aerials.php
Pat,
Here is the 1934 aerial. In the top right hand portion of the screen there is a box that says "search all collections". In that box enter 05490 to see most of the course, including a large complex of buildings at the top of the course, and 05491 that gives the little bit missing from the bottom in the other aerial.
Looks like two possible places, at the top of the course, and over on the right side, although that may be maintenance.
-
Jim,
That's a pretty neat resource.
Do you have the numbers for Yale, Shorehaven and other courses in CT.
I wonder if other states have archived their aerials and made them available to the public.
I would imagine the club history book that George references would help locate the clubhouse.
It's hard to imagine it not being on the road where the current clubhouse sits, or the two roads that border the course and the water.
-
Pat,
Here you go. There have been a few courses added to the list but everything of CBM/SR/CB appears on this version. If Tamarack isn't on the list its number is 04045. Happy hunting.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32030.msg628589/
-
Pat,
I'm pretty sure some other states have done much the same thing. It was no mean feat scouring the whole state, identifying known courses and also having to identify unknown courses.
I think the best thing to come out of this list was openly sharing it with anyone who wanted to see it. Too much information is kept away from interested parties, and used like currency.
p.s. First time I saw any of these old aerials was in the parking lot at the golf course, and they came right out of the trunk of George's Cadillac. ;D Back then they weren't on-line, and George had to go right to the source to get copies. The internet is a wonderful tool, too bad others aren't so willing to share certain resources. I can see where you might need to protect something of a family nature, or where you've been given something that isn't meant for general consumption, but information of the kind found on these aerials shouldn't be hidden.
-
Jim,
Thanks,
Jamie Slonis found a great resource, a company that provides aerials chronlogically.
He posted some aerials on a thread about Pine Valley, # 12.
The company doesn't have nationwide, coast to coast aerials, but appears to have them for the population centers and their outreaches.
It would be great to see if CC of Fairfield is on their site.
Jamie Slonis,
What was the name of that company ?
-
Here's some more fun to have with these aerials. You can 'mash' them up by going to:
http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/mash_up/aerials.html
...and then putting an address in the address box, and hitting 'go'. So if you wanted to see CCF you put in their address:
936 Sasco Hill Rd., Fairfield, Ct.
and you can, with just a click of the mouse, go between the 1934 aerial 1991, plus color 2006 nad 2008, and google.