News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Thomas MacWood

Nassau CC
« on: October 08, 2008, 08:47:53 AM »
How good is this course and how good was it in its prime?

The course has a very interesting heritage - Emmet design and I believe Herbert Strong did a major redesign at some point. Is the course's history well documented and how well preserved is the lay out?

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2008, 08:57:56 AM »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2008, 09:34:16 AM »
JM
Have you been able to figure out who did and when? Do you know, has the course lost some of its original bunkering?

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2008, 11:36:15 AM »
Tom, Chapter 10 of the Club's history does a pretty good job documenting many of the changes to the course throughout, including newspaper accounts and articles from Golf, etc.  It also notes some of the obvious gaps in the records.   It's not the end-all story, however. 

Thomas MacWood

Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2008, 01:32:10 PM »
JM
I've had a hard finding solid info on this course. From what I understand it dates back to 1899, although I'm not sure who designed it. I understand Emmet redesigned it in the late 1910s or early 1920s and that Herbert Strong redesigned in 1925. What is interesting Strong advertised the course as his design from that point on. I've heard rumor that version of the course had some very bold bunkering, which does not seem to be the case today.

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2008, 01:55:31 PM »
What!!!!  Tom Paul hasn't drug this thread into the mire yet?  :'(

Lord have mercy! :P
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2008, 02:40:30 PM »
Tom, I'll give you my condensed version of events as soon as I clear off the proverbial "plate" here.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2008, 08:58:14 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I liked Nassau, but, when I saw the old aerial in the men's locker room, I began to salivate.

It certainly had the "look".

Much like Hollywood.

I'd love to have that aerial reproduced and made available to you.

It's spectacular.

You can still see some of the remnants of features long lost, and it's a fun course to play.

But, I'll never understand why the club abandoned the course that appears in the old aerial, it was spectacular.

A more interesting study might be the transformation that Seawane went through a few short years ago.

I played Seawane for the first time around 1970 and loved the open, sporty nature of the golf course.

I still like the golf course, but think it's far too hard for membership play.

I don't understand why the club made the course so difficult.
The tall, thick fescue is unforgiving, especially on a site swept by good winds.

Thin out or remove most of that fescue and the course would become far more enjoyable.

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2008, 11:37:26 PM »


So there it is.  Hole #2 is due north, #3 the "strongest" Strong hole that wraps around the pond, #4 undergoing modifications, #5 the MacRaynor that looks oh so much different now.  (I'll post a comparison picture.)  The hole with the so-called Emmet cross bunkering is #15, right below #3, and now, too, nothing like the original.   


It is acknowledged that the course committee -- but primarily Harvey Murdoch -- laid out the course in 1899.   From the beginning, the bunkering was criticized for being too artificial. (See Travis, Country Life in America, 1906; Calkins, American Golfer, 1909 f.i.)  Cops and chocolate mounds and right angles.

With the appearance of the Haskell in 1901, the club was also pressured to lengthen the course but did not have the means to buy more land. 

Eventually the course was lengthened from 6000 to 6500 yards, with two interrim layouts at 6200 yards.

A Redan hole appears between 1913 and 1914 and is listed on the club scorecard as hole #13. 

Two different cards appeared subsequent to this one, April 1915 (printed in the NY Telegram), and May 1915 (in the Brooklyn Eagle). 

Four holes were lengthened and one new hole was created, plus significant bunkering and mound alterations took place at the same time. 

The club made changes to the 5th and 6th holes the following year.

Devereux Emmet was hired in 1920 "for the improvement of the links" but was hindered by club finances from a full redesign.  And his budget would cover about a 1/4 of the costs for the modifications to the original course up to this point. He primarily worked on the then #8 and #14 and a few other holes. 

The club refinanced two years later and purchased another 22 acres to the north of the course. They hired Herbert Strong to change Holes 6-9 according to recommendations of the Golf Committee. 

To be continued ...
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 12:43:27 AM by JMorgan »

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2008, 12:24:53 AM »


#5 hole from years gone by ... compare with today's greenside bunkering

TEPaul

Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2008, 09:00:20 AM »
"What!!!!  Tom Paul hasn't drug this thread into the mire yet?   :'(
Lord have mercy!   :P"



MDugger:

Generally, I don't post on threads on courses I've never been to and whose history I don't know much about. It's a policy I would recommend.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Nassau CC
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2008, 09:28:09 AM »
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1926/ag2910u.pdf

I've linked an article from 1926 that shows an interesting hole designed by Herbert Strong, it looks like it was based on the Channel Hole at Lido. There is no mention of the course but I wonder if it was part of Strong's Nassau redesign, perhaps the dogleg at the part of the aerial.

TEPaul

Re: Nassau CC New
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2008, 09:45:59 AM »
JMorgan:

Really good and informative post that reply #8 of yours. That one should be "printoutable" for anyone going to the course to study its architectural evolution which sounds both long-going and complex!

Mr. MacWood:

That hole in the Strong/Low article doesn't just look to be based on The Lido's "Channel" hole (based on the 16th Littlestone), it looks to be just about an exact duplicate of it. The only difference I can see is the fairway on the high risk direct option is about 50 yards longer than Macdonald's Lido Channel hole.  It looks to me to be so similar I'm surprised Strong/Low did not attribute its origins!

Interestingly, if I recall correctly, Flynn did a design something like this for Opa Locka but the high risk fairway was on the left in the longer route which I just cannot understand at all but perhaps he had something vertical on the ground that couldn't be picked up from a drawing. Or perhaps Flynn just decided to lighten up on the second shot demand for the long hitter trying for the longer tee shot carry on the farther way around. If so, I can see that as some pretty interesting "mixing it up" on the overall (whole hole) risk/reward equations! It may've been another type of iteration of what we sometimes refer to as Flynn's "reverse dogleg" concept. He did a number of those on par 4s including Indian Creek and Shinnecock's #8, and perhaps even to some degree on Merion's #10.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 10:13:37 AM by TEPaul »