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.


Ted Sturges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Camargo question
« on: November 06, 2018, 03:04:16 PM »
I played Camargo on Sunday.  It was the first time I'd been there in over a decade.  Very cool place. 


Here is my question:   In Cornish and Whitten's book, they list the opening of Camargo as 1921.  On Camargo's scorecard, it says 1925.  Yeamans Hall was opened in 1925 and Seth Raynor died in 1926 at the age of 51.  My question is...when did he build Camargo?  Was he building Camargo and YHC at the same time?  Though there are similarities between the two courses (of course, there are similarities between ALL of Mr. Raynor's courses), I had forgotten how generally flat most of the greens are at Camargo, which is not the case at YHC.


Does anyone know this history well?  Tom Doak, can you speak to this?


TS

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2018, 03:51:04 PM »
Ted:


I'm not sure exactly which year Camargo was built.  I thought it was earlier instead of right at the end of Raynor's career, but I used the 1925 date [actually 1926] in The Confidential Guide.


I can tell you that Yeamans Hall's greens were pretty flat [and buried under topdressing] when we redid them in the late 1990's ... we had the plan that Raynor had drawn, so we put back ridges where he had indicated on the plan.  [Though I have no real evidence that they were ever built like that to begin with.]


As for Camargo, we have never touched the interior contours of the greens, nor did we do them all at once.  They were expanded back to the edges, which involved raising some of the edges, and most of that work was done in-house in the early 1990s.  [The bunkers were done separately, later.] 


It's entirely possible there was more contour in the original greens that was taken out of them at some point along the way:  I was told that the superintendent at The Creek did the same thing back in the 1940s and 1950s, for example.  Indeed, I would expect the greens had more contour to start with.  But I've never been tasked with restoring that contour, and it would be hard to do unless they decided to rebuild them all, because it would be so difficult to match the soil profile of what exists now.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2018, 04:04:17 PM »
Hope this helps.

June 11, 1923 Cincinnati Enquirer -









Oct. 29, 1924 Cincinnati Enquirer -



Nov. 16, 1924 Cincinnati Enquirer -









"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2018, 04:44:21 PM »
To answer your question, Raynor's involvement with Camargo (most likely starting some time in 1924) preceded Yeaman's (some time in early 1925), but only by a little bit.  There was a bit of overlap on the two projects.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2018, 05:13:13 PM »
To answer your question, Raynor's involvement with Camargo (most likely starting some time in 1924) preceded Yeaman's (some time in early 1925), but only by a little bit.  There was a bit of overlap on the two projects.


The first article is interesting, implying that the founders offered the course as a new home for Cincinnati C.C.  But the Country Club did not take them up on it, apparently.

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2018, 07:36:23 PM »
In that last drawing of the routing of the course, number 12 looks particularly interesting. It's drawn like it has a split fairway, but the right side fairway would be down a pretty steep bank and covered in trees now.


Also, if Cincinnati Country Club turned down moving to Camargo they really blew it in my opinion. Cincinnati has a few interesting greens but it is nowhere near the course that Camargo is. Although I can understand the decision at the time because Cincinnati is much closer to the city than Camargo, which would have been out in the country in the '20s.

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2018, 09:03:50 PM »
12 was a Channel hole like 4 at Lido. Camargo was formed by members of CCC as there were three possible options they looked at when it came to improving CCC. Ultimately a consensus wasn't reached and the CCC members that favored moving formed their own club. Raynor visited the property in. July 1924, and the course had nine holes ready for play by September 1927. Ted, I am pretty sure Yeamans was ready for play before Raynor died, but Camargo was not. Banks was supposed to finish Camargo but he got backlogged with other projects and his mother's death. Dewitt Balch finished the course with the superintendent (Jackson?)

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2018, 09:14:27 PM »
In that last drawing of the routing of the course, number 12 looks particularly interesting. It's drawn like it has a split fairway, but the right side fairway would be down a pretty steep bank and covered in trees now.


Also, if Cincinnati Country Club turned down moving to Camargo they really blew it in my opinion. Cincinnati has a few interesting greens but it is nowhere near the course that Camargo is. Although I can understand the decision at the time because Cincinnati is much closer to the city than Camargo, which would have been out in the country in the '20s.


I think the right side fairway is actually the current fairway and they moved the tee to the right. At least that's how I understand it. The left fairway is in the woods on 12 now. I think the tee was behind the 11th green,but the members hated the tee and they abandoned the tee and the left fairway.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2018, 09:43:14 PM »
In that last drawing of the routing of the course, number 12 looks particularly interesting. It's drawn like it has a split fairway, but the right side fairway would be down a pretty steep bank and covered in trees now.


I think the right side fairway is actually the current fairway and they moved the tee to the right. At least that's how I understand it. The left fairway is in the woods on 12 now. I think the tee was behind the 11th green,but the members hated the tee and they abandoned the tee and the left fairway.


That's correct.  The tee was in a pretty similar spot to today I think, but the left-hand fairway was a much longer way around.  I've walked over there to look at the possibility of restoring it, but it's hard to imagine anyone would go that way now because the carry to the right isn't so far.  [It may have been modified to make it more playable when the left fairway was abandoned.]


The trees over there are pretty big . . . it must not have lasted as a fairway for very long.

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2018, 11:25:42 PM »
In that last drawing of the routing of the course, number 12 looks particularly interesting. It's drawn like it has a split fairway, but the right side fairway would be down a pretty steep bank and covered in trees now.


I think the right side fairway is actually the current fairway and they moved the tee to the right. At least that's how I understand it. The left fairway is in the woods on 12 now. I think the tee was behind the 11th green,but the members hated the tee and they abandoned the tee and the left fairway.


That's correct.  The tee was in a pretty similar spot to today I think, but the left-hand fairway was a much longer way around.  I've walked over there to look at the possibility of restoring it, but it's hard to imagine anyone would go that way now because the carry to the right isn't so far.  [It may have been modified to make it more playable when the left fairway was abandoned.]


The trees over there are pretty big . . . it must not have lasted as a fairway for very long.


Tom,


    I think you are spot on about it not lasting long. I’ve looked carefully at historic aerials, and I think there was a second tee box to the left. The current fairway was extended back to the 11th green reducing the carry to less than  200 yards in the 1930s. Thus there was no need for taking the longer left route. I also just read you added the current tee left of the fairway (women’s tee.) I’m not sure this hole was ever all that practical with the dual fairways.

Ted Sturges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2018, 04:36:34 PM »
Thanks everyone.  Especially Nigel and Tom.  That answers many of my questions.  I just don't remember seeing any other Raynor greens that are that flat.  Since it had been more than ten years since my last visit, I had forgotten that.  Tom Doak, can you cite another Raynor course with such flat greens?  It makes sense that someone other than Raynor (or Banks) finished the course.


TS

Bill Shamleffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2018, 05:07:52 PM »
I believe the greens at St. Louis C.C. are primarily flat.
The exceptions might be - #2, #5, #6, #7, & #15.
But perhaps my 25 year-old memories of this course are failing me?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 08:31:13 AM by Bill Shamleffer »
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.”  Damon Runyon

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2018, 02:02:40 PM »
Tom,

I think you are spot on about it not lasting long. I’ve looked carefully at historic aerials, and I think there was a second tee box to the left. The current fairway was extended back to the 11th green reducing the carry to less than  200 yards in the 1930s. Thus there was no need for taking the longer left route. I also just read you added the current tee left of the fairway (women’s tee.) I’m not sure this hole was ever all that practical with the dual fairways.



A different women's/forward tee than the one that had already been there?

Ted Sturges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2018, 02:49:28 PM »
Is it possible that the original version of the 12th hole (Channel) was a par 5?  Maybe the shorter route fairway (the one on the right) was a smaller target, and the safer route to the green was using the left fairway and making it a three shot hole.  When I look at the original drawing (in one of the posts above) it looks like the first line to the left fairway is a shorter line, indicating perhaps a three shot hole.  Tom Doak, is that possible?


TS

Kevin Jackson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Camargo question
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2018, 09:27:30 PM »

Ted,
Yes.  The original 12th was a par 5, as was the 10th.  The now-par-5 17th was a traditional par-4 Road template.  After the left fairway on 12 was abandoned, to what I believe was just a too easily makeable carry to the right fairway, it was changed to a par 4.  Camargo was originally a par 71, but now plays a par 70.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back