MacDonald/Raynor

[ForkaB]

There is a great potential "Biarritz" at Royal Cinque Ports--the 222-yard 14th.  10 days ago, I hit an unintentionally smothered hooked rescue club into the wind, and if the swale in front of the green had been maintained fast and firm it could have released to the back pin.  I've got the Naffster on the case of this idea and am waiting to hear his report.

[TEPaul]

"However, it seems a Biarritz relies entirely on the superintendent to play the way we are describing, and in my experience, we only get a guy who maintains our courses the way we want about 50% of the time.  The other 50%, you have a 220-yard par 3, all carry to the front edge."

TomD:

That's certainly so. However, wet conditions on biarritzes was certainly a condition in the past too when they were first designed. How do you suppose they played them then or were expected to?

They probably just tried to fly something as far as they could realizing they were unlikely to reach the putting surface even with their best shot (Flynn and Thomas built a few par 3s around Philly that were around 250 yards long).

The thing most all of us forget today, or just don't realize, is back then GIR was obviously not the preoccupation amongst golfers it is today, if it was even considered back then under some conditions.

Back then chipping and putting on a super long par 3 (or long par 4) under some conditions was the best expectation of even the best players. Today good players would probably criticize the hole and the architect for being something outside GIR under some conditions even with their best shots.  

There's no question at all that various "standardizations" in golf architecture and in golf are much more prevalent today then they were back then.

[Tim Gavrich]

I guess you could call this question "Putting on the 'Ritz"!

At what approximate speed is the Biarritz supposed to be maintained?  It seems to me that the back portion of Yale's 'Ritz is liable to be impossible to putt on if the green is pretty fast.  I played it a couple weeks ago in a school match, and there were some five-putts because if one's ball was nywhere in relation to the hole but directly below it, there would be relatively no chance of keeping the ball within five to eight feet of the hole.  I think that this placed too much emphasis on the contours of the green--the integral swale aside, of course--and took away from the genius of the tee shot.

Do any other 'Ritzes have such a severely canted back section, and are there ever problems with pin positions when the green plays firm-and-fast?

[paul cowley]

....excellent post TP....and thanks once again for stating some of my own musings in such an organized and literate manner.

[Mark_Fine]

I'm sure a few here know this but does everyone realize that Seth Raynor never actually saw any of the originals of all the holes that he and Macdonald "replicated".  I've always found that very interesting.  

I'm playing Fox Chapel tomorrow and looking forward to it.  We'll see where they have the pin on the Biarritz    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"d agree, those holes played the same 70-80 years ago as they do today, due to Mother Nature.

It's the preponderance of medal play that creates the critcism, and not the architecture of the hole.

[ed_getka]

Tom Paul,
    That is interesting to hear there were par 3's that were up to 250 yards long back in the day. How long would that hole have played for members?
   Sounds like those holes must have been pretty good half par
's. Were the chips/pitches on those holes pretty straightforward generally?

[Andy Hughes]

The 4th at NGLA effectively plays uphill because the carry is over a deep depression and the green sits well above that depression, in front, and to the rear.  And, the green presents the same blind dilema.

Pat, see what happens when I depend on pictures?

Is the green actually higher than the tee? Your description certainly implies that it is, but I am confused by your use of the word 'effectively'.

[ed_getka]

Andy,
   Patrick is out of his mind on this one. The tee is well above the green. The land does rise up from the lowest point of the hole up to the green. The tee is the highest point of the hole.
   In Patrick's defense, the hole plays effectively uphill if you are trying to hit a running shot down the hill below the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

The green rises up, substantially from the adjacent front and rear terrain.  It rides a north-south ridge.

Approached falling short or going long face a precipitously uphill recovery.

Ed Getka,

It the tee is well above the green as you state, why can't you see the putting surface from the tee ?  

[TEPaul]

To my eye the kicker on the right of the green of NGLA's redan looks to be right about on the same level with the tee although the hole is through a valley and the green slopes  down and away to the left.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

You can't see the surface of the green because it is falling away from you at 4-6 percent.  From 570 feet back on the tee, your eye level would have to be more than twenty feet above the tee to see even a sliver of putting surface at a 4% slope.  I believe the hole is 5-10 feet downhill.  

If it wasn't downhill, there would be no way to see the water in the distance over the green, would there?  

Sadly, only the tee is on my topo maps for Sebonack, not the green, or I could tell you more precisely.

[TEPaul]

"If it wasn't downhill, there would be no way to see the water in the distance over the green, would there?  

Good point there Tom. Let's see if Pat will argue with you about that by claiming the water beyond the green is actually about 20-30 feet ABOVE sea-level.  

[Andy Hughes]

I have not ever played a 'true' firm Redan I don't believe....would the Redan at NGLA play better/worse/no different (hey, I sound like my eye doctor!) if the green was higher than the tee as the original is?

I am having a hard time imagining why a Redan would play better with the green higher than the tee just based on my conception of how the hole should play.  Are the Redan copies elsewhere, such as NGLA and Piping Rock and Shinnecock, improvements over the original for that reason?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly:


.....As you play more and more Raynor courses, though, you'll find that even the greens without names were more or less templates that he used other places as well.

Which raises the question of whether those are really better, or whether you like them because they're new to you, or whether you are biased against the others because they are recognized types.

Some of Macdonald's green contouring was done using the "randomly dropped pebbles" method, but he had a lot of features and ideas from the UK he planned to use, and those are the genesis for many of the less well recognized holes on his courses.

Tom,

A timely thread and explanation for me, as I toured Blue Mound in Milwaukee yesterday in the rain.  I was puzzled a bit by the ninth and 18th greens, which had no bunkers and weren't the famous template greens.  However, 9 had one buried elephant back center, so I now know where that comes from.  18 has two ridges near the sides leaving just enough room for pins outside them.

A nice reminder that the green contours can make the hole, and in this day and age of reduced bunkering for cost reasons, a great way to make holes interesting.  And, a reminder that there probably isn't anything new under the sun in golf design that hasn't been tried somewhere.

BTW, to answer a cross thread question on the impact of the depression on golf design, I saw a 1937 aerial in the maintenance shop and it was clear that Raynors triple plateau green had been cut off into two plateaus at that time (and apparently stayed that way until recently) and the front of the road hole green had also been eliminated, presumably to cut costs.  

[ed_getka]

Oh, Patrick, I am waiting patiently for your reply.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The 4th at NGLA [size=4x]EFFECTIVELY plays uphill because the carry is over a deep depression and the green sits well above that depression, in front, and to the rear.[/size]  

Tom Doak, et. al.,

I stand by the above statement.

As to seeing the water, that's because you, Mike Sweeney and I are much taller than everyone else.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   We aren't teeing off in the depression. The hole does not play uphill effectively or any other uphill way. Oh, except your putt from the back of the green UP to the front right of the green.
    I hate to rub it in, but since I have the evidence compliments of Tom Doak, I just can't help myself. Thanks Tom for the confirmation.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

From the tee to NGLA's redan green is really not uphill. It is uphill from the valley you walk through to get up to the green but who tries to PLAY HIS GOLF BALL THROUGH THE VALLEY AND UP TO THE GREEN OR INTO THE VALLEY AND THEN UP TO THE GREEN? The idea is to basically fly the ball from the tee over the valley and to the green or to the kicker to the right of the green

[ed_getka]

Tom P,
    Exactly.

[Michael Moore]

The tee box of fourth hole at the National Golf Links of America is thirty feet above sea level.

The front right corner of the green is twenty-two feet above sea level.

[TEPaul]

Michael:

In that case that would put the ideal area to hit the kicker and bounce it onto the green at 5 feet, 7 and 3/16th inches below the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Whats the elevation of the floor of the front and rear bunker ?

Thanks

Ed Getka,

Have you never heard of "over the horizon" radar ?