Connecticut National really good ***NOW WITH PICS***

[Cliff Hamm]

Jim..I would say that mounding is a prominent feature of the course....  When others play CN I will be curious as to their reaction.  To me it was a very good, solid course at a great price. Fun,variety and not overly difficult.  What public golf should be but seldom is.

 Just like a movie with great reviews though I fear that CN may disappoint if one's expectations are too high.  This is not a top 100 course, but that should take nothing away from what it is.

[Jay Flemma]

Phil I was there, I saw it, I talked to the architect.  It's a Principal's nose, end of story.  Why don't you call Mungeam and ask him yourself.  Don't look at the picture above because it's not flush left anymore....that's an old, pre-redo pic.  IT'S MOVED TO NEARER THE CENTER.  Moreover, Mungeam, like Silva, loves using Raynor features.  I'll get you a quote from Mungeam later today.

Guys, I'm aiming for around 4th of Julyish, but not the 4th itself for a trip up there.

Jim, they've softened the mounding, and what's there is pretty well out of play.  Mungeam did a nice job.

[Cliff Hamm]

From a previous post by Jaeger Kovich:

Cliff... Thanks for sharing. I'm happy to see Mark getting some props! I owe a lot to Mark and his #2, Tim, for my introduction into the world of golf course architecture spending the spring of '08 interning for Mark up in Massachusetts. They let me work on just about everything and even submit my own ideas for real projects, one of which they built. I'm certain I worked on some of the plans for Putnam/Con National, and believe I even went on site with Mark there once. The guys (Mark and Tim) are great guys, and they do great work keeping the Cornish school alive!

Tim Gerrish did much of the work..perhaps a PM to he and Jaeger (both GCA) for their input would be appropriate.  If an outing were planned would be great to have them aboard.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Cliff/Jay,

Thanks for the info.

[Jim Briggs]

Jay,

I'm a bit of newbie here so forgive the further questions regarding the principal nose bunkers.

The characteristics of a principles nose that Phil has described above

Here's my understanding of the concept of a Principal's Nose bunker, based on how it plays on the 16th hole of TOC.

The bunker is placed roughly in the middle of the fairway, near where a drive might end up. The choice for the player is: play left of the bunker(s); play right of the bunker(s); play short of them; or try to carry them. From Ran's review of Yale: "The original purpose of the Principal’s Nose bunker at the sixteenth at The Old Course at St. Andrews was to create two different playing corridors off that tee."

[/quote]

Do you consider that description to be an accurate one for a well designed Principal Nose bunker, which brings all of the intended strategic choices into play.  If so, based on your picture in post #9, I'm still not seeing how there is any playing corridor down the left of the bunker (seems to be only a few paces, with no benefit for taking that riskier play).

I appreciate that the architect has told you that its a principals nose, and we are meant to stop with the questions, but if one agrees with the description above, would you say its a well executed (fully realized) principals nose, or one that brings some, but not all of the strategic though of the original at TOC.

Thanks,
Jim

[Jim Briggs]

Jay,

I see your post saying that it has been moved nearer the center.  If so, would you agree with Phil's observation that the bunker as orginally built (and depicted in #9 above) was not a fully realized version, and that the architect likely realized that as well and moved to the center?

[Jay Flemma]

That aerial is what's confusing you...that and your far-too-strict-constructionist definition.  You can put a Principal's nose on a par-5 or a par-4...there's no rule saying it can only be a perfect replica if the one at [insert name of course].  This is simply Mungeam's attempt at one.

If what the course pro tells me is right, The aerial was take before The principal's nose was added.  Back then it was just a bunker.

[Nick Campanelli]

Jay / Phil,

The aerial above is just a bird's eye snap shot from Bing Maps.  It appears the aerial was taken while the renovations were in progress (odd timing).  The bunkers in question were not in yet, and it appears that they were an addition to the hole rather than a relocation.  Below is a pre-renovation aerial of the 18th showing no fairway bunkers. 

[Jim Briggs]

Jay,

I'm not referring to the arial.  I'm referring to the ground level picture in post # 9 from you.  In that picture are you suggesting there is actually a playable corridor to the left of the bunker? Or are you saying that bunker has since been moved to the center?

[Jay Flemma]

There's acres of room there:



Here's another view

[Jim Briggs]

Jay,

Thanks for the additional pictures.  To my eye (and my mid-capper skill level), it looks like my play would be short, right or carry the center of the bunker (and given where the flag is today it would look like you want to be playing from the center or slightly left of center).  Not sure I have the skill to play to the acres you suggest sit to the left.  It seems there is a few paces of a sliver of fairway between the bunker and the mound (unless you are talking the space behind the mound to the cart-path...that seems nowhere any one would would want to be).

Don't get me wrong, looks like from the pictures that the course has a lot to offer and would be a few hours very well spent if in the area.  As I progress on my GCA education, I just thought Phil's comments had some merit and wanted to understand a bit better the principles (pun intended) behind the bunker.

I still don't think that there is any smart play at all down the left 

[Phil McDade]

Jay:

Really? Acres?

I'm really not trying to be pedantic here. My observations are based on Cliff's photos, not the aerial. I'm not slovenly devoted to the notion that traditional features -- like a Redan -- must necessarily be done as exact duplicates, e.g., I think it's perfectly reasonable to put a Redan green/green complex on a par 4, or utilize a Principal's Nose bunker on a par 5.

But based on Cliff's pictures, and now yours, there is no way that bunker captures the true essence of the Principal's Nose bunker concept. There may be lots of room to the left past the bunker, but that's irrelevant. Furthermore, even if you argue you can play safely left of -- but not past -- that bunker complex (quite obviously the riskier play compared to playing right -- but not past -- the bunker complex, where there does appear to be ample room), it doesn't appear to set up the easier shot into the green, save for a pin on the far right side of the green (farther right than what's shown in the photos).

Jay, the entire concept of the Principal's Nose bunker at The Old Course -- it's the template of all templates for this bunkering scheme -- is that it sets up a choice on the tee (or for a second shot, as the case is at Conn. Nat'l) of two playing corridors -- one which is riskier but carries a greater reward in the ease of the next shot, the other of which is less risky but results in a more difficult next shot. Sure, the big and strong player can carry the bunker complex -- Old Tom probably did in his day (help me out here, Melvyn ) -- while the less-sure/strong player can always play safely short of it and avoid the risk/reward path entirely.

If, as Cliff suggests, he can't carry that bunker complex with his hybrid, why in the world would he (or anyone else of similar ability, or less, like me) go left of that bunker? I see no earthly reason to do so. I'll always go right, especially looking at how playing right of the bunker complex there appears to set up a much easier entry into a green in which the fairway feeds into it at an angle from the right.

By the way, I've heard very good things about Mungeam's work, particularly about his re-do prior to the US Open at Olympia Fields in Chicago. Just so you know I'm not biased.

[Jay Flemma]

No Phil, you ARE being pedantic and you ARE over doing it.  Not every Principal's Nose has to look exactly the same.  They don't all have to be exact replicas of St. Andrews 16.  This sets up THREE playing corridors...short, right, or past...even left if you wanna try it...only its on the second shot, not the first.

***Update*** I just got off the phone with Mark Mungeam, "yes it is a Principal's Nose...and no, there is no rule that says you have to have room all four directions around it."

He's going to send me an email with more detail about that, and other template (sorry George B) features at Ct National in a littlle while.

[Cliff Hamm]

The Update reminds me of a scene from Annie Hall.  Woody Allen is on line at a movie theatre in Manhattan with Diane Keaton.  In front of them two folks are having this pseudo-intellectual discussion/argument about Marshall McLuhan.  Woody is going nuts and comments something to the effect of "Where is Marshall McLuhan when I need him".  Lo and Behold Mr. Mcluhan steps from behind a movie ad and interjects to these two folks, how they are absolutely ignorant and full of b.s. or something like that...anyway, the point of the story is nothing like going to the source 

[Phil McDade]

Jay:

Of course there's no "rule." But this bunker's lack of adherence to the original Principal's Nose bunker characteristics and strategies suggests it's a wanna-be template, instead of the real thing. It's akin to building a Redan par 3 without the requisite tilt that's featured in the original, and featured in true template Redans like the one at NGLA. (And this version of the Principal's Nose is missing two elements, not just one.)

Calling something "it," and making it resemble "it," doesn't make it the real thing.

UPDATE:

Cliff -- I've been to the real thing. It's one of the great strategic holes at The Old Course. I don't know if Jay has, but if he had, I'm guessing he wouldn't be insisting this bunker at Conn. Nat'l is a Principal's Nose bunker.

(If some architect wants to build a "Road Hole" greenside bunker in homage to the original, what do folks think it should look and play like?)

[Jim_Kennedy]

From an old thread: George's explanation of a PN bunker complex and how it was adapted by CB and co., 'adapted' being the central idea.


My take on the PN bunker complex used by Macdonald and Raynor (I don’t think Banks ever used it anywhere)is that they used it in a different context or strategy than at TOC’s 16th hole. There(TOC) it was/is basically in the landing area as the key architectural feature to be played short of,played over, or to either side of - each situation presenting a different problem to be solved - thisbefore the emergence of the new equipment. The right side only has about 15-yards between it and the railroad line. On the Old Course the PN bunker complex was originally located IN the prime landing area between the 170 and 190-yards off the tee-ball.

IMHO CB and SR used the PN feature in a totally different manner. It seems they were attempting to create a bit of a distraction, if not an annoyance to the player, on his approach to the double plateau green complex. This was mostly because of its height rather than the three sand hazards within. Their PN bunker complexes were usually placed about half way between the better golfer’s tee-ball landing area and the green - this usually 50 to 75 yards short of the green. I think it was also used by them as sort of eye-candy (it is a very attractive feature).Ironically, when positioned in this manner, it was a major problem for the less skilled golfer (this was also often the case with their positioning of diagonal cross bunkering across a fairway in second shot landing areas).

There were a couple of exceptions that come to mind.

On original hole-6 (now hole-8) of the Fairyland Golf Club - now Lookout Mountain - it was about 250 yards off the tee on a hole that was originally 330-yards long. In the context of the 1920's, with firm ground, it was possibly reachable. It was dead on the centerline of play on the original very wide fairway. I’m not sure where it would sit on that course considering the present fairway width and mowing patterns.

At Yeamans Hall there seems to have been a PN on the first hole just short of the entrance road that cut across the fairway. Here it was well off to the left of the center line - looks like it was at the left edge of the fairway. It seems to have been used more as a target bunker for the golfer’s tee-ball. If is was reestablished in that position today it would be in play off the tee.

I used this complex on a 285-yard par-4, positioning it so the front of the PN complex is 225-yards off the tee but it would take a 240-yard carry to clear it. There is a very narrow area to the left between it and the off-fairway underbrush and OB. The green is canted favorably accept ashot from the narrow left from that area. From the wider area right of the complex the golfer has to clear a deep bunker greenside and a green is not the least bit appealing to play to. The smart golfer (hah) should lay up short of the bunker and pitch to the green but I was counting on hisego, hoping to temp him to blow it over the bunker attempting to reach the green on his tee shot - a driveable par-4 with a major hazard in the prime landing area. This offers four options on a 285-yard hole.

[Jim Briggs]

Jim - Thanks for that info on how the PN has been adapted by C.B. and Raynor.  Clearly Phil's orginal frame of reference was the TOC's 16th hole, but George's articulation, as to the strategy intended by C.B and Raynor in their adaptations is much more helpful to my GCA education than someone saying its a PN because it looks like one, the architect says its one, and see...there is acres of room to the left for those trying to fit it into the TOC 16 defintion.

Would have been nice if we had gotten Marks articulation as to intent and choices he was asking the golfer to make so that we could understand if the intent was more TOC 16 or C.B and Raynors adaptations.

Thanks again.

[Cliff Hamm]

(If some architect wants to build a "Road Hole" greenside bunker in homage to the original, what do folks think it should look and play like?)

How's this:



The par 5 6th at Connecticut National - even has a road (cart path) behind the green!

[Phil McDade]

Cliff:

Not bad; would like to see more in terms of angle of play into the green.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim Briggs,
I'll only take credit for posting the piece by George Bahto. 

From my perspective I'm just very happy to see that there are architects who see the same value in tried and true features as CBM did when he adapted them for American architecture. I think we know that there are many architects on this site who have tremendous creative abilities (as did CBM) and who approach each project with their own brand of originality, but they really show off their talents when they can adapt a well known feature of GCA and make it their own.

edit: sort of like Harry Connick Jr. when he does a Sinatra tune.


   

[Jay Flemma]

Here's Mark's full piece:

"It certainly is a Principal's Nose.  I know some people are more traditional, but things do not have be copied exactly as they are on other golf courses.  I like them to be similar to what you see in the old country, but they don’t have to be exactly the same dimensions.  Here's the Principal's Nose helped to set up the strategy of the second shot landing area.  Also, it was nice to bring this to a public course you can play for $45."