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.


SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2003, 07:12:38 PM »
That's basing a little too much on a value judgment wouldn't you say? Certainly 8 is every bit as dramatic as 17?

Logic tends to support the original routing. It is not a stretch to think that in addition to replicating numerous holes from UK courses, CBM also had an interest in replicating a routing system common to those courses.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2003, 07:26:56 PM »
SPDB,

The routing  pattern is the same irrespective of your starting point, # 1 or # 10.  The configuration of the routing is identical.

How does logic support what's alleged to be the original routing, versus the present routing ?

# 8 may be as strategic, or perhaps more then # 17, but it is nowhere near as dramatic.

The walk from # 7 green to # 8 tee is hardly inspiring.
The view from # 8 tee, not visually comparable to the visuals derived from # 17 tee.

And, #9 pales in comparison to # 18, strategically and visually.

I like my theory.  ;D

I will investigate further.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2003, 07:35:55 PM »
Pat -
I think you misunderstood what I meant by routing. I'm not talking about the orientation of the holes relative to one another, but rather to the water. I'm referring to a typical "Links" which would start inland and head out toward the sea, before returning, hence "link"ing land and sea. St. Andrew's for example (from which 3 holes are copied at NGLA).

You are imposing your own idea of what a 17th and 18th should be offer in terms of drama on what CBM must have intended. George has offered FACTS that indicate you are wrong, no matter how much you'd like to believe you are right.  ;D ;D

One man's trash is another man's treasure.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2003, 07:39:07 PM by SPDB »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2003, 08:09:25 PM »
SPDB,

I must have missed it.

What FACTS did George offer ?

And, was anyone aware of CBM's intent ?

Doesn't North Berwick start by the water and meander inland ?

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2003, 09:26:02 AM »
Patrick -

Sorry to confuse you. I meant to say the front nine ends with a par 3. You are correct in that #17 is a 3 and 18 is a short 4 that has been lengthened a little. I thought the original question you posed was what other courses ended the front 9 with a par 3.

By the way, you will have to come back and play the course and see the changes. I believe you will like them.

Jim
Mr Hurricane

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2003, 06:30:59 PM »
From the NGLA thread of a few weeks ago:


The original routing started on present 10 - yes, he had the present the 9th  as his 18th  - I have all sorts of written and graphic documentation on that.


I'll take George's word over yours, you should do likewise.

You should also call up Cypress Point. With such a dull closing hole there is no possible way it could have been intended as such by MacK.  
« Last Edit: November 08, 2003, 06:32:50 PM by SPDB »

TEPaul

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2003, 09:02:05 AM »
SPDB:

Mackenzie didn't intend #18 CPC to be just as it is. He intended it to be about 50 yards longer from a tee that was connected by a very elaborate bridge. Morse shot him down on that and basically for the very same reason he shot him down on putting #14 right on the coast with the driveway to the left of it instead of to the right. Morse had this odd notion that those other than club members and guests should continue to be able to see and appreciate that part of seventeen mile drive! I can't imagine what Morse must have been thinking, can you? Certainly Mackenzie couldn't. Morse had every opportunity to keep the riff-raff away from CPC once and for all and he blew it!!   ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2003, 11:12:52 AM »
SPDB,

George, I and others spent the entire day at NGLA yesterday, and this was a topic I broached to him.

There are many unanswered questions about this issue.

As an example, while CBM wanted the course to initially start near the Shinnecock Inn, the Shinnecock Inn was a public accomodation, and building a PRIVATE clubhouse for member use had to be a major consideration.  These members were not poor or common folk and it's doubtful that they would be content to share their intimacy with the general public.

You may be prepared to accept George's word as gospel, but, I've been taught to question everybody, including myself.

Look at the clubhouses at The Creek and Piping Rock, people of the same ilk as those at NGLA, and ask yourself, can you see NGLA NOT having their own clubhouse, prefering instead to use a public facility without any exclusionary preference or privileges  ??  I can't.

Also, look at Friar's Head.  Where would you want the clubhouse ??  Down by the road with the traffic and the public ?  OR, secluded, up on the bluff commanding magnificent views ?  The answer is obvious.  And, so is the answer at NGLA

Add the following, CBM wasn't thrilled with his proximity to Shinnecock.  Then look at Shinnecock's clubhouse, a Stanford White masterpiece, sitting majestically on a high point, overlooking everything within site.  Do you think CBM would have settled for a clubhouse forever in the SHADOW and under the views of Shinnecock's.  
With Shinnecock's members looking down on them ???  
I don't.

My theory is: That CBM intended the clubhouse to be on the site it currently occupies, but, in the name of convenience and available funds, he defaulted to the 10th tee as the first tee for an interim period, choosing to use the Shinnecock Inn as a temporary facility to serve the members.  
The fire accelerated the timing and eliminated the interim useage of the Shinnecock Inn.  And, the clubhouse was built on land between the 18th and 1st holes.  Ideal land that he had purposely saved, rather then used as a golf hole, for his clubhouse, commanding spectacular views.

I'm liking my theory even more  ;D

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2003, 05:38:44 PM »
 Speaking generally,  patterns in design become formulaic but motifs should be heralded and appreciated for the flow and timbre of the natural setting.
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

TEPaul

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2003, 06:25:26 PM »
Patick:

Would you say whoever did some of the planning at NGLA did a relatively poor job? If you wouldn't say that then tell me what in God's name they were thinking about when whomever designed Macdonald's gate designed the openings that narrow!

I understand the first time C.B tried to negotiate one of those narrow openings (inebriated of course) he almost had a catastrophe and you told me Mr Van Gerbig did too. How in the holy hell do they ever get a big truck through those narrow openings up to the clubhouse? They must have to bring all the trucks and supplies coming into that course to the clubhouse through the other gates by Bill Salinetti's house and right up the maintenance road through the middle of the golf course.

I think this may have been the real reason the USGA couldn't give NLGA the 2009 Walker Cup!  ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2003, 08:27:17 PM »
TEPaul,

If you noticed the bottom of those gates had a defensive bulb protruding from them, and on those stone bulbs were the remants and scars of cars coming into contact with them.

I can see an adaptation of "Name that Tune"  where contestants try to out bid each other with respect to the speed with which they try to navigate that opening.

Contestant A:  I can get thru those gates at 20 mph
Contestant B:  I can get thru those gates at 35 mph
Contestant C:  I can get thru those gates at 50 mph

Host, Okay Contestant # 3.
However, in order to qualify, you have to be able to hold your breath for 5 minutes and swim like a fish.

In addition, the prize money is tripled for any night time attempts.

TE, If the speed and gates don't get you, failure to make an abrupt turn, while locking the brakes up will.

I understand their massive size, weight and construction have done in many a "happy" or "careless" motorists, while others who made it thru unscathed, had an immediate need for the services of a tow truck, equiped with an abundance of towels.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2003, 08:47:10 PM »
Slag,

Motif = A single or repeated design.

What is the difference between formulaic and motiff ?

What is the difference between a pattern and motiff ?

They seem pretty similar.

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2003, 10:06:42 PM »
Pat & Tom: as we spoke about it yesterday, I think you have to remember that they (those great old time archies) thought in terms of match play so you have their 17th's as stronger holes in many cases with often weaker (in our thinking) 18th holes.

This doesn't always hold true, of course ..... look at what they (CBM & SR) had as their 18th at Shinnecock .... the present 9th was the 18th ....   I have it someplace, but the general thought was that they could sit in on the patio and watch the matches coming in with that very interesting shot into their 18th (now 9th) green.

I think the earlier Raynor courses had strong 17th's and as time went on (especially with Banks) the 18th became a very tough finisher - witness The Knoll - Knollwood, an incredible finishing hole.

So take the ngla original routing .... the 17th would have been the present 8th - a great 17th hole ..... so could that be the reason the present 9th almost seems stupid.  Perhaps when Bill gets done with green expansion there it will end up to be tougher (brother the present 18th, with the great green expansion) is really fearsome, isn't it).

Also let's see if Bill Salinetti and Co and the club will re-establish the left front of the 8th green the same way. That portion of the greens about the worse I've seen, if into full putting surface.

Incidently the original length of Piping Rock's 17th was 143-yards.

Now you want to talk, "Strange?" ..  Piping Rock's Road on my 1912 scorecard was just 363-yards!!!!! .... and the total yardage was ..... duh!, .....  a mere 6142-yards. There were 5 par-5's on the card and the 1st hole was the only par-4 over 400-yards and it was just that, 400-yds.

And the CBM/SR version of the original 18th at Shinny was way shorter than today .... it was only 371.

And Patrick I think I agree with you (I get an award, agreeing with Patrick - hah) that the Old Shinnecock Inn was a temp clubhouse ..... I know additional land was purchased at the time - about 30 - 40 acres and I would suspect it was over there by 1 & 18 .... probably bought it during the construction period. I think his friend Sabin owned it. I have writings of his (CB) that he was trying to conserve $$ during the construction period - probably had no clue as to what this was going to cost. Imagine he and his friends worrying about saving money on the project - give me a break. Those founders (National in scope) might have been able to buy the whole country (hah). Just check the founders list and see what these men were at the time! - scary.

Anyhow after they purchased the additional land I think the plan was to have the clubhouse on the promontory ..... however, it is strange it sits between virtually on the 18th fairway.

Another thing: before they built the new (bumper-car) gates (donated by CB's friend George Borne), in order to get to the beach club you had to cross the 18th fairway at a point right to where the tee-box is for the present driving range. In order to get to the old yacht basin you went down the road that leads to the present entry gates - right between 17-green and 18-tee.

The yacht basin was very cool (used by members of Shinnecock also) - imagine J P Morgan coming in with that humongous dingy of his ..... 314-feet long! He couldn't get anywhere near land with that thing.

It must have been an incredible time.

If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2003, 10:19:38 AM »
George Bahto,

When you think about it, #'s 17 & 18 at The Creek and Piping Rock weren't the strongest of finishing holes.

SPDB,

How's my theory doing now ?   ;D

Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2003, 05:07:38 PM »
Pat Mucci,

Interesting tread. I'll throw some facts out that may test your theory  ;):

St. Louis CC has
1) #9 as a Par 5.
2) Redan is #16
3) Biarritz is #2
4) Eden is #3
5) Oasis is #18 (Par 4)
6) Short is #7

My guess is the holes were designed using natural terrain as the first factor and if the land could not accomodate a particular style of hole-it was not forced into the layout.

Some holes are unique on CBM layouts (SLCC's #12) and some concepts were used on the same hole (Alps/Punch Bowl #5 at SLCC).

In all, I believe CBM's designs were in no particular order.

Hunt






SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2003, 05:56:13 PM »
Hunt - My memory of SLCC is a little foggy, but I thought that 18 was the Alps hole (or maybe better put... is "an" Alps hole). Isn't there a huge "Alps" bunker fronting the green?

I don't think SLCC should be offered to rebut Pat's theory, SLCC, in my vague memory, seemed to have only one rival for Most Manufactured in CBM's catalog - NGLA.

What's that par 3 called - Volcano, or Inferno, or something similar - that's one of the most manufactured holes I've ever seen.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2003, 05:57:29 PM »
HUNT,

I didn't say the order was set in concrete, only that it may have been a pattern, a few exceptions don't negate the existence of a pattern.

I would agree that on a specific site he would look for the topography that best suited his template holes, fitting as many in as possible.

We seem to love to play the CBM, SR, & CB courses day in and day out.  Could it be that they have enduring values not found so readily throughout the rest of the golfing world ??

SPDB,

What, no comment on the crystalization and coalescing of my theory ???? ;D
« Last Edit: November 10, 2003, 05:58:48 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2003, 06:49:16 PM »
SPDB,

Alps feature on 18 exists with huge bunker fronting the green. Alps feature exists in front of Punchbowl on 5, too.

If it's as manufactured as you believe, would not CBM have placed the holes to fit a pattern rather than serve as an exception according to Pat's theory?

I'm curious as to why you believe SLCC to be so manufactured? Much of the course uses the natural topography.

I believe you refer to Crater, which is #12. The mounding around the green was not originally a CBM/SR design from what is known and added some years later. It looks as though the entire hole is from the natural terrain other than that ring.

Pat Mucci,

With only about a dozen CBM courses, theories should not have a few exceptions. ;D

I think the question you pose would be answered differently by many but the shared sentiment of enjoyment is the end result.  




SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2003, 07:50:44 PM »
Pat - I'm still reeling from being left out of the CBM love-in at NGLA.  :'(

I figured I'd give you a day or two to convalesce from the cold weather before i comment on the coalescence (aliteratively speaking). Certainly George B.'s reconsideration doesn't help, but remember I was only casting reasonable doubts on your theory, so I'm still airtight on that end.

Also, if you can point out one instance (on this board) where you have questioned or second-guessed yourself, I would be willing to forgive the Merion and Creek bets I'm into you for.  ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Patterns in Design ?
« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2003, 08:32:51 AM »
SPDB,

I've conceded Merion, however, The Creek remains an open issue.

Remember too, that the 18th at NGLA is a wonderful skyline green, yet trees on the adjacent property are visible to the left rear of the green.  Probably not much different then at The Creek.

I have altered my position on a number of issues.
Not many, but a few.
I'm not willing to have the Merion portion of the bet waived.
I still feel that I"ll break even on The Creek.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2003, 08:35:25 AM by Patrick_Mucci »