[Brian_Gracely]

This hole seems to raise alot of ire among the treehouse, but I've never seen any pictures of the hole.  Can anyone post any pictures of the current hole/bunkering and some historic pictures?  

If not, can anyone provide some description of what has changed over the years?

[TEPaul]

The before and after photos of the 12th have been posted on here before. The old hole was longer than the present one and that can't be restored (lost land) but the green could be but doing it to the exact same dimensions would be problematic. It was a most unusual green indeed with two massive in-line rolls (from front to back) on either side of the green but within the greenspace. The reason it would be hard to do to the exact same dimensions today is that greenspeeds today would make it play probably way too  intense compared to when greenspeeds were probably half what they are now. Plus with the much lower mower cut heights today it'd probably be problematic with potential scalping of the rolls. But I'd think a good architect could probably mininize the dimensions enough that it would be maintainable and the playability might actually match what it was when greenspeed may have been half what it is now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think an architect with reasonable ability could sympathetically restore the hole to its former form, which would be a great improvement over the hole that exists today.

[DMoriarty]

Brian I have seen the old picture and it looked very interesting.  As TEPaul noted, there were "in line" mounds (in the pictures I saw they looked too peaked to be considered"rolls") on each side of the green.  It also appears as if the entire oval shaped green complex is elevated, and surrounded by sand in front and back.  

What I found most interesting is that the front of the fronting bunker was an almost vertical, around four or five feet tall, and was supported by something like vertical railroad ties.  While the bunker wall forced the golfer to play the shot in the air, it was set well in front of the green-- so it looks like the golfer could just clear the bunker and bounce it into the green.   Sort of like the fronting bunker on a redan.  

A neat looking hole which was probably a blast to play.  

[TEPaul]

(Pat, this post is also on the "Merion (photos)" thread.)

"TEPaul,
Mel Lucas's recollections would seem to provide a value added, but, one would have to view play of the hole in an entirely different context, given that green speeds in the 60's and earlier are far different from today's."

Pat:

I've never met Mel Lucas, although I hope to soon. He's a friend of Willie Dow. However, I have read a report he did for Merion East a few years ago. That report was most interesting, to say the least. The basic theme of it was how exactly to find the basic architectural "lines" and such of the original greens and bunker surrounds of Merion East by soil probing. I have that report around here somewhere but my recollection is that Mel explained how soil probing could basically determine what he referred to as "Hugh Wilson's fingerprints".

Just think about that a moment and what it means. By probing down through the soil on top of a bunker's top profile, for instance, such as those fronting #8 and #13 it's possible to establish almost exactly the top profile of those old bunkers when they were almost original. Essentially what that could do is determine the exact extent of what the evolutionary build-up was on those bunker top profiles over decades of play and maintenance. In the case of those two bunkers obviously we're talking a build-up of FEET!!

Once you've established what the top of the old profile once was you can begin to estimate how the greens once tied into those top profiles and what basically the entire "lines" of those old greens and their bunker surrounds once looked like--most importantly the vertical dimensions or height lines. Length and width dimensions are quite easy to pick up off old aerials but obviously height or the vertical line dimension isn't and this is a way of actually doing it on the ground to match with what on-ground photos may still exist!!

Interestingly and apropos to what you just said about the differences in green speed today vs yesteyear regarding that old 12th green at GCGC, this is exactly what Mel Lucas was attempting to estimate for Merion if they restored those original old "Hugh Wilson Fingerprints" to the greens of some holes at Merion and used today's green speeds on them!

So I guess you can get a clearer picture of what Mel Lucas does and could do for GCGC if restoring that old green is something the club really wanted to consider.

However, it was clear that "Hugh Wilson's fingerprints" did exist under Merion's bunker and green profiles of today (or certainly before the recent bunker project) but the same may not be true under what is today the 12th green at GCGC. When they did that entire green and green-end redesign on #12 back in the 1960s or whenever it was redone, they may have wiped away the architectural "fingerprints" of Travis or Emmet or whichever one of them did that interesting green, but perhaps not.

The point is Mel Lucas through some soil probing could probably figure that out for the club! What that soil probing turns up from that old green's architectural "lines", particularly the height or vertical dimension lines could then be matched against any old on-ground photos if any exist of that hole.

Once you have all that (if those old architectural "fingerpirnts" still exists out there under the present 12th) you've pretty much done all the historic research on that green that's possible to do.

At that point that research can fairly exactly determine what the grades and degrees of slope and contour once was and from that you can begin to determine what playability of today's greenspeeds would be on that old architecture and begin to adjust the slopes and contour accordingly to get it more in-line with the requirements of today's far higher green speed.

I call Mel Lucas an architectural archaeologist because of what his soil probing expertise can determine and what it can mean to the restoration of old architecture that apparently no longer exists. The point is, in some cases you can very closely recreate it from what lies underneath (those old "fingerprints") some of today's redesigned architecture.

I think GCGC may have to be lucky to find those old architectural fingerprints under what's out there now as Mel could have done at Merion. I have a sort of sad feeling on a green like #12 that when they redesigned that green some 40 years ago they may have wiped away those fingerprints and perhaps used the dirt that used to be that old green and those old architectual "fingerprints" in some other way or maybe even somewhere else around that green!

[wsmorrison]

I spent a day with Mel Lucas at Newport CC with Bill Dow and have read reports on Merion and other projects that Mel has been associated with including design work.  He is as Tom describes, very capable and very knowledgeable.  I suggest Pat contact Bill Dow to get in touch with Mel Lucas--he is currently overseas for a time.  It couldn't hurt and I suspect as does Tom that it will be most helpful.

[Tom_Doak]

Oh, gee, maybe you'd better call Garden City's consulting architect and let him know about this new technology!

Come on ... I've been digging around trying to figure out what old courses were really like for 15 years.  And you can trust me that Mr. Jones did not leave anything for us to probe under the 12th green at Garden City.

I've been avoiding this topic for the last year or two because it's not anybody's business, but I'll remind everyone one more time of where I stand, before ignoring the topic for the next 12-24 months.  It's not like we are blowing up original construction there ... they are just reluctant to take a green out of play for a year to restore a feature which many felt was nutty, and which no superintendent would want to maintain.  I recommended restoring the green in 1986, but I can understand why they are hesitant.

So thanks for the advice.  BTW, anyone here want to donate the $50,000 it might take to restore the green ... and another 50 in case the members don't like it?

PS  Mel Lucas was the superintendent at Garden City when they blew up the fifth, twelfth and fourteenth greens.

[ChipOat]

Tom Doak:

I have played Garden City 75+ times over the years (although not since 2000 or so) and I agree that #12 has a different character than the rest of the course.  I never played the original #'s 5 or 12 but I did play the old #14 a fair amount before it's (1980?) re-build.

At least as recently as 2000, the grass has never really "taken" on #'s 5 and 14 (after about 27 and 20 years, respectively) and those 2 putting surfaces hadn't quite "gotten up to snuff".

Could this be a possible source of reluctance for the club to dig up anything that is, at the least, a high quality green on which to roll the ball?

[TEPaul]

"PS  Mel Lucas was the superintendent at Garden City when they blew up the fifth, twelfth and fourteenth greens."

Well, there you go. Mel Lucas was apparently the super at GCGC when the 12th (among two others) was redesigned. If there's some faction within GCGC that wants to restore the 12th green probably the first thing they should determine was why it was redesigned in the first place. It'd seem pretty logical Mel Lucas would know that. Hell, why doesn't someone just ask Joe Donahue about that--he's been there for that long and more certainly? Maybe noone wants to ask him, though, because they may think they may not like what he might say!  

There were a bunch of features at GMGC that were removed at some point (top shot bunkers, a couple of greens were moved, an enormous berm was removed), and all of them were original Donald Ross. When one looks on the old aerials they appear and there's often some great excitement to restore them. Luckily, GMGC had complete minutes on all this throughout their history so checking those minutes one can determine why those features were removed or altered in the first place. That's necessary to determine first so one can decide if they were restored they wouldn't be recreating something that never worked very well in the first place.

I wonder if those at GCGC who advocate restoring that old 12th green bothered to try to find that kind of thing out first? If they didn't they probably should. Do any of those who advocate the restoration of the old 12th green even remember it or did they just look at some photos and decide that it looked really interesting?

Research is important and obviously it can cut both ways. It certainly does appear that this subject of the restoration of the 12th at GCGC is one touchy issue at and around that club so I won't say a word about it either for the next 12-18 months. What do I know about it anyway? Nothing! And it's not my golf club!  

Perhaps the issue of the restoration and preservation of the old 12th green at GCGC is an issue that this proposed "Society" of outside independent "experts" should put on their list of thngs to consider restoring and preserving!  

[TEPaul]

It's also pretty clear that there may be some involved in the issue of the restoration of the old 12th green at GCGC that don't exactly feel the subject should be discussed on this website.

Now would be a good opportunity to ask the question on here what those contributors to this website who don't belong to GCGC or may never have even been to GCGC think about that.

Do they think they have every right and reason to discuss the subject of the restoration (or not) of the old 12th green at GCGC anyway? Do they care what those at the club and those involved in the issue of that restoration think about this subject being discussed on here?

This is sort of like the old Merion bunker project threads. There's no question many at the golf club were upset about some of what was said about Merion on here by some who really don't have anything to do with Merion.

Does what those members of a golf club and those involved in a golf club's affairs think about what's said about them or their course matter to those who discuss those subjects on here? Does it matter to the contributors on here if those people involved at a golf course get pissed at what's said about them and their course on here?

These are sort of interesting questions to ask and have answered because, I, for one, maintain that if anyone wants to offer their advice to a golf club they sort of have to create the atmosphere where the club wants to hear it first!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Are you suggesting censorship with respect to the discussion of a particular golf club ?  Or, are you saying that only praise and not criticism should be directed toward a club ?

I found it interesting that clubs that hosted majors, and the Open Doctor were villifieed for altering their courses while PV and Tom Fazio were essentially given a pass by many for doing the exact same thing.

Are you suggesting that clubs that enjoy "most favored nation" status not be discussed, but that it's "open season" for every other club ?

I'm not sure if you're serious or just having a good time.

Getting back to GCGC, it doesn't matter why the old 12th green/hole was redesigned.  What matters is that the current 12th green/hole is so out of context with the rest of the golf course, and it represents an architectural blemish on the golf course, that needs to be removed amd remodeled.

I think everybody recognizes that the green can't be reproduced in its former form due to today's green speeds, but that doesn't mean that a "similar" not congruent hole can't be constructed.

Chip Oat,

You're correct, the greens on # 5 and # 14 have never played and putted like the other greens.  The grass is noticeably different, and I think that's called into question whether or not the 12th green could be redone, while retaining the quality and playability of the putting surface.
There are methods for preserving the root zone and grass which maximize your chances of retaining the playing qualities of the putting surface, but, when a club is 0 for 2 in that department, it becomes a harder sell.

Now that the trees near the pond on # 16 are gone, the pond looks even more out of place, but, I don't think that issue will resurface for a while.

Newton's third law of gravity seems to have found a home.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Thats some pretty fancy footwork. I wonder if Mr.Lucas has any interest in removing his own--apparently not so insignificant--fingerprints at GCGC.

Do you think ML had any idea his probing at Merion might result in what some characterize as a symbolic probing of poor Hugh Wilson and William Flynn (and the White Faces)?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Interesting post. I need to ask you a few questions about whatever you may be asking or saying, though, as I have virtually no idea!  

"TE
Thats some pretty fancy footwork."

Interesting statement but would you mind explaining what you mean by it?

"I wonder if Mr.Lucas has any interest in removing his own--apparently not so insignificant--fingerprints deposited at GCGC some years ago."

What does that mean? Do you believe it was Mel Lucas as GCGC's superintendent that had a hand in redesigning the 12th green or are you referring to some evolutionary changes that might have occured due to maintenance practices to the 12th green while he was the superintendent?

"Do you think ML had any idea his probing at Merion might result in what some characterize as a symbolic probing of poor Hugh Wilson and William Flynn (and the White Faces)?"

'What some characterize as a symbolic probing of poor Hugh Wilson and William Flynn (and the White Faces)?' I really have very little idea what you mean or are trying to say by that statement. I think what Mel may have been trying to do and say by his report to Merion (have you ever seen that report Tom?) is what the ramifications to playablity may have been if the club decided to remove decades of evolutionary build-up and restore the height dimensions and slope and contour dimensions of some of the greens (and greenside bunkers) back to the way they were originally built.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Are you suggesting censorship with respect to the discussion of a particular golf club ?  Or, are you saying that only praise and not criticism should be directed toward a club?"

Pat:

Your responses really kill me!   You always seem to feel you're answering a question by asking another one!  

I believe what I was suggesting is that the contributors on here might like to answer some questions I asked on that last post about how they view discussing the architectural affairs of any golf club, particularly if it seems to anger a golf club, as some of these clubs appear to feel it's none of their business (refer to Tom Doak's post of today!) or that the club feels some of the contributors on here really don't know enough about the architectural particulars they're discussing to cogently discuss them.

But I will be more than happy to explain what I really am suggesting---eg, no matter how much some on here may be interested in discussing the archtiectural affairs of clubs and courses they don't belong to and may not know that much about if they ever entertain the idea that the club may be willing to consider their opinions there definitely is a way to go about effecting that and there definitely is a way of going about ensuring that will never happen!  

As redanman said very correctly on another thread on this basic issue---this is a discussion group and there really is no right or wrong on here!

I answered him by saying that's probably very true but in that case some of the contributors on here should also understand that then it's certainly never the same thing as goes on with the architectural affairs of any golf club. The things they do to their course and it's architecture very much can be right or wrong---a success or a failure---the ones who generally detrermine that is the memberhips.

It may be that many on here discuss these subjects and expect that the clubs should actually listen to and do the things they're suggesting on here--eg perhaps actually consult with some of the contributors on here. I say that won't happen unless they can first establish a relationship with that club.

An analogy may be that the architectural discussion on here is a bit like people "paper trading" stocks. They think the decisions they make are real but they aren't. What clubs do with their architecture is like actually trading stocks---there are real successes and failures---there are real rights and wrongs that have consequences unlike what redanman mentioned is the way things work on this website!!  

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Maybe you feel your post this morning regarding the discussion on here of the old 12th green at GCGC pretty much says everything you feel like saying on the issue on here.

But if not I'd love to hear your opinion on the larger question of the discussion of architectural issues on this website by contributors to this site that either don't belong to the club being discussed or may not know much about it.

The question is---Do you think it's OK to discuss these things on here but that the contributors on here should understand that they really may not have much if any meaning and certainly not much effect on the club or would you just prefer that these contributors on here try to simply refrain from discussing these kinds of sometimes "hot" subjects because basically its none of their business?

This might be presumptuous of me to assume but it seems to me that many of these contributors feel that some architecture (even if they don't belong to the club in question or even if they're not that familiar with it, although they always seem to think they are ) feel that architecture is not only their business but it's also their virtual responsibility to speak out to protect it! One of those contributors clearly would be Tom MacWood as it seems he's essentially said as much on here many, many times.

Of course this eventually gets down to the question of what respect if any some of these contributors on here have for any club's membership. Some on here obviously feel their respect for certain architecture (and archtiects) should go well beyond what that club's memberhip thinks about the things that are said on here!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Initially, I felt as you do, but, the more I thought about the seemingly transient nature of today's memberships, the more I moved away from that position.

What pleases a membership today, may be unpopular just a few years later, and as such, I think memberships have to have more global vision, and not just vision for the moment, or for the project at hand.

When I think of all the golf courses that were disfigured by the invasiveness of tennis courts built upon the golf course at clubs like Metropolis, Montclair and others, it reinforces my beliefs.  The tennis fad of the 70's disfigured some fine golf courses, yet today, the tennis courts are underutilized, while the golf course remains the drawing card of the club.

Time after time I've had members tell me that they wished that the tennis courts had never been built, or, that they had been built at another location, one that didn't result in the elimination of some nice golf holes.

Even your club built tennis courts, only to remove them years later.

So, is there an ultimate, or higher degree of responsibility to the golf course, one that transcends specific projects, time and current memberships ?

I think there is.

And that is where I believe that the value of constructive criticism exists.

All too often golf course projects are agenda or ego driven, and they should be scrutinized with a more discerning, a more global eye.

It might have been Joe Dey who said, the only way to reward a good tee shot is to penalize a bad one, and perhaps the same philosophy should exist with respect to clubs that embark upon projects that disfigure their golf courses.

Life is all about choices, and bad ones shouldn't be ignored or swept under the carpet because those making the choices don't want any scrutiny or criticism focused on their decisions.

The evolution of a golf course isn't a sprint, but rather a marathon, and as such, interim tinkering should be carefully examined.  Time, not a snapshot at a given point in time, is the ultimate test.

[DMoriarty]

Hey guys we may be veering way off the road here.  I thought Brian was just interested in seeing the old hole, or at least hearing about it.  I don't think many deny it was an interesting hole and worthy of discussion.  

Maybe someone more familiar with the course old and new than can better describe the original, or perhaps post the photographs?

[Brian_Gracely]

Hey guys we may be veering way off the road here.  I thought Brian was just interested in seeing the old hole, or at least hearing about it.  I don't think many deny it was an interesting hole and worthy of discussion.  

That was all I was looking for.  I'm not a member, will never be a member, am not interested in the politics at GCGC (or Merion), the soup they serve during the week, the color of their tablecloths, or the percentage of members that voted for or against a restoration.  

I thought this site was supposed to be serve some educational purpose.  

When will the list be posted of what clubs or holes are allowed to be discussed?  This place sure is going to be boring in April, or are all of you guys members at ANGC?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

If we couldn't frankly discuss golf course architecture and proposed or completed changes, restorations, revisions, redesigns, etc., on this site for fear of offending someone, then there's not much point in GCA.com, is there?

The world doesn't need another pollyannish PR marketing of courses/clubs where everything is "great".  Frankly, if anything, we've become much too politically correct in here, in my estimation.  Too many people are concerned with losing access, frankly, where probably the opposite might happen if they were viewed as someone who makes legitimate, well-reasoned, impassioned arguments in the name of loving the playing fields of the game, whether everyone agreed or not.

[Paul_Turner]

As usual, I agree with Mike.  No course should be above criticism (of any kind).  If the members get pissed off, then that's their problem.  It's only the very private clubs that seem to get their knickers in a twist.

Only seen one pic of the original 12th.  Would you say that this green is "in character' with the rest of the course?

[rgkeller]

Mel Lucas was one of the problems at Garden City.

It is unlikely that he will become one of the solutions.

[DMoriarty]

Two early pics of No. 12 from Garden City's terrific 1999 book celebrating their centennial:







Check out the walking path bisecting the bunkers in back.  

[TEPaul]

"Mel Lucas was one of the problems at Garden City."

rgkeller:

It'd be even more interesting to hear why you say that!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

How about you see if you can supply a few understandable answers to my questions to you on post #12?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Regarding your post (#18) we've been over all this before. I'm certainly not looking to curtail constructive criticism on here in any way, and I think you know that. I am, however, interested in somehow trying to construct better relations with some golf clubs this site is interested in the architecture of. The reasons why I'm trying to do that and continue to hope that somehow that happens is pretty obvious to me and I'd think would be to you too, and that'll be something I'll continue to do. Do you blame me?

On the one hand, there're a bunch of people on here who obviously wish to maintain their right to be blunt and constructively critical of any club's architecture. Those people on here even go so far as to say they feel it's their responsiblilty--it's their responsibility to great architecture to preserve it.

But don't you think it'd be a lot more effective in doing that if this website could somehow construct better relations with the clubs it cares about so those clubs may be a bit more willing to listen to them?

I know how a ton of people in some of those clubs feel about this website, and unfortunately a lot of people who actually have to do with those clubs. Sure, many of them have some curiosity about the things that're said on here but practically to a man they don't like or appreciate what they consider uncalled for personal animosity, arrogance growing out of what they consider lack of understanding of what goes on in a club and with it's architecture, and just a general "no care" attitude about some of the things they really do have to deal with---such as their memberships.

Do you really think this is benefical or as benefical as it could be? Is this way the best Golfclubatlas.com can do? I don't think so although you might.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()