Uncle George,
As you know, it's long been my contention that the Eden holes you have experienced in your life have been TOO deep in regards to the green. I say this in relation to the contours of the original which would certainly make it much less deep given the front half of the green itself.

Trying to involve Matt Ward into this conversation would require you to include slope rating and distance from the tips before he could make any accurate description or detail.  The original Eden hole would also have to be designed by Jim Engh and located in New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming or South Dakota. This way he can expound on how most of us know nothing because we haven't visited these golf rich states, as well as remind us that we are a biased lot and know very little about golf or golf architecture, thus are incapable of deciding what is good or bad.

In Aleck Bauer’s great book Hazards (as well as in other publications) is the “famous” survey graphic of 11 - St Andrews green.

The yardage of the hole in that widely publicized survey shows the hole at 148 yards to the middle of the green.

Along the right side it shows the elevation of the hole (cross-section view).

At the 148 yd point in the green the elevation is listed as 7.0 ft. This is about 20 % into the green beyond the back edge of Strath bunker.

At the “peak” of the rear of the green - the highest point in the green -, the elevation reads 15.0 ft -        

an 8 ft fall, point to point !!

I’ve had the “pleasure” of examining one of these surveys - full size - at one of the Seth Raynor built courses - one that was left behind by Raynor after the course was finished (by Banks).  

I won’t name the course (can’t)  .... but after all that time it was still tacked on the wall, virtually unnoticed. This was back in about 1986. The piece was deteriorating.

Which also leads me to the grand question of, “where are the Macdonald survey and drawings?”  I’ve check all sources to me for years - have a clue, but no proof.  

I’ve checked family connections - rafters in a building, etc. Who knows, perhaps one day I’ll get a surprise E Mail with a clue ......................

PS  For those of you who don't know much about topographic maps, every line on that drawing represents two feet of elevation change, and the dark lines are every ten feet.  So, from the sketch, we can tell that the Strath is ten feet deep, the Hill bunker on the left is twelve feet deep, and there is 5-8 feet of elevation change from the back of the green to the front (the front right is the lowest spot).

There is also SIXTEEN FEET of elevation change from the back left of the eleventh green to the far right of the seventh, on the same double green!

Can I interject a question here from one who enjoys learning from you guys.  How much does elevation change play in the quality of these holes and much effect does length have on the quality of these holes? I ask that because you viewed the par 3 at Hidden Creek, I believe it was 5, as a redan but it was far longer and the tee was far more elevated than those at NGLA, Shinnecock or Somerset Hills.  Do those features add or detract from your view of the quality of the hole or is it simply an acceptable variation on a theme?

George-
I wish I knew, I'll guess the eden.

As to the contours....
It appears as if there are only 3 minor contours between major contours (the bold ones).
Tommy - are those metric?
With 2 meter majors and 1/2 meter minors?

Tom D. - are those color coded by hand?

Shivas - the numbers are usually where the breaks in the lines are, I'm guessing Tommy® turned those off....

Patrick - about adding length to these Edens these days:

Ok, so the Eden was meant to be played testing middle iron skills - so what can you do?

Adding SOME length, I don’t personally find it objectionable but there is a limit!

No way 200 yds, although it may be the nearing the appropriate length (....especially after having played a few days with the “big-bomber” Neil Regan - for him I think Eden for him, 220 would work fine!!)

I think for the average “good” player 175 is fine for an Eden today .... my opinion.


Pat, GCGC’s Eden is superb!  

NGLA’s Eden is really puzzling to me in a lot of ways but we’ll (I’ll) figure it out one day.

Interesting story:

The esteemed Mr. Ben Crenshaw wrote the intro for my book, for which I will forever be in his debt.  I had been asking him this same question ..... the severity of the back to front on 11-High Hole In. He told me about 2 rounds he played with John Daley at TOC at the Open (two times back)  and how Daley, with those great hands, feathered in two shots in two days, in different winds, the pin tucked in over Strath bunker.

The wind one day quartering from the left, so JD feathers in a soft draw - the next day, wind quartering in from the right, JD slides a nice fade in towards the pin.  Ben, in his ever-so-modest way, said he (Ben) was just trying to get his own ball in the “area” of the pin

My main question is the front to back slope not being replicated (in my opinion) “properly” - whatever that means and the feeding into Strath as a main feature of the hole.

If I am ever fortunate enough to get the opportunity to build an Eden ..... boy, watch out - hah.

Doug - I don't think Creek's Eden overly severe - probably about average (in the CBM/SR context) concerning back to front slope - but an excellent hole for sure.

Tommy:  I was just believing what I was reading.  It could be half-meter (1.67 foot) contours, I guess, which would make the bunkers 17% less deep.  Mike is right, though, there are only three lighter lines in between the bolder ones.

Tom_Doak
George:  Didn't you get to build an Eden at Stonebridge?  If not, why not?

yes, I did Tom - hole 17. The developer went nuts when he first saw the slope and made me soften it  .... you see I don't have asw much clout as you (hah)

It is impossible for me to say one is better than the other. They are two entirely different holes. I feel the Eden much harder hole while the redan tends to be a much more fun hole. It is all about options. Any front pin on the Eden = scary!!!! What are your options?? It is nearly impossible to leave yourself below the hole. The thought of putting from above the hole is frightening. I have seen many balls putted off the front of the green. The redan on the other hand has countless options even for the bogey golfer to leave himself in a decent position.

George-
I wish I knew, I'll guess the eden.

As to the contours....
It appears as if there are only 3 minor contours between major contours (the bold ones).
Tommy - are those metric?
With 2 meter majors and 1/2 meter minors?

Tom D. - are those color coded by hand?

Shivas - the numbers are usually where the breaks in the lines are, I'm guessing Tommy® turned those off....

Mike,

If the survey was done by someone from Europe (Tommy could tell us) then it would be metric and the minor contours would be 25cm and the major 1 metre contours. So it would be 1m, 1,25, 1,50, 1,75, 2m.

I get the green to have a fall of about 5-6% which is about right.  If you think that creeping bent greens should not have much over 2.5-3% on flag areas and fescue greens around 3%-4%.

The difference from end to end as being discussed is about 2 metres which is close to what Tom D was saying.  About 6.5 feet.


Brian

ps. I prefer the Redan by a long way.

Tiger John,
During my stay in St. Andrews in 1996, I don't think there was a place I visited and studied most everyday then the area of 7,11, 8 & 10.  Each time I was amazed how the Eden seem to change or take on a different form--which of course it didn't--it's just that the hole is that complex. One would think the intracacies of building the perfect pitched green for an excellent Redan as one of the most arduous tasks. However building something close to the contours of the Eden green that would work with the given terrain of a certain site, well, it may be impossible. Lets face it. We haven't come across a great Eden that is worthy of comparison yet have we?