Garden City Golf Club #16 Overlay

« **Reply #100 on:** November 23, 2003, 01:05:21 PM »

TE
The nutmeg-grater hazards.

There were four of them in 1906 (or at least four holes where they came into play):

#1 to catch the sliced drive (that feature in the aerial of #1 looks to be well short of the driving zone)

#6 to catch the sliced drive (there may have been a single hazard effecting both #6 and #7)

#7 to catch the sliced drive (that feature in the photo is on the left)

#16 to catch the pulled second (it is unclear if they were greenside or short of the green)

Travis had his own name for this type of hazard...he called them graves (they looked like shallow graves).

Horace Hutchinson said they "offend the artistic eye." Another reason perhaps why he went to a more haphazard approach of mounding.

« **Reply #101 on:** November 23, 2003, 01:14:53 PM »

Tom MacWood;

What those feature formations that were the things referred to once as nutmeg graters look like in person are sort of low level berm shaped affairs of varying lengths around the course. They look very similar, frankly to the grass formations of Oakmont's "church pews" except at GCGC they are much less formalized into sand bunkering and at GCGC many of them are amongst fescue and have a very rough grassed look to them now.

« **Reply #102 on:** November 23, 2003, 01:25:14 PM »

Craig
The crossbunkers that Travis eliminated were the old fashioned Cop bunkers.--they were geometric with a rampart.

He removed some of them 1906--among them #1, #3, #4, #15 and #17. In 1909 he considered removing one on the 10th, but I believe he left it.

Actually what he often did was fill in the center of these bunkers and removed the rampart (or cop)--perhaps he filled it in by pushing the cop back into the bunker. This left hazards on the sides.

He left the top shot bunkers on #3 and #16, but they didn't have the cop, I believe he also retained a cross bunker on #4 (again no cop).

« **Reply #103 on:** November 23, 2003, 01:58:18 PM »

Tom MacW:

Do you have a copy of GCGC's history book because if you don't you definitely need to see one. Emmet's original 18 hole course if built the way it was drawn had a plethora of classic "penal" architecture crossbunkers basically covering the line of play on the majority of holes.

Be careful, if you want to be exact about using that term "top shot" bunkers. That's a term I believe I invented about four years ago for a type of bunker that Ross occassionally used a great deal of on some courses such as Aronimink and Gulph Mills. I found out later that the correct term for that type of bunker (Ross or anyone else) was a "fore" bunker, not a "top shot" bunker. I thought up that term only because I kept reading that Donald Ross apparently hated topped shots to run somewhere out where a good drive might go. Later I read they were more to interest and challenge the weaker player and maybe even low frame a drive zone!

Also, if you happen to have some early documentation or explanation for exactly what a "cop" bunker was, or its exact definition, I'd love to see it. My recollection from definitions in early writing was that a "cop" bunker was basically a bunker in a mound. I'd love to know the etymology of the word "cop" (bunker) too if possible.

« **Reply #104 on:** November 23, 2003, 02:38:25 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 22, 2003, 11:10:49 PM

SPDB
Care to elaborate?

Didn't I ask you the same question? Why don't you respond first, so we can do things chronologically.

« **Reply #105 on:** November 23, 2003, 02:50:01 PM »

TE
I have the most recent GCGC history and I've read two other older versions.

There is picture of a cop bunker in my Arts and Crafts essay.

« **Reply #106 on:** November 23, 2003, 03:02:20 PM »

Hide the water.

At least they haven't planted trees along the fairway.

« **Reply #107 on:** November 23, 2003, 03:11:23 PM »

Sean
This pretty much sums up your oversimplified view or stereotype:

"There is a strict school of restoration, which finds in this chat room, a number of adherents, that discounts every possible consideration except the original architect's work, despite any consensus wishes of the membership. Often times, as the Del Paso thread regrettably illustrated, these ideas are advanced in a total vacuum of knowledge or familiarity with either the club or the course. What's more, its often done in an insulting way as if they are committing some crime by not adhering to criteria set out by the strict school. Almost as if they need approval from this band of freaks.

The strict school of restoration, to paraphrase what somebody once said about those who supported supply side economics, is a view popularized by cranks and charlatans."

« **Reply #108 on:** November 23, 2003, 03:41:16 PM »

Tom P

Not sure about "cop" but "kop" is an Afrikaaner word for "hill." There are numerous "golden age" holes in Britain (and elsewhere) called "Spion Kop," after an apparently impenetrable fortress famous in the Boer War. I think that we had a thread on this over a year ago.

So........a "cop" is probably very much the same thing as a "redan" but with a double twist and half gainer (degree of difficulty about 2.6).

« **Reply #109 on:** November 23, 2003, 04:47:58 PM »

Tom MacW:

I looked through all five of your Arts and Crafts articles but infortunately I didn't see anything in any of them that was labeled a cop bunker.

I read your articles when you first posted them and they truly are excellent (I must read them again) but My God looking at those photos of those golf holes and particularly all that magnificent bunkering!! No wonder this site and others glorifies that type of architecture. I almost forgot how incredibly beautiful and extraordinary it truly was. I'm completely fascinated by the evolution of architecture, as you know, and looking at those courses in those photos---no wonder some feel what followed that architecture let it and its influence down!

Rich:

Extremely interesting about Afrikaner 'Kop" and the "cop" bunker. It sounds very plausible and would sort of square with what I've always heard a "Cop" bunker is which is a bunker in a hill or mound.

« **Reply #110 on:** November 23, 2003, 05:30:10 PM »

TE
Part I the photo of Cassiobury Park shows some cop bunkers.

« **Reply #111 on:** November 23, 2003, 06:11:45 PM »

To whomever:

Main Entry: 1 cop
Pronunciation: 'käp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English copp
Date: before 12th century
1 dialect chiefly English : TOP, CREST
2 : a cylindrical or conical mass of thread, yarn, or roving wound on a quill or tube; also : a quill or tube upon which it is wound

« **Reply #112 on:** November 24, 2003, 11:08:00 PM »

Sean
"That's rich. When theories don't work, just make stuff up and falsely attribute."

What theories? What have I made up? Still waiting for your clarification.

« **Reply #113 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:31:34 AM »

Tom - You'll have to wait a little bit longer. I haven't the time for drawn out replies at the moment. If you're patient, though, in a few days/weeks I'll tell you how you can keep a Strict Schooler in suspense.

Suffice it to say, I thought it was amusing how you credited the Strict School to me, when I developed it to describe your ilk. But then again, when it is so inconsistent, as you yourself impliedly conceded on this thread, I wouldn't want to be associated with the school either. But that doesn't mean you can punt it back to me, and associate the school with me. I didn't develop it, I merely uncovered it. Like Coore & Crenshaw at Sand Hills.

What's more, you can't see the obvious irony at play in the dispute over the work of competing green chairmen, regardless of whether one was a practicing architect (not paid or retained one, for the purposes of GCGC)?

« **Reply #114 on:** November 25, 2003, 06:44:46 AM »

Sean
Don't bother....I thought you actually might have had a serious objection to something I had presented in the past. It appears to be just another overly emotional response on your part.

But I will tell you what I object to and it won't take me a few days or a week.

What I object to are your broad brush stereotypes...your lumping of individuals into an imaginary group (you invented) based on an oversimplified view of architecture--it is frankly lazy. It is your theory of strict school that fails, and the reason it fails is number one because not everyone is of a like mind, we are all individuals and have our own individual opinions, we all have different levels of knowledge and understanding, there are obviously some areas that many of us do agree, but other areas we do not.

The other reason your strict school fails is illustrated by some of the most contentious restorations projects debated on this board. GCGC is the product of Emmet and Hubbell, Travis, Colt, Emmet again, Tillinghast, RTJ and Doak--based on your so-called strict school we (who ever "we" is) would advocate going back to Hubbell and Emmet--no one advocates that, that I'm aware of.

Merion maybe the most talked about "restoration" on this site. I don't recall anyone advocating going back to 1912 -- to Wilson's (Macdonald influenced) design. Hell most didn't want to go back to the strict design altered by Flynn in the mid-20's (the 1930 plan) because it ignored years of perfecting carried out by the Valentines.

Another example ANGC. Some believe the course reached its peak when it opened. Others believe Maxwell improved the course in the late 30's. Others believe RTJ improved the course further in the 40's. And a handful like what Nicklaus, Cupp, Fazio and others have done.

How does your theory work with Gulph Mills? Who is interested in going back to a pure Ross?

How about Del Paso? Have I advocated restoring the three holes Whiting redesigned in the 1930's?

Pebble Beach--how many are advocating going back to before Fowler, Mackenzie and Egan? The same with Dornoch--anyone interested in going back prior to the late 40's? Do you know anyone interested in restoring Emmet's Congressional or Way's Firestone?

Each situation is unique and requires thorough study and intelligent consideration. For some resaon you aren't able to grasp this.

The only reason I can conclude you came upon this theory is based on your ignorance (I take it you don't have a good understanding of how many courses evolve). Your theory is intellectually insulting (to you more than anyone).

« **Reply #115 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:13:32 AM »

I just read through this thread again to try to see where everyone stood on the issue of what to do or what would be right or best to the left of the 16th green. This thread did wander around to other issues and subjects but primarily it seems to be about what's best to the left of #16 green.

Obviously, as members, I'm most interested on the opinions of Pat Mucci and rgkeller. Pat's position seems to be the best thing to do is to try to get the club to agree now to remove the pond and then a decision could be reached as to what either Travis or Emmet had there and to decide how best to accomplish a Travis or Emmet restoration there.

rgkeller seems to think the pond is best there--particularly regarding how the hole would play best but rg has also said that noone he knows of has proven to him or the club what was there that was Travis's or Emmet's. In other words was that bunker that shows up on the aerial really Emmet's and did Emmet replace a mound scheme by Travis in that place that was once described as a "asparagus bed" hazard?

rg and others have also said that it should be determined what exactly the wetness problem was in that area, when it occured and what could be done now to correct it if a bunker or mounds were to be restored in that area. As for the pond, it's obvious that it at least resolves a wetness problem in that area.

I'd like to see the club do the research to come to a conclusion about what caused the wetness problem and when, and what to do about it if the pond were to be removed and a Travis or Emmet feature was restored there.

I'd also like to see the club come to a documented conclusion of what Travis had in that area and also what Emmet had there before Travis made changes to the course and also after Emmet came back and made changes to the course after Travis died.

If it's true, as rgkeller says, that the club is extremely interested in their Emmet/Travis heritage this is clearly what they should do first. This is nothing more than having the best and most accurate research in hand before attempting to come to a conclusion on what to do to the left of #16.

I don't know what to say about this SS stuff. rgkeller already answered someone's question of whether he'd like to see the pond go. rg said "No". But rg also said that nobody had proved to him that the bunker in that aerial was Emmet's and he seemed to say he isn't sure about what Travis had there, that that hasn't been proved either.

The question is---what if it could be proved that that bunker was Emmet's or it could be proved what Emmet did have there and the same for Travis? If that could be proved and the wetness issue could be resolved, in light of the fact rg says the club truly is interested in their Travis/Emmet heritage would they then consider restoring something to that area that was Emmet's or Travis's?

« **Reply #116 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:30:19 AM »

Tom MacW:

Your post is interesting. You've cited numerous courses and who all worked on them. When that happens to various courses and those courses eventually decide to restore their course the question does then come up about what to remove and what exactly to restore.

I'm not completely sure you've exactly offered any opinion on how best to do that except to say that every course is unique and individual in this way.

Of course they are and that's why they tend to restore some things and perhaps leave other things or even alter something to make their course as good as it can be and to play as well as it can.

When they do that some say they aren't being true to something--perhaps an early architect who's respected and glorified. Sometimes some of the things those old architects did can be proven to have been mistakes--to not have worked well once. When that becomes obvious clearly the club should not restore a mistake no matter who was responsible.

These clubs are trying to do their best in the context of what works best for them. I'm not sure I understand if you have a problem with that or not.

It seems to me that many on here just think that some people (architects or otherwise) make good decisions and others don't. That's probably the way it will always be. The ultimate answer probably just lies in the question of whatever is done and whoever did it does the hole and the course work better or doesn't it? Basically time and opinion always answers that.

« **Reply #117 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:34:56 AM »

TE
IMO one of main reasons some restorations (or renovations, or redesigns, or whatever you want to call them) fail is due to a lack of information. They (the members, the architect, USGA, or whomever) make decisions without a thorough understanding of their courses architectural history, who did what and why over the years. And when I say thorough, I don’t mean just an understanding their course’s evolution…but also a thorough understanding of the architects involved, their ideas and preferences, how their careers evolved and where the careers were in relationship to their work at the given course. And once you get all the information you can begin to evaluate the merits of these holes over the years and the design over the years. There are many factors that should be considered.

For example GCGC and Travis’s aspargus hazards—there were 3 all together. They were roundly criticized, and Travis didn’t exactly come to their defense…his response was...OK maybe they ain't that great but there only three of them, please don’t over emphasize their place in the greater scheme of things.

I doubt they survived very long….in 1910 Travis was implementing a different type of mounded hazard at GCGC, a hazard (a variation of his humps and hollows) he utilized with many of his future designs. In fact I am not aware of any Travis design after GCGC that had the aspargus hazard. It is information like that should be considered IMO.

« **Reply #118 on:** November 25, 2003, 09:55:08 PM »

Tom MacW:

I tend to agree with what you say in your first paragraph in your last post. You're really speaking of the value of research, and I couldn't agree more. However, I think you're missing something or not mentioning it. Golf clubs can become as familiar about all the things you suggest regarding any architect but the fact remains what any architect produces must pass that all important test of time, no matter their reputation generally speaking!

No architect, none at all, passes that all important test of time with what he produces simply on his name. His architecture must do it on its own, on the ground through constant play and it must do it time after time, and its better still if it does it without his name attached. That to me, is simply the confirming value of what might be called "the blind taste test".

The significance of what happened at GMGC's recent restoration in this vein has just completely occured to me. Initially we intended to do as much of a complete Donald Ross restoration as feasible simply because most assumed the course was Ross and the research had not really been evaluated comparing who did what to what was respected and appreciated over time. Well, we've had at least seven architects make changes over our history. It was fortunately possible to go back and track who did what, when and why. That is essentially the best and most comprehensive research any club interested in restoration would need.

We decided to dedicatedly preserve Ross as well as Maxwell's redesigns of Ross holes that did not pass time's test. Maxwell's work was not even remotely within the character of Ross either. The rest we will try to weed out as much as possible and restore to Ross and the reason is simply because most of the rest never passed that test of time with our membership and others, it never was respected although no one had any idea who did what.

Maxwell's efforts in basically three redesign cycles passed that "blind taste test" test of time best because no one even knew it was him. That's the "blind taste test" in its purest form. I guess in a way it finally took someone like me to inform them all exactly who he really was and the quality of his architecture elsewhere.

A great analyst like Jim Finegan called GMGC sort of a cross-breed of architecture but a good crossbreed. So when we finally complete our restoration it will be Ross and Maxwell, just as GCGC should probably be Emmet and Travis (or whoever else did something of "test of time" value there).

And in my opinion and the opinion of some others what Maxwell did is even better than Ross.

But in the end it has nothing to do with who they were or a name--the proof is on the ground over time, no matter who did it. The further proof is even that we just did our own thing with a Maxwell green-end that never worked well. But we did it in the style and character of Maxwell as best we knew it and the feedback is terrific in a short time--the members and others really seem to love it although its interesting enough to have created both some intensity and some controversy.

But we did our best to improve on something even Maxwell may have fallen a little short on. It seems to be getting the intended effect--so what do you think about that Tom---is that doing the right thing by a golf course and the architects who did it?

« **Reply #119 on:** November 25, 2003, 10:36:28 PM »

Tom and Tom,

I doubt they survived very long….in 1910 Travis was implementing a different type of mounded hazard at GCGC, a hazard (a variation of his humps and hollows) he utilized with many of his future designs. In fact I am not aware of any Travis design after GCGC that had the aspargus hazard. It is information like that should be considered IMO.

For what little it is worth. I have no photographic or illustrative evidence that he tried to recreate that feature on a future new project. He did create whins (raised dune like bunkers - very rare), but mainly stuck to "coffins" and mounds

"Each situation is unique and requires thorough study and intelligent consideration."

All courses have some change, if you want to restore you must unravel the mystery of what was actually origional. Often you are suprised.

« **Reply #120 on:** November 25, 2003, 11:14:22 PM »

TE
"But we did our best to improve on something even Maxwell may have fallen a little short on. It seems to be getting the intended effect--so what do you think about that Tom---is that doing the right thing by a golf course and the architects who did it?"

Hard to say...I reckon William Gordon and RTJ thought they were improving upon Maxwell too. All three "names" have passed the test of time....no?

Ian
What was Travis's thing with death...coffins? His term for the aspargus hazard was 'graves'...which is a hell of a lot better than aspargus patch.

« **Reply #121 on:** November 26, 2003, 08:37:50 AM »

Ian, Tom & TE,

Sometimes research can't be completed 100 %.
Sometimes missing details will never be found,
and therefore conclusions drawn from what is available may not be 100 % accurate. I think this is especially true when a good number of architects and green committees have altered a golf course.

That is why I favor a restoration to a time frame when abundant information is available, especially in the form of photographic evidence.

Some may speak of a feature and its general location through recall or research, but aerial and ground level photographs pinpoint the feature, its configuration, proximity to other features and precise location.

When that abundant evidence is coupled with a historic event, and fits within the traditions of the club, it would seem prudent to target that date for restoration purposes.

That's why I feel that 1936 is a prudent target date at GCGC.

I can't say that 1936 was the club's high water mark architecturally, but I can't say that about any other year either. But, since the US Amateur was held that year, and since abundant photographic evidence appears in that year and other close years, 1936 would seem to be the ideal target where the architecture of the club can't be disputed.

« **Reply #122 on:** November 26, 2003, 08:52:14 AM »

Tom MacW

Interesting use of the word "whins." In Scotland, "whins" is just another word for "gorse." Any hint that Travis was searching for some sort of metaphor when he used the word to describe inverted bunkers?

« **Reply #123 on:** November 26, 2003, 09:14:06 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 25, 2003, 11:14:22 PM

What was Travis's thing with death...coffins? His term for the aspargus hazard was 'graves'...which is a hell of a lot better than aspargus patch.

Tom- Can't speak for Mr. Travis but I can clearly see a relationship between golf, life, golf architecture and death. One example in gca, is the 8th at ANGC.

But I'm sure many a club has waited for the death of some dictator greens chair.

.

« **Reply #124 on:** November 26, 2003, 09:30:18 AM »

Tom MacW -

Is a "coffin" bunker something raised (and presumably shaped like a coffin)? Or is it something dug into the ground that looks like a grave?

News:

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

SPDB

T_MacWood

Norbert P

T_MacWood

ForkaB

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Jim_Kennedy

T_MacWood

SPDB

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

ian

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

ForkaB

A_Clay_Man

BCrosby