Rich
I'm not certain about the 'whins' comment. It also could be Travis, like some other Americans, used the term 'whins' interchangeably with bents and wild grasses (mistakenly).

Bob
I'm not sure about the coffins, I do know Travis often created some extremely deep bunkers (fairway as well as greenside). Maybe Ian knows more about his use of whins and coffin.

The graves at GCGC were different. They look like something you'd see in an old Western. A very low mound--rectangular or oblong (only a foot or so off the gound)--that looks like a shallow grave, when they just piled dirt over the corpse. There would be a series of a half dozen or more of these side by side. Travis also put sand over these.

Pat
I would agree with 1936. After doing a fair amount of digging into the history of GCGC, I'd place the high point between 1933 and 1950 (give or take a years on either end)--there was little or no change during that time. After the improvements by Emmet and Tillinghast to Travis's work and before the loss of the 12th.

"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."

Tom MacW:

Where are you getting this kind of opinion? Can you document it and if so why not do it on here? So what if Travis never designed any more "asparagus bed" hazards after GCGC? Are you suggesting that proves they weren't much good?

BCrosby,

There are two "trench" bunkers, that look like elongated coffins.

One is found on the right side of # 3 and the other is found on the right side of # 7, although it has been abandoned.

The similarities in the two bunkers is striking, and the 7th bunker should be restored, all that's needed is sand, the trench is still there, deep and long.

I would be interested in knowing the purpose of the bunkers.
Were they "saving" or "catch" bunkers, or were they perfect examples of risk/reward with respect to the best position and angle to approach their respective greens from.  The closer you get to those bunkers, the better the angle of attack into greens that slope severely high left to low right.

Restoring # 7 would be duck soup, easy and inexpensive.

rgkeller,

"The closer you get to those bunkers, the better the angle of attack into greens that slope severely high left to low right."

Why would anyone want to "attack" a left to right sloping green from a right to left lie when a level lie is available on the other side of the fairway?

I'll leave that to you to figure out.
The right to left slope is not that pronounced, and gets pretty flat as you get closer to the bunker on # 3 and # 7

"Restoring # 7 would be duck soup, easy and inexpensive."

And useless, unless the fairway was moved twenty yards to the right from its present mowing pattern.

you're a little late to the dance and must have missed an abundant number of posts that addressed that issue, and a number of other issues related to the shifting of the fairway to the right.

rgkeller,

You may have been a member at GCGC before I was, but you're a lot later to the architectural dance then me.

P.S.  With that measurement, five feet, I'd like to buy some
       real estate from you.

Tom MacW said;

"In regards to your “test of time” theory, your “name” theory and “your blind taste test” theory. Where does the 12th at GCGC fit in? Obviously it didn’t pass the test of time, (and despite being associated with a “name”)."

2. Obviously it didn't! We all know that many courses of the older well known architects that are now becoming more respected in a restorative sense did not have that same respect during the last fifty plus years. And I think we can pretty much generalize about that and consider it a fact.

If a club is to do productive research they first need to know exactly why the 12th hole at GCGC did not pass that time test. The reasons are probably fairly obvious and the point is that now that the club has a renewed interest in restoration they should understand how to restore that green to whatever extent and in whatever way not to repeat those original problems that did not allow #12 to pass GCGC's test of time! If they restore it correctly without repeating whatever made it not work well originally maybe this time it will pass that test of time. Will what they do to make it popular and pass that test of time be an exact restoration of the original? Of course not! Will someone like you have a problem with that?

TE
You lost me (again)....it seems to me the entire restoration movement is only possible because features, holes or courses have not passed the test of time...by definition for something to be restored it had to be lost (or flunked the test of time).

As an example I assume you are restoring features at Gulph Mills that didn't pass the test of time...and I'm certain there very good reasons to do so (and eliminating some features that have survived the test...until now).

The 12th hole at GCGC and the reasons it was remodeled are well documented. The same with the 17th at LACC. And the 14th at Engineers. And the 12th at Bel-Air. And the 8th at Scioto. And the Maiden at Sandwich. And its encouraging many of these holes did not go down without a fight...Darwin was extremely critical of the loss of the Maiden.

Every case is different and not all decision makers are created equally. Golf architecture is littered with good and bad decisions.

I'm not aware of anyone interested in restoring every feature MacKenzie or Flynn designed during their entire career. I also believe it is not coinsidence that these architects are held in high esteem (there are good reasons for it and the search for those good reasons is why this site exists).

I'm also certain that some architects who aren't as well respected produced a number of quality feature or holes or even a golf courses. At this point I'd bring out the saying about the blind pig finding an acorn, but I don't want to wake up Sean B.

If GCGC had more members with the knowledge of Mr. Mucci, perhaps a lot fewer misguided changes would have been made over the years.  His well formulated ideas are an asset to this site and should be utilized by the club.  Still one of my favorite places to play.

Those who've never been through the "process" of trying to take restoration of an orginal architect through a membership today may not understand the complexities and problems of that "process"--or the importance of doing that process correctly.

But you don't have to go far to see what it's about. There's an excellent example of it right here on this very thread between two members of GCGC--Pat Mucci and rgkeller.

Pat Mucci has said that he believes a club like GCGC which clearly has an undisputably fascinating architecural heritage in the annals of American golf architecture should take every opportunity to consider restoring to that heritage--basically Emmet and Travis. And it seems most of the members, including rgkeller, may share that basic sentiment.

But unfortunately when it gets down to particulars such as the pond on #16 it gets more complicated. Pat says the pond is not original Emmet or Travis and I doubt rgkeller or anyone else disagrees with that.

rgkeller says, though, that he thinks the pond, despite not being original Emmet or Travis, works well today for a number of reasons. He says it serves the same or even a greater penal purpose as a Travis "asparagus bed" mound or an Emmet bunker.

Is the degree of penality the sole purpose of what any feature to the left of #16 green should serve? I don't know but I think anyone interested in convincing rgkeller or what's best to do there needs to work with him on that if they want to change his mind.

Next rgkeller has asked those who advocate restoring that bunker (on the aerial) to prove to him that that bunker is Emmet or even that Travis had "asparagus bed" mounding there. At the very least those interested in convincing rgkeller should prove to him what was there and by whom at any particular time. Then they have to convince him how well it would work. If they can't at least do the first thing they'll probably have a problem convincing him.

In that vein there's the issue of a wetness problem there. When it happened, why, and what it would take to correct it needs to be produced and explained to him too to convince him. That should be attempted.

Simply saying that Bernard Darwin or Horace Hutchinson may not have liked something to the left of #16 probably won't do it for him. He needs to be convinced in light of what's going on today not necessarily 90 years ago.

In my opinion, those are the things that should be happening at GCGC and they should be happening on here too. It's of no real worth for a discussion between Pat and rg to devolve into who became a member first or who knows more about architecture. And it's of no worth for contributors on here such as me or TommyN or Tom MacWood who do not belong to the club to tell rg he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He does know what he's talking about or certainly thinks so and much of it is questions that should be answered first. Certainly questions that he's already asked others to prove the answers to. Questions like what was there and when and by whom? When did a wetness problem occur and why? Would restoring Emmet or Travis there solve that wetness problem as the pond has or recreate it? Would an original Travis mound or Emmet bunker or whatever else either might have built there work better in playablilty and look better than the pond?

If there's anyone at all who can supply that information and prove the answers to those questions instead of just throwing some personal assumptions about those things at rgkeller, they should do it.

And then, and at that point, they'll see if they're convincing him to get rid of that pond and restore something original there by Emmet or Travis. But just continuing to tell him he doesn't know architecture, doesn't know GCGC as well as someone else, or that he doesn't respect or understand Emmet or Travis probably won't do much to convince him of anything except that the "process" of attempted restoration really can be an antagonistic one.

rgkeller,

You may believe and you may have others believing that interest in the architecture and architects at GCGC began with your membership there.

I've never said that, written that or iimplied that,

That is your own spiteful and/or resentful remark

As far as my interest in restoration at GCGC, I'm clearly on the record with respect to my position as expressed in letters to the former and present green chairmen and Presidents over the last few years.  I think it is a worthwhile cause.

I didn't ask to be put on the green committee, I was invited, almost immediately after I became a member, by the chairman.

In the limited amount of years that I've been there, I've never heard you champion any type of restoration effort anywhere on the golf course.  But, I'm not there every day, so perhaps I missed it.

You were the one that brought the issue of the pond on # 16 public by starting a thread on it.  The fact that I totally disagree with your position bothered you to the extent that you personalized the issue.  God forbid that someone, especially from New Jersey, express an interest in seeing a restoration effort move forward.

Keeping a pond on # 16 is architectural heresy, but, your position doesn't surprise me.

A Clay

It should be obvious. Water hazards and bunkers are not interchangeable design choices. The presence of water vs. sand has a profound influence on approach shot choices. It changes everything.

Those who think bunkers and ponds are interchageable or who think that Travis always chose the most severe hazard possible have forfeited their right to my attention on matters of gca.

Bob

"TEPaul,
If the pond is allowed to remain, then it really doesn't matter what Emmett and/or Travis intended, does it?"

It sure doesn't Pat. You and I are obviously going in the same direction on that but we probably have differences in method. You've stated in no uncertain terms that your method is to get the club to resolve somehow to get rid of that pond first and then decide what to do and how to do it next.

My method is to present the golf club with a ton of documented historical evidence of the evolution of the golf course first. That should answer what was there when and why and why things may have changed. The club can concentrate on that historical evidence and come to a conclusion of why decisions were made and why things changed. In light of that they can objectively decide if mistakes in decision making were made when and why and how in the evolution of the course and in the context of Emmet and Travis's heritage which they seem to be proud of and care about.

That's sort of the way my club did it and in retrospect it worked like a charm for those trying to put the architectural plan together including our architect. After we did that it continues to make it basically a snap to uphold our best architectural heritage on an ongoing basis with our membership.

You guys at GCGC need that research collected, compiled and presented first. Restoring the architectural heritage of Emmet and Travis ain't that easy anyway compared to other clubs because there were two of them and only one thing can be done with any feature. But like any other club into this kind of thing you need to do the complete research first--complete as much as it can be done. That just makes it so much easier than trying to do it the other way around which is let's just go for it and then figure out how to do it later.

I don't know whose got the historical material--whether its the club or Tom MacWood or a bunch of others out there somewhere but call it all in now, collect it, compile it and analyze it first. Once you have it if you want me to write the club a straight architectural evolution report or booklet with supporting photos like I did with GMGC, I'll do it. I've done it before and now that we're down the line in our project its obvious it worked like a charm architecturally and with the membership process that followed.

What's wrong with doing it that way? You tell me. It worked for us why couldn't it work for you?