Pat and TommyN:

The warmth of my car---my ass! That cold day with Pat and George Bahto we spent a good deal of time on #7, particularly the green end discussing all the ways it could be used elsewhere in other hole iterations. We spent little if any time on #8 because you were too cold. But #8 I've spent a couple of hours on over the years other than time spent playing it; alone, with Karl Olsen and a good deal of time once with Kye Goalby trying to figure out what the green-end may've looked like before the course and exactly where they got all the dirt to make that green and next tee as well as what that running ridge may've looked like once.

But the discussion of the Bottle hole as to its strategies is the thing that truly fascinates me. The reason it fascinates me is it's obviously one of those holes that apparently few agree what's best to do on it---what the preferred strategy is for any particular golfer including the fact that the functional options are necessarily very different--for a par 4 where most everyone (except the very long) likely hit driver. And of course that's a good thing---maybe even something that can eventually make a hole be perceived as great.

In that vein, I always remember the analysis of Geoff Shackelford of the multiple strategies of the 11th hole of ANGC (at least the way it once was with its extreme fairway width!). From the analyses of those pros who played it over the years it appeared even good golfers and tour pros could never agree amongst themselves if it was better to play way over to the left or to the right or something in between and that enduring fact made the hole and its nuancy multiple strategies enigmatic, mysterious and consequently great.

The same could be said for the Bottle hole off the tee although the tee shot options and strategies are so much more stark and "in your face" due to the center bunker line dividing the fairway in half.

I just laugh at those who spew out in glowing terms what the "preferred" tee shot strategy and the "preferred" approach strategy should be off some "Bottle" concept Macdonald picked up from Sunningdale or some other hole in Europe. NGLA's "Bottle" hole is a whole lot better than just that. It's a whole lot more enigmatic as what's best to do for any golfer---and of course that's a very good thing, maybe even a great thing about it's makeup and architecture.

Matter of fact, a lot of the holes of NGLA are that way---eg there're so many functional options and choices and many of them are very different and diverse from each other on many holes.

I'm the type of golfer who tended to get into my little modes of a particular way to play most all holes, sort of just one way--my preferred way (if there wasn't a ton of wind). If there was a hole that really broke me of that it would be the "Bottle" hole and it's probably because for a golfer like me anyway the choices of what to do off the tee are so enigmatic probably because they're so well balanced for me---in a form of "equilibrium" in other words---and that's probably the primary reason I think it's so good. (And the reason I wanted to use the basic "Bottle" hole tee shot "in your face" choices on GMGC's 15th hole by using a center bunker line scheme dividing the fairway in half).

When any golf hole can get a golfer who knows the course well to stand on a tee day after day and say to himself; "what to do?, what to do?"---it just doesn't get much better than that, in my book.

Pat, you can sit there and tell everyone how that hole should be played--- and admittedly you know that course better than I do. Chip Oat knows the course really well and also better than I do and obviously he doesn't exactly agree with you as to what the best way to play it is for him, and either do I.

Is it possible for you to understand why that's a very fine fact about the strategic and architectural quality of NGLA's "Bottle" hole? The trouble with you responding to me on a question like that (and the trouble with me responding to some of your questions) is you tend to treat questions like that rhetorically. Don't! A hole like NGLA's "Bottle" hole deserves better than that.  

 Aimed at the bunkers ; landed in the rough surrounds ; iron to 3 feet ; made the putt. I wish I could say that more often. Sweeney was there as a witness!

When any golf hole can get a golfer who knows the course well to stand on a tee day after day and say to himself; "what to do?, what to do?"---it just doesn't get much better than that, in my book.

Tom, I think that's wonderful stuff.  How may courses or holes can really make that claim?  ('Course, any course that has decent wind can make that claim I suppose--just one of the strengths of links)

Tommy, thanks so much for the photos.  Beautiful, and I think Pat is right--much more attractive without the trees to the left.  Such a contrast.  
Tommy, one of your pics made it look like the fairway bunkers were below fairway level, almost hidden from view from the tee. Is that accurate?
Also, what exactly is shown in the very last picture you posted (black pants, white hat teeing off to the far right)
How much of a carry is it to hit it past the 'echelon' of bunkers? There has been reference to it not being an issue for long hitters..is that 260-long to get past them, or more like 300-long?

This is a link to the previous thread: Click here(thanks to a lurking Search Expert)

We all agree it's a great hole. The question is why the Bottle wasn't replicated more.

It is as good a design as any of the template holes. And much, much easier to duplicate.

Specifically, Road Holes without a road and a shed are pale imitations. Edens without the Eden Estuary are, at best, second cousins to the orginal. Ditto for the Biarritz without the cliffs (I would guess).

But versions of the Bottle Hole could be replicated almost anywhere and, if well done, measure up well against the original.

So why wasn't it in Raynor's paintbox?

Better question: Why aren't modern architects using the concept? Is it no more than a reluctance to build centerline hazards?

Bob  

TEPaul,

You must have been out in your car smoking when I posted that the play of a hole is often dictated by the play of the previous holes.

And there is a "prefered" or "optimal" way to play a hole, provided that you can execute that strategy.

The determination as to whether or not you can execute the strategy you've chosen usually lies in your performance on the golf course prior to arriving at your current shot.

If you've been driving the ball rock solid with a slight draw, then aiming at the bunkers and hitting your draw will bring you to the prefered LZ.

ChipOat,

I understand exactly what you're saying.
It's the view from the fairway that can intimidate and determine the preference for the approach shot.

One of the things I love about that hole is that they can place the pin in a location, such that it looks like it's suspended in space, 20 feet off the green.

The approach from the left, visually, presents another challenge.  The perceived lack of depth to the green.
Whereas, the approach from the right gives you comfort that there's plenty of green depth, and rough and mound and the 9th tee behind the green.

If you stand on the green and look back, you'll see that the actual putting surface and surrounds don't substantively favor one over the other.  But, from the fairways, it sure looks that way.

The other factor that comes into play is that steep right side drop off.  From the right side fairway it seems as if your approach only has to have direction, whereas, from the leftside fairway it seems as though your approach has to have both direction and distance.

But, if you stand up on the green and look back at both fairways, you'll see that this is more of an optical illusion that CBM created, and, he created it quite well.

It's a stunning, fun, yet challenging hole to play, day in and day out.

George Bahto.

The first thing I thought of when I bought my Biggest Big Bertha years ago, was that I could now fly the centerline bunker complex, like the Maginot line.

If carrying that complex was only reserved for the truely gifted, that hole would rank in the top 5 in the world, amongst par 4's.

This is one of the reasons that "flogging" has come into vogue.

Bill Salinetti has done such a great job restoring NGLA that perhaps, on his wish list, is returning some of CBM's work that was removed or altered by the club subsequent to CBM's absence.

Andy,
I'm not exactly sure of the date, but I think it was sometime during the 1980's (Uncle George can add to this), a certain well-known Champion Professional Golfer recommended a berm be constructed to hide the road going towards the hole @ #8 & 11.

The berm itself  is blocking the view of the bunkers from the fairway as you can see in the image, but the bunkers are visable from the tee when your standing on it, not behind it like where I was when I took that shot on #8, "The Bottle Hole."

Patrick,
I'll call Kye later on today and find out if he remained in the car on the majority of that day with Karl Olson too..... Why can't people just be accountable for their actions?  

Tommy, thanks for that clarification.  

I gather from the disagreements about the preferred angle to the green that the green itself is not actually oriented to accept a shot from the left fairway.  

Would it be a better hole if the green rewarded the tougher drive to the left fairway? Is it even fair to call that the tougher drive?
Also, any thoughts on how far to carry past the bunker echelon?

In most cases, there's an awful lot of dirt that has to be moved to replicate that green complex.

Pat, what is special about the green compex?  

Also, comparing the tree removal to what was there before, it appears someone made off with the ball washer-helluva souvenir!

Jason,

Yes. The aerial you have linked shows the "Bottle" hole in its entirety, with the "Road" hole green immediately preceding it.

TK

Isn't there a great hole at Kingsbarns that kind of fits this description/pattern?

-Ted

"Better question: Why aren't modern architects using the concept? Is it no more than a reluctance to build centerline hazards?
Bob"

Bobzee:

Who really knows why this hole or concept has virtually never been copied by other architects or even Macdonald/Raynor either, but I doubt a reluctance to build centerline hazards would have much of anything to do with it today. The reason I say that is who can deny there're a whole lot more holes built fairly recently with hazards within the fairway lines and the centers of fairways than there ever were in the Golden Age? And I'm definitely not talking JUST about architects today like C&C, Doak, Hanse, DeVries etc.  

One reason a copy of the Bottle hole, particularly the green and green-end may not have been copied more is for other than a pretty good player that approach shot is really hard to pull off and if you miss it in those front bunkers which obviously so many do there's not too many recovery shots that're tougher than from those fronting bunkers on that hole. One reason is the green is quite far above the bunkers and so many golfers are naturally going to make the mistake of not getting the ball all the way to the green surface which you pretty much have to do otherwise the ball will just roll back down the front bank and back into those front bunkers. For any golfer who's not pretty good at a relatively lengthy and relatively high greenside bunker shot that can and does happen over and over again. Frankly of all the holes on that course the approach shot to that green along with #3 is by far the toughest anyway but if you come up just short of the surface you really can have a problem after that. Maybe that's one reason so few have copied the hole.

Matter of fact I can't really think of more than a few holes I've ever seen that're tougher to recover out of the fronting bunkers. PVGC's #2 and #18 are certainly two that come to mind.

.......  note the Simpson quote at the bottom of my posts.

Tom, the map - I can't verify a date but as you said it may have been from an older rendition or even a Macdonald concept.

I have the original working drawing of the large restored drawing that is now in the proshop and was at one time down on the long wall in the locker room hallway. It has CB's corrections for the "map maker"   .... but this is not the one you're talking about

I dont' think PN bunker(s) were much higher than the remoaining originals are now (except the shaved down one we're talking about).

Yale's was the "tallest" one I've ever seen.

They are not to "block" you view but are there to annoy you a bit   ..... I guess ithat one annoyed the members at National!

"The date of the map is 1928
The date appears on the compass."

Pat:

Excellent pick-up there. I've looked at that EJ Raisz map a lot over the last few years and I sure never noticed the date in the compass. Don't just call me blind about that---obviously the NGLA expert GeorgeB never noticed it either. Take a look at the fairway line on #8 on that map, it goes outside the last echelon bunker on the left! It sure doesn't do that on the course today. And check out the fairway meld across #7 and #12---that baby must be at least 150 yards wide. Check out the fairway area around the rear left of #7, totally surrounding #11, behind #16, but really odd check out the fairway left and below the redan. Check out the greenspace on Eden. That bunker is on the green!  

Do you think you could slip a drive to the left of that last left echelon bunker on the Bottle hole if that fairway area was restored? That map seems awful detail-exact---I doubt EJ Raisz just dreamed things like that stuff up when he did it in 1928.

Maybe NGLA was as good as C.B got it in 1928 before he started to lose it health-wise and attitude-wise and before he and some at the club started to get at odds.