Garden City Golf Club #16 Overlay

« **Reply #25 on:** November 21, 2003, 12:54:34 PM »

Whatever accounts for the water being there is not a big deal IMO. That pond/wetland looks perfectly natural there to my eye. Something changed the soil there such that it now is a wetland. I'm sure the wildlife approves.
From a strategic standpoint the water hardly comes into play from my recollection. You can easily go around it if you don't have enough game to flirt with it. As I remember, Shivas went into that green with a very short iron. What is the usual approach club for you guys, RG and Patrick?
Now when the equipment issue gets so out of hand that the green is driveable, then we can revisit the issue.

« **Reply #26 on:** November 21, 2003, 04:20:22 PM »

Quote from: Tommy_Naccarato on November 21, 2003, 10:16:52 AM

I think you guys are spinning this to your preferences. Steve Lang, have you ever played GCGC? RGKeller, I'm not sure I agree with your posts at all, granted I'm just getting into this, and I won't be back in it till late tonight.

This is what I see, and Tom Mac, see if you agree with me: One extremely wide golf hole with all sorts of lines of getting to the hole while avoiding the deep little and big; but strategically placed hazards, or in GCGC's case--traps. RG, I might agree with you to some degree about the actual width becasue I say a picture of the 16th in the entry hall of the lockeroom where the fairways we much wider, but not nearly as wide as seen in this 1938 aerial. What then are the two bunkers for at the very front left of the fairway?

RG, I guess I'm asking you to look outside the box. Can you subjectively look at the possibilities of the hole that might be different then what you are seeing or what you and others might have set in your minds, ever existed.

There has never been fairway to the left of the two (now three) bunkers on the left side of the fairway. The fairway from 200 yards to 140 yards to the green is wide now and was wide then. There are many options off the tee because of the fairway sloping from right to left toward those three bunkers and because the fairway begins to narrow about 260 off the tee. Any diminunition of the fairway - and I see very little (that discoloration in the modern photo is a result of the mowing half the fairway one way and half the other way) - is a result of the rough coming in from the right.

No shot from the fairway to the green ever crossed that replaced bunker nor crossed the pond. Both are in play from shots hooked left of the green - often from the fairway bunkers on the left side.

« **Reply #27 on:** November 21, 2003, 04:46:31 PM »

Quote from: rgkeller on November 21, 2003, 04:20:22 PM

There has never been fairway to the left of the two (now three) bunkers on the left side of the fairway.

Quote

rg, you might want to look at that old aerial again.
It certainly appears that at that time there was in fact fairway left of the two (now three) bunkers on the left side of the fairway just past the front left 2 bunkers that are no longer present.

In fact, if you look at Mr. Naccarato's overlay, I believe that his yellow lines represent what he believes was fairway at that time as well.

« **Reply #28 on:** November 21, 2003, 05:01:43 PM »

rgkeller,

So the year of membership determines the architectural acuity and knowledge base of each member ?

In my limited experience at golf clubs, including GCGC, members memories don't always provide the most accurate recollections of the past.

One such area at GCGC dealt with the fairway/bunker warning flags. OLD TIME members had differing versions of their genesis and and evolution. When people can't remember what they did last week, recalling what was done 10, 20, 30 and 40 years ago might be more of a leap of faith, or the similar to the retro-synapse that takes place on deja vu.

I'm curious to learn from any old timer, the reasons why the 12th hole was changed, and how the disfiguring of the hole was sold to the membership. Do you know ?

« **Reply #29 on:** November 21, 2003, 05:30:43 PM »

Mr Mucci

Your disdain for the long time members of GCGC is noted.

In my opinion, those who were present at events in the past are a better source of information than those who were not.

« **Reply #30 on:** November 21, 2003, 05:37:23 PM »

The present 12th hole replaced the original because the superintendent and Green Chairman at the time believed the original was too difficult to maintain with the humps.

An architect was called in to solve the problem.

The membership took his advice.

A shame indeed.

« **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2003, 05:45:37 PM »

Steve Lang
The bluish area near the bunker was a pronounced mound that was a feature of the bunker. If seen ground photos of the bunker and surrounds (from the 50's) ...and there doesn't appear to be any problems to my untrained eye.

rgkeller
There was similar bunker greenside at the 5th. The 5th was a Travis favorite...I'd say the 5th and 12th are the two greatest losses at a remarkably well preserved old golf course. The 16th in the old aerial is the work of Emmet--that was his pet project.

« **Reply #32 on:** November 21, 2003, 05:52:38 PM »

rgkeller,

When a club only has 1 member and 5 emeritus members who were members prior to 1960, I don't think the resource pool is overwhelming.

You're the one who chose to be snide with your comments and looked with disdain at the year of membership as the benchmark for understanding architectural history.

I don't look with disdain on any members, if you read the post with any degree of comprehension, you would have seen that I referenced many clubs including GCGC.
Recollection from old time members is often blurred and conflicting and should not be relied on in the absolute, as you would have us do.

Green committee minutes and board minutes are a far more reliable source of accurate information.

That's not a knock on any member of any club, but, that's why they keep minutes in the first place, to have an accurate record of what took place, not having to rely on hearsay, or hearsay with an agenda to determine what happened.

« **Reply #33 on:** November 21, 2003, 06:04:33 PM »

You can read all the minutes you want but it will not change the fact that the area encompassing the present pond on sixteen was a wet marshy mess before the pond was enshrined.

« **Reply #34 on:** November 21, 2003, 06:12:01 PM »

« **Reply #35 on:** November 21, 2003, 07:06:27 PM »

This bunker vs pond thing on GCGC's #16 is getting interesting and it's also getting down to the wire. Isn't a GCGC committee voting on this issue tomorrow? And there's a lot of pressure on Golfclubatlas too as Pat Mucci has already said if that pond removal/bunker restoration project goes down to defeat tomorrow this whole website is a massive disappointment and failure for not seeing to it that GCGC must restore that bunker.

I got a great idea guys. Since it looks like the pond removal/bunker restoraton on #16 is probably going down to defeat tomorrow anyway let's offer GCGC this late quid pro quo right now!

We'll withdraw all support for the pond removal/bunker restoration on #16 right now and also agree to lay off ongoing criticism of GCGC if they agree tomorrow to restore #12 green to its original design!

That's the art of the deal right there boys! Brilliant, Huh?

Thomas "Donald Trump" Paul

« **Reply #36 on:** November 21, 2003, 07:25:26 PM »

From "old Man", by Bob Lababance, page 129, from the Suggested Radical Changes section.

What did Travis put there? Read below.

This paragraph starts with comments about the contour of the 12th hole, and continues with

....according to the writer, and a "hazard of a distinctly origional type" was installed on several holes, including to the left of the 16th green. One writer described it as an "asparagus bed hazard," another likened it to "a dozen nutmeg graters laid side by side." Needless to say the mounds were controversial but Travis would not be satisfied with paltry changes.

« **Reply #37 on:** November 21, 2003, 07:31:57 PM »

Quote from: Ian Andrew on November 21, 2003, 07:25:26 PM

From "old Man", by Bob Lababance, page 129, from the Suggested Radical Changes section.

What did Travis put there? Read below.

this paragraph starts with comments about the contour of the 12th hole, and continues with

according to the writer, and a "hazard of a distinctly origional type" was installed on several holes, including to the left of the 16th green. One writer described it as an "asparagus bed hazard," another likened it to "a dozen nutmeg graters laid side by side." Needless to say the mounds were controversial but Travis would not be satisfied with paltry changes.[/B}

Sounds like somebody didn't like those mounds and replaced the Travis design with a large bunker after the Old Man was safely buried.

Damn those runaway Green Committees anyway.

« **Reply #38 on:** November 21, 2003, 07:46:59 PM »

rgkeller:

There's got to be some aerials around somewhere of GCGC from as early as the early 1920s--there sure are of the courses in the Philly region from that era. Wouldn't that go a long way to proving if that bunker was Travis or not? Don't you think somebody should at least look into that?

« **Reply #39 on:** November 21, 2003, 07:48:47 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 21, 2003, 05:45:37 PM

rgkeller
There was similar bunker greenside at the 5th. The 5th was a Travis favorite...I'd say the 5th and 12th are the two greatest losses at a remarkably well preserved old golf course. The 16th in the old aerial is the work of Emmet--that was his pet project.

The orginal fifth was a very short hole, lying to the left of the large flat bunker on the right side where the present fairway narrows sharply. Is this the remnent of Travis' bunker?

The present twelfth is a shame, a good hole on the wrong course. Into the late eighties the hole was even worse, with pine tree clusters at both the left and right side of the green. These were the first trees removed (and that took three years to do the job in increments) in what has been a long process to denude the course as much as possible.

Hopefully, the Committee and the Board will finally begin the actual restoral of twelve. It has been discussed seriously for twenty years but was delayed many times with the excuse that other matters had to be attended to (such as fourteen and five.)

See the quote from "The Old Man in a previous post. Pretty good evidence that the sacred bunker on sixteen was not Travis' after all.

« **Reply #40 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:00:02 PM »

rgkeller
If you'll read my last post...I said the hole was Emmet's pet project.

« **Reply #41 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:13:03 PM »

And if you will read the cited quote, TRAVIS placed some severe mounded hazard complex to the left of sixteen, which does not appear in the 1938 aerial.

It would be funny if GCGC spent a lot of time and money restoring a bunker designed and built by Chauncy Greenchairman.

« **Reply #42 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:20:18 PM »

rgkeller,

Why, they built a pond with him.

Travis's isn't the exclusive architect at GCGC, and I never touted strictly restoring his work. I am on record as supporting a restoration of Emmett and Travis's work at GCGC.

I don't think you can go wrong in that pursuit, allowiing for the elasticity of length.

« **Reply #43 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:26:26 PM »

The person most responsible for the pond at sixteen is still a member.

And evidently neither Emmet or Travis did the bunker in the 1938 aerial so what shall we restore now?

« **Reply #44 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:39:36 PM »

rgkeller
I was wrong...it was Emmet...I should have checked my notes before posting.

Emmet is Chauncy the greenchairman?

It would be even funnier if the members of the club make architectural/restorations decisions without having a good understanding of their own course's evolution.

On #5, it was 304 yards. Travis said of it "...a remarkably fine hole...one of the best of its length anywhere..." A sad loss.

In 1906 when Travis began his revolutionary changes to GCGC, he added the aspargus bed hazard (also described as huge nutmeg graters laid side by side) at #1, #6, #7 and #16. The hazard at #16 was to catch the pulled second...being a par-5 I take it it was well short of the green....although I'm not certain.

« **Reply #45 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:49:55 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 21, 2003, 08:39:36 PM

rgkeeller

In 1906 when Travis began his revolutionary changes to GCGC, he added the aspargus bed hazard (also described as huge nutmeg graters laid side by side) at #1, #6, #7 and #16. The hazard at #16 was to catch the pulled second...being a par-5 I take it it was well short of the green.

Well, the cited quote says that the "aspargus bed hazard" was to the left of the sixteenth GREEN so there is some conflict with your assertion.

« **Reply #46 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:58:18 PM »

rgkeller
Have you read the original article?

« **Reply #47 on:** November 21, 2003, 08:59:52 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 21, 2003, 08:39:36 PM

rgkeller

It would be even funnier if the members of the club make architectural/restorations decisions without having a good understanding of their own course's evolution.

The Travis and Emmet heritage is taken very seriously by the members of GCGC. GCAers should not be misled by some who post here that rogue Green Committees have or are running amok or that the membership is ignorant or uncaring. Spirited discussions about the course have been going on since Travis begin changing Emmet's designs almost 100 years ago and continue to this day.

Some here may assert and some others may believe that they are riding in as the saviours of the traditions of GCGC. But those assertions are so delusional as to be hilarious.

« **Reply #48 on:** November 21, 2003, 09:13:44 PM »

rg
"...at the sixteenth hole a pulled second will find an asparagus-bed." Hard to say.

I have no doubt that the Travis and Emmet heritage are taken seriously at GCGC....you, however, don't appear to take it quite as seriously....based on your view of the pond and the jokes about Emmet's work at #16. Do you know when Emmet (aka Chauncy) performed his work at #16?

Are you certain Travis was a advocate of Penal architecture?

« **Reply #49 on:** November 21, 2003, 09:25:24 PM »

My reference to "Chauncy" was to the unidentified person whom I believe replaced the Travis mounds with the bunker pictured in the 1938 aerial that so many here want to restore.

The information I have received in these threads indicate to me that the bunker in question was designed and built by neither Emmet or Travis but by someone else ("Chauncy")

I have read many quotes about Travis' belief that poor shots should be heavily penalized. The bunkers at GCGC that have survived give testimony to design philosophy at that course.

Have you found the missing two of the four bunkers yet?

News:

ed_getka

rgkeller

AWTillinghast

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

rgkeller

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

rgkeller

TEPaul

ian

rgkeller

TEPaul

rgkeller

T_MacWood

rgkeller

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

T_MacWood

rgkeller

T_MacWood

rgkeller

T_MacWood

rgkeller