Travis was a strategic architect. He was NEVER in the penal school. I have many individual hole working drawings and there is not a single cross-bunker in any of them. He did create some island fairways, but perfered to use rough or whins as opposed to bunkers or water.

My quote is from the book, if Tom has the origional article, then that quote is far more accurate.

Just because we can call up that quote, doesn't mean that this investigation is over. Tom Paul is correct, you need to source the oldest aerial you can.

nevermind

rg
The bunker is Emmet's. Emmet, Travis, Tillie, Colt, RTJ, Doak...it wouldn't matter who did it, the bunker is much more in character with historic GCGC. Do you have any idea when Emmet performed his work at #16?

Did you read Ian's post? With all due respect I don't believe you have the slightest idea what Travis advocated.

rgkeller,

GCAers should not be misled by some who post here that rogue Green Committees have or are running amok....

Could you tell the GCA'ers how the large, magnificent right green side bunker on # 17 got chopped up into three sand bunkers and one grass bunker two years ago ?  Who did that ?

Could you elaborate on changes that were proposed for # 9 just a few short years ago ?

Lastly, how would you compare the current 14th hole to the 1936 hole ?

By remaining true to the design principles of Emmett and Travis you prevent future committees from execising interpretive decisions with respect to altering the golf course.
# 16 is a perfect example, so was # 12 and # 14.  
Throw in # 5 if you want, and add # 7 to the mix.

It deviates from the Travis-Emmett design, yet you would subjectively decide that it is an acceptable deviation.

If the same process is repeated, the design integrity of the golf course is in jeopardy.   But, if you remain true to the design principles of Emmett-Travis, you insure that fadish deviations, like the 12th hole, never occur.

Restoration tends to preserve the benchmark, and prevent future alterations which deviate from the design principles of Emmett and Travis.

You may choose to belittle those thoughts and efforts, but I care as much for the golf course as you do.

rg
The bunker is Emmet's. Emmet, Travis, Tillie, Colt, RTJ, Doak...it wouldn't matter who did it, the bunker is much more in character with historic GCGC.

Tom - would you say the bunker is "in the spirit of" Travis?

Also, an observation for the group (may have been brought up already) -

The irony of this whole thread is almost too much to bear. Everyone wants to erase the work of rogue green committees so they can do what?
Reestablish the work of a single rogue green committee, the one chaired by none other than the Old Man himself.

Tom - that wasn't my question. You said it didn't matter who built the bunker since it was "in the character of GCGC" by which, inferrably, you mean it is "in the spirit" of Travis and Emmet and their concerted effort at GCGC.

Would that be correct? I doubt it can have any other meaning.

You need to lose one of your standard, you have one too many.

I'm comparing the work of various green chairmen. I was merely making the observation that Travis did his work at GCGC not as a hired architect, but as Chair of the Green Committee. If I'm wrong, tell me.

rgkeller,

Quote from: rgkeller on November 21, 2003, 08:59:52 PM

GCAers should not be misled by some who post here that rogue Green Committees have or are running amok....

Could you tell the GCA'ers how the large, magnificent right green side bunker on # 17 got chopped up into three sand bunkers and one grass bunker two years ago ?  Who did that ?

Could you elaborate on changes that were proposed for # 9 just a few short years ago ?

I believe that you served on those Green Committees so I am sure you know the answers. I would like to know how and why seventeen was changed myself.

Rg- I am sorry if I missed it but could you tell us one more time WHY you think the pond shouldn't be touched?

This thread about the issue of what was to the left of #16 green at any particular time and who did it is hilarious. This is restoration advocacy without intelligent direction, in my opinion.

rgkeller is completely correct in his attempt to at least try to figure out who did what, when and why. What he seems to be suggesting is to establish some good and accurate evolutionary architectural research first---and then the club can use that research, evaluate it, and make some intelligent decisions about what to do left of #16 green or anywhere else.

First of all the architectural evolution of GCGC just could be and probably is one of the most fascinating in all of American architecture. The original nine hole course laid out by Emmet and Hubbell in 1897 was quickly followed by an additional nine being the work of Emmet (with the help of  Robert Digby) which was opened for play in 1898. Walter Travis apparently began making changes to GCGC as early as 1901 or 1902. He lengthened the course from 6070 to nearly 6400 yds for the 1902 Open, continued redesigning holes for years but basically left Emmet’s routing intact (except to add yardage including adding tee length and moving some greens).

From Emmet’s own words we see that early on he was an advocate of narrowing the fairways of GCGC similar to the narrower more accuracy requiring great holes of Europe. Travis as well, appears to have been an advocate of accuracy and apparently narrower fairways as well, and if not, certainly very deep and penal bunkering flanking the fairways.

How did Travis change GCGC’s original Emmet design? It looks to me as if he basically lengthened a few holes (both tees and greens) and redesigned the bunker schemes and shapes from cross hazards to deeper flanking hazards and redesigned many of the greens with more variety and contour.

So what about what was to the left of that 16th green at any time? It seems quite clear that Travis redesigned that area to the left of  #16 to have mounds and such that were described as an “asparagus bed hazard” or “a dozen nutmeg graters laid side by side”(a little hard for me to visualize but you want to talk “quirk”, that sounds like it and I love it!). So, what was there before Travis did that? Obviously something Emmet had done. Was that a bunker and if so who knows that now from perhaps before 1906?

We know that Travis redesigned Emmet’s original course and how. And now people are claiming after Travis died in 1927 Emmet came back in and redesigned what Travis had redesigned?? Is that true and if so how?

We have Tom MacWood saying a bunch of things it seems to me. First, that he has ‘notes’ that prove that bunker in that early aerial on this thread is Emmet’s. Oh really? Well if you have proof of that Tom, why don’t you produce it on here or better yet fax it to GCGC as they just might be meeting on this issue of what to do with the left of #16 green right now, this morning! But later you seem to say it doesn’t really matter who designed and built that bunker to the left of #16 because it’s ‘in character with the rest of GCGC’? Really? And what character would that be—Emmet or Travis? It doesn’t appear to me they’re that similar to each other or ever were!

GCGC does seem to be very interested in their evolutionary architectural history but it’s sort of an odd one involving two distinctly different architects of GCGC who also happened to both serve as Green Chairmen. GCGC is definitely the routing of Emmet but a good deal of the “designing up” or “redesigning up” of those Emmet routed holes are Travis’s work.

GCGC should simply continue to generate the best research they possibly can get their hands on right now and after they’ve done that, including the earliest aerials and other aerials, then proceed with a decision as to what to do to the left of #16 and elsewhere.

But what I don’t understand is why all this advocacy to restore that bunker to the left of #16? Is there just blind advocacy for that bunker just because it shows up in a late 1930s aerial and precedes the pond? What about Travis’s mounds that were there that looked like “beds of asparagus” or “nutmeg graters laid side by side”? Why aren’t you advocating their restoration since the course is now considered basically Walter Travis?

Pat just said wouldn’t it be better just to remove the pond first? Come on Pat! That’s kinda getting the cart before the horse, don’t you think? Why would anyone recommend   removing the pond before the club has had a chance to consider it’s options of what should go back in there first? Do you have something against Travis mounds that look like “beds of asparagus” or “nutmeg graters laid side by side”?  

One thing I know, though. Wherever this wetness problem came from or when, if that area still has a wetness problem, mounds that look like a “bed of asparagus” or “nutmeg graters laid side by side” would probably work better and be less problematic than a bunker, although a pond with a liner would probably be less problematic due to wetness than either!    

I can see GCGC accepting research from anyone who has it, including some on Golfclubatlas, in their attempt to decide what to do to the left of #16. That’d be fine to help them to analyze their architectural evolution but I don’t think GCGC should consider depending on anyone else including people on Golfclubatlas to make that decision for them. If GCGC really is interested in their Emmet/Travis heritage they can make the decision on their own!

Before GCGC's membership makes any decisions on what should or shouldn't be done, wouldn't it be wise to have all the facts...or as many facts as possible about the course architectural evolution?

Not only what changes have occured over the years (and by whom), but also the reasons for the changes. There is a wealth of info found in old magazines (and books) regarding many of the changes, that info along with a thorough search of the club archives would I think produce an interesting document that the club refer to, it could assist and guide the members when making decisions now and in the future. Plus it IMO it would be a fascinating documentation of one of our most important architectural works.

I know just the man for the job.

I've never seen an asparagus bed. Is a nutmeg grater like a cheese grater, just smaller? or larger?

A couple of old photos show that a bumpy area was a common feature on some of the GCGC holes in 1940. In my imagination, that might be an asparagus bed. The area to the left-front of #16 green doesn't appear to have the same bumpy characteristic but there is another area on 16 that does.

The large bunker to the left of #16 also is similar in shape and size to the bunkers in the other photo. If not Travis, Emmet?

TEPaul,

Is it safe to say that neither Travis or Emmett put a pond immediately adjacent to the 16th green ?

Is it safe to say that if they didn't, and if the club is to be true to the design principles of Emmett and Travis, that the pond should go ?

Simple YES or NO answers will suffice.

Once the above two questions are answered, you can then explore what should replace it.

There is a more global issue that many seem to be missing, and that is, should the club be true to the design principles of Travis and Emmett ?  Or should they be true to RTJ Sr, Tom Doak, future architects and green committees ?.  If the answer is Travis and Emmett, then shouldn't any alteration be within the confines, and adhere to the design principles of Travis and Emmett ?

CDisher,

Thanks,

Those bumpy beds still exist and may have been what Travis was referencing.

It does seem doubtful that they would have been placed immediately adjacent to the green, as the bunker is.

Bumpy beds do not appear anywhere else on the golf course, immediately adjacent to any other greens, but, are in evidence, offset, exactly as they appear in the photos you have provided.

Nice picture of # 4 and # 7 as well.

Pat asked;

"TEPaul,
Is it safe to say that neither Travis or Emmett put a pond immediately adjacent to the 16th green?"

Pat;

It sure seems safe to say that neither Emmet nor Travis put that pond in there!

Then Pat asked:

"Is it safe to say that if they didn't, and if the club is to be true to the design principles of Emmet and Travis, that the pond should go? Simple YES or NO answers will suffice. Once the above two questions are answered, you can then explore what should replace it."

Pat:

I realize all you want is a simple yes or no answer. That's what a lot of green committees want--a simple yes or no answer. Many times that's what gets them in trouble. Sometimes various questions to do with restoration aren't simple questions because they ain't got simple answers!

I don't believe that's the proper way to go about restoration questions, although you might.

Here's what I'd do if I were GCGC. I'd try to find out, if possible, what was there before Travis put his "bed of asparagus" mound hazards in there. Obviously what was there before that would be original Emmet. Then I'd try to find out why Travis changed what was original Emmet there--was it an improvement--wasn't it, etc?

Then I'd try to figure out what Emmet may have put in there if he redesigned Travis's mounds in that area? Why did he do that--was it an improvement or wasn't it, etc?

Then I'd try to figure out if that bunker that shows up on that 1930s aerial was Emmet or not and if not who put it in there and why--if it was an improvement or not, etc.

Then I'd try to figure out what this wetness problem was or is all about. Was it an orginal problem or wasn't it--if it wasn't what caused it and whether or not it still exists and if so what can be done to correct it and how much that might cost if there was no longer a pond there with a liner to hold that water and disburse it over a controlled spill or whatever controls its overflow now?

Once I'd both asked and answered all those relevant restoration questions first then I'd decide whether that pond ought to be removed and something that Travis or Emmet may have done should be restored there.

You just tell me what in the world is wrong with asking those questions first and coming up with the answers to them first before a decision is made to remove that pond because it isn't Travis or Emmet. That's the way any green committee should operate in my opinion. Ask ALL the questions, do the research to get ALL the answers and then decide what's best to do next.

Why would anyone want to remove a pond first or make a decision to do so without figuring out first what's to replace it and if or how well what replaces it might work?

Are you the type of committeeman or member who feels it's necessary to be so restoration purist that it's better to create potential maintenance and playablility problems simply in the name of pure restoration? I certainly am not! If one bothers to ask all the questions, do the research and get answers first you very well may find out why some of those decisions were made and that they were done to correct problems. Who wants to recreate problems in the name of restoration purity? Not me!

Ask all the right questions first and then try to get good answers to them and then proceed with that information about what to do next.

Going about it the other way by deciding to remove that pond first and then figuring out what the problems may be with what replaces it is a prescription for potential mistakes, potential additional cost and just frankly flies in the face of commonsense as far as I'm concerned.