Reassessing Yale’s Biarritz Green

« **Reply #50 on:** November 18, 2007, 05:02:29 PM »

the original green in France

« **Reply #51 on:** November 18, 2007, 09:14:00 PM »

Quote from: George_Bahto on November 18, 2007, 02:40:03 PM

When I first started Raynor-type visiting courses (in the name of research, of course - what a tough job) I can only think of a few courses with fully putting surface:

Yale, of course;

Tim Davis had just done Shoreacres;

Creek decided to do their 11th;

Chicago Golf;

I hadn’t been to Mid Ocean but I know their’s was;

George B,

You may be referring to an old setup at Mid-Ocean (and you did, in fact, use "was"), but I am pretty sure they now have it set up with only the back plateau as green.

Art

« **Reply #52 on:** November 18, 2007, 10:11:58 PM »

Piping Rock

« **Reply #53 on:** November 18, 2007, 10:13:57 PM »

Aside, not meant to demean or diminish the discussion, just a thought -

These swales are great fun to putt through. My only experience of one was at The Australian in Sydney and not a Biarritz hole, but a long par 4 with a huge green completely bisected by a valley, maybe 2 feet deep, my approach ended up on the wrong side of it...

So if a course keeps it's greens firm, is there any good reason (other than a pure restoration) not to keep both halves as green? If the members are happy and there are pin positions to be had front and back?

Not wanting to sound like T. Fazio, but...

« **Reply #54 on:** November 18, 2007, 10:40:46 PM »

Lookout's original plan clearly shows only the back portion as green. I will post a picture of the plan if I can find it, an figure out how to post an image.

« **Reply #55 on:** November 18, 2007, 10:54:07 PM »

I tend to agree with Lloyd. My first experience with a Biarritz hole was at Yale, where we played a high school tournament every year. The 9th was by far the most fun and most discussed hole on the course (2nd place probably went to the blind 3rd). It is still one of my most vivid memories of golf as a kid. We were all just a bunch of teenagers, but we loved (or loved to hate) getting on the wrong side of that swale and having to putt. It created excitement and interest and fun and I guess that is the whole point. I knew who Raynor was before I really knew anything about GCA and it was primarily due to that one hole.

So, the "proper" way may be to put the swale short of the green, but I certainly don't see any harm in leaving a few the "new" way. The fifth at Mountain Lake is a great example. When they restored the course, they put the swale within the green. It probably took some getting used to, but I am told the members now love it.

(picture stolen from Mike Sweeney's great Opinion piece)

« **Reply #56 on:** November 18, 2007, 11:00:33 PM »

Frankly, I sort of like the whole idea that any club can choose whether to keep it as greenspace or fairway cut.

If you're on the wrong tier, you're generally f*c*&@d anyway!

On the other hand, it's pretty exciting to either hold one on a front tier (is there any more nerve-wracking watch than to see if the ball actually will stop there), or better yet, run on thru and get to the back tier if the hole is located in the rear.

« **Reply #57 on:** November 19, 2007, 09:56:12 AM »

Mike S,
I was just visiting your site and thoroughly enjoyed the slideshow on 'Raynor Standards'. Quite a variety of Biarritz holes, plus others.

Thanks

« **Reply #58 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:31:48 PM »

Tony, tony, tony.... there you go starting a row and then traipsing off to have yourself a cream soda.. you should be ashamed of yourself- ..and what would "the big guy" say??

« **Reply #59 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:12:36 PM »

Did Macdonald or Raynor (or Whigham--though his content has proven suspect) ever write about the design concept of the Biarritz green?

I think it is clear by now that the designers did not intend to have the area before the swale at green height. Did they miss the boat on maximizing the potential of the hole by only keeping the area past the swale as green? Was maintenance ability and/or ball and implement limitations the cause of the original design intent and setup or was it an artifact of sticking to too rigid a structure and not seeing a greater functionality with a different setup? My initial guess is they just missed the potential.

« **Reply #60 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:28:07 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on November 19, 2007, 02:12:36 PM

Did Macdonald or Raynor (or Whigham--though his content has proven suspect) ever write about the design concept of the Biarritz green?

"maintenance ability and/or ball and implement limitations the cause of the original design intent and setup "

I think it is clear by now that the designers did not intend to have the area before the swale at green height. Did they miss the boat on maximizing the potential of the hole by only keeping the area past the swale as green? Was maintenance ability and/or ball and implement limitations the cause of the original design intent and setup or was it an artifact of sticking to too rigid a structure and not seeing a greater functionality with a different setup? My initial guess is they just missed the potential.

"maintenance ability and/or ball and implement limitations the cause of the original design intent and setup "

Wayne,

C'mon, I think it's obvious that this is the answer. They were designing a 225-yard one-shotter in the early 1900's, right? They had to envision that the ball would be landing short and rolling onto the green. (Guys on this site have related stories about old pros teaching a "Biarritz shot"...)

So Macdonald came up with a par three that defended the landing area as well as the green. There is no need to take another swipe at the guy, is there?

« **Reply #61 on:** November 19, 2007, 06:26:24 PM »

My God, do you see that fellow above standing in the swale of the Biarritz at Piping Rock?

The last time I was there, there was an entire line of trees to the left of the green and there's no way you could see any of the 10th hole from that vantage.

Way to go Piping and Rich Spears!

« **Reply #62 on:** November 19, 2007, 06:30:58 PM »

GeorgeB:

So what you're saying is you think the original Biarritz green in France had a big swale in the front of it or the middle of it? What leads you to that belief?

From what I've seen of the original Biarritz in France the hole over here that may most resemble it would definitely be Fisher's Island. How often does one find or get to use a site like that one for a par 3?

« **Reply #63 on:** November 19, 2007, 07:01:48 PM »

I thought the swale was Macdonald's way of representing the chasm in the cliff face located to the front right of the original green at Biarritz.

« **Reply #64 on:** November 19, 2007, 07:04:53 PM »

"I thought the swale was Macdonald's way of representing the chasm in the cliff face located to the front right of the original green at Biarritz."

JMorgan:

You did?

In that case I wonder if we should speculate on whether Macdonald would've approved of making the chasm front green space?

« **Reply #65 on:** November 19, 2007, 07:13:01 PM »

Quote from: JMorgan on November 19, 2007, 07:01:48 PM

I thought the swale was Macdonald's way of representing the chasm in the cliff face located to the front right of the original green at Biarritz.

nah, everything leading up to the approach is the chasm.

« **Reply #66 on:** November 19, 2007, 07:15:00 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 19, 2007, 07:04:53 PM

"I thought the swale was Macdonald's way of representing the chasm in the cliff face located to the front right of the original green at Biarritz."

JMorgan:

You did?

In that case I wonder if we should speculate on whether Macdonald would've approved of making the chasm front green space?

Tom, I read it somewhere, I swear. I was thinking I read it in Scotland's Gift, but maybe it came from a Golf or Golf Illustrated article. The swale was not a literal reading of the hole.

« **Reply #67 on:** November 19, 2007, 07:19:17 PM »

Ok, who thinks the original green at Biarritz had a swale? Raise your hands.

« **Reply #68 on:** November 19, 2007, 10:09:17 PM »

Quote from: Bill Brightly on November 18, 2007, 03:08:25 PM

I have not played there, but doesn't Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh have both the front and back as putting surface?

Anthony, weren't you out there last year?

The Biarritz at Fox Chapel does have both the front and back as putting surface. The caddy I had there told me they never have the pin on the front part of the green it is always behind the swale.

« **Reply #69 on:** November 19, 2007, 11:36:10 PM »

fm Tom Paul:

GeorgeB:

"So what you're saying is you think the original Biarritz green in France had a big swale in the front of it or the middle of it? What leads you to that belief?"

I didn't say or imply that at all.

« **Reply #70 on:** November 20, 2007, 12:00:59 AM »

Quote from: Bill Brightly on November 17, 2007, 10:28:31 AM

OK, so you guys are saying that in this drawing, Charles Banks intended the front portion to be a landing area, and only the rear portion as putting surface?

Bill Brightly,

Who are you going to believe, these guys or the facts as presented by Banks' authentic drawing.

That drawing is proof positive that the entire Biarritz green, including the swale and front portion were intended to be green.

The question is: How did today's green evolve from the original drawing ?[/color]

We have aerial photos of the traps built as drawn, not clear if the front was putting surface or not.

George Bahto,

I can't access your book on the Knoll and the relative dates of origin for Hackensack and The Knoll, but, Bill's schematic of # 12 at Hackensack raises an interesting question relative to # 13 at The Knoll.

Do you have any ORIGINAL drawings of that hole ?

I recall playing # 13 50+ years ago, and while I can recall hitting 3-woods into it, I can't recall the details of the putting surface.

I remember flying the ball to the back tier and running the ball to the back tier, but, I can't recall the extent of the putting surface.

If I recall correctly, the back of # 13 had a ridge in it.

# 3, the Redan also has a ridge running through it.
That ridge is more pronounced than the ridge on # 13.

I wonder if Banks was influenced by the mound in the middle of the green on # 18 at Pine Valley ?

I wonder if he didn't come up with the introduction the ridge as a variation of template holes.

Anything you can provide on # 13 and # 3 at The Knoll would be appreciated.

I also wonder what Westhampton's # 17 looked like on the drawing board and in its original form.

While the entire area has been mown to putting surface, it lacks the differentiating swale and pronounced front tier.

Suggestions have been made to incorporate those features, but, I don't know their status. It would certainly make the hole more interesting, while providing a more diverse challenge.

Westhampton is one of Raynor's unappreciated works.

The Redan and Short are fabulous and that version of the Biarritz is pretty good too.[/color]

« **Reply #71 on:** November 20, 2007, 12:13:59 AM »

Pat:

Since the drawing does not specifically state that all levels of the putting surface were mowed or constructe at green height, it would be unwise to assume that it was built or maintained that way. Also, as I'm sure you are well aware, just because anything is shown on a drawing does not mean it was built. At Yale, for instance, the plans show the 4th as the Eden Hole and the 15 as the Short Hole. During construction their placement was reversed.

Anthony

« **Reply #72 on:** November 20, 2007, 12:30:15 AM »

Anthony,

But, it does show INTENT.

It shows how the architect conceived it, how the architect envisioned it, how he INTENDED the hole to be, from a structural perspective and from the perspective of playability.

You bring up two significant issues.

How was it built ?

How was it maintained ?

If it WAS built as drawn, then the question would be, HOW was it maintained ? It's obvious how Banks wanted it to be maintained ...... as putting surface.

But, we all know that clubs don't adhere to architectural intent when it comes to maintainance.

If it was built as drawn, and subsequently modified, like the 12th at GCGC, there has to be a story behind its reconfiguration.

If it wasn't built as drawn, the question would be, WHY NOT ?

The answer to that may be in some archives somewhere, or, the answer may never be known.

But, you can't refute Banks's INTENT.
He clearly intended # 12 at Hackensack to be a true Biarritz.

« **Reply #73 on:** November 20, 2007, 06:30:12 AM »

"It also seem logical to me that the original green had to have been long and narrow given the elevated tee and the cliff side green location."

George,

What is the connection between a green situated on cliff side with an elevated tee and your "logical" conclusion regarding the dimensions of the green (long and narrow)? I don't understand the cause and effect you suggest.

"But, you can't refute Banks's INTENT.
He clearly intended # 12 at Hackensack to be a true Biarritz."

While I don't believe it is conclusive, Pat's notion that the front green space at Hackensack was drawn in a way that suggests it was, is interesting. But I don't know what it is that he calls a "true Biarritz." It seems clear that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of these greens were designed and built with green height behind the swale.

« **Reply #74 on:** November 20, 2007, 07:34:49 AM »

What exactly is the benefit, or upside, from maintaining the area short of the swale at fairway or approach height as opposed to green?

Are these courses maintained firm enough for the Biarritz to play well?

News:

George_Bahto

Art Roselle

W.H. Cosgrove

Lloyd_Cole

herrstein

Art Roselle

Mike_Cirba

Jim_Kennedy

dsilk

wsmorrison

Bill Brightly

TEPaul

TEPaul

JMorgan

TEPaul

Bill Brightly

JMorgan

JMorgan

Ari Techner

George_Bahto

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

ANTHONYPIOPPI

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

wsmorrison

JESII