[Tommy_Naccarato]

I have been pretty rusty as of late and felt I needed to practice some of my chops! Something I have watned to do for a long time is get an idea of what the 12th looked like at one time. To me it look absolutely freeking phenominal!!!!!

Once again sheer perfection taken away from us more then likely because the hole didn't meet favor with a paticualr members style of play or as suggested by the rotund master of Golf Architecture, Robert Trent Jones Sr.

[TEPaul]

We did talk about the original #12 at GCGC in detail well over a year ago but now I've forgotten what those details were all about.

It looks to me from that bottom photo (the original?) that the space outside the incredibly dramatic parallel ridges (up to the surrounding bunkering) might have been  greenspace. We also talked about how those ridges could be effectively mowed to consistent green speeds with the rest of the course. I can't remember what those answers were or even if there were any. These are certainly legitimate questions that would have to be addressed before going forward with that original restoration.

If the area outside the ridges was chipping area and only the area inside the ridges was greenspace that might be a little small for a 190-210yd hole. But who really knows. I think those things need to be considered.

I do think there is enough space out there (particularly to the left of the present green) to maybe do the original again but in a larger scale (if they do chipping area outside the ridges and only greenspace inside the ridges).

I hope the club and the architect will look into these questions though and determine if it is reasonable to restore a green like the original.

I say this because if it can be done reasonably and today's membership would accept it, that green would be again almost one of a kind! Incredibly dramatic and very cool. It could definitely send a message as to what could be done again. It might be a little radical but it could be good for golf architecture even because it is.

I hope they look into it and if they feel they can do it and make it work somehow then I hope they go ahead and restore the original.

[Pete G.]

Tommy, you forgot to put in the trees left of the green in the original photo.
How long is this hole? (no yardage please, just long, medium or short ) What is the prevailing wind? Is the green big enough to recieve a high shot? How do you play it?
With little irrigation, I imagine you could bounce it over the front bunker. Standing on the tee with trees left it looks like the safe play is to the right and a pitch into the mound.
Not that I'm saying a restoration isn't warranted in this case, but generally, when is a hole too outdated to restore?

[Ran Morrissett]

Restoring the bunkers seems a given - there is no agronomic reason not to and there is no reason to second guess Travis/Emmet's work at GCGC, so why start here?

Then the sole question becomes the ridges in the green. I accept that they a) would be a maintenance nightmare to maintain at green height and b) that drainage could be an issue.

So wouldn't the conclusion be to have them (even in a toned down version) just off the green?

Is there any other possible thought process?

I thought this work was to have already happened or is it slated to happen this fall?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I may have made these hillocks on the green a little too severe, but in allactuality, I like what i am hearing so far. There is little doubt in my mind that some attempt to restore this great hole is a must.

Pete, I have never been to GCGC as of yet, and the focus here wasn't trees so much as it was trying to emulate the golf that was in the bottom photo. Yes, I making excuses for myself!

[T_MacWood]

Tommy
From what I have seen, I don't think you made them too severe, they look about right. The front bunker I believe was higher on the wings and dipped down in front and was deepest in the center--at one time it was shored up with sleepers. From the aerial photo, I wonder if the front bunker actually wrapped around even further on the sides at one time? I think any resistance to restoring this hole must be a result of sobriety, they need to get closer to the state of the original genius who conceived this hole.

[T_MacWood]

Pete
Emmet's original hole was a non-descript 200 yard par-3. This Travis version was a short par-4 at 254-270 yards.

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom M.,
It is my understanding that the hole was a par 4 for less than a year. I closely examined the photos last week out there and there is absolutely no reason not to restore it as a par three exactly as shown.

Even if reconstructed in a slightly modified form, it would send a clear message to the golf world.

If Garden City can lead by example in honoring its past - other less prestigous clubs could not help notice that if the mighty GCGC can admit an error and fix it, they ought to also.

But it also comes down to courage of conviction. Tom Doak has never been afraid to rip one of his peers for failing restore the artistry of the past, so if he chicken's out, it will send an even clearer message to the golf world.

If even the great Tom Doak - who in many ways in one of our leaders - has a loss of courage at this critical moment, it will set architecture, and everything this forum preaches, back three steps.

Remember, the 17th at Creek is a lost opportunity that he is doubtless disappointed by. We shall see if he has learned from that mistake.

Cowardice does not become you Mr. Doak, and this comes from a card carrying member of your fan club. Make us proud and do the right thing.

[RJ_Daley]

Tommy, I think you have the front bunkers just about right from the old photo, but your skyline of the green putting surface is perhaps too exaggerated.  Reading the description of the land in C&Ws book and seeing the top photo of present Jones skyline, I think that the two mounds within the putting surface on left side and longer mound within putting surface on right side are only about 8-12 inches in rise and fall.  I think the photo is taken late or early in day and casts a longer shadow of the rise and makes it look higher within the shiny putting surface.  

I think you ought to trust RTJs skyline of the flatness of the putting surface and put in the mounds within the putting surface subtly and conceive of them as no more than 12" height or less and as described in C&W book, stick with very flat green otherwise.  The chipping area between the bunkers is so cool.  Again, I don't think the rise from the little rolled lip edges of the bunkers (which may be about 6-8inches high and a foot and a half wide) rises up flat and straight to the edge of the putting surface outside the mounds about 12inches or less from all points around the green to bunker edges-lips.

In my mind, this green is simply your grandmother's finest flatish china tea cup saucer, upside down with rim where cub goes as green surface and slightly rised upward from sculpted saucer edges with bunkers outside the edges.  I'm surprised they didn't name the hole saucer.

[Hamlet I]

Tommy,

Am I to understand that Garden City may
not restore the old 12th Hole ?

Tom Doak is a frequent visitor to this
site.  Let him explian the "opportunity
lost" and the failure to restore that
awful 12th hole to a reasonable copy/duplicate of the old one.

[T_MacWood]

Tommy
I'm looking at ground level photo of the 12th from 1904 and yours is remarkably close. The mounds are the correct elevation, about 3 to 4 feet, although they are a little more segregated and of varied height than you show, especially the rear mound. And maybe a little more rounded and abrupt. But everything else looks about right, there were trees behind and in the distance in those days also.

Gib
Who was your source on the 12th being a par-4 for only one year. I believe the 12th played as a par 4 in the 1908 and 1913 US Amateurs. In 1918 Travis and Findlay Douglas played a famous exhibition match, both were described as trying to drive the 12th and finding the cross bunker.

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom M.
My source is a prominent member who has queried some of the older guys and searched the records. Right or wrong, I am not sure. I've only been there 3 times. However, it appears to have been a par-3 for the vast majority of the time it existed.

Any comments?

[TEPaul]

As I keep looking at that original photo I'm convinced the actual greenspace is inside the parallel ridges. That would probably solve some of the dilemma of maintaining greenspace over and beyond the ridges today (even as a long par 3).

Whether or not that hole was a par 4 for only a year is of less importance than how it played or would play today that way. Think about a hole like that today as a 275+yd par 4!! How cool would that be with the greenspace inside the ridges and fairway chipping area before, left and right of the ridges and behind the putting surface? Actually I would extend (not just move) the front bunkering about 5-7 steps closer to the green surface! How exactly would even a good player decide to play a hole like that? Think of what would be going through his mind? What to do, what to do?? Try to drive it? What if you were on the other side of the ridges? Lay up in front of the fronting bunkers for a short half pitch? Lay back for a more full sand wedge? Talk about a hole that would demand both distance and accuracy to try to get on or near!! So what if people thought the hole was easy because it might get birdied a lot. Do you really think that #1 NGLA suffers in the slightest if some good player actually eagles it occasionally? No way!! What if a good player hit three good shots and didn't birdie a hole that short? Can you imagine how pissed he would be? What if he did something strategically dumb and bogied a hole that short? Can you imagine how pissed he'd be then?

As a very short par 4 this hole might be absolutely brilliant!! Unfortunately the option doesn't exist any longer at GCGC. They just ain't got the tee space real estate any longer. But maybe somewhere else. Another good reason to restore that green to the way it once was--even as a par 3!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Well said Tom Paul.

I think of the fun of banking it off of those mounds to get to a back right or back left pin placement.....WOW!~

Sort of makes me want to play a guttie in there!

[T_MacWood]

Gib
It appears that the hole was converted to a par-3 sometime between 1918 and 1926. So it was par-4 for approximately 20 years; you are correct it has been a par-3 for many more years. But I think it is important to recognize the hole was conceived originally as a short par-4 and a brilliant one I might add. As a long par-3 it could be equally great.

My source's include numerous contemporanious articles from Golf, Golf Illustrated, Golfing Annual, The Illustrated Outside News, NY Globe, The American Golfer and Colliers. I'm not sure who this prominent member is who claimed it was a par-4 for less than a year, but I do recall last year a prominent member on this site was convinced this version of the hole was the work of Dev Emmet.

[T_MacWood]

The mounds were maintained as green, although it was claimed the putting genius Travis was about the only person who attempted to putt over them, most chose a mashie.

"The ridges or undulations on the second, fourth and ninth greens can be compassed with a putter, and it is claimed that a putter is all that is required at the twelth. Most people however will take a mashie if their approach shot lands behind the 'green mountains' and a mashie on a Garden City green is not 'thinkin' golf. It is unthinkable. To such a perfect putter as Mr.Travis, who would putt if need were with an umbrella or a walking stick..."

[RJ_Daley]

TEPaul, I also find your description of that hole as we see it in the aerial photo as a 275-300 yard par 4 and 265 for a forward tee as brilliant.  My thinking on the height of the mounds is both wishful because I'd really want to see the internal ring of mounds within the putting surface and knowing they would be near impossible to mow with 3-4ft elevations on such slope and confined to a mound as opposed to a drop off from one tier to the next where those heights can work out.  To come up with this design for an otherwise flat and non-descript piece of property is true genius. I wish Raynor would have seen it and picked up on the theme to add to his repetoire of template manufactured holes.  I hope one of our lurking archies takes note of this and tries it in a modern design.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

That quote a post or two above is wonderful. Where do you find these quotes?

[T_MacWood]

Tom
That came from a periodical called The Illustrated Outside News-- a pretty catchy name for a magazine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I've discovered the problem with your golf game lately.

You're taking your eye completely off the ball !

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The property line at GCGC prevents the 12th hole from ever returning to a par 4.

But, a par 3, at between 160 and 190 yards, with reguired carry of 120 to 150 fits in rather nicely.

[TEPaul]

Does GCGC have any on the ground photos of the original par 3? Those parallel ridges really are unusual--never seen anything or heard of anything remotely like them on the side of a green much less on a green. If the way the ridges once were are even a fraction of TommyN's enhanced middle photo I sure would like to know exactly how they worked; ie; how you played from outside of them onto the green. If they were even a fraction of TommyN's enhancement they would have to have rolled at about 1 on the stimp to be able to be cut low enough.

What is the conclusion anyway about whether or not they were ever greenspace? What does the club feel about restoring that green but toning those ridges down and broadening them out enough to maintain a fairway or chipping cut across them? Has the club given any thought to restoring the original but in a larger scale? That might solve some issues.

I really hope the club keeps the research and the process going to look into restoring that original green!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe the club does have some neat ground level phots, showing golfers in the bunker and on the green, with the mounds clearly visible.

I will try to get copies of them for you.

The bunker is DEEP.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I've seen deep bunkers, shallow bunkers, all kinds of bunkers but I don't think I've ever seen anything like those ridges (mounds) that were on the original #12 hole--not in anything like that particular configuraion anyway. Those are the things I want to get a good look at!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'll get them for you when I'm there on Tuesday.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()