[THuckaby2]

David M. - many thanks for posting the pics of how it was before, and your description of it was perfect.

Now can anyone post a pic of how it is now?

I'm with Brian - I've been curious for a long time what the big deal is about this golf hole, one that the Emperor pointedly skipped playing in his visit there.

And one way or the other, how is it out of context with the rest of the course?  Again, just curiousity.  I have never been to GCGC, doubt I ever will, have absolutely no axe to grind here.

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH:

#12 at GCGC today isn't exactly outrageous or anything but anyone can see it just looks like it doesn't exactly fit into GCGC. GCGC is a unique looking course and architecture anyway---it's really old style architecture by any standards. Obviously at some point or another somebody decided to either take out or tone down some of the old radicalness of some of the old holes. #9 had a few interesting features on it's green that really aren't used well enough right now, in my opinion but they were never anything quite like that old 12th green for radicalness.

But we should really be honest in our realistic opinions of what we know and can see of the old 12th green. Just look at that right-side in-line mound or roll or ridge or whatever anyone wants to call it in that lower on-ground photo on this thread. That thing looks to be four feet or more high with a base on it that may not be more than about 10-12 feet. Sure, I'll definitely admit that is a real curiosity to many of us, but what in the world would that thing play like today? Seriously! If they restored that green that thing at least would have to be seriously toned down or spread way out or something.

I think all this really old architecture is a true curiosity and well worth studying and such but we really aren't the people playing it and maintaining it every day. It doesn't really surprise me that something that radical was changed along about the 1960s---it seems that was almost inevitable. But what they put in its place doesn't appear very well thought out either.

It doesn't take that much imagination to understand how that thing on the right side would play today---it looks like it would be something akin to bumper pool. A very neat old architectural curiosity for sure but would that be something the GCGC membership would really want?

I'm just asking---I think it's a fair and honest question. But if they ever did try to restore a facsimile of the way that green might have played in the teens or the 1920s I'm sure with good research and good architectural advice it could be done somehow.

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Thanks.  Like I say, I have no axe to grind as to which is better, whether it should be restored, etc. - though what you say makes perfect sense to me.

In any case I can see why people are passionate about this.  It's really all of the issues discussed on here rolled into one golf hole.

I guess my very humble take on this, going just on pictures and what's said in here, is that IF they restored it, it would be one hell of a thing... for a little while.  I'm guessing people would get tired of the bumper pool effect pretty quickly.  But it would be neat in the short term....

TH

[Brian_Gracely]

I found a ground-level view of the 12th green (guy standing in front of the front bunker...the face is sleepers) in the book "America's Linklands".  I hadn't noticed it before, but I'll try and get it scanned and posted (wait....that might be a legal infringement...crap!!).  It does show a nice view of the difference between the green and these strange-looking "mounds/rolls" at the edges of the green.

[George Pazin]

That's an interesting take, Huck. I'd think the exact opposite: at first, people are shocked (in a negative way) with something so different and weird, but after repeat plays, they come to appeciate the unique nuances.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Too much of the focus seems to be placed on the green and not enough focus is on the surrounding areas including the bunkers.

It seems clear that maintaining those mounds would be a herculian effort, but, the more I think about it, who cares what the green speeds are, since those mounds are essentially out of play for putting purposes.

The other problem is that the right side of the current green is practically unplayable if the hole is located there due to the down slope between the right bunker that continues into the green.  Balls hit to that location usually end up over the green or in the back bunker.  In addition, the front left of the current green is unpinable due to the severe front slope.
So, while the green may not be outrageous in your eyes, it's abominable in mine.

[THuckaby2]

That's an interesting take, Huck. I'd think the exact opposite: at first, people are shocked (in a negative way) with something so different and weird, but after repeat plays, they come to appeciate the unique nuances.

The reason I figure the opposite is because as I understand it, there are no "nuances" to be found in that old green.  You've got a big raised platform, with these massive rolls on the sides, that give all the subtlety of a mallet to the head.  So rather than learn anything as time goes on, you'd learn quickly the one and only way to play off of the moguls (and that would be to stay the hell away from them at all costs)... thus making them grow old quickly.

I can see a radically contoured green like the famous one MacKenzie designed on one of his first courses - damn can't remember the name, it's been shown in here many times - growing on one over time, because of the many different pin positions, many ways to attack it.

That old green at GCGC?  Seems one way and one way only to play it:  loft it on, hope like hell you stay inside the moguls.  If you miss it, get the ball inside the moguls asap, however possible.

But of course all of this is just from looking at one grainy old pic!  Who knows, you might be right.  There might be subtlety there that I'm missing.  But Tom Paul's assessment of it as bumper pool is what I'm working from.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sorry I'm coming so late into this and thanks David for posting the pictures. I was going to try to scan them myself and just haven't had the time (Some serious stuff going on around here)

Personally, and in my view and after talking to a lot of the parties that are or could be evolved, there is no reason in my mind good enough NOT to restore this golf hole in the way it evolved and was conceived by Devereux Emmet and Walter Travis.  It took the snake oil salesman in Robert Trent Jones to destroy it, and frankly, it came at a time in American Golf Architecture where anyone and everyone wanted RTJ's hand on something at their club. In this rebirth of Golf Architecture, this is all the more reason to rebuild it as closely to the original as possible, and to make those mounds workin A Garden City-kind-of-way.

I believe that if they had survived that somehow a rhythm or way to make them work with todays greenspeeds would have been more then acceptable to those playing there simply because of the ARCHITECTURE. The same viability of the permanency of preservation which Garden City has gone to great lengths in honoring in both tradition and in preservation for the rest of the golf course.

Pat is right--the 12th hole is an abomination, and it should be avoided in any round because frankly, it ruins the spirit of what makes Garden City so great to begin with. This other hole just does not belong and any hole other then a rebuilding of the original is going to look the same. There is only one hole that could possibly fit that wonderful jigsaw puzzle called Garden City, and only one golf architect that could feasbly reconstruct it.  It just happens that he is the hottest golf architect in the world right now and he happens to be the club's current consulting architect. I have little doubt in my mind that he could get the job done.

So just go do it!

[TEPaul]

I agree with most of what TommyN and Pat say about the old 12th green. And for my part, I'm sure not suggesting the present green should be defended for any reason. If it was between the present green and EVEN an exact duplication of that old green in that photo above I'd vote for the old green just as it once was every day of the week even if it would play super radical with the way greenspeed is now.

But that's not really the point. Good research and clever architectural design and advice could create a facsimile there that would work with the way golf is now. Pat's right that no one should be completely focused on just those radical inline mounds or rolls or ridges---it's pretty obvious for a number of reasons it wouldn't be prudent to recreate those exactly as they once were, particulalry the right one.  But that old green's design must have had a ton of interest going for it and it sure as hell was original GCGC architecture and a really good facsimile of it would fit right in---certainly a whole lot better than what's there now! There'd be all kinds of ways to make a facsimile of those inline ridges work well and interesting today both in play and for maintenance.

There's a contour on the 5th green at Somerset Hills that's really radical and if they can mow that they could mow a really good facsimile of those old inline ridges on GCGC's #12.

[THuckaby2]

I agree with most of what TommyN and Pat say about the old 12th green. And for my part, I'm sure not suggesting the present green should be defended for any reason. If it was between the present green and EVEN an exact duplication of that old green in that photo above I'd vote for the old green just as it once was every day of the week even if it would play super radical with the way greenspeed is now.

But that's not really the point. Good research and clever architectural design and advice could create a facsimile there that would work with the way golf is now. Pat's right that no one should be completely focused on just those radical inline mounds or rolls or ridges---it's pretty obvious for a number of reasons it wouldn't be prudent to recreate those exactly as they once were, particulalry the right one.  But that old green's design must have had a ton of interest going for it and it sure as hell was original GCGC architecture and a really good facsimile of it would fit right in---certainly a whole lot better than what's there now! There'd be all kinds of ways to make a facsimile of those inline ridges work well and interesting today both in play and for maintenance.

There's a contour on the 5th green at Somerset Hills that's really radical and if they can mow that they could mow a really good facsimile of those old inline ridges on GCGC's #12.

Well then there you have it.  Case closed.  Many thanks, gents.

TH

[Willie_Dow]

Just for the record, I have Mel Lucas' employment history showing he was Golf Superintendent at Garden City from 1966 till 1978.  He had a dual assignment as Golf Superintendent at Garden City and Piping Rock Club in 1979.  I assume that 1979 was when his father died as Superintendent at Piping Rock.

He was President of the Long Island Golf Course Superintendents Association 1973-1975

President of the New York State Turfgrass Association 1978-79

President of the Golf Collectors Society 1995 - 1996

President of the Golf Course Superintendents Association 1980

 

[TEPaul]

TomH:

Well, now, I don't know whether you should say case closed--that's just my opinion--I don't belong to GCGC and I've only been there a couple of times---but it was on a dedicated architecture tours.

You can see on this thread that Tom Doak and others who belong to GCGC may have entirely different feelings about what to do with GCGC's 12th hole. No matter how anyone cuts it what to do on that hole just can't be a simple issue.

Tom Doak even asked if any of us have $50,000 to restore it and then another #50,000 to do something else if the membership doesn't like it. I emailed Tom Doak and told him to call you immediately that'd you'd be more than happy to put $100,000 up for this. But don't sweat it, I also emailed Tom MacWood and told him he should put up at least $50,000 and go halvesees with you!

[TEPaul]

Willie:

Those look like some impressive credentials on Mel Lucas, but you know the way it goes in that business, you get a guy at the club like rgkeller who says Mel was the problem and so he won't be part of the solution. Those credentials look good but then you get a guy like rg and suddenly Mel's a nobody!    

Being a super at some of these clubs, even if you're good, is about as solid as managing the Yankees for Steinbrenner.

[THuckaby2]

TEP - case closed in terms of my understanding of the situation with this golf hole - many thanks for that.

Case very much still open as to what might, or might not, be done, no?

TH

[rgkeller]

The years 1966 to 1978 were not the highlight of the Garden City Golf Club in terms of conditioning.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The 5th green at Somerset Hills is a good example.

As to the $ 100,000, with 400 members, that's a paultry
$ 250 per member to restore one of the great green and green complexes of all time, and well worth the investment by the members.

Isn't Tom Doak designing a golf course where the entry fee is alleged to be in the $ 500,000 to $ 600,00 range per member ?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Isn't Tom Doak designing a golf course where the entry fee is alleged to be in the $ 500,000 to $ 600,00 range per member ?

I think everyone knows which course you're talking about   but just for the elimination of doubt, the entry fee for Ballyneal in Colorado could be derived by dividing your range by about 15.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin Reilly,

The thrust of my point was that $ 250 was a small price to pay to recreate one of the great holes in golf, especially in comparison to the cost to join golf clubs on the east end of Long Island, especially ones that have yet to be built.

# 12 was regarded as a signature hole at GCGC and not just another one of 18 outstanding holes.

I also take exception to being offereed the default choice of doing something cheap versus doing something right.
Paying more for quality is a far more prudent path to follow.  
I would think that Mike Pascucci is of the same belief.

[TEPaul]

"The years 1966 to 1978 were not the highlight of the Garden City Golf Club in terms of conditioning."

rg:

Why was that? Was the course soft? Were the greens in poor condition? What was the problem during Lucas's tenure? Don't tell me it was Mel Lucas who was responsible for that ridiculous pond on #16 where the Travis asparagus patch mounds are supposed to be!    

Did you know a head pro at GCGC by the name of Mike Long, rg?

[rgkeller]

Mike Long was the professional at Cherry Valley in Garden City for a time.

The mounds are still on the 16th.

Thankfully, the wet shallow easy bunker is not.

[TEPaul]

"As to the $ 100,000, with 400 members, that's a paultry
$ 250 per member to restore one of the great green and green complexes of all time, and well worth the investment by the members."

Pat:

I thought you considered yourself a prudent and savy money man in these restoration projects. According to Tom Doak it would be around $50,000 to recreate that old 12th green and another $50,000 to do something else if the members didn't like the restoration. But you're gonna charge the members $100,000 to restore what you say was one of the great greens in the world anyway?

Tell you what---I won't say anything if you charge the members $250 each for a total of $100,000 to restore that old 12th green, and pay Doak $50,000 to do it. You and me will pocket the other $50k for some serious whiskey money.

If the members don't like the green then charge them each another $500 or a total of $200,000 to do something else, pay Doak $50,000 to do something else and you and I will pocket the remaining $150,000!

I like the way you guys do business up there! And no wonder you keep harping on the fact that members are always bitching about spending money at golf clubs. I guess they do bitch now and then with the kind of creative accounting you get into!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Whether it's $ 125 or $ 250 a member, cost should not be the primary consideration.

As to padding the bill, how do you think Tony Soprano got his start ?

RGKeller,

With the recent removal of the surrounding and backround trees, the pond on # 16 now looks even more out of place.
Quite unnatural.

[rgkeller]

How do you like the view of the maintenance sheds behind seven?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Whether it's $ 125 or $ 250 a member, cost should not be the primary consideration."

Wow, Pat, you really do have a bizarre outlook on golf clubs and memberships. Again, no wonder you're used to memberships that are always up in arms.

If cost is not that much of a consideration let's charge each member $5,000, pay Doak $50,000 and we'll pocket $1,950,000. With your kind of restoration projects at GCGC you and me can hire C&C and go build our own golf course with our own GCGC 12th hole!  

[ChipOat]

rgkeller:

I played a number of rounds each May before/during the Travis from 1974-78 and always thought the condition of the course was superb - especially the fairways for that time of year.

Did I miss something unfortunate by not playing from June through October?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()