[Neil Regan]

   A few weeks ago I was lucky to spend a perfect day on Fishers
with Dr. Childs, Naffer, and Steve Lapper, and with Super Donnie Beck.

   I will post some other pictures as soon as I can, but here is
a very large version of a very great hole:
 
  (If my memory is correct, I think we all parred it. But my memory is sometimes like the rubber end of the pencil.)

The Biarritz 5th at Fishers Island[/size]

[Gary_Nelson]

Beautiful photo.

How hard is it to grow grass on the swale in the green?
The edge of the swale looks quite sharp.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Neil,

Thanks for the pictures.

It's certainly an intimidating looking hole, a great looking hole.

And, proof positive that template holes work.

Gary Nelson,

Why is it difficult to grow grass in the swale ?
I've never noticed a problem on any of the Biarritz holes I've played.

[JSlonis]

This Biarritz at Fishers Island
is similar to the Biarritz hole at
Piping Rock in that only the
back shelf of the "Biarritz"
is actually green space.  There
is no difficulty growing grass
in the swale at Fishers, the
grass from the front throught
the swale is cut to low
fairway height . The swale
is short of the actual green
surface, and quite large.

[Mike Hendren]

It's certainly an intimidating looking hole, a great looking hole.

Agreed.  The uphill nature of the hole and false front of the fairway are visually intimidating,
as is the slight crown in the fairway.  I also like the contrast between the crown in the fairway just before the swale
 and the nice clean horizontal line of the front of the putting surface.  

What an exciting tee shot this must be.

Mike

[TEPaul]

It is still somewhat of an on-going enigma
which of the biarritzes were intended to
have green space before the swale or not.
Or even whether MacDonald/Raynor had an
opinion on it. All we know is some did and some
never did. Frankly, in my opinion, it really doesn't
matter if green space was put on some of those
that may never have had green space before
their swales. But to do that each of them
should be analyzed to see how well it would
work in play and with maintenance. Fisher's
Biarritz according to DonnieB looked at the
possiblity of green space before the swale
but decided too much of it is too sloped to
be of much functional use in play. Creek's
has green space before the swale now but
it not originally have had it. Mike Rewinski
at Westhampton couldn't figure out if his
had it but it does now. Whether Fox Chapel's
originally had it seems to be somewhat of
a mystery but it has it now. I know Piping's
never had it, they don't now and probably
never will. If anyone could ever find anything
at all on the subject from either Macdonald
Raynor or even Banks, it sure would be nice
to know and could perhaps shed some light
on an ongoing mystery and an enigma.
I forgot Mountain Lake's. It appears that
Biarritz may never have had a swale in the
center of it but now it does and it also has
green space in the section before the swale.

[THuckaby2]

Another great photo from a true
artiste, Mr. Regan.  WOW!

But for those of us who haven't
seen this in person (and damn
likely never will), please give some
details of this hole:

How long is it from each tee?

How far below the back tee is the
white tee  I ask because to me it
looks like a harder shot from the
white than it is from the blue... which
is intriguing.

How much above either tee is the green?
That is, just how uphill is it?  The pic
makes it look VERY uphill, and pics
typically have a flattening effect...
so I'm wondering if this is what it seems to
be - a shot quite high up to a tabletop,
a la #11 Shinnecock... maybe it doesn't
go quite that far uphill but close to that?

And how far do the sides fall off?  That is,
how far are the bunkers below the green?
It looks as if you miss to the side you are
really dead....

This has got to be one of the world's great
three-shotters - but when discussions of that
come up, it doesn't tend to be among the
usual suspects - why?  Or am I just missing
it?

As you can tell, this hole intrigues the hell
out of me.  I swear the shot looks as scary
as #16 Cypress... and it's damn near
as beautiful.

TH

[Gary_Nelson]

Pat Mucci,
Based on the photo, the sides of the swale look quite steep.
The edge looks quite sharp too.

It seems to me this would be trouble
from a watering standpoint.

Do the edges and sides of the swale
get hand watered?

Or... do these areas just get a bit brown?

[Michael Moore]

This has got to be one of the world's great three-shotters.

Indeed . . .

[THuckaby2]

This has got to be one of the world's great three-shotters.

Indeed . . .

Oops!

I get excited, you know?

Make that "including putts."

Or maybe I was right the first time?
The hole does look damn tough.

 

[George Pazin]

As always, Neil, terrific photo, thanks for sharing.

Can George Bahto enlighten us as to whether the original inspiration for the Biarritz had greenspace prior to the swale?

[George_Bahto]

Neil: you captured it perfectly with your Nikon work!!

gb

[Gene Greco]

Tom:

    I believe from the point at which this photo was taken (Black tee, a special one built just for this hole) it is 229 yards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Donnie.

[Jim Nugent]

Tremendous picture of a spectacular looking hole.  What is the green itself like?  Also, how long does the hole play from the various tees?  

[THuckaby2]

Gene:

Muchas gracias.  Good lord is it a scary
shot from this vantage point.  And of course
one can tell Neil was up above the blue
and white tees... I just didn't even consider
he might be at a black tee.  Wow.

I'm still curious though about the elevation
changes.  I just can't get a certain handle
on that from the pic.  Seems like from
the blue you're "kinda" hitting up, from
the white you are "really" hitting up (like
11 Shinnecock up).  Do I have that wrong?

Not that this is an critique or anything
whatsoever - I just find instances of this
really intriguing.  Not that I'd want the shot
from the blacks ever if I were playing for
something... but it just does seem to me
from afar that the shot from the whites
might be tougher than that from the blue...
Especially if white means more blind.

God, what a golf hole.

[Ted Kramer]

That picture only makes me even more sure that Fishers is on the very top of my wish list . . .thanks so much for posting!

-Ted

[Mike_Sweeney]

This has got to be one of the world's great
three-shotters - but when discussions of that
come up, it doesn't tend to be among the
usual suspects - why?  Or am I just missing
it?

As you can tell, this hole intrigues the hell
out of me.  I swear the shot looks as scary
as #16 Cypress... and it's damn near
as beautiful.

Huck,

From your competitor at Google.  



Ranges from 229 to 148,
original back tee was 200.
It plays uphill, obviously windy
and all carry. Thus it does not
play like a tradtional Biarritz,
in that it would be very difficult
to bounce a ball in there as per
Yale, Mountain Lake, Piping Rock....
Fishers may be favorite place to play.
The course basically winds around
the edges of the bay and ocean
sides of the eastern part of the island.
Combined with the ferry trip, which
adds to the romance, it is a great
day of golf.

I don't think many people see the
course due to access and logistics of actually
getting to Fishers Island. I really believe that
FI members really don't care where
they are ranked.

PS. Elevation climb from tee to green on Google is 18 feet. Seemed like more when I was there.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Many thanks.  And no offense using that second-rate
search engine company - they can have maps - we
now own the world of IM's and all other media.  

In any case, that is a cool overhead also.

And good call re rankings.

So which is the scariest shot, assuming the same
degree of wind:

Cypress 16
this hole at Fishers
Sand Hills 13

Seems to me they are all pretty equal. That is I don't
want any of them if something's on the line... AND...
I'd have a shot to write home about on each if I find
the green.

 

[Mike_Sweeney]

So which is the scariest shot, assuming the same
degree of wind:

Cypress 16
this hole at Fishers
Sand Hills 13

Seems to me they are all pretty equal. That is I don't
want any of them if something's on the line... AND...
I'd have a shot to write home about on each if I find
the green.

 

For me, it was Cypress 16, as that hole
was in my head, from pictures, for 20 years.
However on my one and only play on both,
I took 3 at Cypress   and X at Fishers
from the beach. With the benefit of playing
Sand Hills a few times, it seems easy!!

[THuckaby2]

Mike - you're probably right - the order
must go

16 Cypress
5 Fishers
13 Sand Hills

just based on scariness.  Carry over water
does play powerfully on the psyche.

Still, when factoring in potential to make a big
number, as well as psychological scariness... seems
to me these holes are closer than one thinks, no?

BTW, great call about the "romance"
of taking a boat out to play golf.   For those
who love remote, getting away from it all golf,
this has to be just about the best place for it.

Call it the nautical version of Sand Hills in that
respect?

[TEPaul]

Tom Huckaby:

While those three holes certainly look scary
there certainly is a very reasonable way to
play each of them safely with the continued
expectation of a scrambling par and the real
expectation of a pretty easy bogie. At first
I didn't think Sand Hills's #13 offered such
a reasonable option but it most certainly
does. Just like Cypress's #16 it just isn't
all that apparent or even totally visibile
when you first look at both those holes.
Fishers's Biarritz is a lot like PVGC's ultra
scary looking #5--the fairly safe play is
right in front of you staring you in the
face.

[Tim Taylor]

Wow. What an unbelievably cool hole. And what a gorgeous picture.

TimT

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Oh I understand very well that each offers a
safe shot.  It's just that on each such seems
to be SUCH a conscious layup decision, it's just
very tough to take on a par three.  By that I mean,
one would have to have a LOT at stake, or be
among the world's most cautious golfers, to
intentionally go:

left on 16 Cypress, with an iron
short on 5 Fishers, with an iron
short right on 13 Sand Hills, with a smaller iron

Yes one can play each for a 4.  It's just a BIG, VERY
CAUTIOUS decision to do so.

So what makes them scary for me is that outside
of this very conscious decision on each, if one
plays for the green, the misses on each are
all VERY penal.  And given they are all quite long
shots often involving significant wind, well each
are very scary.

The bottom line is this:
It takes a slavish devotion to score, or a very
cautious course management style, to consciously
play for a four on any par three.  One better have a
LOT riding to do so.

So yes, the safe option exists... but to me that
doesn't lessen the scariness.

Does this make any sense?

[George Pazin]

Mike -

The climb probably seemed like more because it looks like you go down from the tee, and then back up to the green. Just a guess.

[TEPaul]

As a router, you know what pretty much kills you with a beautiful great big hole like that one? It's that it could've been even better if the green could've been positioned all the way to the right---even to the right of where the next tee is. That way most all the shot could've been right over the beach or some of Olinda Bay, just like the original Biarritz in France. Only problem is with the ideal tee postions to do that the hole would've been about 50 yards too long. An architect or router looks at a beautiful land form green site like the one to the right could've been, he takes out his ruler and just goes EEEhh AAAhhh, Goddamnit to Hell, this natural landform is just about 50 yards too much to pull this off.

What that hole may've needed is someone like Colt at PVGC or Marion Hollins at CPC who said to George Crump in NJ and Mackenzie in Calif.-----'We can do this!"

Initially neither architect imagined it could be done but it was done at PVGC's #5 and CPC's #16, and what resulted from it? Only perhaps two of the finest par 3s in the world.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()