[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

This is a hole that technology may have improved.  Why?  More people are inclined to go for the green and the real trouble now comes into play from wild tee balls.

[wsmorrison]

Here is the feature that the hole used to have:

[TEPaul]

Robert:

You're right that technology has increased the temptation to try to drive the green and it does add interest to the hole strategically.

That fact that enormous convex mound once existed is info that just recently surfaced. It's pretty exciting info and the club may consider restoring it somehow but it could be complicated for a whole variety of reasons.

Additionally I hope if it is done it's not done in such a way it shuts down too much on the temptation to drive the green.

It is a neat and unusual feature though and it did explain why Raynor said he thought the 10th at Creek was a better rendition of the 17th at NGLA (Leven).

[corey miller]

Tom P.

Are you able to list some of the complications of restoring this feature?  

Often every potential feature has naysayers.

Are they golf related or club related which I know enters into many of the decisions in these projects.

That said, my experience is the easiest things to restore is those you have documentry ground level photos.

[wsmorrison]

Corey,

Sorry to speak for Tom.  I think most of the potential worries for the return of this feature is the ability to maintain it.  It is hard by the sound with erosion due to flooding and wind a concern.  Like Tom, I hope that the feature would not take temptation away from the bold player.  If positioned properly, it is hard to tell where in relation to the green it was--I think 50 yards or so in front of the start of the green, I don't think it will compromise temptation.

[corey miller]

I am not very familiar with this hole as I have only played the Creek once but are all holes improved by adding the go-no go temptation with trouble around?

It would seem a very small percentage would even be making that decision and the hole has become less interesting for the average golfer.  Again, not sure what distances we are working with here.

Any chance the club can remove the shrubs/tree beyond the green.  It would appear the don't hide/block anything unsightly.

This is probably the type of question that I have asked that will drive my super, and George Bahto, And Gil Hanse crazy BUT

Why does this feature need to be maintained?  Doesn't this area flood anyway?  Granted, I know most all memberships think everything should be maintained.

[TEPaul]

Corey:

At this point we're not even sure restoring a sand mound like that in an area like the 10th would be permitted. But I think the club might look into all the ramifications.

It's not just a matter of simple maintenance in a golf related (playability way). One wonders why that sand mound was removed in the first place. A likely reason was it may've dumped sand on the green in some violent weather conditions and become a maintenance nightmare that way. My suggestion, if it can be restored, is to simply back it about 20 yards off the green just as the huge sand mound at NGLA's 17th is. That would actually allow the formal bunker front left of the green to remain, just as with the formal bunkers over the sand mound at NGLA's 17th.

[wsmorrison]

Corey,

By maintained, I meant able to keep the feature from blowing or washing away.  No sense returning a feature that will not or is too expensive to hold.

The mound/bunker would mean playing closer to the water on the right side of the fairway for more visibility.  I like the added strategy and 30-50 yards short of the green shouldn't restrict those willing to take an aggressive play at the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Corey,

Sorry to speak for Tom.  I think most of the potential worries for the return of this feature is the ability to maintain it.

Wayne,

I believe that that's more of a financial issue.

At worst, if the feature had to be shored up each spring, what would be the big deal in doing so.

It's a wonderful feature.
Visually, architecturally and from the perspective of playability.  It would make the drive far more dicey, especially when the tide is in, and, even when it's out.[/color]

It is hard by the sound with erosion due to flooding and wind a concern.  

If it was maintained for a number of years, years ago, I'm sure that with a little TLC and $ that it could be well maintained today.[/color]

Like Tom, I hope that the feature would not take temptation away from the bold player.  If positioned properly, it is hard to tell where in relation to the green it was--I think 50 yards or so in front of the start of the green, I don't think it will compromise temptation.

I'd agree with you.

I think temptation is GREATLY influenced by the direction and velocity of the wind.

And, with the modern "high" ball, I don't see it being as influencial, compared to many years ago when a running ball was a good ball.[/color]

[Bill Jones]

I believe the green was moved in front of the mound. The mound is located left rear of the green today. Harvey Gibson who was a past President of the club added his boat basin in the area behind the green shortly after the picture was taken. The berming for the boat basin was quite large. I have pictures of a small truck and a trail on top of the berm so he could service his yacht and maintain the berm from erosion of the tidal waters. Also beach cabannas were added at the club cutting a third of the faiway width. The left fairway edge was close to center line of the old one.

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

Does this early Macdonald/Raynor blueprint showing the location of the 10th green help you with your determination in any way?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

The tee locations for # 10 and especially for # 11 are very interesting.

They would seem to indicate that no forward tees and NO ladies tees existed.

I can't imagine a woman golfer making the carry on # 11.

Were CBM/SR blueprints always crafted without forward or ladies tees ?

George Bahto,

Your thoughts ?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I have a 1934 scorecard from the Creek Club and there is only one set of yardages.  The 11th was 190 yards so probably 125-130 to clear the water hazard.  While I cannot imagine them carrying the ball onto the green, they likely had a pretty good shot at landing it on the fairway before the swale.  Are lady golfers one of the reasons that area was eventually turned into green as a result of GIR influences?

Flynn moved the tee on 10 in 1930.  The tee move accomplished two things.  One it meant that the golfers weren't teeing over the entrance path into the beach club and two it gave a more strategic angle to the line of play off the tee as the fairway is now more offset to the line of play than the original tee.

[Jon Wiggett]

Does the footbridge not reduce the visual impact of the trouble up the right hand side of the hole or is it just the angle the photo has been taken from?

[SPDB]

Wayne:
Are you saying that Flynn actually improved a hole?  

How far did Flynn move the 10th tee? From the CBM/SR blueprint, I can't tell how the tee today (and presumably it persists as Flynn's modification) is any different than what appears on the blueprints. The angle appears the same, both tees sit on the south side of that little channelet of Frost Creek.

[wsmorrison]

Flynn didn't move the tee very far.  Today's tee is the same as Flynn's tee, a triangle to the right of the path into the Beach Club.  $5000 was allocated to raise the fairway and make alterations.  I don't think anyone is sure what that consists of.  We do know that what was planned on the Macdonald blueprint was built.  The tee post 1930, which exists today, is in a different location, albeit slightly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()