The 16th at Sleepy Hollow

[jeffwarne]

John Kirk,
It's 16 yards to the center from the ladies tees.(32 yards to the back-8 to the front)
Your wife would love the hole.


As was pointed out early in this thread to me, the original question on this thread isn't about the renovation/restoration and style of the hole, but rather whether CB MacDonald and team designed a good hole in the first place.

I think John Cullem gets that-I just think he doesn't like the look of the hole regardless of who designed it (or when).
My issue with John would be that there is very little natural about golf so why get all riled up about a moat of sand when quite frankly a pit of sand in any parkland setting is quite un natural.
And if you don't like #16 at Sleepy, you're unlikely to be too thrilled about Yeaman's Hall (raynor) or Piping Rock or the short at NGLA. (which anyone is entitled to)
Although John comparing modern art in a restored town to a faithful restoration of a historic hole does confuse the issue a bit.    We've got a similar situation I drive by on the way to work every day of modern yard art in front of a multi-million dollar classic hamptons cottage.
Are the buyers of that garbage aware of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?

In a previous thread with Corey, I did raise the point Tom Doak drought up about renovating the 5 Tillinghast holes in the MacDonald /Raynor theme while restoring/renovating the MacDonald/Raynor holes.
  Despite the fact #16 had Tillinghast style bunkering when I first played it prior to The Rees debacle, the rest of the hole (the routing ,tees , and green) was MacDonald's/Raynor-and given that the club had wonderful photographic evidence of the original hole I believe the proper choice was made on #16.

...besides as I also mentioned to Corey in a prior thread, the next Green Chairman will get his chance if they want to do Tillinghast

[Garland Bayley]

John Kirk,

The thread has had a lot of fresh, strong opinions since the time I used it as an example in another thread. I like the discussion going on now.

Joe

Well Joe, my opinion hasn't changed. I had ignored this thread, because I already posted the same opinion on an earlier thread when Ran first put up the picture on the website.

TEP,

Being a big man, I never could fit into a Japanese bathtub, so I have a particular aversion to them. I am also, not a fan of jello, but it wins in this case.


EDIT

TEP,

In spite of our efforts, it seems a serious discussion has broken out here. I guess we will have to go poke fun elsewhere.

[Greg Murphy]

My issue with John would be that there is very little natural about golf so why get all riled up about a moat of sand when quite frankly a pit of sand in any parkland setting is quite un natural.

Now THAT'S a great question. The moat is unnatural. So is the pit. We might also agree that the moat and the pit have the same functional effects upon playability and maintenance (they don't, as others have noted, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume they do). So why do we get riled up by the difference in look? I think it has something to do with art.

[George_Bahto]

There are two historically significant golf holes on the Sleepy Hollow course:

*   their reversed Redan, presently the 7th hole (it really works), a Macdonald/Sleepy original.
   
*   the other is this the present 16th.
   
   Gil and I and the club were adamant about keeping those two holes as close to the original design as possible and practicable.


On the reversed Redan all we had to do was to reestablish the “hockey-stick” shaped bunker that ran down the left of the green and continued along much of the back and reestablish the single deep bunker along the front right of the green. We eliminated one of the added on bunkers and took the original bunker down to its original floor and reestablished the steep slope up to the green (much to the chagrin of the maintenance crew .............  however, they now love “steep and deep” (I think) - well, they’re learning to live with it     :-)


On 16, the feature hole of the Sleepy Hollow course for all these many years, they have a 1912 photo, prominently hung in the clubhouse, one that was featured in many magazines over the years. So do you think we should not have “honored” that original Macdonald hole?? (I guess I’m a fool to even ask such a question).

The hole was originally surrounded by sand, no walkways - you just walked through the bunker (interesting). Players coming up short of the front bunkering could easily have rolled back down the ravine. I think that may have prompted the change in the later bunkering .

With this in mind (the rolling back down the hill) we brought up some of the area between the front of the bunking and the sharp slope back down the hill - I doubt if anyone even noticed.

We left a fairly wide walkway on the left for the players walking over the bridge.

For the maintenance equipment and for egress toward the 17th tee, we left a much wider walk-off to the rear right corner of the green ...................... Tom Leahy, their fine super, loved me at that point of the project.

We reshaped the bunkers according to the original photo.

As for the green surface, which we did not alter, it putts fine at today’s green speeds. Unfortunately, over the years topdress have softened the horseshoe-shaped feature quite a bit. I’m sure it was quite pronounced given it was an early Macdonald course.

The gorge - ravine - or whatever you’d like to label it, is one of the outstanding features of the property and the stone outcroppings and wooden bridge add to the beauty and antiquity of the area.



This wonderful bridge was built in the late teens and is used on a daily basis to traverse the ravine playing both the Eden style 3rd hole and the 16th. Prior to the building of the bridge you had to walk down the embankment from each of the two tees, cross the road and the brook, and climb up the very steep slope to each green.

The present course plays sharply down from the clubhouse and then up a steep fairway to 2-green. You play across the ravine to 3-green and play holes 4 thru 15 on the other side of the property and then play 16 back across the ravine and play 17 sharply down and the 18th back up to the clubhouse.

The two par-3s over the ravine are outstanding holes and far and away the best way to deal with this deep gorge.

.............................. or would you:

*   tee off over the gorge for 16 making it a par 4 or par-5 - to me a waste of a great natural land form? The land behind the present 16th falls off dramatically - probably 50 or 60 feet down to the Route 9 that fronts the property. That road is easily 500-600 yards beyond the 16th green, nothing level, all downhill. Presently there are three fairways running perpendicular to the line of play plus a huge sod nursery beyond 16 green, the 17th on the upper course and two fairways of the short course.

............................... or would you:

*   have the 16th greensite as the finish to a par-4 or a par-5 hole  Half the players would be down in the ravine looking for their balls (interesting statement ??)  ............  I could only imagine the complaints.

Par-3's across this ravine seems like the best solution to me and has worked perfectly for almost 100-years.

I find it interesting that those who find fault with the hole and its setting have never actually seen or played the hole ?

For those who do not like the hole:

*   that’s OK - don’t like it! - and by the way, you’re not allowed on the property!

*    for those who have a better idea for the hole I suggest you contact the club (their club), I’m sure they’ll be happy to listen to your ideas and respond.

*    for those who feel they could route the course better - see above

*   for those who do not care for Macdonald style architecture, too bad for you cause we’re having this GI-normous party: gourmet food, lots of golf, lot of drink and even blonde dancing girls, the works!! - and you know what?  - YOU’RE NOT INVITED!!!

*    and for those of you who really HATE this style of golf architecture and really HATE this hole, I have a two really choice words for you below - I was a radioman while in Naval Aviation, so they are encoded, but it is a code easily broken - you shouldn’t have any trouble with it    :-) ..... scroll down













samtsirhC yrreM

[Joe Hancock]

(this is the part of the thread that has the opportunity to get really ugly, while claims of humorous intent are pleaded after the outcry)

[John_Cullum]

Why do I get the notion that a gathering of the followers of McDonald/Raynor/ Banks would be a good party to miss.

And Bill B, I believe this fool is in pretty good company.

[jeffwarne]

John,
The few parties I attended at Sleepy Hollow-were not parties you wanted to miss-and had a bit of a
"what happens in vegas, stays........" theme

(and although it is debateable how many McRaynor Society members were present, there was a lot of unnatural-(yet quite aesthetically pleasing)-  mounding)

[corey miller]

John

I am not sure what "company" you are in?

Some people have said they do not like the look of the hole.  That is fine.

One noted architect thinks perhaps we should have not relied on the only ground level photo documentation we had. That is fine.

I am not sure that any of this  has anything to do with whether the hole is good design though.

You however commented on the poor routing in this area of the property.  Nobody seems to share that view.

[Bill Brightly]

To be clear, this hole represents great architecture in my opinion.

The view is spectacular, no one argues with that.

The gorge makes the choice of a par 3 the best routing, as confirmed by TD.

I like the bunker style, but I'll conceed that some do not like the look.

From a playability standpoint, it is a GREAT little hole. If you belonged to this club, the hole would be a BLAST to play time and again, and I think this is a REALLY important architectual aspect.

Here's why it is so much fun: the short length and seemingly straightforward tee shot will give hope to golfers of ALL abilities: this is clearly a hole that everyone can reach in regulation, par is a reasonable expectation, even for a 25 handicap. It is an obvious birdie opportunity for better players hitting a wedge, 8 or 9 iron.

But the "green is in play" with a wide variety of difficult putts if you end up in the wrong spot. I am certain Corey has hit many  lag putts thinking: "get me off this green with a par"...

And if you miss the green, there are no easy up and downs, so bogey or worse will occur many times over the course of a season. Hit a loose iron, and a sand shot above the hole, and you will walk off this green with a double many times.

As golfers, I honestly think everyone on this site would love to play this hole. And THAT is great architecture.

[Mike Sweeney]

Within 100 miles, Southampton being 100+, is there a better final 4 holes than 15-18 at Sleepy?

[Joe Hancock]

Bill B.,

A wonderful reply, except that I don't sense your panties got wadded up at all...what's wrong with you???

 

Thanks for that answer, truly.

Joe

[John_Cullum]

Corey,
As far as the routing goes, I'll have to defer to those who have seen the property. But I can see a good par 5 that brings alot of thought into the second shot on laying up short of the ravine or trying to carry it, but that might not work on the land on closer inspection. It's a hell of a spot, one of the greatest I have ever seen in golf. A Short hole would not be my first choice for this spot, but I can live with it.

I'm drawing nigh on all I can muster to say about this hole. As Bill B notes, the course was built for the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Astors, Drexels, and the like. If it's OK with Hamilton B Hearst, its OK with me.

[corey miller]

John

The problem with what you describe IMO is that I don't think there is anywhere to lay up short of the ravine.  The ridgeline is about thirty or forty yards behind the 16th tee.  It is very severe.  As George describes, the land behind 16 green is very severe also.

I guess something built up (like the punchbowl) would work but I don't think that is what you have in mind, nor do I think that would be anywhere close to working as well as the two par 3's.

[Bill Brightly]

Why do I get the notion that a gathering of the followers of McDonald/Raynor/ Banks would be a good party to miss.

And Bill B, I believe this fool is in pretty good company.

John,

You may be "in good company" with others who don't favor Macdonald's bunkers, but ...

These are your quotes in this thread:

1) That's a hell of a spot to waste on a 135 yard hole

2) I see this hole as a foul up brought about by adherence to an arcane template design method. Blow the SOB up.

3) This green is about as out of place as that crap on the lawn in Madison.


I'd say these pearls of wisdom are the GCA equivilant of having a lampshade on your head at the party...And guess what?  Even the MacRaynor detractors are blushing...

[John_Cullum]

I can assure you I'm not at a wild blowout of the Seth Raynor Society.

Now go take your allergy pills and check on your optometrists appointment.

Good Night Bill

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's a wonderful little hole, with good internal putting surface contours/slopes, wind, bunkering, a target that's tinier than it appears and a unique fear factor for such a short hole.

Mr. Mucci,

I appreciate your comments on how the whole plays--similar to your posts on Oakmont's 7th the other day, it's helpful to get that information, for those of us who haven't played it and are just looking at the picture.  

However, may I challenge you to be a little more specific?
Sure[/color]

It seems to me that many many short holes could be described as wonderful against the broad criteria you list--including from my experience short holes at prominent courses, but also to short holes at local municipal 9-holers that I enjoy.

In order for short holes to quallify as wonderful to me, they have to have that sporty yet dangerous element inherent in the design, vis a vis the combination of features and how they affect play.[/color]

Is the hole designed to take advantage of the prevailing wind goldj described as coming off the river--i.e. is the player tempted to take more club, perhaps to bring the falloff at the back into play?  

I think the hole was designed to incorporate the wind.
I think that can be deemed a strategic advantage irrespective of the winds direction.  However, wind from the water presents an increased challenge.

Sitting high up on the ridge, more exposed to the wind, the hole gets a tactical turbo boost from the wind and how it affects the golfer's mind, his plan and his execution. [/color]

Does it play downhill, further confounding the player?

I don't believe that the incremental difference in elevation would be enough to counfound a decent golfer.  I don't think that's the foundation of the challenge.[/color]

Do the putting surface contours offer many challenging hole placements that, for members playing the hole over and over again, result in variety from day to day?  

Absolutely.[/color]

Does the contouring work against expectations that the shortest hole on the course is a routine "birdie hole?"

This is FAR, FAR, FAR from a routine birdie hole.
Don't let the yardage or the perceived benign look fool you.
This can be a very, very difficult hole based on the variables in set up and conditions.[/color]

I gather you prefer the new bunkering.  

Absolutely.
It's more in harmony, conceptually, with CBM's-SR's-CB's short hole template.

The volcanic like sides feeding balls down to the bunker is proto-typical.[/color]

Based on the before and after pictures, I like the unique "look" better, but the new bunker looks like a pretty simple out for a decent player.  

What you and others miss is the obvious.  The decent player wasn't going to come up that far short on the previous design, thus, they wouldn't end up in the bunkers.

Look carefully at the before picture.
Do you think the decent player is going to come anywhere near the bunker closest to the tee ?

Do you see plenty of areas adjacent to the green that are absent bunkers ?

With perimeter hole locations, a little wind and steep sides on the footpad of the putting surface, balls are more prone to end up in the surrounding, immediately adjacent bunker.

What you and others who have never played the hole also fail to realize is the sloped and contoured nature of the putting surface.

In the picture it looks benign.
Believe me, it's FAR, FAR from benign.

The fear and dilema associated with hitting a bunker shot OVER the green is substantive.

Hitting a ball past the hole leaves the golfer with a dicie down/side hill putt.

Leave it short and you still have a good deal of work left.

The fear of hitting long, especially when wind is in the aire, is real and substantive.

The visual presentation screams at the golfer, "Don't go long"
Especially when the hole is at the mid-point of the green or higher.

And, when the hole is toward the front of the green, the fear of going long remains strong, and conflicts with the golfers desire NOT to hit short of the green.

This hole taxes the golfers mind and physical abilities.

The features combine to conspire against the golfer.

Distance, wind, hole location, proximity to the bunkers, severity of the terrain, and the contoured/sloped putting surface all interact to present a challenge far in excess of the relatively short linear yardage.

It's hard for the golfer NOT to notice that being short or long is deadly and that flanking shots don't fare much better.[/color]

Obviously your chances of getting up and down depend much on where you miss relative to the pin position and the contouring that may require a very precise recovery shot, but in terms of difficulty of extraction, the bunker doesn't look (in the picture!) like much of a hazard really. I guess the main design purpose is to increase the "fear factor" when the hole is placed near the edge of the green?  

Does the new (vs. the old) bunkering heighten the perception that the target is "tinier than it appears?"  

That would depend upon the powers of observation and course managment skills of the individual golfer.

It is far, far, far from an easy hole.

It's a great short hole.
[/color]

Thanks!

Te nada.[/color]

Corey Miller,

Why would you enter a discussion with someone who's never seen, let alone played, the hole and accept flawed premises as the basis for a discussion ?  

You know how spectacular the hole plays.
Uncle George knows how great the hole plays, hell, even Mike Sweeney knows how great the hole plays

So why defend unfounded observations about how the hole looks and plays that were gleened from a photo ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Your focus is on the hole, not the backdrop, as you play the hole.

This is the part I wonder about. In a setting like this, shouldn't at least some of the focus be on the backdrop?


Matt,

I'd defer to the taker of the picture, but, I believe that the photo is taken from an elevation behind and higher than the actual tees.  That distorts the view and brings the river and mountains more into view.

What gets your attention is the location of the hole relative to the severe dropoffs, especially the back drop off where the unknown seems like it's exceptionally penal.

After the global signal has been received by the eye, the club selection process begins, with the golfer factoring in the influence of the wind.

I can't speak for others, but, once on the tee, with my ball teed to the appropriate height, I never saw anything but the flagstick, my intended target and the ball.

However, I also tee the ball up within six-twelve (6-12) inches of many tee markers, and I manage to block the tee markers from my view, so I'm used to screening out distractions, unless they're very attractive and have my favorite kind of legs.

If you're one of those golfers who needs everyone to step off the tee because they don't want to notice any foot or body movement during their setup and swing, then, they'll probably be distracted by features other than the intended target.[/color]

From the picture, you'd almost think that the architect didn't realize that such a panorama existed behind this green when he designed the hole.

Again, that picture may not represent what the golfer sees from the tees on # 16.

If the photo doesn't duplicate what the golfer sees when he tees it up, then the conclusions drawn by those making definitive pronouncements with respect to the hole, that are based on that photo, should be rejected or accepted with a grain of salt ..... or sand.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Bahto,

I think many of the original shorts had island greens totally surrounded by sand.

# 17 at The Creek immediately comes to mind.

I was also thinking about your comment.
Imagine the criticism you would take if you didn't restore the 16th to the form that appears in the 1912 photo hung prominently in the clubhouse.

To those that question the decision, why wouldn't you restore the hole to it's 1912 configuration ?

Have you not heard of the domino theory of golf course architecture by committee ?

If someone could post a Google Earth picture of the golf course if might help enlighten some who remain in the dark with respect to the topography, routing and location of # 16.

[corey miller]

Pat

You are correct, I was just  dumbfounded that people can talk about the routing of this course without having seen it, especially in this problematic area.  

As far as faithfully restoring "short" and "redan"?  It never even occurred to me to do anything other than that.  I might add that my green chairman  George Sanossian and I did not want to influence any architectural decisions once our mandate was in place and our team chosen. I believe we honored that commitment.

Not faithfully restoring #7,#16 might have led us to actually "break" this promise IMO but as you know we hired folks that wanted to honor Macdonald and classic architecture so I really never thought that would be a problem.  

A very public thank you to Pat Mucci who did help me to deal with the myriad problems of process that one deals with in a country club setting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Corey,

Thanks for the "thanks"

But, even a chimpanzee learns a thing or two after 30 + years on a variety of country club Boards.

And remember, "no good deed shall go unpunished"  

[Eric_Terhorst]

Pat,

Thanks again for your detailed reply to my questions--my only disappointment is that you didn't include some red ink with the green in the spirit of the season  

I could see from the pictures that although they appear to be deeper, the old bunkers were less in play than the new.  I supposed that in the old configuration the usual maintenance choice was to leave those grassy areas long.  I always feel like my chances are better out of a bunker than in long grass near the green.  Hence my comment that the new bunker seems like a manageable hazard.  Looking at Ran's review after I posted my comments, I see there are plenty of steep and deep bunkers elsewhere on the course, not necessary on this hole as it has other things going for it as you describe.

I'm guessing that a sensible player--unless mandated by his standing in a match or tempted by a desire to minimize strokes-- would never ever put enough club in his hands to fly it over this green, and therefore occasionally--or more often than not, depending on skill level and experience with the hole--have to deal with a recovery shot from the bunker.  

[George_Bahto]

Patrick: Some of those pictures were taken from the 4th tee which is considerably higher and directly behind the regular 16th. This was done in order to get a better photo.

Some of my pictures were taken from the hill in front of the 15th green which is also higher than the regular 16th tee, a slightly offset view.

[TEPaul]

"Corey,
Thanks for the "thanks"
But, even a chimpanzee learns a thing or two after 30 + years on a variety of country club Boards."

Patrick:

As you know it's not often I agree with the things you say on here but are you calling yourself a chimpanzee above? If so then this would be one of those rare times I would agree with you.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to a primate from one who is far more evolved and developed intellectually.

[Michael Whitaker]

I just want to thank everyone who has participated in this thread for doing so... this is one of the most interesting and educational conversations I have read on this site in a long time.

Thank you!!!

[Bill_McBride]

Agreed, and thanks to George Bahto for his contribution to this thread.  One of my highlights of 2007 was having the chance to meet George during the Archerfield tour in late March.  That was fun!