[DMoriarty]

The eighth at NGLA is often considered one of Macdonald's best golf holes.   It is certainly one of my favorites.   While I am sure the bottle-neck concept existed elsewhere, as far as I know NGLA's Bottle(neck) Hole is not a "template" or copy of anything in particular, but is based on a rather fundamental principle for designing strategic "problems."

The general and most basic "bottle-neck" concept is found in a fairway that narrows as one gets closer to the green.  The golfer has the option of challenging the ever-narrowing "bottle-neck" to set up a shorter approach (and sometimes a better angle to the green.)   Alternatively, the golfer can hit a shorter drive to the wider part of the fairway and face a longer shot to the green.   

While that is the basic concept in a nutshell, NGLA's bottleneck is more complex.  The golfer has a third option of a diagonal carry over the bunkers forming the left side of the bottleneck.  With this option the golfer can take a short carry and leave a long shot, or a longer carry for a shorter approach.   In theory it least, this carry option would leave the golfer with a more difficult angle of approach over a bunker. 

Here is the way H.J. Whigham described the concept and NGLA's "Bottle-neck hole" in 1909:



Whigham's diagram of the concept of NGLA's bottleneck, along with an aerial of the current hole:


Note that while some of the elements are in place, NGLA's Bottle(neck) Hole differs from the Whigham sketch.  For one thing, the triangle of bunkers is not complete.   For another, the green-side bunkering requires a carry from both sides of the fairway.  For another, there are diagonal bunkers on the far left side of the hole, apparently to constrain the landing area of the carry left (sort of a secondary, angled bottleneck.)

My guess is that the front left green-side bunkers serve the purpose of taking away the complete run-in on that side, thus increasing the relative advantage of challenging the bottleneck.    Does anyone know if these righ-side bunkers have always been there?

Do you agree that the bottleneck feature is an excellent one, but one that should not often be used?   If so, why should it not often be used?

Is the basic bottleneck concept an effective design principle? 

Is it still applicable today?

What are some other older courses that rely on the concept?

What are some newer courses that rely on the bottleneck concept?

What are some effective variations on the concept?

[DMoriarty]

Here are a few photos of the current hole:

[Kalen Braley]

David,

On the face it would seem bottleneck is a very effective way to combat bomb and gouge.  However the pros are routinely showing us different as they can still launch short irons and wedges into tucked greens from the rough. As an application to the everyday golfer, I believe it is very effective.

A variation on this concept, which is used heavily at a local course here in Utah is making the fairway more undulated the closer you get to the green.  So while the fairway is no less wider, if you lay back you get a flatter lie, while if you choose to bomb it you could have a very awkward stance and/or downhill/uphill lie.

I also like diagonally placed bunkers to enhance decision making off the tee.

[wsmorrison]

Wasn't the inspiration for Macdonald's 8th at NGLA a hole at Leven, the 9th? 

Referring to Graves and Cornish's book Classic Golf Hole Design, if a bottle-neck hole is broadly defined as restricting a route with bunkers, mounds, or rough with the narrowest end towards the green, there were bottle-neck hole concepts predating Macdonald's work at NGLA.   While the 8th at NGLA is certainly a spectacular hole, there is no decided advantage to being on one side of the narrowing or the other, so I don't quite get the design intent.

Muir and Cornish mentioned the following early bottle-neck holes, some or all of which predate NGLA.

The 7th at Sunningdale Old has a bottle-neck on the approach to the green .

Essex County Club has a narrowing, created by bunkers at the entrance to its 6th hole and by slopes on their 17th.  I don't know for sure if they predate NGLA.

The 14th at Lahinch has a narrowing created by mounds on the 14th hole.

The 3rd at Muirfield has a bottle-neck created by mounds, an intact Tom Morris?

Tom Dunn created a bottle-neck on the 9th at Meyrick Park.

[DMoriarty]

Kalen

I too see it as a good method for combating runaway technology, or at least a way of making the bombs more interesting. 

A subtle example of the bottleneck concept in action exists at Doak's excellent par 4 eleventh hole at Rock Creek Cattle Company.   The right side of the fairway drops away sharply and deeply, and this fairway gorge creates a bottleneck with the bunkers on the left side of the fairway, so that the longer hitter must place the drive between the bunkers and the fairway gorge.   A ball right will run to the bottom of the fairway gorge, a ball a little left will find the bunkers.  In both cases the shot may be blind.   

Another interesting aspect of this hole for the short hitter is that one cannot simply bail out way left.  Going left requires a carry over a diagonal hillside, requiring a longer shot the further one goes left.  If the ball does not make it up it will kick well down and to the left leaving a blind shot of two hundred yards over a very large hill.

Rustic Canyon uses the concept of a narrowing fairway off the tee on a number of holes, including the par 4 seventh (where the relative advantage of challenging the bottleneck varies with pin position)  and the par 5 fifth and tenth.

On the two longer holes at Rustic (the fifth and tenth) the diagonal is really only in play for the very long hitters who might be thinking of challenging the green in two, and in both cases the golfer who successfully challenges the narrowing fairway can get close enough to get get home, but will have to carry extreme trouble and a partially blind shot to do it.   Personally, I like this trade off because distance has become more than its own reward and this is somewhat mitigated by the difficulty of the shorter shot to the green. 

In both these cases, the hazard creating the bottleneck creates an effective second shot diagonal carry for those who  do not hit extremely long drives.  The shortest hitters will have to hit two solid shots to even carry the diagonals. 

____________________________________________

Wayne,

I think you are focusing on the third option, which is the diagonal carry to the left.   With regard to this third option, I am a bit surprised that you pronounce with such certainty that "there is no decided advantage to being on one side of the narrowing or the other."   I would think the relative advantage would depend upon the pin position, the conditions, and the strengths and/or weaknesses of the golfer, etc.   In other words, this is quite a sophisticated hole strategically.   Yet you seem to dismiss its strategic merit because for you it is not clear cut enough.

But back to the "bottle-neck concept" of the narrowing fairway on the right of NGLA.  Surely you see the strategic advantage of driving just short of the 260 yard bunkers, in comparison to laying up back where the fairway is at its widest?   

Wasn't the inspiration for Macdonald's 8th at NGLA a hole at Leven, the 9th? 

Could be.  I don't know.  Remember that the 17th (the "Leven" hole was originally the 8th at NGLA.

Referring to Graves and Cornish's book Classic Golf Hole Design, if a bottle-neck hole is broadly defined as restricting a route with bunkers, mounds, or rough with the narrowest end towards the green

Surely there is no reason to limit the concept to "bunkers, mounds, or rough" is there?   For example, in the example of RCCC above, severe fairway ground-slope defines one edge of the bottleneck. 

there were bottle-neck hole concepts predating Macdonald's work at NGLA.

Yes.  I believe I said as much in my original post.   

You provide a few notable examples from overseas, but your only example in the United States was Essex, and you acknowledge that you don't know whether the bottleneck concepts were in existence at Essex before NGLA. 

Are there clear examples of the bottleneck principle being applied in the US before NGLA? 

[wsmorrison]

You shouldn't be surprised by that statement.  It is a good one.  Is it really mine?  If so, how far back into the archives did you have to dig to get that one? 

It is <250 yards to clear the last bunker of the diagonal bunker line from the back tee, though not from the very back of the tee.  I see the advantage of driving over the bunkers not laying up short.  Rarely is it advantageous to lay up short, especially to a Macdonald green.  The feature has lost most of its implications for better golfers unless a good wind is into the players.  There is no distinct advantage to being on one side of the diagonal line of bunkers or the other.  Call it the third option, whatever.  I don't understand the current function of the more difficult to hit alternative fairway.  There is little if any reward to take on that risk.  The risk is negated if the player can clear the bunkers.  I would think modern players worry more about the principle's nose (in the widest portion of fairway) than the diagonal line of bunkers.

You're absolutely right about other features besides bunkers, mounds and rough.  Severe slopes work just fine.

I think it is fair to say that Macdonald saw many, if not all, of these overseas hole concepts in his travels.  As for the hole at Essex County Club, I'm sure someone will verify the origin of the hole.

[DMoriarty]

NOTE:  I have been reminded that Macdonald's Bottleneck hole at NGLA was inspired by the 12th at Old Sunningdale.  According to Bahto, at the Sunningdale hole concept was present in the approach rather than the drive.

You shouldn't be surprised by that statement.  It is a good one.  Is it really mine?  If so, how far back into the archives did you have to dig to get that one? 

I formatted the quote incorrectly.  I fixed it above.

It is <250 yards to clear the last bunker of the diagonal bunker line from the back tee, though not from the very back of the tee.  I see the advantage of driving over the bunkers not laying up short.  Rarely is it advantageous to lay up short, especially to a Macdonald green.  The feature has lost most of its implications for better golfers unless a good wind is into the players.  There is no distinct advantage to being on one side of the diagonal line of bunkers or the other.  Call it the third option, whatever.  I don't understand the current function of the more difficult to hit alternative fairway.  There is little if any reward to take on that risk.  The risk is negated if the player can clear the bunkers.  I would think modern players worry more about the principle's nose (in the widest portion of fairway) than the diagonal line of bunkers.

As I said in my original post, the hole today does not accurately reflect what was drawn and explained by Whigham in his 1909 article.  Whigham's sketch depicts bunkers forming a complete triangle with a bunker about 260 from the tee at the apex.   So what you call the "principles nose" is actually the cork in the bottleneck, which was undoubtedly impossible to carry. 

Back then, the carry distances were not what they are today.  Assuming they took the straight path toward the green, even the longest hitters would have generally had to land their drives between the diagonal bunkers and the bunker(s) on the right, well short of the principles nose.   Given Macdonald's and Whigham's dislike for bunkers designed to catch a well hit, well placed drive (see comments on GCGC thread), maybe CBM thought it better of completely enclosing the bottle neck.   Without the last few bunkers, a long hitter who could get it through the narrow gap at 240+ yards would be safe, provided he was short of (or missed) what you call the "principle's nose." (These distances are based on an original hole distance of 386 yards, as reported in Bahto's excellent book.)

As for the left route, I doubt many were consistently carrying the last bunker of the diagonal, a carry of about 245 yards.  So these golfers had to place their ball in a rather narrow bottleneck themselves, and from a difficult angle!    Note that, as envisioned by Whigham, the far left diagonal of bunkers were not present, so this would be a somewhat safe drive for those who could consistently carry the ball about 190+, but these golfers would have a more difficult approach over a bunker.  (Note also that there was going to be a bunker at the back right of the green to further challenge this angle, but perhaps the shot was deemed demanding enough or the natural terrain presented enough of a thread.)

It seems possible that CBM underestimated the advantage that the higher elevation on the left would give the golfer and may have added the second diagonal of bunkers along the left edge of the fairway to increase the demands placed on the drive. 

Does anyone know the evolution of the bunker on the hole?  I seem to recall that the green was rebuilt early on, but I am not sure offhand.

If nothing else, we can see that Macdonald was not afraid to modify the basic design concepts when the conditions so dictated.

You're absolutely right about other features besides bunkers, mounds and rough.  Severe slopes work just fine.

I think it is fair to say that Macdonald saw many, if not all, of these overseas hole concepts in his travels.  As for the hole at Essex County Club, I'm sure someone will verify the origin of the hole.

I don't doubt Macdonald was familiar with the bottleneck concept from the links courses.  After all, he claimed that he was not inventing any new principles at NGLA, but rather was applying long tested concepts in a new setting.   He is not the inventor of this stuff, but he did understand the application of these concepts, applied the concepts, and communicated the concepts to American golf. 

[Thomas MacWood]

Didn't Macdonald say his Bottle was inspired by the Bottle at Sunningdale?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I also thought that the Bottle hole was inspired by a hole at Sunningdale.

I also believe that you're incorrect in that a left side carry over the centerline bunker complex leaves the golfer with a prefered approach in terms of angle of attack, slope of the fairway and elevation, all of which are more favorable from left of the centerline bunker complex.

I think # 8 at NGLA is one of THE great holes in golf.

Your photos don't do justice to the elevation changes from tee to fairway and from fairway to green.

Nor do they reflect the terror in the golfer's mind when the hole is cut to the far right of the green.
It's truely a frightening hole location.

I picked # 8 as my all time favorite par 4 in the context of having to pick a par 3, par 4 and par 5 on one golf course and having to play them every day, to the exclusion of all others.

# 6 and # 18 rounded out my selection.

What your photos also miss is the effect of the wind, which is almost in constant attendance, on the hole.

The feeding nature of the front of the green and the area fronting the green are also missed.

It's one of the great holes in golf, one of my all time favorites.

I too have been surprised that it hasn't been duplicated more often, although, the fortress like green may be difficult to find/create.

[Peter Pallotta]

I have a feeling that most of the people on this thread have read this article, but I hadn't. It's from the August 23rd 1908 edition of the New York Tribune, and praises the still-being-built NGLA.  I don't know how to copy and paste the article, and it's a long one, so here are some snippets (with a reference to the Bottle hole at the end)

"Acting   as   co-workers  with   Mr.   Macdonald   are Mr.  Whigham, Walter  J.   Travis   and   Findlay Douglas.   Their   suggestions   and   ideas   have   been carefully   carried   out   by   Mortimer   Payne,  the Southampton  veteran,   who   has   had   charge   of   the Shinnecock   Hills   golf   course   for   so   many   years. Few   persons   have   any   conception   of   the   difficulties he   has   had   to   surmount.   Several   low spots   containing   water   to   a   depth   of   four   feet   have   been drained,   filled   in   and   left   as   dry   as   a   bone....

The   fourth   hole   on   the   new   course   is   to   be   a   reproduction   of   the   eleventh   at   St.   Andrews.   Mr. Macdonald   firmly   believes   it   will   even   be   an   improvement   on   the   original,   which   has   become famous   the   world   over.   The   distance is  about one
hundred   and   sixty   yards,   and   at   St.   Andrews   the hole   is   practically   surrounded   by   trouble,   except   in a   direct   line   from   the   tee.   As   a   result,   many   prefer  the   low   runnlng-up   shot,   and   in   that   way   the rising   ground   immediately in   front   of   the   green   is more   easily   negotiated.   On   the   new   course   there is a  water hazard   in   front   of   the   tee, the   idea being   to   compel   the   player   to   use   his   mashie   The other   characteristics   of   the   St.   Andrews   hole   will be   strictly   followed.

The   famous   Sahara   at   Sandwich   will   be   reproduced   in   the   eleventh   hole   here.   The   new   hole,   like the   original,   is   to   be   about   270 yards,  with   trouble nearly   all   the   way.   The   deep,   desert-like   bunker will   not   be   so   extensive   as   the   one   on   the   other   side, though   the   principle   is   the   same.   A   long   drive   with a   bit   of   a   pull   may   enable   a   few   to   get   home,   but as   the   trouble   runs   on   the   bias   there   will   always be   another   way   for   the   less   courageous.   An   over approach   will  descend   to   trouble.

The   twelfth   hole,   near   Shinnecock.   will   bear a striking   resemblance   to   the   Alps   at   Prestwick.   Although   the   Cardinal   bunker,   which   extends   at   considerable   length   In   front   of   the   Alps   tee.   will   have to   be   made,   the   real   feature   of   the   hole,   the   rising ground   in   front   of   the   green,   is   found   in   a   natural reproduction   on   this   side   of   the   water.   A   long   ball, slightly   pulled,   will   leave   the   player   In   the   best
place   to   get   home   on   his   second.   The   distance   is 380   yards,   and   the   green   nestles   on   the   other   side of   the   hill....

The   190   yards   thirteenth   hole   will,   when   completed,   remind   one   of   the   Redan   at   North   Berwick. Low   ground   intervenes   between   tee   and   green,   the latter   to   be   protected   by   bunkers   on   throe   sides,   and it   will   be   dangerous   to   drive   off   the   pin,   especially with   a   following   wind.   The   safest   way   will   be   to drive   to   the   right   with   a   little   pull,   but in   the opinion   of   Mr.   Whigham,   it   will   always   be   a   fine
hole,   no   matter   from   what   quarter   the   wind   may blow....

With   the   exception   of   this   ninth   hole,   those   thus far   described   have   been   imitation*   of   holes   abroad. There is   also   another   partial   imitation,   the eighteenth,   which  is something   like   the   Bottle   hole.  In length it is 480 yards, the drive being from a rather   high   tee   over   low   ground   formerly   covered with   water.   The   approach   is   over   a   bunker,   and the   green   will   be   125 feet   across...."

Peter

[jkinney]

Imagine "Bottle", as it's named, not having the woods to the rear of the green as a backdrop. Talk about trebling the pucker factor for what is already a testy approach !!

[Rich Goodale]

Wayne/David

Interesting the thought that the Bottle-neck was inspired by the 9th at Leven.  This is today the 18th at Lundin, and having played it often this year (and being reminded as to what the specifics of the 8th at NGLA are) I can now see a very stgrong resemblance.  Both have split fairways, with a narrower left one offerring a shorter but more risky route to the green.  Each has a long diagonal centreline hazard (bunkers at NGLA, a long ridge at Lundin (Leven)) the closer to which you play the better your length and angle to the green.  If you put a string of bunkers in that long ridge, the holes would look very much alike.  I wonder if there were bunkers in that ridge in the olden days?

Rich

[Mark_F]

I think it is a good concept, especially when there is a significant enough elevation change from tee to fairway that you really have to calculate how much the ball will roll upon landing, and/or there is sloping fairway that will kick the ball forward towards trouble if not calculated.

What makes the gamble worthwhile?  A hole at a course I used to play regularly  :'(featured a fairly diabolical green that was much more advanageous to approach from near the bunkers, even if the bunkers are a little overdone;


                       

Through in wind strength and direction, and such holes really work well.

[TEPaul]

Personally, I've never seen the strategic advantage of going left of the inline bunkers other than you are higher on that side compared to being right of the inline bunkers. I guess that makes some difference since that green does appear to be pretty far up there.

I've always heard that it's the Principle's Nose bunker in the center that's supposed to create the bottle-neck effect on the tee shot but I've also always felt that bunker is too far out there for most golfers to even get to off the tee. But that could be explained by the fact that in the beginning (or when Whigam wrote that article) the tee was both far shorter or even on the other side of the 7th green.

For the additional information of all, that fairway is app. 70 yards wide (68 actually) on a perpindicular line across the last bunker on the inline set and that last bunker in the inline set is 13 yards wide. The fairway area on either side of it is about equal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

There is an advantage to being on the left of the center line bunkers.

You're higher, the fairway is flatter and the angle into the green is better.

TEPaul,

The right side of the centerline fairway is more sloped, high left to low right and there's an uphill nature to that side of the fairway which combines to promote a push and/or slice.

You know the dire results from slicing and missing right, it's disastrous.

Hence, the risk/reward is driving left over the center line bunker complex.
Longer hitters can now fly that complex if there's no wind and/or little humidity, that's why the tee has been lengthed over the years, so that flying the entire complex isn't so easy.

JKenny,

I couldn't agree more, as the approach is already intimidating, especially with a right side, back or front hole location, removing or topping the trees behind the green would exponentially increase the fear factor.

[Rich Goodale]

Wayno,

There is an advantage to being on the left of the center line bunkers.

You're higher, the fairway is flatter and the angle into the green is better.

TEPaul,

The right side of the centerline fairway is more sloped, high left to low right and there's an uphill nature to that side of the fairway which combines to promote a push and/or slice.

You know the dire results from slicing and missing right, it's disastrous.

Hence, the risk/reward is driving left over the center line bunker complex.
Longer hitters can now fly that complex if there's no wind and/or little humidity, that's why the tee has been lengthed over the years, so that flying the entire complex isn't so easy.

Yes, Pat.  Exactly like the 18th at Lundin (9th at Leven in CBM's day).  Wayno was right this time!

[George_Bahto]

The PN bunker was not part of the original design but was added as players began hitting their tee shots beyond the original bunkers.

I agree, 8-NGLA is one of the great holes on golf.

18 Lundin: when we were there last year I believe Tom Doak mentioned it was a not one of the original holes.of the Leven course.

Tom??

[Rich Goodale]

George

I think Tom was mistaken if he said that.

Rich

PS--just to clarify George (and Tom),  the hole was slightly realigned in 1971, with the tee moved to the right of the 17th green, on land to the north of the (by then) abandoned railway line.  The basic hole (and the strategies of playing it) were not changed, however.

rfg

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I never said there was no advantage to being on the left side of the bunker diagonal.  I did say that the slight advantage wasn't decided enough to merit the risk of trying to go for that alternate fairway.  My main point is how the hole plays today.  The diagonal line of bunkers is easily carried by most single digit handicap players.  As I said earlier, it is the Principal's Nose that is most in play.  If Macdonald intended to supply the temptation to reward better players to hit to the left fairway, I think the green should have been designed in a way to promote that.  The elevation change and the fairway slope do not.  The angle into the green isn't significantly different either, it is not offset enough for that.

George,

When was the Principal's Nose put in?  Was it done before or after tee lengthening or reorientation?  What is the earliest aerial photograph you have that shows it?

[Andy Hughes]

Pat or TEP, the left side fairway looks to be harder to hit which seems right as Pat listed the advantages to doing so. Having said that, what percentage of the time do you find you aim left vs right? Do you find players go one way or the other more often in tournaments?

[Mike_Cirba]

I haven't read all of this thread but if you go back about 6 years here you'll find me posting questioning the point of trying to carry to the left.

I don't see an advantage, and because missing right of the green is the worst approach shot sin, I would prefer every time to be aiming away from there...not at it.

Now, I'm sure Patrick will disagree, and others may as well, but based on a single playing and another walkthrough I just don't see it.  

I think you guys are trying to claim some great advantage for attempting this option that just isn't there.    

I do love the look of the hole and a lot of things about it including the center bunkering that causes confusion, but much like the 17th, taking the risky approach doesn't really give you all that much.

[TEPaul]

"Pat or TEP, the left side fairway looks to be harder to hit which seems right as Pat listed the advantages to doing so. Having said that, what percentage of the time do you find you aim left vs right? Do you find players go one way or the other more often in tournaments?"


ahughes:

In my opinion, the advantages of the left side are questionable in some ways depending on who you are and your game.

I basically went right or left about equally (I never have been in those inline bunkers) but even when I played well I was pretty short off the tee and I found that the only reason to go left was if I could reliably get the ball up about even with that last bunker in the centerline set. If you are much short of that you are actually in lower topography on the left side fairway (and sort of looking up at the rise on the long left side fairway in front of you) and that is definitely no advantage at all over being on the right side, in my opinion. You can actually see that lower area on the short part of the left fairway in that first photo above.

I also just sort of preferred coming at that green from the angle of the right side as I felt like I was playing up at the left side of that green from a more comfortable and workable angle.

These longer guys were coming at that green with stuff like 9 irons and from the long and higher left side that's OK but I remember hitting a lot of 5 irons up to that green and over time I think I felt more comfortable with a club like that into that green from the right fairway angle.

This is probably an indication why the Bottle Hole at NGLA is such a good one---eg there's definitely never been some consensus agreement of how best to play it strategically.

[wsmorrison]

Below is an article from the April 6, 1910 edition of the Christian Science Monitor.  You will notice that it contains the thoughts of John Sutherland, of Royal Dornoch fame.   It is also apparent that the routing progression was considered numbered as it is today.  I don't know when the idea was to flip the nines and when that was reversed.  I always thought the routing progression began with the nines reversed from today's routing.

[Jim Nugent]

Speaking of aesthetics, my first thought on seeing the pictures was how out of place and unnatural the mounding looks.  Is that true in person? 

[Rich Goodale]

Below is an article from the April 6, 1910 edition of the Christian Science Monitor.  You will notice that it contains the thoughts of John Sutherland, of Royal Dornoch fame.   It is also apparent that the routing progression was considered numbered as it is today.  I don't know when the idea was to flip the nines and when that was reversed.  I always thought the routing progression began with the nines reversed from today's routing.

Great stuff, Wayne!

The more I learn of Sutherland, the more I am impressed.  Even in 1909, when NGLA was in it's infancy, he nailed it.

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()