Sixteenth at North Berwick - NOT the Biarritz

[Tom_Doak]

We've had many discussions in the past on this green and whether it is the inspiration for Macdonald's Biarritz green.  I've always argued that it couldn't have, because Bernard Darwin didn't describe the green as interesting in his 1908 volume.

Well, I just happened to look back in Darwin's book today, and this is what he said about the 16th at North Berwick:

"At the sixteenth we cross the wall once more, and may hope to reach in two shots the 'Gate' hole, standing on another plateau -- an exceedingly dimunitive one, by the way -- close to the high road.

So, the green was only on one of the two plateaux back at the turn of the century when Macdonald would have become familiar with it.

Also, for whomever it was who was talking about the 17th hole the other day ...

"In our second shot we shall have to decide whether or not to carry a bunker that stretches across our path, and then comes the crucial shot, the approach on to that dreadful green that slopes right away from us to the sea -- without the ghost of a charitable back wall.  It is so frightening that we are strongly tempted to approach it on the instalment system, and it is really wonderful how many instalments may be necessary, as with limbs palsied with terror, we push and poke the ball over that treacherous and slippery surface."

I have always taken this to mean that the flag for #17 was cut where the flag for #1 is cut today.  Darwin's description of the first hole refers to the "double green of Point Garry".

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom
Darwin also writes on North Berwick in his little book 'A Round of Golf on the LNER' that was published from around 1923 in a few different editions. He again refers to the 16th green as a plateau, in the singular. He also has that double green reference to 1 and 17 here as well.

A minor correction, 'The Golf Courses of the British Isles' was published in 1910. The 1925 edition 'The Golf Courses of Great Britain' has the exact same text for North Berwick from 1910, so he didn't change this entry at all, some others he did.
cheers Neil

[Bill_McBride]

Do any of the North Berwick experts have any idea when the 16th green was changed to two plateaux with the lovely swale in between?  Presumably after 1925 per Neil's comparison of the two versions of Darwin's books.    I suppose the remodel could have happened before 1925 and Darwin just failed to note it in the 1925 book.

I've never really thought of that green as a Biarritz given the angle to the centerline of the hole, about 20 degrees off square, where every Biarritz I've seen is always right on line with the tee.

We were fooling around putting there one visit, putting from front to back and vice versa, when my caddie told me that the best way is to just putt straight, the slopes in the swale even out.  It sort of worked.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

This thread's made me think of all those versions of the Biarritz hole out there which only (or did only) have the back plateau mown as putting surface.

[Kalen Braley]

On a somewhat related note, is a biarittz still considered one if its shifted 90 degrees to the line of play? There is a hole here in the SLC area that is shaped like this where....

...The left side and right side of the green are the high parts of the green and the middle gully runs from front to back instead of side to side. Should we call it a pi/2 phase shifted biarritz for you math geeks out there? 

Thoughts? 

[Sean_A]

Yes, I knew the 17th and 1st were one green in the old days.  Hence the reason for wanting to approach from the right side of the fairway as opposed to any side today.  With the reduction in the green flowing to the sea I think the hole's major strategy decision has been altered for the worse. 

Somebody else previously brought up the point of perhaps the 16th having two plataeux, but only one being used as a green in the old days.  So I guess it could be a bit of a tradeoff.  The 16th is brilliant, perhaps the best green in the world, if not, certainly in with a shout.  But, the 17th has been dumbed down.

Ciao   

[Bill_McBride]

On a somewhat related note, is a biarittz still considered one if its shifted 90 degrees to the line of play? There is a hole here in the SLC area that is shaped like this where....

...The left side and right side of the green are the high parts of the green and the middle gully runs from front to back instead of side to side. Should we call it a pi/2 phase shifted biarritz for you math geeks out there? 

Thoughts? 

Kalen, that's typically called a Double Plateau green.  #17 at Yale is a great example.

From behind the green, the swale runs parallel with the approach rather than 90*:

[Kalen Braley]

Bill,

Many thanks for identifying and explaining that one...my GCA.com edu-ma-cation continues.   

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Many thanks for identifying and explaining that one...my GCA.com edu-ma-cation continues.   

Have a good weekend, grasshopper. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

Here is a map of the course from the 1890’s (Tantallon Golf Club History JH Douglas)

(edited image) Sorry for the faint image it shows the shots to the 17th and the 1st greens cross to a double green.   The tee shot on 18 therefore crosses with the approach shot on 1st.


In the Bass Rock Golf club history, Douglas Seaton describes the extension to the course in 1895 and says “A new putting green was laid out on the ‘Gate’ hole (16th) further east than the present table, making the hole about 20 yards longer.”

Try as I might I can’t find descriptions of the subsequent changes. I’ll keep looking.

[Kyle Harris]

Where did the Maiden green come from?

i.e. Mountain Lake's 18th

[Rich Goodale]

Tony

Thanks for confirming my recollection that  the double plateau at the 16th was created prior to the 20th century, and thus very much available for CB Macdonald to have seen in its current state when he visited Scotland in the 1900's to study the great holes.  Prior to the 1895 addition of the second plateau, the only green was the right hand one and it was almost surrounded by a cow pond and marshy ground.  It was possibly the first "Island Green!"

Also, I have a clear copy of the 1877 map showing the crossing second shots for 1 and 17.  In that diagram the17th hole was on the front right hand side of the current 1st green green and the 1st hole on the back left.

Tom D

Vis a vis Darwin, I suspect that whenever he played the course the left-hand plateau was the one in play or maybe they didn't even cut the old right hand plateau as a green, as is implied in Tony's post above  "....a new putting green was laid out...."  It would not be hard to think that the old green to the left was just a vestige, rather than an intergral part of the green as it is today.

I received a copy of Darwin's Golf Courses of the British Isles for Xmas, and reading carefully one finds that many of his descriptions of courses are based on limited visits and possibly partly enhanced by second and third-hand information.  I find the essays as brilliant descriptions of the essence of each course but not always a rigourous analysis of the specific architecture....

...so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Macdonald didn't see the 16th as it is today.  Rather, I think it is more likely that he would have seen it in its double plateau state, keeping the alternative theory of it as the inspiration for his "Biarritz" very much alive.


Rich

[Sean_A]

Rich

I couldn't agree with you more concerning Bernardo.  I don't believe he really delved very deeply into architecture or who responsible.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Enlargement of the 16th green




Enlargement of Point Garry.




Rich a new green doesn’t necessarily mean the green as we love it and so often refer to it? 

Hutchinson 1897 ""The sixteenth hole is on  a lesser plateau, with banks on every side, and a dry ditch not far from the hole."

Curiously Patric Dickinson in 1951 says 15 is good but can’t understand the claim to greatness and then describes 17 and 18. I would have thought the current eccentricity of the 16th green would have appealed to him, but no comment.  Allen writing in 1968 "a green which even Trent Jones would think was eccentric in shape."   I wonder exactly when it took this shape and how big a part improved agronomy played in all this.


Seaton has contributed to an excellent website on all things golf to North Berwick

http://www.northberwick.org.uk/origins.html

Scroll down and you get to the course.

In the original layout

“the fourth (present sixteenth) had a table top green surrounded on three sides with a ditch.”  Drainage in this part of the course was bad and part of the 1895 work was to improve it. 

So it’s possible that the swale was initially a ditch?  If the original “table top” was left there, a new green built beyond it to the east; a drying up ditch meant that some time after 1895 it became possible to mow it all as one?  (Used in lieu of a speculation emoticon).

[Rich Goodale]

Enlargement of the 16th green




Enlargement of Point Garry.




Rich a new green doesn’t necessarily mean the green as we love it? 

(Curiously Patric Dickinson in 1951 says 15 is good but can’t understand the claim to greatness and then describes 17 and 18. I would have thought the eccentricity of the 16th green would have appealed to him, but no comment. )


Seaton has contributed to an excellent website on all things golf to North Berwick

http://www.northberwick.org.uk/origins.html

Scroll down and you get to the course.

In the original layout

“the fourth (present sixteenth) had a table top green surrounded on three sides with a ditch.”  Drainage in this part of the course was bad and part of the 1895 work was to improve it. 

So it’s possible that the swale was initially a ditch?  If the original “table top” was left there, a new green built beyond it to the east; a drying up ditch meant that some time after 1895 it became possible to mow it all as one?  (Used in lieu of a speculation emoticon).

Tony

I, too was surprised by Dickinson's omission, a by 1951 that hole would surely have merited a mention.

Vis a vis your last sentence, that is exactly what I was speculating in my post above, although I'm not sure of the date the 2nd plateau, except that it was not done as a part of the 1895 extension.  I'll try to check my source (a ~1970 history of North Berwick Golf Club).  Actually I'm sure I posted a more detailed discussion of the changes to #16 last summer, but I'm not good enough at using the crack GCA search engine to find it.

Cheers

Rich

[BCrosby]

NB was one of the courses Joshua Crane rated as part of his ranking of UK courses, rankings that first appeared in early 1924. He probably visited NB in 1923. Maybe earlier. He didn't publish his detailed analysis of NB until early 1927. His description of the 16th green at NB goes as follows:

"The green is ridiculously small for the length of the approach and so contoured that even after a fine drive there is nothing definite to be striven for, as the run-up shot which usually has to be attempted is made so uncertain by the contours and trap in front that no one can tell when the ball is hit what the result may be. For those who like to have the element of chance in the game large [sic], this is the hole. There is a redeeming feature, however, the pitch shot or delicate pitch required when close to the green is a good test of nerves and skill under pressure."

Crane's only comment on the 17th green (the hole got a very low rating, as did the 15th and 16th) was that "the contour of the green was very poor."

It's by no means clear from the above that the 16th circa 1923 had the double plateaus we know and love today. In fact, to the contrary. I tend to read Crane as saying it was a very small, single plateau green. That would be a natural reading of Crane's description of the green as "ridiculously small". Pretty strong words. But, again, it's not clear.

Bob

P.S. Seems to me there is also a "dog that didn't bark" issue here. The current green is so wonderfully wacky, so over the top, that if that wackiness (sp?) isn't noted as such, you have to wonder if that wackiness (sp?) existed at the time.     

[Rich Goodale]

Good points, Bob, but....

....I am 99% sure that both plateaux existed well before the time Crane visited in 1923.  As I and Tony posited above, it seems possible that the right hand plateaux was not mown to green height (as on the Chasm hole in France) or maybe even overlooked by Crane, if the pin was on the left (remember that greens on links courses were very rough in those days and not as groomed as they are today).  The fact that he calls the green "highly contoured" strongly implies to me that at least the sharp dip between the two plateaux was part of the green, as the left hand plateau per se is relatively flat.

As said above, I'll try to get a hold of the history book and remind myself what was said about the evolution of that green.

Rich

[Bill_McBride]

Also, I have a clear copy of the 1877 map showing the crossing second shots for 1 and 17.  In that diagram the17th hole was on the front right hand side of the current 1st green green and the 1st hole on the back left.

Ricardo - (following the example of "Bernardo") - if that was the case, where do you think the 18th tee was?  If in the current location, players finishing the 17th would have to cross in front of the 1st green, risking inbound shots, to get to the 18th tee.    Actually, no matter where the 18th tee was, this dangerous situation would have existed.    I have always assumed the 1st and 17th pins were where they are now, and there was turf mowed to green height connecting the two.  The crossing situation never occurred to me.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Bob very interesting, it reads to me as a single green.

Did Crane’s scientific method include giving the length of the hole? Dickenson 1950’s and Pennink 1961 both say 400 yards.  Today it is listed as shorter, probably because of more accurate measuring.  However if the front section was added at some point that would move the centre of the green forward or back if the reverse was true.  I’m not sure we can trust the measuring but it would be good to know.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Agreed that it's not clear. Looking forward to seeing what what you come up with.

BTW, Crane thought the last four holes at NB (15 to 18) were the worst finishing holes of any course he rated. You gotta give the guy credit. To paraphrase Aba Eban, Crane didn't miss an opportunity to hit a hot button.  

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

P.S. Seems to me there is also a "dog that didn't bark" issue here. The current green is so wonderfully wacky, so over the top, that if that wackiness (sp?) isn't noted as such, you have to wonder if that wackiness (sp?) existed at the time.     

Bob, don't you think wacky features were a lot more commonplace in those olden days, so that one more wouldn't stand out?  Imagine if someone built a green like that today!  Actually, Forrest Richardson built several "wacky" greens on the Peacock Gap course in San Rafael, CA to spice up a pretty flat, mundane course, and not all the commentary has been favorable.  (The negative stuff is all from knuckleheads  )

[BCrosby]

Tony - Crane noted that the 16th was 397 yards at the time he rated it.

As for the green shape at the time, contra Rich, I note that Crane's reference to a "trap in front" suggests a bunker where the swale is now. Your Strokesaver drawing reminded me of the current bunker locations, which don't seem to fit Crane's description. But mine is not the only possible reading of what Crane was saying. It's also possible he was referring to a "trap" somewhere near the current bunkers.

Bill - I'd disagree. Wild greens might have been more common back in the day, but they were nonetheless noteworthy. Certainly people went out of their way to complain about "MacKenzie Greens".

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

Tony - Crane noted that the 16th was 397 yards at the time he rated it.

As for the green shape at the time, contra Rich, I note that Crane's reference to a "trap in front" suggests a bunker where the swale is now. Your Strokesaver drawing reminded me of the current bunker locations, which don't seem to fit Crane's description. But mine is not the only possible reading of what Crane was saying. It's also possible he was referring to a "trap" somewhere near the current bunkers.

Bill - I'd disagree. Wild greens might have been more common back in the day, but they were nonetheless noteworthy. Certainly people went out of their way to complain about "MacKenzie Greens".

Bob

True, see the Saracen thread about Troon Portland!

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

There are two slit trench style bunkers today which guard the left hand plateau by complicating any run-up sort of shot, each about 20-30 yards short of the green (see the diagram above).  I assumed that these were what Crane was referring to.

Rich

[BCrosby]

Bill - I forgot to note that you raise a good point about the tees for 17 and 18. Crane thought them a mess, though I don't understand what he is saying. Maybe you guys who know NB better than I can untangle Crane. He wrote, again in 1927:

"On all three last holes there is only one tee, so that the short players have no chance to play the holes as designed, but have to resort more or less to cross country golf, which is interesting perhaps but not conducive to rewarding the controlled player."

I'm not sure what Crane is saying. I assume "three last holes" should be "two last holes", no?

Also note that Crane's reference to "cross country golf" was the ultimate put down for Crane. It was his way of relegating a hole to golf architecture purgatory.

Bob