The Bunkering at The National

[TEPaul]

"I hope you're successful in your efforts as it's clear that the restoration of those bunkers would enhance the golf course."


Those big so-called undulated sand areas that Flynn called for on his plans on #5 and #6 were neither actually nor technically bunkers----even though as you can see in that 1938 aerial the club apparently turned much of that area into a series of things that had become formal enough to be considered bunkers but I don't think that is what Flynn originally had in mind. The huge field of 18 bunkers on #8 I think were intended by him to be actual bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The one bunker that seems out of context at NGLA is the little bunker left of the 7th green.

Its configuration and depth seem dramatically out of place.

[TEPaul]

"The one bunker that seems out of context at NGLA is the little bunker left of the 7th green."


Pat:

Maybe it's there because apparently one of the little known strategies of playing TOC's Road Hole was to play past the green on the left and then back down the long side of the green.

Furthermore, if it shows up on that 1938 aerial who in the hell do you think you are to be arguing architectural "context" with the likes of Charles Blair Macdonald??

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

While there is a bunker in the 1938 aerial in that area, I'm not so sure it's of the same size, configuration and depth as the one that's in that general area today.

It's also in the 1929 schematic in "Scotland's Gift", but, it seems, like the 1938 aerial, to be much bigger than the bunker that's there today.

[DMoriarty]

David, I'm not so sure that I have a thorough grasp, conceptually and physically (form and function), on the difference between a "Raynor" bunker and a "CBM" bunker.
And, I don't think anyone has clearly defined the alleged distinction
Until that happens, I don't know how can state that a transformation took place, and if it did, in what form.  

A very good point.  This is the issue about which I am most curious.  Did you take a look at the photos I posted in the second post of this thread?  All but two of the photos are of NGLA.  Do these look to you like the current features?    Do they look anything like what we usually expect Raynor to have done?   They do not to me, and this leads me to believe that Macdonald preferred more natural or wild looking features than Raynor.  Photos of mid-ocean (another course with which Macdonald was more directly involved) support this belief.

It realize that it is difficult to sort out since (from NGLA on) Raynor was the one constructing CBM's designs, and of course was in charge of his own courses as well.  So, I am drawing a distinction between the bunkers Raynor built for Macdonald and those that he built without Macdonald's direct involvement.   Admittedly a narrow distinction, but I keep coming back to a point about which we agree--  If CBM was directly involved then the course would reflect his aesthetic preferences, or else he'd have it changed.

Dave, with rudimentary equipment, circa 1906-09, I don't think that an unnatural look was possible.
But, as maintainance practices evolved, so did the look they produced.

Not sure I can agree with this.   From the photos I have seen, the bunkering was extremely unnatural looking.  A few examples . . .

A few bunkers built at Huntington Valley in 1909.    As I understand it, that mesa in the first photo was a bunker with a sand top and grass sides.  





These features were typical of the kind of bunkers featured at America's top courses, and this was 1909.   So I don't accept that NGLA's bunkers looked that way because they were new or because of the equipment available at the time.   Compared to these types of features, how can we not view NGLA's early bunkers as a huge step toward a more natural look.  

The claim that MacDonald's path wasn't natural is mostly misunderstood.
I wonder, based on people who have played and studied NGLA, what's unnatural about it, from the perspective of the golfer playing the golf course ?

The unnatural or constructed component at NGLA tends to be visible from behind the greens, as is the case at many courses, but, that's not the view, or the field of play that the golfer encounters during his round.

A good question.  Tough for me to answer because the contouring and flow seem very natural to me, almost as if they just shaved down the grass.   I agree that one can see the signs of some pushing of dirt from behind the greens, but I think that even this has been greatly exaggerated.

But some people don't appreciate what might be termed the "industrial" look of many the bunkers; the sharp lines, the more uniform shapes. This engineered or industrial look seems typical to some of Raynor's work.   More specifically, some think the steeply sloped, closely mown grass bunker faces unnaturally contrast with the flatter sandy bottoms of the bunkers, and that this transition is too straight edged and uniform, rather than jagged and random.  

See the photo I posted of the bunker around the 18th, and these few . . .









Also, as one can see in the photos above, CBM usually built bunkering into mounds or hillsides, and unfortunately I think this reminds some people of the cop style bunkers with their long trench and uniform "cop" mounding in front, like these below.  The first, Portland, is from 1899.  Note how the cross section of the cop reveals that it was quite uniform and shaped like a triangle.  The second, from Shinnecock (circa 1890)  is a rougher but still one can tell that there was no concern given to making the haystack like cop look at all like a natural ground formation.





Despite that some hold dear this impression,  CBM was NOT building into the side of mounds and hills to emulate the cop, but rather to emulate nature.   To his eye, a bunker built into flat ground looked unnatural.  From SG, pge. 244 . . .

Sand mounds can be created to conform truly with nature, but pot bunkers rarely do if on flat ground; never if they are not on the side of a mound or hill can they be made to look natural, and when building a course this should be born in mind.[/quote]

All that being said, the bunker style now does seem to differ with that in most of the early photos, and that is why I find it odd when people assume that the aesthetic style of the current bunkers was Macdonald's doing.

_______________________________________________________________

Patrick, I agree that the bunkers in the 1938 aerials are incredible!

[TEPaul]

The easiest way to determine what kind of bunker look and aesthetic Macdonald wanted at NGLA is to just check out all the available photographs of NGLA's bunkers through the late teens, the 1920s and most of the 1930s.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David, I'm not so sure that I have a thorough grasp, conceptually and physically (form and function), on the difference between a "Raynor" bunker and a "CBM" bunker.
And, I don't think anyone has clearly defined the alleged distinction
Until that happens, I don't know how can state that a transformation took place, and if it did, in what form.  

A very good point.  This is the issue about which I am most curious.  
Did you take a look at the photos I posted in the second post of this thread?Yes  
All but two of the photos are of NGLA.  Do these look to you like the current features?    No
Do they look anything like what we usually expect Raynor to have done?No, but they don't look like CBM either.  
They do not to me, and this leads me to believe that Macdonald preferred more natural or wild looking features than Raynor. I dont agree.  You forget that like Ross at Pinehurst, CBM tinkered at NGLA until 1939.  
Photos of mid-ocean (another course with which Macdonald was more directly involved) support this belief.

It realize that it is difficult to sort out since (from NGLA on) Raynor was the one constructing CBM's designs, and of course was in charge of his own courses as well.  
So, I am drawing a distinction between the bunkers Raynor built for Macdonald and those that he built without Macdonald's direct involvement.   Admittedly a narrow distinction, but I keep coming back to a point about which we agree--  
If CBM was directly involved then the course would reflect his aesthetic preferences, or else he'd have it changed.


Dave, here's where we disagree.
When Macdonald hired Raynor, he hired Raynor as an employee, a surveyor, not a peer designer or partner.
CBM would NEVER have delegated or ceded authority to a novice, a non-golfer.
He never would have given artistic license to an emerging apprentice, especially on "his baby", his pride and joy, his creation, formed from years of study abroad and his expert experience as a golfer

Dave, with rudimentary equipment, circa 1906-09, I don't think that an unnatural look was possible.
But, as maintainance practices evolved, so did the look they produced.

Not sure I can agree with this.   From the photos I have seen, the bunkering was extremely unnatural looking.  
A few examples . . .
A few bunkers built at Huntington Valley in 1909.    As I understand it, that mesa in the first photo was a bunker with a sand top and grass sides.  



These photos are irrelevant.
The topic is the bunkers at NGLA, not other clubs, hence, what exists at other clubs is immaterial.

These features were typical of the kind of bunkers featured at America's top courses, and this was 1909.  
So I don't accept that NGLA's bunkers looked that way because they were new or because of the equipment available at the time.   Compared to these types of features, how can we not view NGLA's early bunkers as a huge step toward a more natural look.  


Again I'd disagree.
CBM's bunkers at NGLA are intimately, inextricably joined to the green sites/surrounds, they're totally constructed, except for the vast expanses of sand.
While the photos reveal bunkers that differ from their current form, one would need chronologically based photos to see when and how they changed from their original from to their current form.

I do NOT believe for one second that CBM would cede authority and artistic license at NGLA to anyone, let alone a novice or apprentice under his tutelege.

The claim that MacDonald's path wasn't natural is mostly misunderstood.
I wonder, based on people who have played and studied NGLA, what's unnatural about it, from the perspective of the golfer playing the golf course ?

The unnatural or constructed component at NGLA tends to be visible from behind the greens, as is the case at many courses, but, that's not the view, or the field of play that the golfer encounters during his round.

A good question.  
Tough for me to answer because the contouring and flow seem very natural to me, almost as if they just shaved down the grass.   I agree that one can see the signs of some pushing of dirt from behind the greens, but I think that even this has been greatly exaggerated.

But some people don't appreciate what might be termed the "industrial" look of many the bunkers; the sharp lines, the more uniform shapes. This engineered or industrial look seems typical to some of Raynor's work.   More specifically, some think the steeply sloped, closely mown grass bunker faces unnaturally contrast with the flatter sandy bottoms of the bunkers, and that this transition is too straight edged and uniform, rather than jagged and random.  

I believe that Raynor became Macdonald's alter ego and that Banks became Raynor's alter ego.
I do not find the distinction in the bunkering schemes that you do.
I see a continuity rather than a departure.

NGLA is replete with flat bottomed bunkers at the foot of steep falloffs immediately adjacent to the putting surfaces.
I do NOT believe that that style can be or was altered subsequent to Macdonald's initial construction work.

See the photo I posted of the bunker around the 18th, and these few . . .





Also, as one can see in the photos above, CBM usually built bunkering into mounds or hillsides,

I believe that is a site dependent statement.
NGLA has a few bunkers like that, such as at # 1 and # 3, but, you can't make that statement when it comes to his greenside bunkers, which tend to be flat bottomed, at the foot of a steep falloff from the putting surface, not unlie a picture above.

and unfortunately I think this reminds some people of the cop style bunkers with their long trench and uniform "cop" mounding in front, like these below.  The first, Portland, is from 1899.  Note how the cross section of the cop reveals that it was quite uniform and shaped like a triangle.  The second, from Shinnecock (circa 1890)  is a rougher but still one can tell that there was no concern given to making the haystack like cop look at all like a natural ground formation.

I don't think its germane to cite bunkers at sites other than NGLA.
Different sites have different characteristics and different personalities.
I think you have to confine your analysis to NGLA.




Despite that some hold dear this impression,  CBM was NOT building into the side of mounds and hills to emulate the cop,
but rather to emulate nature.   To his eye, a bunker built into flat ground looked unnatural.  From SG, pge. 244 . . .

Sand mounds can be created to conform truly with nature, but pot bunkers rarely do if on flat ground; never if they are not on the side of a mound or hill can they be made to look natural, and when building a course this should be born in mind.

I've always held a different view of SG.
I think it was more of a "do as I say, not as I do" manuscript or faux biography, intended on elevating CBM's stature, amongst other things..
We know that CBM built pot bunkers at NGLA, hence contradicting his own written words

All that being said, the bunker style now does seem to differ with that in most of the early photos, and that is why I find it odd when people assume that the aesthetic style of the current bunkers was Macdonald's doing.

David, that's only true on certain holes.
I don't think you can take a specific and expand it to a general conclusion.

_______________________________________________________________

Patrick, I agree that the bunkers in the 1938 aerials are incredible!

How did you see/get the 1938 aerial ?

Can you post it ?[/quote]

[DMoriarty]

Do they look anything like what we usually expect Raynor to have done?No, but they don't look like CBM either. This is NGLA, so it is hard to imagine bunkers there that were not to CBM's liking.   So how can you say that this was not CBM?  
They do not to me, and this leads me to believe that Macdonald preferred more natural or wild looking features than Raynor. I dont agree.  You forget that like Ross at Pinehurst, CBM tinkered at NGLA until 1939. But at some point in time, CBM must have liked these bunkers, or they would have been gone, right?




Dave, here's where we disagree.
When Macdonald hired Raynor, he hired Raynor as an employee, a surveyor, not a peer designer or partner.
CBM would NEVER have delegated or ceded authority to a novice, a non-golfer.
He never would have given artistic license to an emerging apprentice, especially on "his baby", his pride and joy, his creation, formed from years of study abroad and his expert experience as a golfer

Let me clarify.  I do NOT think Raynor was directly responsible for the look of the bunkers at NGLA.   CBM had to have been.  But the bunker style seems to have changed significantly since those early photos, and I am curious whether it changed AFTER CBM, or whether CBM changed the look.  Obviously Raynor couldn't have changed the style, but someone could have emulated Raynor style when repairing or maintaining the bunkers.



I believe that Raynor became Macdonald's alter ego and that Banks became Raynor's alter ego.
I do not find the distinction in the bunkering schemes that you do.
I see a continuity rather than a departure.

NGLA is replete with flat bottomed bunkers at the foot of steep falloffs immediately adjacent to the putting surfaces.
I do NOT believe that that style can be or was altered subsequent to Macdonald's initial construction work.

You may be right.  But if so, then what of the photos I posted on the first page?

___________________________________________________________________________________



How did you see/get the 1938 aerial ?

Can you post it ?

TEPaul sent it to me

I can't get my version to display fully in full resolution so the post would be a bit rough, but if you have some particular feature you want posted I can do that.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I'll respond in detail over the weekend.

While I agree that the bunker/s in the picture/s that you posted changed, that doesn't mean that all of the bunkers changed.

The bunker on # 3 probably evolved due to the need for a "weigh" station between the lower fairway, the green and the daunting bunker in front of it.  I can see CBM creating a LZ short of that bunker, a safe haven of sorts.

If you can, why not post each of the holes in the 1938 aerial in my "Enchanted Journey" thread under the description of each hole.

I was terribly disappointed in the coverage of this year's Walker Cup.

I hope coverage improves in 2013, since it would be great for the golf world to get a broad and in depth look at NGLA's architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do they look anything like what we usually expect Raynor to have done?
No, but they don't look like CBM either.

This is NGLA, so it is hard to imagine bunkers there that were not to CBM's liking.  
So how can you say that this was not CBM?


I don't think the bunkers, other than the bunker on # 3 look that much different.
Certainly, they're not as clearly defined in some areas, but, perhaps the cleaning up of those lines was more a function of maintainance, of keeping the sand in the bunkers, on a wind swept site, than some metamorphosis in CBM's architectural style.

The other thing you have to realize is that for all his talent, CBM himself was still a novice when it came to design and construction.
He might have created what he thought was a "sound" bunker, only to discover its flaws, and thus he subsequently altered it so that its function was in keeping with his design intent.
  
They do not to me, and this leads me to believe that Macdonald preferred more natural or wild looking features than Raynor. I dont agree.  You forget that like Ross at Pinehurst, CBM tinkered at NGLA until 1939.

But at some point in time, CBM must have liked these bunkers, or they would have been gone, right?


I think that did happen.
I think he fine tuned not only the bunkers, but the entire golf course.
He spent over 30 years on that property.
I doubt many features were in the same form in 1939 that they were in in 1909.

If we just look down the road to Friar's Head, or even Sebonack, we see early alterations to both golf courses.

And, all of the designers/architects at both clubs had years and years of experience in design and construction, yet, you expect CBM to have gotten everything right, everything to his satisfaction with his first bite of the apple.

I don't think that happened.
I think a good deal of trial and error, criticism and praise, resulted in alterations.
And, in looking at the bunker on # 3, I don't see how that bunker could prevail on a windy site, subjected to harsh winds and rain, heat and cold.

I believe that CBM tinkered, out of necessity and playing experience, combined with the demands of maintaining those bunkers, until such tinkering resulted in clearly defined boundaries from which the sand would have a difficult time escaping.



Dave, here's where we disagree.
When Macdonald hired Raynor, he hired Raynor as an employee, a surveyor, not a peer designer or partner.
CBM would NEVER have delegated or ceded authority to a novice, a non-golfer.
He never would have given artistic license to an emerging apprentice, especially on "his baby", his pride and joy, his creation, formed from years of study abroad and his expert experience as a golfer

Let me clarify.  
I do NOT think Raynor was directly responsible for the look of the bunkers at NGLA.  
CBM had to have been.  
But the bunker style seems to have changed significantly since those early photos, and I am curious whether it changed AFTER CBM, or whether CBM changed the look.  
Obviously Raynor couldn't have changed the style, but someone could have emulated Raynor style when repairing or maintaining the bunkers.
[/size]

The 1938 aerial would seem to indicate that CBM was the one responsible for any change to the golf course, including the bunkers, and, if you study that aerial, I think you'll conclude that the 1938 bunkers don't differ, in style and location, from today's bunkers.

Surely, more information would help us clarify this issue, but, until that information is produced, I'm content, based on my limited exposure to NGLA, to conclude that CBM alone was responsible for ALL of the artistic expression at NGLA from 1909 until 1939, and that includes the bunkers.
I think some sizing changes have taken place, but not the style, which was highly functional.




I believe that Raynor became Macdonald's alter ego and that Banks became Raynor's alter ego.
I do not find the distinction in the bunkering schemes that you do.
I see a continuity rather than a departure.

NGLA is replete with flat bottomed bunkers at the foot of steep falloffs immediately adjacent to the putting surfaces.
I do NOT believe that that style can be or was altered subsequent to Macdonald's initial construction work.


You may be right.  
But if so, then what of the photos I posted on the first page?


Again, I go back to the notion that CBM, as brilliant as his design may have been, was a novice, and that the bunkers evolved due to numerous factors.

Some of the pictures show substantively different configurations, others show reasonable similiarities.
I don't consider grass growing in a bunker as a substantive factor or departure from design styles.
I think the substantive differences, on # 2 and # 3 are explained by the factors I listed previously, I do NOT believe that CBM underwent a revision in his design theories and feature/bunker configurations, nor do I believe that Raynor, independent of CBM, or with CBM's blessings altered the bunkers at NGLA.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
___________________________________________________________________________________



How did you see/get the 1938 aerial ?

Can you post it ?

TEPaul sent it to me

I can't get my version to display fully in full resolution so the post would be a bit rough, but if you have some particular feature you want posted I can do that.  

[Tom_Doak]

Gentlemen:

I beg of you, please do not turn all discussion of National Golf Links into the same sort of argument that you usually have about Merion.   It is bad enough that we can't discuss the latter!


Now, though my post will surely be lost amid the cacaphony of colors and styles, I would like to commend David M. on his posting of early NGLA photos, and explain my take on them.  George Bahto should really be the one to comment but he has probably seen the direction this was heading and taken cover somewhere.

I would suggest that the principal reason the original NGLA bunkers look so different than what we are used to on Raynor courses is most likely the same reason the bunkers at High Pointe look so different than my recent work.  The reason is, LACK OF EXPERIENCE.  

Neither Macdonald nor Raynor had much construction experience when they began to build National.  Macdonald certainly had seen lots of things he liked in Scotland and wanted to emulate in some way -- be it their ruggedness and naturalness or just their size and scale.  But, he didn't know how to build things just like that, so the early photos of National include a measure of trial and error and a learning process, and Macdonald (and presumably Raynor too) did return to National over the years to reapply themselves to the bunkering with the benefit of more experience.

We thought about bunker style a lot in the conceptual stage at Old Macdonald, and decided we ought to go with the eclectic early look and style of National, instead of the refined version you see today.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Did you think much about bunker style when designing/building High Pointe?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gentlemen:

I beg of you, please do not turn all discussion of National Golf Links into the same sort of argument that you usually have about Merion.   It is bad enough that we can't discuss the latter!

Tom Doak,

David Moriarty and I have NEVER had any sort of argument about Merion, so I don't know why you would state that we "usually" do.
You must have me confused with that idiot-savant, TEPaul and his sidekick, Wayno.

Now, though my post will surely be lost amid the cacaphony of colors and styles, I would like to commend David M. on his posting of early NGLA photos, and explain my take on them.  George Bahto should really be the one to comment but he has probably seen the direction this was heading and taken cover somewhere.

I would suggest that the principal reason the original NGLA bunkers look so different than what we are used to on Raynor courses is most likely the same reason the bunkers at High Pointe look so different than my recent work.  The reason is, LACK OF EXPERIENCE.  

You must have missed my colorful or colorless post above, but, I already explained CBM's "lack of experience" in the previous post.
Thanks for confirming my premise  

Neither Macdonald nor Raynor had much construction experience when they began to build National.  
Macdonald certainly had seen lots of things he liked in Scotland and wanted to emulate in some way -- be it their ruggedness and naturalness or just their size and scale.  But, he didn't know how to build things just like that, so the early photos of National include a measure of trial and error and a learning process, and Macdonald (and presumably Raynor too) did return to National over the years to reapply themselves to the bunkering with the benefit of more experience.

We thought about bunker style a lot in the conceptual stage at Old Macdonald, and decided we ought to go with the eclectic early look and style of National, instead of the refined version you see today.

[George_Bahto]

" George Bahto should really be the one to comment but he has probably seen the direction this was heading and taken cover somewhere."

hah - good one Tom


 no we don't a Merion-type thread here     -     let's see where this thread goes

[George_Bahto]

I have lot of other early day photos of Macdonald Raynor courses (mostly just built) that show the same non-grass faces as well as the ones David posted

so perhaps the question should be:

How did the early bunker faces se see in the pictures posted above, evolve into the typical steep grass faced bunkers, flat bottomed bunkers?

[DMoriarty]

While I agree that the bunker/s in the picture/s that you posted changed, that doesn't mean that all of the bunkers changed.

 You are right.  I think i noted above that it seemed like the bunkers surrounded by fairway and/or green had cleaner lines, which makes sense considering they were supposed to be collecting balls.   But I am not sure that even these bunkers all had grass faces.  It is difficult to tell in the old photos.  

The bunker on # 3 probably evolved due to the need for a "weigh" station between the lower fairway, the green and the daunting bunker in front of it.  I can see CBM creating a LZ short of that bunker, a safe haven of sorts.

I don't think any of the bunkers pictured are from anywhere near the 3rd green.  There is a picture of the diagonal fairway bunker, taken from on or near the 3rd tee.   To which bunker are you referring?  

If you can, why not post each of the holes in the 1938 aerial in my "Enchanted Journey" thread under the description of each hole.

Sure. I'll fiddle with it a bit more to try and fix the resolution, but will post snapshots of each hole on those threads whether or not I figure it out.    Do you have the exact date of the aerial you are using?  If so, what is the date?  (There was huge a hurricane that year and I am curious as to whether it was pre or post hurricane.)
_____________________________________

Tom Doak,

No danger of a nasty fight breaking out between me and Pat.  I don't think he takes it personally when I disagree with him and I know I don't take it personally when he disagrees with me.

I would suggest that the principal reason the original NGLA bunkers look so different than what we are used to on Raynor courses is most likely the same reason the bunkers at High Pointe look so different than my recent work.  The reason is, LACK OF EXPERIENCE.

You and Pat may be correct that it was lack of experience.  But a few things may not fit with the theory.

1. If I recall correctly, a few of the photos I posted were not that early.  (I don't have the dates handy but will look for them.)

2.  In early photos of Mid Ocean some of the bunkers look more like the photos I posted of NGLA.  If fact, two of the posted photos were of Mid Ocean.




______________________________________________________________________

I have lot of other early day photos of Macdonald Raynor courses (mostly just built) that show the same non-grass faces as well as the ones David posted

so perhaps the question should be:

How did the early bunker faces se see in the pictures posted above, evolve into the typical steep grass faced bunkers, flat bottomed bunkers?

I agree.  That is the question.   When, how, and why did this change take place?   Maybe we should try to put together a time line of photos to see if we can figure it out? 

[R.S._Barker]

Gentlemen,

As a self-proclaimed NGLA freak this has and continues to be a most entertaining thread. Passion, information, a bit of showmanship all mixed in with a veritable cornucopia of images and opinion and facts.

Please continue! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Certainly dated photos would help in establishing a chronology of events/bunker change at NGLA.

Craig Disher often obtains dated aerials and I remember that Jamie Slonis provided a website on a Pine Valley thread that provides chrono-aerials, but, that the areas of coverage for that company/website weren't universal, but rather, selective.

I believe the thread on PV had to do with the 12th hole or a related topic, but the sequenced aerials were terrific

I wonder how much NGLA changed, as the country came out of difficult times after the depression and WWII ?
I would imagine that maintainance suffered during those periods, but, as the club emerged from those periods of limited resources, might NGLA not have tried to play "catch-up" and in so doing, inadvertantly or intentionally altered their bunkers ?

The aerial photo I referenced was taken on July 6, 1938.
The great hurricane hit on September 21, 1938.

However, you have to remember that NGLA sits on the lee side of Long Island, mostly elevated well above the water, so I would doubt that NGLA experienced anywhere near the damage that occured on the south side of the Island, in the Hamptons.

I also believe that the third picture, the one claiming to be the 11th hole, the Sahara, is mislabeled.
I think that picture is of the current 3rd hole, not the 2nd hole, which has a steep falloff behind the green, not rising topography.
The photo is taken from left of the green and there is nothing behind the 2nd (old 11th) that bears any resemblance to that photo.
Again, I believe the photo is mislabeled.
George Bahto, what do you think ?

It shows the Sabin property, NGLA, SH and S golf courses.

[Bradley Anderson]

I wonder how much NGLA changed, as the country came out of difficult times after the depression and WWII ?
I would imagine that maintainance suffered during those periods, but, as the club emerged from those periods of limited resources, might NGLA not have tried to play "catch-up" and in so doing, inadvertantly or intentionally altered their bunkers ?

Patrick I think if anything the maintenance suffered most during the grow in stage. It would have taken a tremendous amount of time to get grass to fill in on those steep sandy bunker banks with the limitations in watering that they had in those days, not to mention the lack of good reliable seed sources, and soil fertility issues. And trying to achieve all that on the huge scale that they were working on was just amazing in itself. 

So I wonder if these old photos are not actually showing us an evolution in design philiosophy or aesthetic sensibilities, but rather the challenges associated with performing a grow-in of the greast scale ever in golf course construction, and with the least amount of information and science to go on.

I doubt that the work in Chicago could have possibly prepared him for what was undertaken on Long Island. Those are two totally different enviroments with their own unique set of challenges.

[Tom MacWood]

I wonder how much NGLA changed, as the country came out of difficult times after the depression and WWII ?
I would imagine that maintainance suffered during those periods, but, as the club emerged from those periods of limited resources, might NGLA not have tried to play "catch-up" and in so doing, inadvertantly or intentionally altered their bunkers ?

Patrick I think if anything the maintenance suffered most during the grow in stage. It would have taken a tremendous amount of time to get grass to fill in on those steep sandy bunker banks with the limitations in watering that they had in those days, not to mention the lack of good reliable seed sources, and soil fertility issues. And trying to achieve all that on the huge scale that they were working on was just amazing in itself. 

So I wonder if these old photos are not actually showing us an evolution in design philiosophy or aesthetic sensibilities, but rather the challenges associated with performing a grow-in of the greast scale ever in golf course construction, and with the least amount of information and science to go on.

I doubt that the work in Chicago could have possibly prepared him for what was undertaken on Long Island. Those are two totally different enviroments with their own unique set of challenges.

Bradley
Are you under the impression CBM was a solo artist? He surrounded himself with best and brightest minds in the game, among them Whigham, Emmet, Travis, Low, Hutchinson and Sutherland.

[George_Bahto]

Dates of photos: there are a flock  of photoss from an article from 1910 that appeared in golf illustrated - I'll try to post them and label them today

bear in mind though that the those photos from the 1910 article were labeled according to the original routing of the course (beginning on the present 10th)

[George_Bahto]

oops: some of those 1910 magazine article were taken from the 1910 Harper's Weekly article by van Tassel Sutphen

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Bahto,

Do you think that the third photo David Moriarty posted is the 2nd (old 11th) hole at NGLA or the 3rd hole (old 12th)

Look at the green.

That's the 3rd green, not the second green

Look behind the green

The 2nd green has a steep falloff behind it, not a hill.

I think the photo is mislabeled

What do you think ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I agree the picture you referenced is probably mislabeled.  The Sahara hole falls off steeply to the right of the green and behind.

I am not so sure that's the third hole, though.  If it was, what is the big hill in the background?  The photo can't be taken from far enough behind the green that you are looking back toward the Alps hill ... from this angle you ought to be looking more toward #4 and #5, not to a higher point.  And what the heck would that flagpole be doing out there?

[George_Bahto]

I'm not sure that that picture is even of National - makes no sense