The Bunkering at The National

[Bradley Anderson]

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

Mr. MacWood,

What doesn't make sense about this statement? The man built golf holes on Illinois prairie soil before he built golf holes on Long Island sand. Those are two radically different environments for building a golf course on. And so one can say that the former experience did not prepare him for the later.

Bradley
How long had Macdonald been living in NY when the NGLA opened for play? How did Macdonald prepare for the NGLA project?

Why do you ask that question? What does that question have to do with my point? Are you trying to discredit the point I am making? When are you going to answer my questions with regard to your own rules of architectural attribution?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I'll ask you again.

Look at the photo, from any angle you want.
Does the land form look remotely like the land form at # 2 ?"


Yes, Patrick, it does.

A few years ago with this very photo in mind (that I had seen in the clubhouse)
I went out on #2 early in the morning and looked at the topography of that hole from where I thought that photo was taken from and where that original green was and I was amazed how much the land on the right of that hole slopes up (towards Sebonac) as I said on this thread and on another thread a few years ago.
Have you ever done that? 

No, not in the morning, however, I did go "night putting" with the Dean's daughter.

I want you to look at that photo.

See how far below the crest of the hill that green sits.

Now think of where the tee for # 2 was, it was in the footpad of the 1st green.

Now measure 262 yards from the tee in the 1st green and tell me where you end up ?

That measurement will take you BEYOND the crest of the hill, NOT 40-50-60--70 yards short of it, which is where that green is in the picture David posted.

How do you account for the fact that the 2nd green couldn't sit 40-50-60-70 yards below that crest of the hill that's shown behind the green in Dave's picuture if it was a par 4 of 228 to 262 yards.

In addition, the WINDMILL sits on the HIGHEST land left of the entire 2nd hole, so, even if you were at ground level you would be above the surrounds, looking DOWN at any terrain that forms the 2nd hole west of the windmill..

There's no way that a photo taken from the windmill area left of the 2nd hole  would have higher elevations, especially significantly higher elevations immediately behind the green, or anywhere within 70 yards of that green.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

So where do you think that original 2nd green was?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Here again in the photo in question, from the August 1910 AG article on the early tournament:



Here is a photograph of the hole from the 1914 Article on the hole by M&W, from short and right of the bunker:



While the angles are very different, they are the same bunker.   To understand the different perspectives of the two, take a look at the stairs in the earlier photograph.   The stairs can also be seen (barely) in the second photograph, but from a entirely different angle.

I think the hill we see in the first photo may be to the right of the fairway and now covered in trees.   Is it possible that the green is not visible at all in this at this photograph, but is well to the left of the photo?   And the thing that looks like a flag is a directional marker or something?

Here is a photo from the top of the hill in the fairway toward the green from 1914.  (From "3" on the plasticine model pictured above.)



Bradley,  Would you agree that CBM (and Raynor) must have had the requisite experience to get the look they wanted by 1926?



The left bunker is the diagonal bunker on third (Alps ) hole and the second photo is looking back at the clubhouse from the Sahara bunker.  

Don't get the idea that there are too many traps at the National. The only time you think there are too many is when you see the little ball at the bottom of one! When you view that same trap from the tee, you rather like it. It's a big one all right, and it's perhaps dotted with picturesque little tufts of sea grass, but it's well off to the right and somewhat further than you drive anyway. A thing of beauty, too, a graceful sweep of white sand to mark off the lush green fairway before you, and you realize for the first time what a work of art a golf course can be. Inspired, elated, you put a little extra steam into your tee shot; you sway just enough to effect a slight hook, and you mutter a terrible despair as you see your ball roll right into the beautiful trap and curl up behind one of those adorable but leathery little tufts of sea grass.

This was written in 1926.   Was CBM still inexperienced?  

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley,  Would you agree that CBM (and Raynor) must have had the requisite experience to get the look they wanted by 1926?

Not sure I understand the question. But I'll take a stab at it.

I think CBM had a pretty good idea of the "look" he wanted before he even began NGLA. I would say that because there were some enormous cuts and fills and that would indicate to me that he had a big scale in mind even in the planning stages. But I have never seen drawings of how he wanted bunkers before they were built - now that would be cool to see.

As far as "look" is concerned, I think that the limiting factor in achieving what he was after on Long Island was irrigation and fertility issues. This would put them on a very slow grow-in schedule. There was also the issue of reliable seed.

So what appears to be an evolution in style may have been grow-in issues.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

So where do you think that original 2nd green was?

I think it was between 228 and 262 yards from the tee within the footpad of the 1st green.

If someone could go on "Google Earth" and make that measurement it would be most helpful, then we can draw an arc across the ascending hill and figure out the approximate location of that green.

If you look at the photo David posted, you can see that the front of the green is a good 40-50-60-70 yards short of the crest of the hill behind the green.

Since you know the 2nd hole as well as anyone, you tell me where you think the green was positioned.

It looks like it would be positioned 2/3's to 3/4 of the way up that hill, but, I think that would reduce the length of the hole well below 228 to 262 yards.

As you know, looking from the base of the windmill, toward the green mandates looking down at the ascending hill, not up, and looking from that angle, NO LAND mass anywhere near the crest of the hill rises above the base of the windmill.

Look how high up that hill rises.
In fact, the green itself rises and then the hill behind it continues to rise.

YOU KNOW that all of the land surrounding the crest of the hill FALLS off precipitously.

The photo could NOT have been taken from the base of the Windmill.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think the photo was taken from the windmill toward the hill (fairway) above and short of the green. I think the sand hazard in the picture is not the massive bunker you see off the tee but the bunker over the hill.



does this make sense?

Absolutely not because the base of the windmill is at the highest point of that general landform .
NO hill rises above that location.
Yet, the photo reveals a rather substantial hill rising well above the location of the camera.
If you look at your Google Earth aerial, you can see that it's impossible for a hill to rise up above the base of the windmill.
That's one of the reasons why they put the windmill in that location.

[Tom MacWood]

Why do you ask that question? What does that question have to do with my point? Are you trying to discredit the point I am making? When are you going to answer my questions with regard to your own rules of architectural attribution?

Yes, I am discrediting your point. You would have us believe Macdonald's learning curve stopped when he designed Chicago GC in the mid-1890s. You have also ignored the fact that CBM surrounded himself with world class experts.

I'll be glad to answer your question when you explain to me what attribution has to do with anything I've written on this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Here again in the photo in question, from the August 1910 AG article on the early tournament:

That's interesting.
Here's what CBM had to say about that.
""Nineteen Hundred Eleven was a memorable year in golf not only for Harold Hilton but for the National Golf Links of America, for in that year the National club-house was formally opened and the first invitation tournament held.

That being the case, I have to question the date you cited along with the photo.


Here is a photograph of the hole from the 1914 Article on the hole by M&W, from short and right of the bunker:


While the angles are very different, they are the same bunker.  
To understand the different perspectives of the two, take a look at the stairs in the earlier photograph.  
The stairs can also be seen (barely) in the second photograph, but from a entirely different angle.

I think the hill we see in the first photo may be to the right of the fairway and now covered in trees.  

I don't think so.
If that was the case, the photo would have to be reversed, with the photo taken from behind or flanking the green.
Your second photo and the first photo seem in conflict.

Is it possible that the green is not visible at all in this at this photograph, but is well to the left of the photo?  
And the thing that looks like a flag is a directional marker or something?

Here is a photo from the top of the hill in the fairway toward the green from 1914.  (From "3" on the plasticine model pictured above.)
Bradley,  Would you agree that CBM (and Raynor) must have had the requisite experience to get the look they wanted by 1926?


The left bunker is the diagonal bunker on third (Alps ) hole and the second photo is looking back at the clubhouse from the Sahara bunker.  

Don't get the idea that there are too many traps at the National. The only time you think there are too many is when you see the little ball at the bottom of one! When you view that same trap from the tee, you rather like it. It's a big one all right, and it's perhaps dotted with picturesque little tufts of sea grass, but it's well off to the right and somewhat further than you drive anyway,

This is even more of a mystery to me.

Now CBM is saying that the huge bunker is " well off to the RIGHT and somewhat further than you drive anyway"

How could that bunker be well off to the right ?
Especially when the tee was FIXED, within the footpad of the 1st green ?[/b][/size]

. A thing of beauty, too, a graceful sweep of white sand to mark off the lush green fairway before you, and you realize for the first time what a work of art a golf course can be. Inspired, elated, you put a little extra steam into your tee shot; you sway just enough to effect a slight hook, and you mutter a terrible despair as you see your ball roll right into the beautiful trap and curl up behind one of those adorable but leathery little tufts of sea grass.

This was written in 1926.  


"Scotland's Gift" was written in 1928 and includes a schematic of the golf course.
Macdonald's description of the 2nd hole and the position of the Sahara bunker has me puzzled.
Was the original green well right of the crest of the current fairway ?
In the 1928 schematic, Macdonald denotes two hills on the 2nd hole, but, he also denotes one "high" hill, and that's the site of the windmill.
If that picture is of the 2nd hole green, it would seem that the green is well short and right of its current location, at the base of the hill ascending to the Sebonack property.

My understanding of the orientation of the 2nd hole was that the Sahara bunker resided on the left side of the hole, NOT the RIGHT side as Macdonald describes above.

Was CBM still inexperienced?

Inexperienced ?  No
Confused ?  Possibly.
For if he was accurate in his description, the Sahara bunker resided "WELL RIGHT of the intended DZ.

The passage you quoted introduces more questions than it answers.[/size]

[DMoriarty]

Patrick

That quote wasn't CBM.  It was just a description of the course by the writer.  And he is not necessarily even talking about the Sahara, but speaking generally of how the bunkers are beautiful and look easilly avoidable until you hit.   The pics and quote were for those that think CBMs lack of experience is behind the bunker evolution. This was 18 years after they built the course and these bunkers kept their wild natural work, and the bunkers were praised for their beauty. As art.  

The photo was flanking, taken ACROSS the bunker and fairway.  

Also, isn't the highest point of the property is right of the 2nd

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You are totally confusing me. Where do you think that photo of that original 2nd (11th) green was taken from?

I think it was taken from up in the windmill basically looking towards the west/northwest (it looks like one can see the old road just below it). I think the hill you see past the flag-pole is looking up at what is now Sebonac GC (perhaps around the 1st hole (over the hill and the Sebonac clubhouse)).

Some years ago while walking the course I was struck by how much the land rises to the right of the mid-body of #2 up towards Sebonac to the west/northwest.

But, I admit, this particular photo has always been very confusing to me. I think the original green might have been considerably shorter than the present one way over the hill one carries (with that big Sahara bunker). It looks to me like that original green (if in fact that really is a green in that photo) was just over the crest of the hill guarded by some of that Sahara bunker. The green looks to me like it basically runs away from the tee shot as it seems to be just over the crest of the hill (water tower on the left).

If this is in fact the case, I do admit though that it begs some additional questions----such as that area is a pretty long way from where the 3rd tee is.

I don't know when that photo was actually taken but it looks to me like one can just make out the beginning of the NGLA clubhouse in the background. If it is not the beginning of the NGLA clubhouse (when was construction of the NGLA clubhouse begun anyway?) then it might just be a photographic anamoly. To think it may be Shinnecock's clubhouse makes no sense to me because that would basically be in the opposite direction and it would put that big bunker on the opposite side of the hole and the green on the rise up to the crest of the hill and not over the crest of the hill which I think it seems to be on.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

If you're still interested in discussing anything on this thread with Tom MacWood I think I just figured out why you two seem to be like two ships passing in the night on this thread at this point. You said something about Macdonald's architectural experience in Chicago in the mid-1890s and he apparently assumed your point was that Macdonald's architectural learning curve stopped at that point. It does not look to me like you said that or that that was your point. Perhaps all you meant was that was Macdonald's previous experience in architecture before he got involved with the NGLA project. I mentioned on this thread that Macdonald took a ton of time on three separate architectural study trips abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 in preparation for the NGLA project which began around 1907 (over a dozen years after his Chicago architectural forays).

The entire gist (the revolutinary aspect of NGLA and its basic model) was entirely different from his previous architectural experiences in Chicago in that the NGLA model was based entirely on creating eighteen really good golf holes on a course using "classical" hole models and/or "classical" individual features from abroad to be used in America in whole or in part.

I doubt an idea like that had even occured to him during his arhictectural experiences in Chicago; at least he never said they did that early.

Macdonald moved from Chicago to New York in 1900, by the way. His actual profession was as a Wall Street stockbroker. He worked for Barney & Co, obviously a precusor to Smith Barney & Co.

Speaking of Smith Barney, Brad, this little yarn is the type that makes the likes of Moriarty go ballistic on here, but one of my God-fathers, a man from Maine by the name of Edwin Fish (definitely an outright financial genius) was the man who took Smith Barney & Co to the national prominence it experienced in the middle years. That is why my middle initial is "E" for Edwin (named after Edwin Fish). I called him Uncle Ed and on every birthday when I was young I'd get a handwritten note from  Edwin Fish with a crisp $5.00 bill in it. That seemed like a fortune to me and it is why I admired that Godfather of mine so much----he seemed like such a big Wall Street wheel to me giving me that much money for my birthdays. Ed Fish was also my grandmother's financial adviser (my grandmother (Ed Fish was married to my grandmother's sister) was a financial genius on her own or perhaps I should say she was a natural born gambler which was pretty strange for a lady who was otherwise so Victorian). Ed Fish told her to look into this new highly speculative stock back in the early 1950s and so she took that tip down to the Drexel Estate Office in Philadelphia and demanded they invest about $50,000 in this highly speculative stock. They reacted negatively to that and so she proceeded to put the hard negotiation move on them and finally they agreed to buy about $25,000 of this highly speculative stock. It was IBM and she picked up $25,000 of it for about .50 a share. I don't believe it has ever been sold and can you imagine what the multiples are on that one?    (or were   )!

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, I thought I'd give that photograph one more try.  Below is the aerial from 1938, and the photo in question.   I've marked what seems to be the high point of the surrounding land as well as the location of the stairs.   For my third reference I used the peninsula of land sticking out in the bunker from the right of the 1910 photo.   You can also see how the road used to go between the water tank and the bunker. 







By the way, the photo is from 1910.  The first informal tournament occurred then.   Either that or the golf magazines made it up. 

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

As to your last post analysis, I am so far 100% with you and in agreement. This was my feeling about that photograph and particularly that high point in it about 5-6 years ago after first seeing that photograph (admittedly fairly inscructable at first) in a cllubhouse photo album and then walking the 2nd hole the next morning with that photograph in mind.

Personally, I think one of the primary reasons most people would never suspect how much that land rises in that early photo (straght out to the west/northwest) is because it has so many trees on it now and it had none back then when that early photo was taken.

[Bradley Anderson]

Why do you ask that question? What does that question have to do with my point? Are you trying to discredit the point I am making? When are you going to answer my questions with regard to your own rules of architectural attribution?

Yes, I am discrediting your point. You would have us believe Macdonald's learning curve stopped when he designed Chicago GC in the mid-1890s. You have also ignored the fact that CBM surrounded himself with world class experts.

I'll be glad to answer your question when you explain to me what attribution has to do with anything I've written on this thread.

Was that my main point?

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley:

If you're still interested in discussing anything on this thread with Tom MacWood I think I just figured out why you two seem to be like two ships passing in the night on this thread at this point. You said something about Macdonald's architectural experience in Chicago in the mid-1890s and he apparently assumed your point was that Macdonald's architectural learning curve stopped at that point. It does not look to me like you said that or that that was your point. Perhaps all you meant was that was Macdonald's previous experience in architecture before he got involved with the NGLA project. 

Tom,

My point wasn't really even directly about architecture but rather about the grow-in environments of Wheaton Illinois and Long Island. I guess my meaning is more obvious to me because I was raised on Illinois prairie soils, working on my grandfather's farm in Poplar Grove, and later on golf courses my whole life. And I have grown-in dozens of greens and tees from sand. From those two experiences I am not guessing what he was faced with at NGLA, I know what he was faced with. He would have found those two experiences to be radically different. And he did not have the fertilizers and irrigation technology we have today.

I posit that as an explanation for how the bunker styles at NGLA appear to have changed over time. How that should not be regarded as a valid point to add to this subject is beyond me. 

[Tom MacWood]

Bradley
Do you think that might be why he surrounded himself with Emmet, Whigham, and Travis, and also sought out experts like Hutchinson, Low, Sutherland, Fowler and Beale? By the way what year did Macdonald move to NY? What type of irrigation did they have at NGLA?

[Tom MacWood]

~~

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr.MacWood,

I think CBM moved to NY in 1900 or thereabouts. In 1913 he installed a Boston Sprinkler Company system that watered the fairways. Prior to that he had a system that was capable of only watering the greens and approaches, which presumably included the tees.

Now let me ax you a question. Which one of the cadre of experts that he surrounded himself with, told him that it was reasonable to expect unirrigated grass to grow, through the green, on Long Island soil? Was it Sutherland? Beale? Travis? Whigham? Raynor?

[Tom MacWood]

Bradley
Based upon your inability to answer my first question I can only assume you are not familiar with these experts' credentials.

Emmet: He grew up on LI, and designed and built Garden City on LI, among others. He travelled to the UK on a regular basis.
Whigham: Grew up at Prestwick, he was a member of a famous golfing family
Travis: Spent good number of years on LI (his entire golfing life) where he became an expert golfer and authoirty on the game late in life. He made several trips to the UK.
Hutchinson: Editor of Golf Greens and Green-keeping, the first book dedicated to green-keeping. He had recently been involved in the construction of Le Touquet on a very sandy site
Low: A Scot and author of Concerning Golf. He was chairman of the golf committee of the R&A, more or less the green committee.
Sutherland: Secretary and acting green-keeper at Dornoch for 50+ years, he was considered one of the foremost experts in agronomy in the UK.
Fowler: Designed Walton Heath the second golf course completely sewn from seed. He ran that club.
Beale: An expert working for Carters Seed, he was involved in the first two courses ever sewn from seed, both in the heathland.

[Bradley Anderson]

Emmet did not grow very good grass at GCGC through the green either. In fact  I think GCGC put the Boston Sprinkler system in before NGLA by a month or two.

Travis would have given great advice on putting green contours, but he dropped out of the project fairly early - if I am not mistaken.

As far as Hutchinson, Low, Fowler, and Beale are concerned, one can only wonder if the climatic conditions in Europe were comparable to those on Long Island. I can dig for it somewhere and show you how even Beale was on the learning curve with respect to the climatic differences between America and Europe, during his early trips here.

[Tom MacWood]

Emmet did not grow very good grass at GCGC through the green either. In fact  I think GCGC put the Boston Sprinkler system in before NGLA by a month or two.

Travis would have given great advice on putting green contours, but he dropped out of the project fairly early - if I am not mistaken.

As far as Hutchinson, Low, Fowler, and Beale are concerned, one can only wonder if the climatic conditions in Europe were comparable to those on Long Island. I can dig for it somewhere and show you how even Beale was on the learning curve with respect to the climatic differences between America and Europe, during his early trips here.

Bradley
They all had a learning curve, modern golf course architecture, construction and green-keeping was in its infancy relatively speaking, and it had nothing to do with CBM living in Chicago (your point). He surrounded himself with best advice available.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Here are the two photos you posted.

Look at where the steps are pointing in the first photo.
Then, look at where the steps are pointing in the second photo.

The green would be to the RIGHT of the steps in the 2nd photo.





Now look at the water tower in the second photo, it's beyond the steps, meaning that a vew from the water tower to the green is from an angle behind the green, not flanking or in front of the green.

Now look at the next two photos.




I think the angles in your lines are incorrect/inconsistent, and that the green would have to be further right and more toward the Sebonack property line, at an angle a little less than toward the 1st tee.

The one problem I'm having with this configuration is the distance issue.
The second hole is listed as 228 to 262.
We know that second tee is in the footpad of the first green.
If you measure 262 from that tee it takes you far beyond the indicated green area on your photos.

Was the 2nd hole, originally, a par 3 ?

It's hard to imagine it being a par 4 of less than 200 yards, even with the uphill topography.

The other thing that troubles me about the photo is the sharp hill climbing directly behind it.

When I next visit NGLA I will look at the property as it ascends to the Sebonack property line.

Is it possible that the 2nd green was on Sabin's property ?

The stairs in photo # 3 don't align properly with the stairs in photo # 1, especially in light of where you place the green in photo # 3.

Additionally, the topography in the area you allege the green resided, doesn't match the topography of the crest of the fairway hill.
Just take a look at the terrain on "Google Earth", from the Windmill, looking southwest, west and northwest and you'll see that the terrain doesn't match the terrain in the photos and your placement of the green.

If the pictures don't fit, you must admit ...... your explanation is flawed.

I've got to run, but, I'll be back

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley
Based upon your inability to answer my first question I can only assume you are not familiar with these experts' credentials.

Mr.MacWood,

How do you define "expert"?

[TEPaul]

"Bradley
They all had a learning curve, modern golf course architecture, construction and green-keeping was in its infancy relatively speaking, and it had nothing to do with CBM living in Chicago (your point). He surrounded himself with best advice available."


Tom MacWood:

Why don't you go back and read what Brad Anderson's real point is here? He did explain it to you again but you seem stuck on some minor point that you think he made that since CBM came from Chicago his learning curve stopped somehow because of that and even despite the experts he surrounded himself with at NGLA.

His primary point here is in that early time in the infancy of agronomic research and understanding it took quite a bit of time to grow grass into the type of maturity some bunker faces and surrounds apparently needed to have to endure (not fall apart) on highly sandy soil and that that can and probably does explain why the photos of those early NGLA bunkers looked as they did back then which appears to be quite different than they may ultimately have come to look under Macdonald's reign at NGLA.

Regardless of who or what so-called experts were involved back then we sure do have the documentation to prove the likes of NGLA and Pine Valley had some very serious agronomic problems on highly sandy soil early on.

This thread is on the evolution of the bunkering of NGLA and why and how it evolved as it did.