[George_Bahto]

On the other redan thread, Mac Plumart made an interesting statement - in my opinion - which got me to thinking (which already is not good !!).

He said: “Give me a Redan, but adjust the yardage and height of the front embankment and slope of the green the take into account technology changes.”

To me a few questions arise.


How many excellent Redans have been built in modern times (post 1960, the usual break-point but I like 1940 a lot better)?      


Do any of them compare to the North Berwick original?

Do any or many of them compare to some of the great ones built by; Macdonald at National and Piping Rock?

Do any compare  to what Crump built at Pine Valley?

Do any or many compare to the array of Redans built by Seth Raynor - CC of Fairfield, Shinnecock Hills - (to name just a very few of his)

Do any compare to the Somerset Hills 2nd hole built by the great Tillinghast?

So who can or who has built a great Redan in the Modern Age properly reflecting the original concept .... “but adjust the yardage and height of the front embankment and slope of the green the take into account technology changes.”

You are talking major yardage compensation and you have to factor in the effect new equipment has on today’s golf game.

Is there a Redan out there that can compare what the ODG’s built?

I’m short on experience in this field that I have been tossed into but I have built a couple Redans and have worked on a few more. Capturing the “traditional” concept of Redan is very difficult.

Thoughts??


Raynor and Banks built nearly 100 Redans. They vary so very much with the topography they were presented with. Some  very traditional and some were near freaky - CC of Charleston. Some were near impossible - 225 yard reversed version at Links. 

[TEPaul]

George:

I'm not sure what you're trying to determine here when you mention technological changes. If you're suggesting more modern redan versions should be longer to recapture the club requirements of the old days I do understand what you mean and I guess I would say most of them should be about 30-50 yards longer to compensate for tech changes with good players compared to what the good players used in the old days.

Of anyone on here I may have the greatest empirical experience with that Links reverse redan; not so much with my experiences but with my father's and guys like Knott and Choate and such who were all good and pretty long players. That hole just drove them crazy with the correct shot to hit to it. In almost all normal conditions it was a 4 wood for them, and they tried to hit them high and low and with a fade or whatever but the general consensus was if you didn't land it on the kicker it would not stay on that green. The ball did not really go off the end or low side as it does quite easily on NGLA's and Piping's, it would just go right over the green if you landed the ball on the green. I guess the orientation or shape of the green from the angle of attack must have been quite shallow.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
There's a pretty good one at The Slammer & The Squire in St. Augustine. I played there a handful of years ago and remember it to be a pretty 'faithful' rendition. Around 180yds from the back tee.   

[Kevin Pallier]

How many excellent Redans have been built in modern times (post 1960, the usual break-point but I like 1940 a lot better)?   

Do any of them compare to the North Berwick original?

Old Macdonald

I still prefer the original

[RJ_Daley]

One version of a redan that got my attention due to the bold scope, with length and larger than traditional green size was the 12th at Angel's Crossing, by Mathews with Thompson's input.  DeVries has an interesting  version at 16th at Kingsley as well. 

[Mac Plumart]

Rivermont (Chris Cupit's course in the northern Atlanta 'burbs) has a redan...I think built in 2005 by Mike Riley and Chris.


I usually play the one up tees, which measures about 180 yards to the middle of the green.  I think the tips are just a few yards longer.  So, I think to have the "adjusted yardage" it needs to play longer, correct?  How long is North Berwick's Redan?

It is a really good version in my opinion.  It plays level from tee to green, perhaps a bit uphill.  The bunker in front is intimidating, the landing area to the right is there and inviting, and if you play to the pin when it is tucked behind the bunker...good luck!  You better have some loft and bite on the ball!!

[Robert Thompson]

George: Ian Andrew and I have had this exact conversation several times while touring courses. My experience is that modern designers don't build up the right side high enough to actually propel the ball to the left. There are a couple of examples in Ontario, including one course that opened last year. If that slope isn't steep enough, then the ball doesn't get kicked down and to the left -- it just ends up coming to rest on the collar.

That's just my experience -- but I'd argue that even the Redan at Pac Dunes doesn't have that much slope.

While we're at it, I'm perplexed by the Redan at Yale. Loved the hole, but the ball seems to go to the front left, not back left corner. The only way it fit the traditional definition of a Redan was if one considered the right section to be the front, which I considered at the time.

[Ronald Montesano]

Here is an example from Ballyhack.  The right side is clearly not raised in the traditional way, yet the physics of the elevated tee and the rumples eventually force greenward those shots that bound in from the starboard side.

[Kyle Harris]

How much is the right side built up on the original at North Berwick?

At which point in the green does it start falling away from the tee?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The 4th at Hidden Creek, a modern version of the Redan:

[Melvyn Morrow]

Gentlemen, I believe the starting point is the Redan at North Berwick which was part of the first set of 9 holes - pre the expansion to an 18 hole course. We also need to note the minor changes over the years to the ground and the original contours. Having mind of the changes over the last 140-50 years, the current starting point is to play the North Berwick course with Hickory and gutty (or Haskell). By doing so you get to understand the original concept and challenge to the golfer. Then and only then will you be able to get close to replicate the original. Poor facsimiles surely are not the ideal intention, it is that search for the real experience, that taste of magic of the original that must be the intention behind a template hole. If not what's the point.

Template all you wish, but in reality are you just producing the equivalent of the HOT ROD (old in concept new in technology). But then this is not about motor sports but Golf and perhaps we need to understand this simple point.

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

I agree with you Melvyn...and I think we are trying to come to grips with the original concept of The Redan.

I agree, again, with you that in order to get the feel of the real Redan, we need to seriously contemplate how it would have been played with gutties and hickories.  How reasonable would it have been for the average player to drive the green over the bunker?  To the open landing area on the right?  If it was at least doable, was it worth the risk?  Could you hold the green?  Could you get out of that bunker if you didn't make it?  Perhaps only the elite could even attempt to drive the green?  If you couldn't drive the green, what strategy would you need to employ to attempt to make par and/or limited the damage to bogey?

Anyway, this is George's thread...so only he can answer precisely what he is going for.  But that is where I think he is coming from/going to.

[Bill_McBride]

How much is the right side built up on the original at North Berwick? Quite a bit, three feet perhaps.

At which point in the green does it start falling away from the tee?  Immediately once you're on the green.  And that slope (right to left, front to back) carries all the way beyond the back of the green.  With no bunker back there, it's a pretty simple chip back up to the cup.  The biggest danger is the deep Redan bunker.

[Mike Hogan]

Here is a shot of the original, not a real good Pic.



Here is couple shost of Pac Dunes redan.

[Tom_Doak]

Most of the modern Redans I have seen (including most of the six or so that I have built) are different than the original for one or more of the reasons below:

1.  Modern architects learn not to drain the entire green off at one spot, and that's what the green at North Berwick does.  So, you either see part of the green draining to the front right (that's why it's flatter than the original) or somewhere out to the mid doe ir back left behind the bunker (whereas at North Berwick the 16th tee is raised higher in that location).

2.  Modern architects usually look to create distinct pin positions, and many times that includes a front hole location on the Redan, so they make it less steep in front.  Whereas at North Berwick or National, there really isn't much of a front hole location, and the green is fairly plain, just a big long slope with raised edges.

3.  Modern architects usually build the Redan in one of two settings ... a flat area where they can't think of a different idea (a la #7 at Chicago Golf Club) or sited along a natural ridge (a la #4 at High Pointe). In either case, it is unlikely that the ground at the back left of the green will be anything like what you find at North Berwick, where it is soft and gentle and nearly at grade, despite the deep hollows at the front and back of the green.  That sort of land formation really only occurs on links ground where the deep hollows don't have to surface drain anywhere.  And, of course, few modern courses are built on ground like North Berwick.

4.  Few modern architects have EVER built a green which slopes away at 4% or more, like the real thing.

5.  Modern designers try to build the Redan at 210-220 yards thinking it has to be that long if players are going to use a lower-trajectory club for
 the shot to the green, but at that length, they also reason that the green can't be too severe.

6.  Not many courses have the tailwind and the firm grind common to North Berwick, so even if you built an exact replica, it wouldn't really PLAY like the original very often.


By far my favorite of the ones I have built is the 17th at Pacific Dunes.  I think it gets the entrance of the green just right, and that's one of the hardest parts.  We deliberately made the right side of the green softer than the original because our hole was 210 yards and into the prevailing wind, but the other 3/4 of the green plays like the real thing.  However, the hole only plays like the Nirth Berwick hole in the winter, with the wind straight behind; in summer it is into a quartering wind from the left, and there aren't many players who can hit a running draw in that wind.    

[George_Bahto]

George Thomas wrote in his wonderful book, Golf Architecture in America, on the Redan, that in his thinking there were three different ways to play the hole;

∙   short man goes left for safety but has to carry the bunker to get on the putting surface;

∙   he called the next player in his next examples. “the slicer” but I’ll use the “the medium length player” .... takes the central path and  “by accurate placement” this player reaches the green without carry using the hill as an aid;

∙   the “long man”   - (g b: even has to) - needed to carry the kick-in mound and is nursed by the slope to the green - the slope requires the green to be wide and long.

These were his basic thoughts on the Redan   IN THOSE DAYS.

He does not mention a player who could actually drive the green - 180 a extremely long (non-downwind)  carry in those days - because the were few to none that could.

I understand their turf was firm and I do understand the greens were cut much higher than they are now and today’s rearward tilt would have to be kept at the requite 3 - 4 foot tilt, so these issues would have to brought into consideration, as well

I have putted, at length, on National’s Redan when the green was easily 11-12 in the stimp - it was tough (much fun) but it was puttable. That green is about 5 feet higher in front than at the rear. The kick-shoulder on the right is also about 5 feet higher (n places) than the front of the green (we have to green topo).

Today many players are hitting shortish irons to a 1920's Redan, let alone a middle-iron and still calling these holes very difficult. Those players in the 20' were hitting the longest club they had and most could not reach the green.

So, one of my questions is, at what length (by comparison, old vs modern Redans) should a comparable Redan be today to obtain the same difficulty? And, again, I understand the significance of firmer ground in those days as to many dart-board holes we have today.

My original question may not have been stated as well as it should have been but, in essence, why haven’t  we built Redans in the modern age even as close to the difficulty as the Golden Age versions - one where you really had a problem getting to and staying on the green?

What were those holes - par-3.5s?  Par-4's?

[George_Bahto]

Robert Thompson: “George: My experience is that modern designers don't build up the right side high enough to actually propel the ball to the left.”

I agree. To me a really good should be one where the shoulder will propel the ball towards the green - however, if done really well, too aggressive a play toward the shoulder will result in the ball propelling more forward than toward the green and will end up in a hazard beyond the green. The grass on the shoulder MUST be short-cropped - often not the case.

The Redan at Yale: it’s OK but I have a hard time equating that one to the more traditional definition of Redan.

[Tom_Doak]

George,

The one flaw in your description is saying that Thomas left out the idea of flying it onto the green because no one could hit it that far.

Plenty of people could make a 180-yard carry in the mid-1920's.  BUT, they couldn't make a carry like that AND hold a rock hard green that was tilted away from them at 4%.  That's the part that is so hard to replicate today, it's not just about making the hole longer.

[Robert Thompson]

I think there's a remarkably fine line between being overly aggressive and having the ball end up behind the green and not being aggressive enough with the slope and having the ball stop shot.

In Ontario there are two new Redans I can think of that were built in the last few years. The first one, Dick Kirkpatrick's Otter Creek, has a steep, small slope on the right and many argue the green isn't deep enough and balls simply end up in the swale in the back. The second is at a course called Turnberry and is about 210-yards. It isn't steep enough or dry enough and balls get caught up on the right before they hit the green.

I think Mr. Doak is correct -- most architects are afraid of building up the slope. However, I think the grade could be increased if they are careful about the size of the green.

For what it is worth, I loved the hole that masquerades as a Redan at Yale. Great green, great hole. Just not sure it meets the definition of a Redan.

Robert Thompson: “George: My experience is that modern designers don't build up the right side high enough to actually propel the ball to the left.”

I agree. To me a really good should be one where the shoulder will propel the ball towards the green - however, if done really well, too aggressive a play toward the shoulder will result in the ball propelling more forward than toward the green and will end up in a hazard beyond the green. The grass on the shoulder MUST be short-cropped - often not the case.

The Redan at Yale: it’s OK but I have a hard time equating that one to the more traditional definition of Redan.

[Chip Gaskins]

A redan at Pine Valley?  Where?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I too love 17 at pac dunes. I was never a fan of the original redan at N Berwick. The blindness factor took the fun out of the hole for me. Oh by the by I find the name Ballyhack really bad. I hope the course is good enough to overcome the name.

[Jerry Kluger]

Doesn't a Redan generally lend itself to firm and fast conditions, and if so, aren't most modern courses kept soft so the Redan simply does not work as originally intended?  I know a course in my area where they have a hole which was clearly designed as a Redan but it is usually so soft that the run-up shot is never an option. 

[Jimmy Chandler]

Oh by the by I find the name Ballyhack really bad. I hope the course is good enough to overcome the name.

Tiger --

Not to hijack this thread, but FYI the name "Ballyhack" is an old name for the land the golf course was built on -- Lester found it on a map of the Roanoke area at an antique show or something like that. They have the map framed at Ballyhack. I'm not sure if the story (which Lester can tell much better than I) improves the name for you, but at least it's evidence that it's not a contrived name.

Jimmy

[Mike Hendren]

Robert Thompson: “George: My experience is that modern designers don't build up the right side high enough to actually propel the ball to the left.”

I agree. To me a really good should be one where the shoulder will propel the ball towards the green - however, if done really well, too aggressive a play toward the shoulder will result in the ball propelling more forward than toward the green and will end up in a hazard beyond the green. The grass on the shoulder MUST be short-cropped - often not the case.

I think this is an important distinction.  Too often the redan is built in a way that brakes the ball landing short right rather than propelling it.  The 7th at Shinnecock is the worst culprit in this regard. 

I don't understand the bunker at the front right of the green of so many modern versions (as depicted above) as that is precisely the place a well played draw should land and thereby it thwarts the crafted approach.  Just beyond the green on the right makes more sense for the player who fails to move the ball right to left and it too agressive as George noted. 

Also, the original does require an intimidating, though much shorter, approach from the right with the two bunkers crafted into the upslope.  Most imitators offer an uninhibited avenue to approach from the right.

Frankly, I think few if any redans built in the U. S. are faithful to the original at North Berwick.   

Mike

[Bill_McBride]

Oh by the by I find the name Ballyhack really bad. I hope the course is good enough to overcome the name.

Tiger --

Not to hijack this thread, but FYI the name "Ballyhack" is an old name for the land the golf course was built on -- Lester found it on a map of the Roanoke area at an antique show or something like that. They have the map framed at Ballyhack. I'm not sure if the story (which Lester can tell much better than I) improves the name for you, but at least it's evidence that it's not a contrived name.

Jimmy

The prefix "Bally" in Gaelic means "town," so Ballyhack is "Hacktown."

A perfect place for my game these days........

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()