Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?

[Bill Brightly]

Donnie,

Am I right that you do not have an irrigation systems at Fishers Island? I can see that type of maintenance working on a Biarritz. But on other courses that irrigate the approach, the fairways are even softer than the putting surface, and the ball rolls even less quickly after the first bounce because the fairway is slower than the green.

I agree that modern equipment has made the hole obsolete. We maintain our approach as putting surface but sadly, the only people I see playing the hole "correctly" are shorter hitters who can't reach the back on a fly. They are hitting their drivers full out and sometimes running the ball up. I've worked on a low running shot, but when I miss that to either side, I leave myself with a 50 yard bunker shot. So now I fly it back there and accept missing in the greenside bunkers. The only times our hole  "works" is late or early in the season when the putting surface is really firm and won't hold balls. I love those times, because the bombers are forced to consider running the ball up.

[Donnie Beck]

Bill,

We have irrigation on Greens, Tees, Approaches, and parts of several fairways, but we only run water on the fairways to leach salts after flooding and maybe a handful of times per season under extreme drought conditions. Although we have irrigation on approaches we mirror the conditions of the fairways to keep conditions consistent throughout the course. The front of our Biarritz is definitely firm and brown in the summer months.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,

I noticed the picture of the ninth on your blog that you credit Geoffrey Childs with finding.  It is the same one that David posted earlier in the thread that he found at the NYPL.  Yours is much clearer. 

I enlarged the green portion and it seems to me that the mowing pattern on the approach section is clearly different than the green. 

That's attributable to the angle that the back tier presents to the camera versus the front tier.

The front tier is flat and below the level of the back tier.

The fact that you can see and discern the mowing pattern, a similar mowing pattern, would indicate the front tier is being maintained as green and not fairway

It's intriguing that there are 12 people in the picture by my count.  Do you suppose it was a sixsome or a foursome with caddies and 4 spectators.  The green looks to be in very good condition which makes it hard to attribute it to 1925 (when the course wasn't even open for play) or maybe even 1926 after the front nine opened.  Do you or Geoffrey have any idea of the date of the photo or whether it was published somewhere that would help date it? The NYPL version says the photographer died in 1929, so it must have been before that.  Some scrolling is required to see the whole enlarged version.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

In my opinion it goes completely against the concept of the hole to cut the entire complex at greens height.
The only way for the hole to work is have an extremely firm approach that allows the ball to release through the swale.

Donnie, I don't think you can make that generalization since so much depends on the topography and the relationship, elevation wise, between the tee and the green.

At greens height it is not possible to keep the front section firm enough to release without losing turf.

That would also apply to the back tier in terms of F&F conditions, so, I have to question your premise as it applies to the front tier.
Under your premise, no greens can become F&F and we know that's not the case.

At approach height the grass can survive but I am not sure how many other clubs other than Fishers would be willing to let the turf brown out for the hole to work.

Mountain Lake, in the heart of Florida maintain both tiers and swale as putting surface and I've run shots landing on the first tier, back, thru the swale, to the rear tier.  Again, tee to green elevation differentials, not agronomy appear to be the primary factor.

Modern equipment has made the concept of the hole obsolete in many cases. Yale for example I routinely hit 7 iron to the front and no more than a 5 iron to the back location.

Donnie, we haven't played golf together, but, 5 iron to the mid-point of the back tier ?
Ally is a very good golfer, a good ball striker and I believe that he hit a rescue.
My son hit either a rescue or a 3-wood and I hit 3-wood and I think Mark hit a 3-wood.
A 5-iron ?  From 235 ?  Did this occur during Hurricane Sandy ?


There is no way either of those clubs are going to release and get through the swale no matter how firm the conditions are.

Agreed, but that has a lot to do with the angle of incidence.


In reality, the concept the still only works at fishers due to the firmness and uphill nature of the hole.

Agreed that the angle of incidence is different at Fishers Island versus almost every other Biarritz, and that's a major factor contributing to its continued success.

But, Mountain Lake's Biarritz, The Creek's Biarritz and Westhampton's Biarritz work well in modern times, again, mostly due to the angle of incidence.

To truly work as designed a modern version would have to be built in the 275-300 yard range. Unless there are some really neat hole locations in the front, or you want to have some flexibility of yardage on your par 3’s I can not see putting the extra work on the maintenance staff because it is never going to function as intended but rather function as two separate greens divided by a swale.

Again, I disagree.
In modern times, I think the disparity between tee and green, when the tee is elevated above the green, thwarts the function of the Biarritz concept.

P.S.  I still love ya.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Regardless of not seeing what he sees regards the construction photo, I agree with what Donnie says above. The swale must come in to play more if the first plateau is left as approach and allowed to firm up... That said, if employed on a GB&I links, it could work very well as either.

Ally,

It works very well at Mountain Lake and Westhampton.

WHY ?

Because of the relationship between the tee and the green in terms of elevation.

When the tee is at or below the level of the green, the concept still works.
It's only where the tee is elevated above the green that the agronomic conditions that Donnie alludes to, tend to frustrate the intended play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

Do you see the similarity in the text of the articles you're posting ?
They're almost exact duplicates.

In one of the earlier threads on NGLA/PV/Merion, it was explained how newspapers just copied other articles from other newspapers or print.

Now I stopped by to visit with Charlie and Seth yesterday.
I asked them about the 9th at Yale.

They said that they wanted to replicate the Biarritz from France, but that the chasm wasn't identical, yet Geist presented an unusual opportunity to mirror an heroic shot, one were the golfer would be intimidated by the intervening water hazard, so they used the original hole as a template, but, in their continued effort to improve on the original template holes, they enhanced the 9th at Yale, allowing both tiers to be used as a target green, thereby presenting two holes in one, quite similar to the Eden Green at TOC that serves a dual purpose.

So, in order to insure that their vision to craft a dual application, or play on the hole, during construction they had the entire footpad on the far side of the lake, crafted to be used as a putting surface by introducing the same layer of charcoal that was introduced to all of the other putting surfaces.

And, because the area fronting the swale and the swale couldn't be mown by tractors towing gang mowers, they mowed the entire area as green, with green mowers.  Ditto the swale.  (I believe that the early photos show the front tier mowed as green)

They asked me to return in October if I had any other questions that they could help me with.

[Jim Nugent]

It sounds like the Yale Biarritz duplicates some key features of the original in France, better than any other I know of.  

Yale requires a 160 yard carry over water.  Almost exactly like the original.  Do any other Biarritz holes require any significant carry over water?

Yale's tee is elevated well above the green.  According to one of the articles in this thread, so was the original.  Again, this is either rare or unique among modern-day Biarritz holes.  

They asked me to return in October if I had any other questions that they could help me with.

Pat: I have another question for your return visit.  This one is for Seth:

"Where is your routing of CPC?  If you don't know, please tell Patrick how your routing worked, so he can relay the info to us."

btw, Pat, you haven't told us what Charlie said about who routed Merion.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

It sounds like the Yale Biarritz duplicates some key features of the original in France, better than any other I know of.  

Yale requires a 160 yard carry over water.  Almost exactly like the original.

Jim,

The carry seems longer, perhaps someone like Bryan Izatt or David Moriarty who are adept at linear measurements on Google Earth can quantify the distance from the back tee to the bottom of the swale.

If the green is 65 yards in depth and the hole plays 235, wouldn't the carry be a tad longer than 170 ?
Hitting the bank of the front tier isn't making the carry in my mind. 

Do any other Biarritz holes require any significant carry over water?

Jim,  Fishers Island's flanks the water and the carry is rather daunting looking, but, I can't recall any others over water except for The Creek, but, at the Creek, the green is about 90 yards in depth and the tee only slightly above the green.

Yale's tee is elevated well above the green.  According to one of the articles in this thread, so was the original.  
Again, this is either rare or unique among modern-day Biarritz holes.  

I don't know of any Biarritz's with the tee to green elevation disparity that exists at Yale

They asked me to return in October if I had any other questions that they could help me with.

Pat: I have another question for your return visit.  This one is for Seth:

"Where is your routing of CPC?  
If you don't know, please tell Patrick how your routing worked, so he can relay the info to us."

btw, Pat, you haven't told us what Charlie said about who routed Merion.  

[DMoriarty]

Sorry for the sidetrack but for what is worth and for the sake of clarification, it is extremely unlikely that Biarritz hole which inspired CBM was the Chasm hole.  CBM never mentioned the Chasm aspect of the hole.  Nor did Whigham.   I think the Chasm was always a very short hole.  When CBM and Whigham visited the course in 1906 in preparation for NGLA, the Chasm hole was around 100 yards or less.   CBM referred to the hole that inspired him as the 12th at Biarritz, but so far as I can discover the Chasm was never the 12th hole. (It was at one point the 3rd but flipping the nines doesn't work because of the layout.)  And while the Chasm was a quite famous hole, CBM is dismissive of the quality of the hole in question, except for the features he liked.    And I have never read any description of the famous Chasm Hole that mentioned a hogs-back or a swale, or the method of playing using the ground game.   So, as far as I can tell, the original Biarritz concept was based on a different hole at Biarritz, likely one down by the water in the Chambre d'Amore.

CBM discussed the hole in a June 20, 1906 NY Sun article about his recent trip abroad: "The idea for one hole comes from Biarritz.  The hole in question is not a good one, but it revealed a fine and original principle that will be incorporated in my selection." No mention of the famous chasm --the description of the hole as "not very good" would seem an incongruous reference if he was referring to the famous Chasm.

CBM expanded on the description later that year in his article on ideal holes in Outing Magazine where he provided a sample listing of 18 holes:  "15. 210 yards. Suggested by 12th Biarritz making sharp hog back in the middle of the course.  Stopping thirty yards from the hole bunkered to the right of the green and good low ground to the left of the plateau green." Again no mention of the famous Chasm.  Rather, CBM described a "sharp hog back" in the middle of the course [hole] ending 30 yards short.  And the green is a plateau.  Nothing about a double plateau or a dip in the green.  

H.J. Whigham repeated this early understanding in 1913 when describing  the inspiration for Piping Rock's Biarritz:  "There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green." Again, nothing about a chasm.  And nothing about a double plateau green.   Rather the play is over a "hog's back" which is apparently the first plateau.   Then there is the dip which 30 yards before the actual green.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

As usual, you've come up with some interesting research.

Wasn't their a painting of the "chasm" hole ?

Was it the model for 's 15 and/or 16 at CPC.

Since it wasn't unusual for CBM/SR to improve upon the original hole that served as a template for them, wouldn't the incorporation of a putting surface on the front tier be just another evolutionary step

[Bill Brightly]

David,


Since it wasn't unusual for CBM/SR to improve upon the original hole that served as a template for them, wouldn't the incorporation of a putting surface on the front tier be just another evolutionary step

It would have been far more than an evolutionary step... It would have been a major deviation from the hole's design intent. An optional front putting surface would have created a totally different shot requirement. But if Macdonald and Raynor did have this sudden epiphany, don't you think they might have mentioned it to Charlie Banks, the top assistant ON THE SITE? And why didn't they do it again on later Biarritz holes?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Which is it?  Is it that the camera angle disguises the mowing pattern on the front tier and makes it look different than the back tier as you seem to be saying in your first sentence?  Or, is it that you see the same mowing pattern in the two tiers in the picture as you seem to be saying in your third sentence?

I see a different mowing pattern between the approach and the green proper and I think it indicates that the approach was maintained differently than the green, that is as an approach and not as a green, whenever this picture was taken.

Your opinion obviously varies from mine.

Anthony,

I noticed the picture of the ninth on your blog that you credit Geoffrey Childs with finding.  It is the same one that David posted earlier in the thread that he found at the NYPL.  Yours is much clearer. 

I enlarged the green portion and it seems to me that the mowing pattern on the approach section is clearly different than the green. 

That's attributable to the angle that the back tier presents to the camera versus the front tier.

The front tier is flat and below the level of the back tier.

The fact that you can see and discern the mowing pattern, a similar mowing pattern, would indicate the front tier is being maintained as green and not fairway

It's intriguing that there are 12 people in the picture by my count.  Do you suppose it was a sixsome or a foursome with caddies and 4 spectators.  The green looks to be in very good condition which makes it hard to attribute it to 1925 (when the course wasn't even open for play) or maybe even 1926 after the front nine opened.  Do you or Geoffrey have any idea of the date of the photo or whether it was published somewhere that would help date it? The NYPL version says the photographer died in 1929, so it must have been before that.  Some scrolling is required to see the whole enlarged version.

[Bill Brightly]

Bian,

Patrick is going to note the  "up and back" mower cut on the approach and say it is putting surface because they mow in the same direction...

But your enlarged photo clearly shows that the groove is not putting surface, and that the approach was being maintained differently than the putting surface. Perhaps Donnie or another superintendent can comment. Could it be that more water and topdressing was applied to the putting surface to give it a more plush look?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan Izatt,

Do you see the similarity in the text of the articles you're posting ?
They're almost exact duplicates.

In one of the earlier threads on NGLA/PV/Merion, it was explained how newspapers just copied other articles from other newspapers or print.

Sure, they are all similar.  They presumably are all quoting from the same source Banks? Raynor? or ....?  The Hartford Courant came first in August 1925.  The two articles and the picture and caption came shortly afterward in the fall.  Do you think the reporter from the Yale Daily News provided a more detailed description and picture (that wasn't in the Courant) because they were copying from the Courant?  Given that the Yale News is on campus as was the golf course, it seems logical that they got their descriptions directly from the source and not from the Courant and that they took their own picture.

So, we have three descriptions and a picture and caption that were published over a period of several months in the summer and fall of 1925 that describe the green as sitting behind the swale/groove/trench.  The hole was built when the articles and picture were published.  Why would the source - Banks, Raynor? - describe the Biarritz one way and have already built it s a different way? A prudent logical person would say that that your premise is silly.  

Now I stopped by to visit with Charlie and Seth yesterday.
I asked them about the 9th at Yale.

They said that they wanted to replicate the Biarritz from France, but that the chasm wasn't identical, yet Geist presented an unusual opportunity to mirror an heroic shot, one were the golfer would be intimidated by the intervening water hazard, so they used the original hole as a template, but, in their continued effort to improve on the original template holes, they enhanced the 9th at Yale, allowing both tiers to be used as a target green, thereby presenting two holes in one, quite similar to the Eden Green at TOC that serves a dual purpose.

So, in order to insure that their vision to craft a dual application, or play on the hole, during construction they had the entire footpad on the far side of the lake, crafted to be used as a putting surface by introducing the same layer of charcoal that was introduced to all of the other putting surfaces.

And, because the area fronting the swale and the swale couldn't be mown by tractors towing gang mowers, they mowed the entire area as green, with green mowers.  Ditto the swale.  (I believe that the early photos show the front tier mowed as green)

And, did you get the gang mower thing from the Seth Seance?  Seems like a large supposition.  and, the picture above shows me that the mowing pattern is different.

They asked me to return in October if I had any other questions that they could help me with.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bill,

Although I'm not a superintendent I'd agree that it is certainly possible that the green was more plush and that accounts for the more pronounced mowing pattern.  There was an article in the Yale Daily News about their gravity feed irrigation system, so they could have fertilized and watered the hell out of it, especially during grow in.  

I really don't see the up and back mowing pattern on the approach other than very faintly on the left side.  I suppose it's possible that the green had been mowed more recently than the approach, and they certainly missed mowing the groove in this picture (and the other pictures, in my opinion).

[DMoriarty]

David,

As usual, you've come up with some interesting research.

Wasn't their a painting of the "chasm" hole ?

Was it the model for 's 15 and/or 16 at CPC.

There are some images and descriptions of the chasm hole but none of the images/descriptions show or mention a hogback approach area or a 30 yard swale between the hogback and the green.  (Another aside:  The original chasm hole actually moved at one point, with the old green becoming the approximate tee for the replacement chasm hole, so that the hole then played over the next chasm. Neither were described has having features like a biarritz hole.)

I don't know whether the chasm hole was the "model" for the holes at CPC.  My guess is that whether they were thinking of the Chasm holr or not many designers thought that the concept of playing over such "chasms" was a pretty cool thing to do when the opportunity presented itself. So I am not sure that I'd call the chasm hole a "model" in the sense one might think of the Redan as a model.  As I said, I don't think CBM or Whigham ever discussed the Chasm hole.

Since it wasn't unusual for CBM/SR to improve upon the original hole that served as a template for them, wouldn't the incorporation of a putting surface on the front tier be just another evolutionary step

CBM was certainly willing to "improve upon the original hole" and the Biarritz is such a case (CBM thought the original "not a good one") and surely the concepts evolved.  I am no expert, but it doesn't seem to me that CBM was slavishly applying these supposed templates.  

On the other hand, I think we need to keep in mind the bigger picture of what CBM was trying to accomplish on any given golf course. His "template" approach was not for its own sake, but was in service of a larger, overriding goal, which was to maximize the variety of interesting and compelling golf shots faced by the golfer during his round.  In this regard, the variation of hole distances and shot requirements seemed extremely important to CBM, and the supposed templates - especially the par three templates - served this purpose.   His core one shot holes all placed unique demands on the golfer, from pitch shot to brassie or driver.  What you are suggesting throws this off.  When the pin is up front on a biarritz, you have a hole of about the same length as a Redan and you lose that challenging hole which was supposed to place the green just out of reach for most golfers.

Now obviously at some point the concept evolved and it is easy to imagine why --a par three where very few could successfully carry to the putting surface must have been pretty controversial at many clubs (and there was a build in solution of this first plateau.)  But as far as CBM's ideas on golf architecture go, the "evolution" of this hole seems to be moving away from CBM's ideals.

[Mike Policano]

Pat and Bill,

You are both in luck. The Metropolitan Hickory Society is sponsoring "The Old School" at noon on Tuesday Oct 15 at Yale. I will bring hickories for each of you. You can spend much time as you want playing the 9th.

Cheers

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Bryan:

I have no idea where the photo came from email me at AnthonyPioppi@gmail.com and I'll give you Mr. Childs's email.

Patrick:

From reading your responses to the posts that refute your theory, you seem to nitpick and find any reason to dismiss them. I doubt your mind can be changed other than Raynor rising from the grave and telling us how it was supposed to be mowed. So why are we having this discussion? You dismissed Bryan's analysis of the photo as if you are a noted expert in the field. He was making an observation and did not claim it to be fact, just a conjecture. I agree with what he sees but would never claim it to be fact.

While I'm writing this, a colored drawing of the Fairyland Golf Club (now Lookout Mountain) hangs nearby, dated Nov. 13, 1925, the same generation as Yale with the words, "Course designed by Seth. J. Raynor and Charles H.  Banks, golf architects." The only color Raynor drawing that I know of.

The Biarritz is shown to have an absolutely massive bunker down each side of the hole, perhaps each 60 yards long. The green is very round and the swale is drawn as the same color as the bunkers. Are we to believe there was sand in there at one point? Also, there is a section between the very round green and the swale that is the exact same color as the fairway. Which, to me, seems to indicate, that unlike any Biarritz I've ever seen, the green did not extend to the swale.

Was it built that way? I have no idea. No photos exist from 1925. If you asked me what the Fairyland Biarritz looked like on opening day, I would say I don't know.

The same with Yale. With the information that is known, all we can do here is guess. Having a ongoing dueling monologues seems to me to be useless. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Anthony

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Which is it?  Is it that the camera angle disguises the mowing pattern on the front tier and makes it look different than the back tier as you seem to be saying in your first sentence?  Or, is it that you see the same mowing pattern in the two tiers in the picture as you seem to be saying in your third sentence?

I see a different mowing pattern between the approach and the green proper and I think it indicates that the approach was maintained differently than the green, that is as an approach and not as a green, whenever this picture was taken.

Your opinion obviously varies from mine.

Anthony,

I noticed the picture of the ninth on your blog that you credit Geoffrey Childs with finding.  It is the same one that David posted earlier in the thread that he found at the NYPL.  Yours is much clearer. 

I enlarged the green portion and it seems to me that the mowing pattern on the approach section is clearly different than the green. 

That's attributable to the angle that the back tier presents to the camera versus the front tier.

The front tier is flat and below the level of the back tier.

The fact that you can see and discern the mowing pattern, a similar mowing pattern, would indicate the front tier is being maintained as green and not fairway

It's intriguing that there are 12 people in the picture by my count.  Do you suppose it was a sixsome or a foursome with caddies and 4 spectators.  The green looks to be in very good condition which makes it hard to attribute it to 1925 (when the course wasn't even open for play) or maybe even 1926 after the front nine opened.  Do you or Geoffrey have any idea of the date of the photo or whether it was published somewhere that would help date it? The NYPL version says the photographer died in 1929, so it must have been before that.  Some scrolling is required to see the whole enlarged version.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Take a close look at this photo.

Pay particular attention to the extreme left portion of the green at the top of the swalel

See how the green line curves and continues down the slope of the swale.

Is that not evidence of the swale being mowed to green.



Anthony,

You can cite all of the writings, especially the pre-opening writings you want, the physical fact is that there's a charcoal layer throughout that entire green.  A Charcoal layer that is ONLY found within the putting surfaces at Yale.  That's irrefutable.

The writings, in newspapers and elsewhere are not hard, concrete evidence, only hearsay.
And, most of them are merely parroting what someone else wrote.

The Charcoal layer can't be dismissed.

It's physical existance is irrefutable

It's an integral element in the design and construction of the green/green profile and it's inserted prior to the application of the 12 inches of green's mix.

That's a premeditated act, not an amendatory act.

So, you can show me all of the writings you choose, they can't overcome the physical evidence.

The charcoal layer is the smoking gun, equivalent to a ballistics match in a murder case, whereas, in that same case, you have a named and many unnamed sources claiming what was intended before it actually happened.

So, I have the "as-built" evidence and you have pre-construction opinions.

Added to my premise is the caption under the photo of # 9 green, stating that the front tier and swale are part of the putting surface.

Why do you dismiss that article but embrace pre-construction articles

You don't know if CMB/SR decided before or during construction to add that charcoal layer.

I know one thing, that Charcoal layer is in that entire putting surface.

And, I know, that to dig up the swale and front tier, excavate to 12 inches, insert a one inch charcoal layer, then replace the excavated green's mix, and either replace the sod or reseed would be an enormous undertaking, yet, there's no record of that undertaking, in writing or vis a vis hearsay.

I'm willing to listen to substantive evidence, but, not to wishful thinking.

You, Bill and Bryan DON'T want there to have been a green there from the get go.
You all have a self serving bias, despite your biases being different..

You have all drawn your conclusions, Wilson sailed in 1910 and won't or don't want to accept evidence to the contrary.

Whereas, I'd be happy to consider physical evidence to the contrary.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

Do you see the similarity in the text of the articles you're posting ?
They're almost exact duplicates.

In one of the earlier threads on NGLA/PV/Merion, it was explained how newspapers just copied other articles from other newspapers or print.

Sure, they are all similar.  They presumably are all quoting from the same source Banks? Raynor? or ....?  The Hartford Courant came first in August 1925.  The two articles and the picture and caption came shortly afterward in the fall.  Do you think the reporter from the Yale Daily News provided a more detailed description and picture (that wasn't in the Courant) because they were copying from the Courant?  Given that the Yale News is on campus as was the golf course[/b], it seems logical that they got their descriptions directly from the source and not from the Courant and that they took their own picture.

Bryan,

You continue to make enormous blunders which do nothing but fuel erroneous conclusions on your part.
The golf course is NOT on campus.
You'd know that if you ever set foot on it.
That's the problem you have, you make critical evaluations absent first hand knowledge.


So, we have three descriptions and a picture and caption that were published over a period of several months in the summer and fall of 1925 that describe the green as sitting behind the swale/groove/trench.  [/size]


First, the three descriptions are the same copy, not original, differentiated text.

How quickly you forget the same basic photo with the caption that clearly stated that the swale and the front tier were all putting surface.


The hole was built when the articles and picture were published.[/size]

But, you don't know when the articles were WRITTEN, nor the picture taken, only when they're published.
And, as night follows day, we know that the articles were written before they were published[/size]  


Why would the source - Banks, Raynor? [/size]

Obviously, you don't know the source, which is it ?  Banks ?  Raynor ?  Neither


- describe the Biarritz one way and have already built it s a different way?
[/size]

Nice try, but that's pure speculation on your part.
You don't know if the article was written after to construction and from the text, it appears that's not the case.
So your self serving, conclusive question is flawed.
You're being intellectually dishonest, claiming that the article was written after the hole was completed.[/color][/size]


A prudent logical person would say that that your premise is silly.  

A prudent person would be "honest" and not careless with his facts.

And, did you get the gang mower thing from the Seth Seance?  Seems like a large supposition.  and, the picture above shows me that the mowing pattern is different.

Look below, at the extreme upper left of the green, just above the swale.
Look at the green line and the rough to the left of it
Look at that mowing pattern, it shows the continuation of the green line down into the swale.
Proof positive that the green continued from the back tier, down into the swale.
Even without the Charcoal layer, the photo YOU produced clearly shows the swale as green.


You're either obtuse or a flaming moron, or both.
Look at the picture you posted.
Do you see the size of the mowing strips.  Does that look like the work of a gang mower ?
Do you see any way for a tractor, dragging gang mowers to get to an from that green ?
Do you see anywhere where the tractor towing gang mowers could turn ?
Do you see how impossible it would be for a tractor and gang mower to mow the steep inclines created by the sharp swale ?

What I resent most about your posts, is that you have no interest in getting to the truth about the 9th green, you just want to throw mindless counter arguments after mindless counter arguments against the premise, hoping that one might stick.  

Rather than discover the truth, you want to destroy the premise and the discovery process that would accompany it.
That's the work of a flaming moron.  Nah, it's beyond that, that's the work of a colossal moron.

We're all ignorant, just on different subjects, but, you're so out of your league on this stuff that it's frightening.
You can't design and build what you can't maintain.
It wouldn't last.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat and Bill,

You are both in luck. The Metropolitan Hickory Society is sponsoring "The Old School" at noon on Tuesday Oct 15 at Yale. I will bring hickories for each of you.

You can spend much time as you want playing the 9th.

Mike,

I love playing Yale, but in Mid-October, with Hickories ?   I might not finish

I would like to play the 9th at Yale with Hickories with a ball circa 1926 and a ball circa 2013, just to see the disparity and the challenge that the hole presented when it opened.

As to Bill, I'd love to play with Bill......... and you.  But, you might need a shirt with vertical black and white stripes and a whistle.

Cheers

[Bryan Izatt]

Such venomous and vitriolic stuff is not worthy of you or anyone else who posts on this board.  How does this stuff contribute to the frank discussion of golf course architecture?  I understand that your modus operandi is to create debate, then conflict, and then to try to figuratively bloody the nose of your presumed opponents.  Why do you do that.  Is your ego inflated?  Does it leave you feeling strong and powerful?  So childish for a guy your age.    

Bryan Izatt,

Do you see the similarity in the text of the articles you're posting ?
They're almost exact duplicates.

In one of the earlier threads on NGLA/PV/Merion, it was explained how newspapers just copied other articles from other newspapers or print.

Sure, they are all similar.  They presumably are all quoting from the same source Banks? Raynor? or ....?  The Hartford Courant came first in August 1925.  The two articles and the picture and caption came shortly afterward in the fall.  Do you think the reporter from the Yale Daily News provided a more detailed description and picture (that wasn't in the Courant) because they were copying from the Courant?  Given that the Yale News is on campus as was the golf course[/b], it seems logical that they got their descriptions directly from the source and not from the Courant and that they took their own picture.

Bryan,

You continue to make enormous blunders which do nothing but fuel erroneous conclusions on your part.
The golf course is NOT on campus.
You'd know that if you ever set foot on it.
That's the problem you have, you make critical evaluations absent first hand knowledge.


Yup.  Enormous blunder.  It's the Yale Daily News and the Yale Golf Course.  They might be more closely linked than either was with the Hartford Courant.

So, we have three descriptions and a picture and caption that were published over a period of several months in the summer and fall of 1925 that describe the green as sitting behind the swale/groove/trench.  [/size]


First, the three descriptions are the same copy, not original, differentiated text.

Semantic nonsense.  Surely you can do better.  To reply in the same nonsensical vein, I guess "groove" and "trench" are the "same copy". I guess those Yale Daily News couldn't even stick to the prescribed copy.

How quickly you forget the same basic photo with the caption that clearly stated that the swale and the front tier were all putting surface.

I didn't forget it.  I posted it from Ran's course profile.  Did you forget the picture and caption published in September 1925 that I posted that is supported by two text articles in the Yale Daily News and one in the Hartford Courant?  Oh, and by the way, how are you coming along with dating and sourcing the publication that your (Ran's) picture came from.    I've posted two articles and a photo from the Yale Daily News.  What have you contributed, except a half explained story about a charcoal layer and nonsensical arguments.  Honestly, I would have liked to hear more about that charcoal coring study.

The hole was built when the articles and picture were published.[/size]

But, you don't know when the articles were WRITTEN, nor the picture taken, only when they're published.
And, as night follows day, we know that the articles were written before they were published[/size]

Your getting more nonsensical by the line here.  So, are you're saying the articles were WRITTEN long before they were published and the green was built?  The Yale Daily News picture was obviously taken before it was published and after the green was built.  I suppose you nonsensically believe the caption on the photo was also written a long time before the picture was taken.  




Why would the source - Banks, Raynor? [/size]

Obviously, you don't know the source, which is it ?  Banks ?  Raynor ?  Neither

Neither do you?  Who wrote the caption under the photo you give so much credibility to.  Oh, and once again, how are you coming along with dating and sourcing the publication that your (Ran's) picture came from.


- describe the Biarritz one way and have already built it s a different way?
[/size]

Nice try, but that's pure speculation on your part.
You don't know if the article was written after to construction and from the text, it appears that's not the case.
So your self serving, conclusive question is flawed.
You're being intellectually dishonest, claiming that the article was written after the hole was completed.[/color][/size]

You're just being intellectually dumb and argumentative.  The picture in the Yale Daily News published in September 1925 shows a more or less finished hole.  When would the hole descriptions and articles and caption have been written in your not-so-humble opinion.  Would it have been in the planning stages, before construction, a year prior?  Please clarify your position.

Self serving?  How is that?  We have 4 pictures, two captions, three articles, all of them more or less contemporaneous and your current half explained charcoal layer.  Based on most of the pictures and articles, it is my opinion that the front portion was originally conceived and built as an "approach".  At some point, unknown at this point, the approach and swale/trench/groove got turned into part of the green.  The charcoal layer story is interesting and raises questions about when and how that happened and whether it was part of a change in design philosophy for the hole or a change in the initial construction.  At the moment I'll go with what I see as a preponderance of the other contemporaneous evidence.  Your opinion appears to be different.  When and if some additional evidence is uncovered I'm certainly prepared to alter my opinion.  Is that too self serving for you?  


A prudent logical person would say that that your premise is silly.  

A prudent person would be "honest" and not careless with his facts.

Are you calling me a liar?  Just because I disagree with your opinion does not make a liar.  

And, did you get the gang mower thing from the Seth Seance?  Seems like a large supposition.  and, the picture above shows me that the mowing pattern is different.

Look below, at the extreme upper left of the green, just above the swale.
Look at the green line and the rough to the left of it
Look at that mowing pattern, it shows the continuation of the green line down into the swale.

I don't see that.  You see something.  C'est la vie.

Proof positive that the green continued from the back tier, down into the swale.
Even without the Charcoal layer, the photo YOU produced clearly shows the swale as green.

I don't see it.  You're entitled to your opinion.  But that's not proof positive.



You're either obtuse or a flaming moron, or both.

Can you not discuss a topic without ad hominem attacks.  Do you have to metaphorically bloody a nose to try to win a debate or in this case a discussion?

Look at the picture you posted.
Do you see the size of the mowing strips.  Does that look like the work of a gang mower ?
Do you see any way for a tractor, dragging gang mowers to get to an from that green ?
Do you see anywhere where the tractor towing gang mowers could turn ?
Do you see how impossible it would be for a tractor and gang mower to mow the steep inclines created by the sharp swale ?

What I resent most about your posts, is that you have no interest in getting to the truth about the 9th green, you just want to throw mindless counter arguments after mindless counter arguments against the premise, hoping that one might stick.  

I've presented a couple of articles about the use of charcoal in greens in that period, two articles and a captioned photo from the construction period and posted Ran's picture and an enlargement of the picture that David and Anthony found.  You've talked i generality about a charcoal layer.  How exactly does this demonstrate your interest in getting to the truth.  How does it demonstrate my lack of interest?  



Rather than discover the truth, you want to destroy the premise and the discovery process that would accompany it.
That's the work of a flaming moron.  Nah, it's beyond that, that's the work of a colossal moron.

Could you try to work on a new epithet.  Moron is so boring.

We're all ignorant, just on different subjects, but, you're so out of your league on this stuff that it's frightening.

Don't be frightened.  The sun will rise tomorrow.  It sure would be helpful for the discovery process if you could date and source that picture of Ran's that your putting so much stock in.  And, honestly, I'd like to learn more about the charcoal layer discovery.

You can't design and build what you can't maintain.
It wouldn't last.

We agree on that.

[Thomas Dai]

The Yale website shows 2 bunkers left of the 9th green and 1 bunker front right but all are away from the waters edge. In the various older photos posted in this thread the bunkering both sides of the green touches the waterline, they're almost beach like.

When did the bunkering style change on this hole and are there any plans to go back to the original bunkering style? Just curious to know.

All the best.

[Mark Pearce]

Sadly the forum software is being cranky and won't let me quote.  That said, this:

What I resent most about your posts, is that you have no interest in getting to the truth about the 9th green, you just want to throw mindless counter arguments after mindless counter arguments against the premise, hoping that one might stick. 

just caused me to laugh out loud in the office.  Absolutely tremendous stuff.