Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

There's another reason I think the front tier was maintained as putting surface.

It's almost perfectly flat.

Some other Biarritz's didn't have that structure/configuration and we know that he entire footpad was constructed, so it wasn't by accident.

Jim.

I hit a real solid, low flying driver.

As ally stated, had it been slightly right, it might have stayed just at the top of the swale.

But, there was no way it could get to the mid point or even to the first third of the back tier.
And as we know, Pro V1's retain their round quality and roll about as pure as can be, unlike balls circa 1924.

The elevated nature of the tee, high above and distant from the green make running the ball from the front tier, thru the swale, to the back tier, a myth.

We tried putting from the bottom of the swale to a back center hole location and couldn't come close as the swale is deep and incredibly steep and the back tier is rather steeply sloped, back to front.

In 1924, it had to be an incredibly formidable hole.

I can't imagine any ball running through FAIRWAY across the front tier, thru the swale and up to the back tier.

If I couldn't do it with a low hit driver using a ProV1 with the surface mowed as a putting green, I can't imagine anyone doing it in 1924

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick,

The fact that the front section was obviously shaped proves nothing. Just about all the golfing turf was significantly altered at Yale. In Scotland's gift, Macdonald writes:

"In the timber we could not see 50 feet ahead. However, we found on the high land wonderful deposits of sand. In a bog we found four to six feet of wonderful muck. Of the 102 acres cleared, 28 were swamps, 43 stone ledges, and the cleared land was full of rocks. Practically 75% of the cleared area was ledge and swamp, necessitating blasting, filling, draining and covering with sand, earth and humus to make grass-growing soil."

But there is an interesting simple sketch of Yale in the book which shows the hole at 180 yards, and the green as a circle with a topo line running through the middle. I am not skilled at reading a topo map, but could that line be the elevation change to the back section? Doesn't the club have original drawings?

[Donnie Beck]

I am going to have to go with Bill on this one.



The green proper is behind a deep trench in the approach !!!

IMO no Biarritz were designed to be cut as green in front. Cutting at greens height goes completely against the design principle. The only way for the hole to function properly is for the ball to release through the front section and that isn't going to happen maintained as greens height. The only way to get the ball to release is to shut off the water to the front section. At approach height the grass will have a much larger roots system to withstand the firm conditions required.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

......................

I do not know about the use of charcoal in golf course construction. What was the purpose? Do you think it was used to improve drainage and create a firmer surface? Or did it have something to the way grass might grow with charcoal in the soil?

......................

Bill,

Here are links to a couple of learned articles from the late '20's and early '30's that describe, amongst other things, the use of charcoal on golf courses.  It doesn't sound like it was particularly useful and potentially had some very negative consequences.  Neither article suggests it was used in a layer - rather it was worked into the upper layer of soil or was granulated and used as top dressing.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgsr.lib.msu.edu%2F1930s%2F1933%2F330890.pdf&ei=xawoUtjzFuPC4AOeuYGIDA&usg=AFQjCNHlnM1RJXhCLiGja1nZTO9eWKgprw&bvm=bv.51773540,d.dmg

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CFMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.lib.msu.edu%2Ftic%2Fngktc%2Farticle%2F1929sep8.pdf&ei=yjgoUul5x8TgA-LmgYgP&usg=AFQjCNHkIAEsY5p0eBI16oah7dzf_CFgBA&bvm=bv.51773540,d.dmg

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Exactly how was charcoal employed in the greens at Yale ?

If the abundance of core samples indicate it was a layer, similar to a choker layer, does that confirm that the articles you cited are erroneous and not to be relied upon ?


Here are links to a couple of learned articles from the late '20's and early '30's that describe, amongst other things, the use of charcoal on golf courses.  It doesn't sound like it was particularly useful and potentially had some very negative consequences.  Neither article suggests it was used in a layer - rather it was worked into the upper layer of soil or was granulated and used as top dressing.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgsr.lib.msu.edu%2F1930s%2F1933%2F330890.pdf&ei=xawoUtjzFuPC4AOeuYGIDA&usg=AFQjCNHlnM1RJXhCLiGja1nZTO9eWKgprw&bvm=bv.51773540,d.dmg

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CFMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.lib.msu.edu%2Ftic%2Fngktc%2Farticle%2F1929sep8.pdf&ei=yjgoUul5x8TgA-LmgYgP&usg=AFQjCNHkIAEsY5p0eBI16oah7dzf_CFgBA&bvm=bv.51773540,d.dmg

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You stated that there was a charcoal layer at Yale, not me.  Could you expand on exactly how it was employed there?  You compared it to a choker layer.  Could you provide us with information on the profile of charcoal layer?  How thick was the layer?  How far under the surface?  Do you have any supporting information on how charcoal acts as a choker layer?

I provided two contemporaneous articles that describe the usage of charcoal on golf courses.  Did you read them?  How are they erroneous?  If Yale used a layer of charcoal, then it was different from what was described in these two papers - that doesn't make the two papers erroneous.  Perhaps Yale tried something different.  Or, maybe charcoal top dressing compressed over the years to form a layer.  Who knows?  

Not everything needs to be a battle-to-the-death debate.  

[John McCarthy]

A quote from this site's tour of Shoreacres (Raynor, 1921): 

"Sixth hole, 190 yards; A shorter than usual Biarritz hole that has both the front and back halves as green. The green itself is eighty-three yards long and features a two foot swale approximately in the middle. The Club has not always maintained the front half as putting surface. Interestingly enough, all the greens at Shoreacres have an original cinder base and when Tim Davis went to reclaim the front half, there was no cinder. Perhaps Raynor never intended the front half to be green but the hole is infinitely more interesting because it is." 

I wonder if the cinder base as described above is what is being described as charcoal in this thread. 

[Bryan Izatt]

John,

I would think that cinders and charcoal are different things.  Maybe Patrick could clarify if the Yale profiles were charcoal or cinders.

Here is another thread from the GCA past about cinder-based greens.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32126.0.html


And, a 1923 article from the USGA on the use of cinder.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgsr.lib.msu.edu%2F1920s%2F1923%2F2306176.pdf&ei=QfcpUtP3JaTC2QWwpYCADA&usg=AFQjCNFsjhv82oD9RqxCWf_Xu4K0M4LCVQ&bvm=bv.51773540,d.b2I

Seems like they were doing a lot of experimentation with different materials for the building of greens back in the day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You stated that there was a charcoal layer at Yale, not me.  

That's because you were totally unaware of the charcoal layer

Could you expand on exactly how it was employed there?  

It's employed as a choker layer

You compared it to a choker layer.  

I did

Could you provide us with information on the profile of charcoal layer?  

Yes

How thick was the layer?  

One inch

How far under the surface?

10 to 12 inches

Do you have any supporting information on how charcoal acts as a choker layer?

Yes, but it's time for you to do some research

I provided two contemporaneous articles that describe the usage of charcoal on golf courses.

I'm aware of that.
It's your motives that I question

Did you read them?  

Yes

How are they erroneous?  

They're erroneous in that those articles are general in nature and not specifically applicable to Yale.
You posted them for a specific reason, why don't you try being honest and tell everyone WHY you posted them

If Yale used a layer of charcoal, then it was different from what was described in these two papers -

Finally, you see the light.
Yale's use of charcoal was different from the articles you posted, and you posted them for a specific reason, to discredit me.
But you were wrong.Yale's application differed from what you posted

that doesn't make the two papers erroneous.

It does make them erroneous in the context of Yale, which is the topic being discussed

Perhaps Yale tried something different.  

They didn't try something different, they did something different

Or, maybe charcoal top dressing compressed over the years to form a layer.

B.S.  the layer is consistently 10-12 inches below the greensmix.
It was placed there during construction.

Who knows?  

We know

Not everything needs to be a battle-to-the-death debate.  

It's called "frank discussion"

The fact is that you stuck your two cents in, deliberately trying to discredit me, when you knew nothing about Yale's soil profile and the charcoal layer, and now that you've been proven wrong, you want to weasel your way out of sticking your foot in your mouth.

But, the critical issue isn't the profile of the charcoal, or it's use, the critical issue is it's location.

The critical issue is that it's only found underneath the putting surfaces and nowhere else.

The confinement of the charcoal layer to areas beneath the putting surfaces would reinforce the belief that the 9th green at Yale was constructed as putting surface.

In addition, banks himself tells you that the "water" was the "fairway".

If the water was the fairway, that would, by default, imply that the front tier was putting surface.

In addition, he refers to the back tier as the "green proper".
Why the need for the word "proper", why not just "green".
If the back tier was only maintained as green, he'd call it the "green" and not the "green proper"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donnie Beck,

Banks's description compares Yale's Biarritz to the Biarritz at The Creek and yet the two have nothing in common other than a carry over water.

Banks's description of how to play the hole seems "wishful" at best.

He also uses the term "battered" and I have to wonder if he meant bunkered ?

I don't believe that the back tier is flanked by bunkers and that there's no bunker at the rear.
Perhaps old photos can clarify that.
And if they do, then you have to question everything Banks wrote about # 9.

Hope all is well with you and your family.

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick,

I agree that it would be a major discovery if the front section of Yale's Biarritz was designed by Seth Raynor to be putting surface and have cup locations.

I highly doubt it, and you are a LONG way from proving it, but please keep researching. The original plans would be helpful, as would scorecards from different years showing the distances. Perhaps Scott has these?

I do have to chuckle how in the same thread you accept the comments of a great player, Chick Evans, as quite an important clue. Yet you reject the writings of Raynor's top assistant, Charles Banks, a guy who learned everything he knew from Raynor and stood at his side while so many Biarritz holes were being built and then went on to build many of his own, never once creating a front putting surface...

You are off to a nice start. Good luck with PROVING your theory.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I agree that it would be a major discovery if the front section of Yale's Biarritz was designed by Seth Raynor to be putting surface and have cup locations.

I highly doubt it, and you are a LONG way from proving it, but please keep researching. The original plans would be helpful, as would scorecards from different years showing the distances. Perhaps Scott has these?

I do have to chuckle how in the same thread you accept the comments of a great player, Chick Evans, as quite an important clue. Yet you reject the writings of Raynor's top assistant, Charles Banks, a guy who learned everything he knew from Raynor and stood at his side while so many Biarritz holes were being built and then went on to build many of his own, never once creating a front putting surface...

Bill,

I can understand your "chuckling", but you have to place both sets of comments in the context of your own playing experiences on the hole in question and interpolate the impact of the I&B circa 1924 vs 2013.

One's comments defy logic while the others seems logical

You are off to a nice start. Good luck with PROVING your theory.

I think the discovery of the charcoal/cinder layer is an enormous first step.

With this layer, solely in evidence underneath the putting surfaces, it provides ample proof of the intent.

As to proving my theory, to date the evidence presented seems sufficient, whereas, you've offered no physical evidence to support your premise.

Banks, a highly qualified architect, mentored by the best, certainly knew what a bunker was, and how to determine their location, yet, he states that the green was flanked by them, yet the only bunkers on the hole flank the front tier.
There are no bunkers flanking the back tier.

What do you make of that ?

[Bill Brightly]

What I make of that is you need to read what he wrote more carefully! Try it again:



"The green proper is behind a deep trench in the approach. The approach is about the same size as the green itself and is bunkered heavily both right and left... The green is heavily battered at the back and the right and the whole strategy is to let out to the limit... Correct play for this green is to carry to the near edge of the groove or trench and come upon the green with a roll...The disappearance and reappearance of the ball in the groove adds to the interest of the play. The carry for this play is 180 from the back tee... (Banks, circa 1931.) "

He is saying that the APPROACH is bunkered both left and right...

He is saying that the GREEN is heavily battered. My best guess is that "battered" is a word that Banks chose to use rather than "mounded." I think that fairly well describes what is behind and to the right of the rear section.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What I make of that is you need to read what he wrote more carefully! Try it again:



"The green proper is behind a deep trench in the approach. The approach is about the same size as the green itself and is bunkered heavily both right and left... The green is heavily battered at the back and the right and the whole strategy is to let out to the limit... Correct play for this green is to carry to the near edge of the groove or trench and come upon the green with a roll...The disappearance and reappearance of the ball in the groove adds to the interest of the play. The carry for this play is 180 from the back tee... (Banks, circa 1931.) "

He is saying that the APPROACH is bunkered both left and right...

He is saying that the GREEN is heavily battered. My best guess is that "battered" is a word that Banks chose to use rather than "mounded." I think that fairly well describes what is behind and to the right of the rear section.

Bill,

Upon reflection, I think "battered" means "canted"

As to Banks's recollection, he states that the carry to clear the water is 163 and that the carry to the near edge of the swale is 180 from the back tee, thus he's claiming that there's only 17 yards of green between the water and the near side of the swale.

The green is 65 yards deep, so I have to question Banks on this issue

Do you want to give me the "over" on that bet ?

From the back tee, which is elevated high above the green, a 180 tee shot would probably equate to a 170-160 yard shot where the tee and green are at the same elevation.

The current hole plays 235 from the back tee, that's roughly 55 yards further back from Banks description.
So where was the tee he references ?

[Bill Brightly]

Battered, Cantered, Titled or Mounded, it does not matter. Banks was describing what was over the green. And he was distinguishing that from the approach, which was heavily bunkered, just like all the other Raynor and Banks approaches to their Biarritz holes.

If we accept 65 yards as the length of the current green (seems about right) then Yale's approach/green is right in line with the other Biarritz holes that Raynor and Banks built.

I guess Notre Dame did not offer a course in reading comprehension. So let me help you out (again) as you try to understand what Banks wrote.

He said the CARRY to make it over the water is 163. As best I can tell, that is an accurate number, right?

He then went on to say that the proper play was to hit the tee shot 180 in the air and let the ball roll down through the swale to the green. So that would be about 50 to 60 yards of roll, not an unreasonable amount of roll on a driver with very fast and firm conditions, especiailly if the front section was maintained as fairway and not irrigated in 1926. Does Scott know when the irrigation went in?

So while 180 minus 163 equals 17 (well done!) it has nothing to do with the construction of the hole or what Banks wrote.

Do you think that Banks' recollection was SO bad that he simply forget to mention that the pin could also be cut in the front section to create an entirely different playing strategy?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Battered, Cantered, Titled or Mounded, it does not matter. Banks was describing what was over the green. And he was distinguishing that from the approach, which was heavily bunkered, just like all the other Raynor and Banks approaches to their Biarritz holes.

If we accept 65 yards as the length of the current green (seems about right) then Yale's approach/green is right in line with the other Biarritz holes that Raynor and Banks built.

I guess Notre Dame did not offer a course in reading comprehension.

They made me skip that class since I aced "telepathy" and "esp"

So let me help you out (again) as you try to understand what Banks wrote.

He said the CARRY to make it over the water is 163. As best I can tell, that is an accurate number, right?

If we're talking about a tee other than the current tee, I'll go with that for a while.

He then went on to say that the proper play was to hit the tee shot 180 in the air and let the ball roll down through the swale to the green.
That's NOT what he said.
He said that the proper play was to carry the tee shot 180 yards to the "NEAR EDGE OF THE GROOVE"
That's the top of the groove closest to the tee, well short of the Mid-Point of the green.

So that would be about 50 to 60 yards of roll, not an unreasonable amount of roll on a driver with very fast and firm conditions, especiailly if the front section was maintained as fairway and not irrigated in 1926.

You're missing the math and the logic, two classes I attended at ND.

If the carry to make it over the water was 163 and the carry to the near edge of the groove (the top nearest the tee) was 180, then, the green or approach as you want to define it, was only 17 yards long.   Think of that target, or rather the size of that target, using a driver in 1924 ?

With a green 65 yards long, if the swale was 8 yards wide, that would mean that the back tier would be 40 yards of green.
That's the math part of this exercise.

So, with a driver in hand, would you play a shot with a driver, where it's suggested that you hit your driver to a target only 17 yards in depth, with water fronting and a steep backstop backing, or would you play to a banked putting surface that's 40 yards in depth ?
That's the logic part of this exercise.

So, what I'm saying to you is that Banks's description of how to play the hole defies logic.

What golfer, with water fronting, and a steep backstop backing, is going to use a DRIVER and aim for a target a mere 17 yards in depth versus one that's 40 yards in depth and sloped to help stop the ball ?

Now the article cited is listed as circa 1931, but, Banks died in 1931.  Could it be that perhaps failing health affected his memory ?

That charcoal layer would seem to be the smoking gun  



Does Scott know when the irrigation went in?

So while 180 minus 163 equals 17 (well done!) it has nothing to do with the construction of the hole or what Banks wrote.

Do you think that Banks' recollection was SO bad that he simply forget to mention that the pin could also be cut in the front section to create an entirely different playing strategy?

[Mike Policano]

A proposed process to resolve the little chat Bill and Pat are enjoying.

The final event on the Metropolitan Hickory Society calendar is Yale. While we haven't contacted the club yet for a date, we hope to play there in October as we did last year.

Bill and Pat, you are hereby invited to attend and try an array of 1920's weapons and reproduction balls (at your cost if you dump them in the water) to see how the Biarritz may have played in 1924.

Beware, Yale is a bear with hickories although Lloyd Cole faired pretty well his first time out and the evil Dr. Child's birdied the short his first time out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You suspect Banks' writings were more theory than reality?

That's not what I stated.
I stated that in 1931, Banks's recollection might not have been crystal clear.

That is a ludicrous statement. Banks was right at Raynor's side... Raynor taught him what a Biarritz was and how the hole should be played.

THAT is  irrefutable.

No, it is refutable.
And, Banks wasn't at Raynor's side in 1931.
Well, actually, maybe he was a little later in 1931

Show me evidence that Raynor built Yale's front section with charcoal cinders.

The evidence is clear from the soil profile.
But, you don't want to accept that fact.

You want to theorize that a soil profile that exists throughout the entire golf course in the putting greens, a soil profile consisting of 10-12 inches of greens mix, with 1 inch of charcoal/cinders beneath it, was some how added to the front tier of the 9th green after the hole was built.

But, you have no evidence to support your desperate attempt to refute the facts.

The soil profile is consistent and shows no evidence of a seperate application.

Show me a photo of someone putting to a front hole location in the year the course opened.

Show me one that shows someone putting to the back hole location ?
Just because photos can't be located depicting that area as green doesn't mean it wasn't green.
And the physical evidence, the charcoal/cinder layer is significant as that layer only exists in areas that are the putting surfaces.

Show me an article that describes the alternative front pin positions, because that would not be a minor detail that a reporter or Raynor's top assistant might miss...

There is NO room for speculation when you read Banks' description of the front approach. He called it an A-P-P-R-O-A-C-H, not the front section of the green...

Then tell me, how does an approach differ from a fairway.
Raynor said that the water represented a fairway, ergo, the front had to be green, other wise he would have said that the approach you reference was fairway.

Certainly, you're not going to try to maintain that it was rough, are you ?

And it is hardly wild speculation to think that a golf professional (or superintendent) noticed that a front green surface was possible and ordered that modification to be completed. And if he knew that charcoal was used in the construction of Yale's other greens, he might have ordered it done with the former approach.

That's no simple modification.
That would require ripping up the entire green, from the back edge of the swale to the water, and then, miraculously, duplicating the identical profile.
And, there's no written record or financial evidence of that happening.
That's PURE speculation, or rather desperate speculation on your part.

I am sorry that you were unable to reach the back tier with a low running shot. It is a hard shot to hit. Next time you come to Hackensack, I'll show you how.

How quickly you forget.
At Hackensack, because there's not disparity in elevation between tee and green, I hit a two iron that ran up to the back tier and had a birdie putt.

But it is not all your fault. All other things being equal, the amount of total roll you get is primarily determined by the first bounce; how the ball is first received by the turf, not how fast the fairway or green is. And prior to irrigation systems fairway approaches were often much firmer than putting surfaces (firmer, not faster.)  

Bill,

Ask yourself, how far will a ball roll as it approaches a 90 degree impact with the turf ?

From a high tee, an aerial shot will land at an angle not conducive to running.

In addition, the swale at Yale is really deep and really steep.
If that area was not green, but fairway, you wouldn't get roll adequate enough to have the ball climb back up that steep hill and continue rolling up the incline that's the back putting tier.

Especially if the green was routinely topdressed, fertilized and watered as needed.


Again, that's speculation on your part.
In modern times, the greens weren't topdressed at Yale until the 2000's

Think back to the days when you played on hard, sun-baked fairways. The first bounce of your driver was huge, right?

That's because the tee was at grade with the fairway, not 60 feet above it.

Design of Biarritz holes relied upon the knowledge that a well executed shot would roll through the approach.

That's not the case at Yale.
At Mountain Lake, The Knoll or Hackensack, I'd agree with you, but the highly elevated nature of the tee at Yale precludes that action.
Angle of incidence equals angle of refraction

Our old Scottish pro, Charlie Mayo, used to teach the Biarritz shot. I bet your Dad could hit the shot!

He could, anywhere but at Yale

[Patrick_Mucci]

A proposed process to resolve the little chat Bill and Pat are enjoying.

Mike,

Do you have to be the voice of reason.

The final event on the Metropolitan Hickory Society calendar is Yale. While we haven't contacted the club yet for a date, we hope to play there in October as we did last year.

Bill and Pat, you are hereby invited to attend and try an array of 1920's weapons and reproduction balls (at your cost if you dump them in the water) to see how the Biarritz may have played in 1924.

It had to be a daunting task.
My question is:  Where was the tee in 1924 ?

Beware, Yale is a bear with hickories although Lloyd Cole faired pretty well his first time out and the evil Dr. Child's birdied the short his first time out.

Yale is a bear with modern equipment.
I can't imagine it with hickories.

Although, I watched Ran play an incredible round at Sand Hills with Hickories, albeit with a ProV1 ball.

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick,

As I said, the charcoal layer is an interesting discovery. Now, I think we all would feel a little better if Scott Ramsey was presenting the evidence, not some green-inked golfer who can't hit a driver 235 yards... But for discussion purposes, we will stipulate that the choker layer is there.

That alone is not enough to PROVE that the front section was designed by Seth Raynor to have pin locations. It is YOUR theory, YOU have to prove it with other supporting evidence.

You have done NOTHING to disprove the writings of Charles Banks, a guy who helped build the damn hole...except to question his memory...

Proving theories is not easy. More green ink will get you no closer than you are now. You need more evidence. Good luck with your research.

[Mike Policano]

Ran played with a Pro V? It is the ball that is the problem.

Last time I played Yale with hickories, I couldn't believe the 9th. I don't know where the tee was, but there are only so many places on the tee side of the water.  We can try them all.

Pat, I am confident that you can get Bill to play hickories. So far I have failed. Something about his swing. I did mention it to him that Steve Scott played hickories with us on his last round before his US Open qualifier. Somehow that didn't carry any weight.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

As I said, the charcoal layer is an interesting discovery. Now, I think we all would feel a little better if Scott Ramsey was presenting the evidence, not some green-inked golfer who can't hit a driver 235 yards... But for discussion purposes, we will stipulate that the choker layer is there.

There are other GCA.com witnesses to the conversation.

That alone is not enough to PROVE that the front section was designed by Seth Raynor to have pin locations.

That's erroneous.

If the only locations that the charcoal layer is found in is under the putting surfaces, then it's reasonable for prudent men to conclude that the front tier, where the charcoal layer was also found, was intended to be putting surface.  That alone is proof.

It is YOUR theory, YOU have to prove it with other supporting evidence.

No, I don't.
The charcoal layer provides sufficient evidence that the front tier was intended as putting surface because the charcoal layer is found nowhere else on the golf course than under the putting greens.

You have done NOTHING to disprove the writings of Charles Banks, a guy who helped build the damn hole...except to question his memory...

Also not true.
His own words state that the "WATER" was the fairway.
If the "water" was the fairway, that precludes the front tier from being the fairway, otherwise he would have stated so, hence, the front tier is green.

In addition, he further states, the back tier is the green "proper"  If it was the only portion that was the green, he would just state that the back tier was the green, not the green proper.

Proving theories is not easy. More green ink will get you no closer than you are now. You need more evidence. Good luck with your research.

I've certainly provided sufficient evidence for prudent men, just like I did for the left side tee on # 13 at NGLA.

At this point, other than early photos showing golfers putting on the front tier, I don't think you'd accept anything else, even contemporaneous written statements, so we'll just have to look for early photos.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran played with a Pro V? It is the ball that is the problem.

Last time I played Yale with hickories, I couldn't believe the 9th. I don't know where the tee was, but there are only so many places on the tee side of the water.  We can try them all.

Pat, I am confident that you can get Bill to play hickories. So far I have failed. Something about his swing. I did mention it to him that Steve Scott played hickories with us on his last round before his US Open qualifier. Somehow that didn't carry any weight.

Mike,

It's simple, we'll bet on the front tier of # 9 and the loser has to play Hickories.
Now all you have to do is find the photos showing golfers putting on the front tier.

[DMoriarty]

From the late 1920's. 

[Mike Policano]

Dave,

Always good to have another lefty hickory player weigh in here.