Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?

[Jim Sherma]

David

That is one of the coolest pictures I have ever seen on his site. Thank you for posting. Can't really tell if the two sections are mowed similarly. This look is much better than the current treed look today IMO.

[Bill Brightly]

Excellent photo, David!

Thank you.

Mucci, find one like that with guys putting up front, and you will be one step closer.

[Donnie Beck]

Nice work Dave!  definately looks like approach. Look at the difference in collar cut on the green proper in the rear...and the dark grass in the swale...

[Jim Nugent]

The photo David posted looks a lot like one of the photos in Ran's profile of Yale.  They aren't the same photos, but look like they might come from the same era.  The caption to Ran's photo (contemporaneous to the photo itself) describes it as a double green, and says the trench (swale) is part of the green.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Yale9old.jpg

[Bryan Izatt]

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


Yale's use of charcoal was different from the articles you posted, and you posted them for a specific reason, to discredit me.


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

Really! I thought I posted the articles because Bill was asking about how charcoal was used and I found those two articles that contained information that I hadn't seen before and that I found interesting that  I thought Bill might find informative.  Your paranoia is getting the better of you.


Vis-a-vis the old pictures that have been posted by David and Jim from Ran's piece, I think David's precedes Ran's chronologically. The bunkering is in a much more finished state in Ran's picture.  David's picture looks to be taken when work was still going on around the bunkers left and right of the "approach".  Perhaps the hole was changed between David's picture and Ran's picture to incorporate the "approach" into the green.

David's picture matches up very nicely with Bank's description (following in full from the Yale web site).

This is the second of the short holes and is planned for a single shot to the green with the driver. There is a 163 yard water carry from the back tee. 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 with water jutting in on the right front. The ‘fairway’ is the lake [Griest Pond]. The tees are elevated above the lake. The green is heavily battered [tilted] at the back and the right and the whole psychology of the hole is to let out to the limit. The distance however, is not as great as it seems, due to the water, and a moderate stroke with care is safer than a slam. 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 yards from the back tee. This hole has its original on the Biarritz Course at the famous watering place in France of the same name.

The articles on charcoal that I posted suggested that one of the benefits of using charcoal (in whatever form) was that it firmed up the turf.  Perhaps they added charcoal to the front "approach" area to firm it up and enable running shots.

[Sean_A]

This is by far the most interesting B photo I have seen. A few questions

1. How steep is the bank leading to the water?  I see a steps and a path on the left.  Why is this there when the area can be accessed via further up the green?  Could a shot be played from short of the green?

2. What is the distance from the tee to the first plateau?

3. What is the distance from the water to the 2nd plateau?

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

Maybe Ran or someone else knows when the photo in his profile was taken.  Actually, the date of the caption may be more important, since it says the swale and both sides of it were part of the green.  

In the first photo, that David posted, the swale does not look like it's part of the green.  The boundary of the green looks clear, and doesn't seem to include the swale.  But to me, the same is true of Ran's photo.  I guess it's possible that the caption was written well after the photo was taken.  

Patrick, it's hard for me to dismiss Banks, because 1) he was there, and 2) he speaks about the green in such detail.  As for water and fairway, didn't some of the old guys distinguish the fairway from the approach?  I thought I read here that they called the "approach" the area directly before the green.  

Banks says, "The green proper is behind a deep trench in the approach."  If Patrick is right, Banks was calling the "approach" part of the green.  Does that make sense?  

Banks also says the hole is patterned off the Biarritz hole in France.  I'm still confused about this.  Does he mean that the pond at Yale #9 mimics the chasm at Biarritz?  Or is the swale at Yale what makes the hole similar to the French original?  

Lots of holes named Biarritz have no chasm or pond or water.  But I think they all have the swale, whether or not it's part of the green.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're ALL MORONS

Read he caption below the photo above.

It clearly states that both tiers are green, as is the dividing swale.

Case closed 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

A charcoal layer 12 inches below the green's mix doesn't "firm up the turf"

Try another guess

But thanks for the photo and critical caption

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

What is the date of the photo and caption of Ran's picture.  We know that David's picture is from 1929 or before, because that's when the photographer died.  

Of course, you'll deny that the approach and green could have been built as Banks described it and changed to the larger green with a swale subsequently.  Perhaps it could have been done simply by changing the mowing patterns.

Do you know what the approach and green where seeded with when the course was built?

Do you believe that the charcoal layer was 12" below the surface when the course was built?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Sean,

The distances are as contained in Banks article.  The length of the current green is about 65 yards.  According to Banks: "The distance however, is not as great as it seems, due to the water, and a moderate stroke with care is safer than a slam."  Even in 1930 I don't think a carry of 180 yards to the beginning of the swale would have been all that much of a reach for decent players.  And, that was from the back tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

A carry of 180 in 1930 was a big carry, only a moron would try to convince you otherwise.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What is the date of the photo and caption of Ran's picture.  
We know that David's picture is from 1929 or before, because that's when the photographer died.  

Based on the size of the trees and grass on the banks I'd guess that the lower photo was taken at an earlier or similar date

Of course, you'll deny that the approach and green could have been built as Banks described it and changed to the larger green with a swale subsequently.  

That's beyond moronic, it's a reckless speculation
Now you're stating that the original hole wasn't a Biarritz, despite overwhelming evidence and documentation that it was a Biarritz on opening day.

Admit it, in trying to prove me wrong you made a fool of yourself and undermined your credibility, bordering on being intellectually, or just plain dishonest.

Perhaps it could have been done simply by changing the mowing patterns.

Bryan, your desperate guesses are further undermining your credibility

Do you know what the approach and green where seeded with when the course was built?

Yes

Do you believe that the charcoal layer was 12" below the surface when the course was built?  

Yes

[Patrick_Mucci]

My eyes aren't what they used to be, what does the caption beneath the photo say ?

[Bill Brightly]

Precise dating of both photos would be very critical. It could be that the second photo was taken shortly after the front section was converted to putting surface. While the photos are quite similar, the bunker on the left looks to have been more "finished" than in the first photo. It makes sense that the bunker was finished at the same time the front section AND the swale were incorporated into the green. And that could have been done a few short years after the course opened, after Banks finished working on the hole, after Banks gave us his very complete and accurate description of the hole.

The first photo clearly shows the swale is not cut as putting surface. So I guess Patrick would have us believe that Raynor designed the hole to have two distinct putting greens, a wild variation from other Biarritz holes. And Banks forgot to mention that little fact, as did the author of the August 16. 1925 Hartford Courant article that I hold in my hand, which describes the green behind the "groove."

So Patrick is no closer to proving his theory. Can we assume that the original plans are not available?

 

[Sean_A]

Thanks Bryan.

I am not at all convinced the swale is not cut at green height.  How are people deducing this to be the case?

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

The first photo clearly shows the swale is not cut as putting surface. 

In that photo it doesn't look like the swale is part of the green.  But the same is true of the second photo, whose caption says the swale IS part of the green. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thought I'd quote myself since no-one has done anything since to prove or disprove one of the four options below... Seeing as they are the only 4 options, it would be a decent start to discount them one by one once proof beyond reasonable doubt has been agreed upon.

Pat, Bill,

Regards the front portion at Yale, I guess I chatted to Mark briefly about this.

As he stated, it was clear from the initial conceptual report that only the back portion of the 9th was "initially" intended as green.... But that doesn't mean that a change didn't occur in thinking between the initial conceptual report and the final product... The construction of the front portion (as Pat points out) indicates the same profile as the greens on site... So either

1. The architect (or architect's representative) decided at some point during detail design or construction that he could maintain the front portion as green, perhaps because the back portion is actually relatively small, severe in slope and lacking in light / air

2. The construction team found it just as easy to build the entire playing area of the hole (given there is no other fairway or approach) using the same method as they would have to build a formal "approach" and a formal "green"

3. The construction supervisor took it upon himself to build the front portion as green

4. Someone changed the profile after the course was open and soon after completion

Given that the front portion is now used by far and away the most often, the decision seems to have had some basis in sense, even if it was coincidence....

[Donnie Beck]

More proof... Construction photo...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Proof of what though, Donnie?

[Donnie Beck]

Ally,

Proof that some where all the line the front tier was altered to create a putting surface. Look at the contours in the construction photo compared to the pool table flat putting surface that is in place now.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'll be honest with you Donnie - I can't see any difference at all in the constructed photo to above photos regards contours of the front plateau...

Eyes are maybe playing tricks on one of us?

[Bill Brightly]

Here is what was written about the hole in the August 16, 1925 Hartford Courant, BEFORE the course was opened for play:

"The ninth hole is over the northwestern end of the Greist pond and has its original on the Biarritz course in France. The green proper is behind a deep groove in the approach which is of about the same area as the green. The approach is bunkered heavily on the right and left and the fairway is the lake. This hole is one of the most interesting on the course and is deceptive because of the full water play, although the hole is not a long one."

The writer's name is not given, just "Special to the Courant." The  wording is quite similar to the Banks quote George Bahto included in The Evangelist. So the writer either interviewed Banks, paraphrased Banks' writing, or Banks himself wrote the entire article. (I can forward the entire article to anyone who sends me message with their email.)

To me, the key thing is that it is obvious that Macdonald and Raynor never envisioned the front section as putting surface. In Scotland's Gift, Macdonald includes Yale's scorecard and the hole is listed at 225 yards. In the same book, he includes Mid Ocean's scorecard, and that Biarritz is also listed at 225 yards. And we should note Macdonald's first Biarritz, Piping Rock, with a distance of 220 yards.

It is no stretch to assume that someone in charge of tha Course at Yale approved the change from approach to putting surface, perhaps as early as the summer of 1925, prior to the planned opening in October of 1925. Banks and Raynor could have already left the site, allowing others to finish the grow in. Only a moron would speculate that Raynor chose to drastically alter the design concept that Macdonald taught him, create an alternative front putting surface at Yale, and then never again repeat this concept on other courses. To believe this, we also would have to assume that Banks forgot to mention this DRASTIC change when writing about the hole at Yale. And when Banks would go on to build many Biarritz holes on his own after Raynor's death, he never created a front putting surface.

Because the approach looks so much like a green, it is quite easy to speculate that someone like the Golf Professional (who may have also served as Greenskeeper) ordered the change, even if that was before the hole was ever open for play. That is perfectly logical.

The article goes on to fully name the individuals serving on "the committee having in charge the building of the course."  Would you put it past a committee to make such a change?

[Jim Nugent]

Those of you who have played the hole: better if the green includes the swale and "approach" or the other way around? 

[Michael Moore]

Those of you who have played the hole: better if the green includes the swale and "approach" or the other way around? 

On the day that I played, there were three groups waiting on this tee, enjoying the view, the action, and the snack shack. Mow the front, put the flag there, and keep it movin'.