Difference between a Biarritz Hole and a Double Plateau?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I am not quite your age, you so I didn't have a chance to see Yale in the mid-1920's, and I haven't seen it since either.  So I can't say for certain when they began maintaining the front portion as green, nor am I all that interested in the current pissing match.   Banks seems to be a pretty solid source as for what was intended originally, though.  And while I am not sure what I see in these photos I gladly defer to Donnie's interpretation of what he sees regarding maintenance matters.

More generally, one of the issues I have with this notion of using the front portion of any such hole as pinnable green is that it seems to go against the original concept of the hole.  Sure they diverged from their strict understandings, but CBM seems pretty strict on the yardages of his par threes, at least where the land allowed him to built them as he envisioned.  And at Yale CBM seemed to have a great place for a Biarritz concept as it was originally intended, so I am not sure why he would have diverged there.

But perhaps there is a middle ground.   Perhaps on some of these holes the front sections were maintained very much like greens, but with the idea that the pin would always (or almost always) be placed on the back section.

[Bill_McBride]

Donnie, please do no attempt to confuse Pat with photo-supported facts presented by an expert in golf course construction and maintenance.  You might cause him a bout of dyspepsia. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Clearly the charcoal has addled your brain as well.  

Speaking of charcoal, can you tell us how many core samples were taken and how many were taken from areas that were "approach" areas on the course originally.  

In your case, the number is irrelevant since no number would satisfy you.
Does it make a difference if 25, 50 or 100 samples were taken if the areas that they were taken from reflect the the general profile and footpad of the green ?

At this point it's obvious that you're on a desperate fishing trip.
But, I can understand that given your claim that # 9 at Yale was never intended as a Biarritz and was converted to a Biarritz some time after the course opened.

Henceforth, I will not answer your inane question.

Is it now your moronic contention that the charcoal layer appears sporadically in the green and not consistently ?

They did take some core samples from non-green areas, didn't they?

YES, now go play with yourself somewhere else

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You know I love you


I know that and I feel the same about you and Bill Brightly.
You're both great guys who have not yet achieved "moron" status on this site

but OPEN YOUR EYES and look at the construction photo.

Donnie, that's just one of several construction photos, and it would make sense that the earlier photos would reflect a more uneven surface.
But, look at the construction photo below taken in 1925-6.

Now my eyes aren't the best, but that front tier looks pretty level to me.
It looks like a pretty good putting surface, don't you think.

The front tier is much more sloped than the pool table flat surface that is currently in place.
Notice the crown in the center of the approach and the slope both to the left and right?

Yes, but your photo could be from a construction phase prior to the front tier being graded.

There is no way that was a double green when it was built !!!

Not so fast there my friend.
Look at the construction photo I posted.
That looks very flat, and the caption clearly states that the front tier and trench were part of the putting green.

And, when you factor in the existance of the charcoal layer throughout the front tier, an intended construction practice, you can't just dismiss the premise based on an early construction photo showing the green in a rougher form.

Let's not forget about the rogue superintendents that have worked there in the past.


I didn't forget that, but, introducing a charcoal layer, 12 inches below the surface, uniformly ?  ?  ?.
That's a tall order.
It would require taking up all the sod, excavating to 12 inches, inserting the charcoal layer and replacing the green's mix and then the sod.
Or, regrassing over the green's mix.
That's one hell of a project.
In light of Yales penchant for not spending money, do you really feel that's a viable alternative ?

It seems beyond unreasonable to me.

And don't forget, earlier superintendents neutered the golf course, they removed critical elements, they didn't add anything of value to the course.

What happened to the punchbowl I am sure you have heard the stories.

Yes, I"m aware of them.

But, let's address another related issue, CBM's/SR's departure from the templates.

Your own 4th hole would be exhibit "A"

They crafted a combination "Alps" and "Punchbowl".

Now that's an enormous departure from anything they had done previously.
They took two templates and combined them into one hole.

So, why is it so hard to believe that given the topography at Yale, they seized upon the opportunity to craft a hybrid Biarritz.

Even your own Biarritz differs in form and play from Yale's, and it's a significant difference.

The key to the issue isn't CBM's/SR's plans, it's the as-built or photos circa 1925-6 of golfers putting on the front tier.

If we could find them, we MIGHT be able to determine which came first, the putting surface or the approach ?

I still love ya.
You too Bill

[Tim Martin]

not sure if over the course of this thread anyone ever answered Jim "Mr. Hurricane"'s question about pin placement in the swale.  I've seen it done numerous times at Elkridge.  I think he may have too

Yale does not pin in the swale on 9. Scott Ramsay told me that he once did it for a Superintendents Outing but it is not a consideration for every day play or tournaments.

Tim,

I've played # 9 at Yale when the hole was cut in the Swale.

Certain swales are broader than others, so I wonder if it's a maintenance issue.

Pat-We already did this dance a couple of years ago but I'm sure you don't remember. If you did then it must have been an awful long time ago probably back around the time they laid down the charcoal.

[Donnie Beck]

Pat,

I usually agree with you on most things but I am afraid your a wrong on this one. Are you sure the picture you posted is a construction photo? Notice the bunkers are finished. Look again at The CONSTRUCTION photo I posted... Both the green and the approach are already grassed.......  grassed.....  I highly doubt raynor/macdonald would go through all the trouble to grass the entire green/approach then change the concept of the hole. Obviously someone along the line has changed the hole but it clearly was not originally designed that way.........and btw Yale also had an alps/double punchbowl until the superintendent took it upon himself to move and re-design the green... Anyway... look again at my construction photo and the GRASS. It is a hard to imagine they would put the effort in to grass the complex then blow it up and start from scratch before it opened.

[Will Lozier]

Where is "The Green Argument" now?

Will,

Have you been in a coma for the last few days ?

Do you still believe that Wilson sailed to the UK in 1910  ?

How do you account for the charcoal layer in the front tier and swale.

Look at the physical facts

Why was the front tier constructed so flat, without the deflecting spines, like so many other Biarritz's ?

Wake up my good man, it's time to think

Pat,

I was just egging you on.  I think you have made very good points given your vast experience with CBM's designs and Biarritz holes specifically.  And the charcoal layer you speak of is of interest, certainly.  And yet, you completely discount the very specific writings of folks of great repute who actually had a hand in designing and building this thing.  If your argument were supported by these writings, you would be touting them as much stronger evidence.  In fact, in post #107, you claim that one caption (written by who knows) PROVES YOUR case!

After following this thread closely, my personal opinion - having played only three Biarritz holes (including this particular hole many years ago) - is that the idea of pinning the front portion gradually happened at particular courses and the maintenance was changed to make that possible.  The strategy described by Banks seems to me to be a more exciting prospect than trying to drop a mid/long iron onto that front section - not that that latter isn't a fun shot.  In fact, my one round at Yale, the pin was in front and a 4 iron (I think) found me on the back tier putting to the front through the swale.  The putt was indeed entertaining!  So, I don't really know the intention, but suspect that Banks has more credibility than you even though you are about the same age!

Furthermore, per Bryan's question, if the core samples you speak of where only taken from current greensites (and I trust you'll correct me if I am wrong here), how do we know the "approach" areas weren't prepared the same way on other holes?

Cheers

[Bill Brightly]

Here is what I think happened at Yale. After Macdonald and Raynor designed the course with only a rear section putting surface, someone with the authority to make changes decided to convert the designed approach into a putting surface. I do not think Raynor was there when this was approved, and I don't think they asked his permission. I think "The Committee" ordered the change, perhaps before the course was opened for play. Banks had already written his explanation of how the hole should be played. I think CBM would have been totally against such a change. But the course was extremely expensive to build from the outset ($450,000 in 1925 dollars), and Yale supported that cost. If the Committee wanted the front section to be finished as putting surface, what architect would raise a fuss?

So Patrick, I'll grant you that they threw some charcoal under the approach and mowed the grass close. But I won't accept that Macdonald, Raynor or Banks were part of this drastic change to the Biarritz design.

Biarritz holes have been criticized from the outset, and were called Macdonald's Folly. The holes have been DRASTICALLY changed over the years. At my home course, the first thing that happened during WW II was the elimination of the front bunkers that guarded the approach. (Tillinghast recommended this as part of his PGA-sponsored tour, and aerial photos indicate that one one bunker was taken out in the 30's.) Then William Gordon came in 1960, filled in the swale, and pinched the rear greenside bunkers to make it play like a typical RTJ long par 3.

Biarritz holes look weird. Form a committee with ten random golfers with the power to make changes to a MacRaynor, and I'll bet a thousand dollars to a dollar that the first hole they touch is the Biarritz. They'll either remove the front bunkers and make it look and play like a "normal" long par three, or they will convert the front section to a putting surface, especially if they can create a cool shot like the one over Greist Pond. That is what Committees do. Patrick knows that, he hates Committees for that reason. They don't give a rats ass about the design intent of the original architect. They are powerful men, with the power to make decisions, and they damn well will make decisions. That is what committees do.

So this entire thread is about what happened to two Biarritz holes. It is about how the Biarritz hole at St. Louis came to be incorrectly named a double plateau (which I've come to think is a cute, funny, historical mistake,) and how the front section at Yale came to be maintained as putting surface. But there has not been one iota of evidence that Macdonald or Raynor changed their design intent. Banks CLEARLY described the design intent of the hole, and he was at Raynor's side when he hole was designed. Let me now when someone comes up  something that contradicts that. And the charcoal layer is not enough, Patrick. Show us something thats proves Macdonald or Raynor authorized the change.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I usually agree with you on most things but I am afraid your a wrong on this one.

Then I must have a pretty good track record.

Are you sure the picture you posted is a construction photo?

That's what I was informed by someone intimately familiar with Yale.

Notice the bunkers are finished. Look again at The CONSTRUCTION photo I posted... Both the green and the approach are already grassed.......  grassed.....

How is your photo different in those areas than my photo ?  

I highly doubt raynor/macdonald would go through all the trouble to grass the entire green/approach then change the concept of the hole.

I don't disagree with that, but, I don't dismiss it entirely.

Obviously someone along the line has changed the hole but it clearly was not originally designed that way.........

If my photo was taken 1925-6, I don't see how you can state that.
What am I missing ?

and btw Yale also had an alps/double punchbowl until the superintendent took it upon himself to move and re-design the green... Anyway... look again at my construction photo and the GRASS.

I am, and I would ask you to do the same with my photo.

It is a hard to imagine they would put the effort in to grass the complex then blow it up and start from scratch before it opened.
I would agree, but, that's what Bryan Izatt said happened  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was just egging you on.  I think you have made very good points given your vast experience with CBM's designs and Biarritz holes specifically.  And the charcoal layer you speak of is of interest, certainly.  And yet, you completely discount the very specific writings of folks of great repute who actually had a hand in designing and building this thing.  If your argument were supported by these writings, you would be touting them as much stronger evidence.  In fact, in post #107, you claim that one caption (written by who knows) PROVES YOUR case!

It only proves it in conjunction with the existance of the charcoal layer.

Look, if we learned one thing from the NGLA, Pine Valley and Merion threads its that alleged quotes, actual quotes and newspaper articles and books aren't 100 % accurate.

Didn't Whigham, at Macdonald's Eulogy state that Macdonald designe Merion.
Didn't Merion and just about every periodical claim that Wilson sailed to the UK in 1910.

So, here we have an article/statement attributed to Banks, about the hole and it's play.
I am certainly not dismissive of the article, but, we also have contemporaneous accounts that state that the entire footpad and swale were part of the putting green and that caption appears beneath a photo circa 1925-6.

Now, I'm not prepared to attach 100 % credibilty to that caption, but, when combined with the existance of the charcoal layer, that becomes a powerful argument.

After following this thread closely, my personal opinion - having played only three Biarritz holes (including this particular hole many years ago) - is that the idea of pinning the front portion gradually happened at particular courses and the maintenance was changed to make that possible.  The strategy described by Banks seems to me to be a more exciting prospect than trying to drop a mid/long iron onto that front section - not that that latter isn't a fun shot.  In fact, my one round at Yale, the pin was in front and a 4 iron (I think) found me on the back tier putting to the front through the swale.  The putt was indeed entertaining!  So, I don't really know the intention, but suspect that Banks has more credibility than you even though you are about the same age!

I wish !

Also consider the configuration of the hole.
Balls hit from highly elevated tees do NOT roll, despite Bill Brightly's claim that the greens were made of stainless steel.
The carry is so heroic that it defies believability circa 1925-6, hence it seems practical that the forward tier was used as putting surface, given the incredible demand to reach the back tier from that distance.
Plus, that swale is really deep and steep.
I tried putting through it, putting from it and at 220, I think I have to eat a bigger lunch to conquer it.

Furthermore, per Bryan's question, if the core samples you speak of where only taken from current greensites (and I trust you'll correct me if I am wrong here), how do we know the "approach" areas weren't prepared the same way on other holes?

First you have to understand that Bryan has reached "flaming moron" status.
Only Bryan who has stated that the core samples were only taken from the putting surfaces and not areas fronting them.
Core samples have been taken from the approaches and the charcoal layer doesn't exist.
Shall we now take core samples from every fairway as well.

The charcoal layer was an expensive additive, not a throw in.
It aided drainage much like today's gravel choker layers
I have another theory about radiant heat retention, but, we'll save that for another day

Cheers

Cheers to you too.

Remember, almost every new idea or concept was denegrated when first proposed

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here is what I think happened at Yale. After Macdonald and Raynor designed the course with only a rear section putting surface, someone with the authority to make changes decided to convert the designed approach into a putting surface. I do not think Raynor was there when this was approved, and I don't think they asked his permission. I think "The Committee" ordered the change, perhaps before the course was opened for play. Banks had already written his explanation of how the hole should be played. I think CBM would have been totally against such a change. But the course was extremely expensive to build from the outset ($450,000 in 1925 dollars), and Yale supported that cost. If the Committee wanted the front section to be finished as putting surface, what architect would raise a fuss?

Bill, like Donnie Beck, I love ya, but, you're starting to present theories that fly in the face of prudent man thinking.

First, you're making an assumption that there was a committee.  I doubt there ever was a committee ?  Perhaps records can inform us.
Second, who would dare go against CBM and SR at the height of their careers ?
Third, who would rip up a huge, highly contoured green, excavate to 12 inches, add an extended charcoal layer, replace the green's mix and either resod or reseed the green ?  That's a huge, labor intensive and costly undertaking.

So Patrick, I'll grant you that they threw some charcoal under the approach and mowed the grass close. But I won't accept that Macdonald, Raynor or Banks were part of this drastic change to the Biarritz design.

That's been your position from day one, and I understand it.
I just don't think that CBM and SR were as rigid in their designs as you do.
I think that they understood the unique value of the topography and created a hybrid Biarritz.

Biarritz holes have been criticized from the outset, and were called Macdonald's Folly. The holes have been DRASTICALLY changed over the years. At my home course, the first thing that happened during WW II was the elimination of the front bunkers that guarded the approach. (Tillinghast recommended this as part of his PGA-sponsored tour, and aerial photos indicate that one one bunker was taken out in the 30's.) Then William Gordon came in 1960, filled in the swale, and pinched the rear greenside bunkers to make it play like a typical RTJ long par 3.

Controversial holes always attract criticism and alterations.
Money and rationing were responsible for so many changes in the 20's, 30's and 40's.
In the 50's and beyond, it was ego.

Biarritz holes look weird. Form a committee with ten random golfers with the power to make changes to a MacRaynor, and I'll bet a thousand dollars to a dollar that the first hole they touch is the Biarritz. They'll either remove the front bunkers and make it look and play like a "normal" long par three, or they will convert the front section to a putting surface, especially if they can create a cool shot like the one over Greist Pond. That is what Committees do. Patrick knows that, he hates Committees for that reason. They don't give a rats ass about the design intent of the original architect. They are powerful men, with the power to make decisions, and they damn well will make decisions. That is what committees do.

I agree 100 %, but, the existance of the charcoal layer changes all of that in my mind.
That would be a huge undertaking, from a labor, artistic and financial perspective, not to mention taking the hole out of play for a year.

So this entire thread is about what happened to two Biarritz holes. It is about how the Biarritz hole at St. Louis came to be incorrectly named a double plateau (which I've come to think is a cute, funny, historical mistake,) and how the front section at Yale came to be maintained as putting surface.

But there has not been one iota of evidence that Macdonald or Raynor changed their design intent.

But, there is that evidence, the Charcoal layer.
It's existance and use is irrefutable.

Banks CLEARLY described the design intent of the hole, and he was at Raynor's side when he hole was designed.

Whigham claimed that Macdonald designed Merion and he was right at Macdonald's side the entire time Macdonald engaged in course design.

And, it's one thing to define intent, it's quite another to define the finished product.
Even if we found CBM/SR's plans, they would only manifest intent not what was built.

Is not Aronomink the greatest lesson in design plans versus as-built's

Golf courses are replete with examples where the as-built differed from the design plans.

Early Photo's of golfers putting on the first tier or the "as-built" would help.

But until they're produced, this is my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Let me now when someone comes up  something that contradicts that. And the charcoal layer is not enough,
Patrick. Show us something thats proves Macdonald or Raynor authorized the change.

You don't know that it was a change.
You've never seen the design plans.

And, how many courses, including modern day courses, have had the design changed IN THE FIELD BY THE ARCHITECT.

And, the only proof is the As-built or photos of golfer putting on the front tier.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

Get back to us when you have some proof that Raynor designed the hole to have a front pin location. And don't use the word charcoal in your answer.

[Bryan Izatt]

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


Furthermore, per Bryan's question, if the core samples you speak of where only taken from current greensites (and I trust you'll correct me if I am wrong here), how do we know the "approach" areas weren't prepared the same way on other holes?

First you have to understand that Bryan has reached "flaming moron" status.
Only Bryan who has stated that the core samples were only taken from the putting surfaces and not areas fronting them.
Core samples have been taken from the approaches and the charcoal layer doesn't exist.
Shall we now take core samples from every fairway as well.

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

Sadly you continue to misrepresent what I asked. Why do you do that?    If you would stop feeling challenged and respond to the questions asked it would be so much easier to have an intelligent discussion.  

What I wanted to know was whether whoever took the core samples did it for all 18 greens.  If they did that would support your assertion that this was a uniform practice across all the greens on the course.

I understand that they took core samples from the front of the current 9th green, but that you didn't know if they took core samples from the swale (based on one of your previous posts).

I further wanted to know if they (whoever they are) took core samples from approaches to other greens on the course.  I wasn't sure why they would if they were just trying to determine the profiles of the greens.  If they did take cores from other approaches, surrounds or fairways and found no charcoal that would support your contention that the charcoal layer was unique to the greens there.  Since you never explained where or why the core samples were taken, I thought I'd ask.  Why is that so offensive to you?  

You state above that:

"Core samples have been taken from the approaches and the charcoal layer doesn't exist."

Could you expand a little on that statement.  I'm trying to understand the methodology of whatever they were trying to do with taking the core samples.

Since the premise of your argument is based primarily on the finding of the charcoal, it would help to understand how and where the coring was done.

Would it help if I said I love ya.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Whilst I'm still open to all ideas being proved once and for all, I'm afraid I just don't see the point Donnie is trying to make.

I see no difference in the finished construction in the two photos.

As I said before, one of our sets of eyes is getting tricked. But I need someone to convince me that it is mine.

[Bryan Izatt]

Donnie,

Do you have a date for your "construction" picture.  Was it published somewhere? Where did you find it?

 Patrick,

Vis-a-vis the pics, have you determined yet when in circa 1925-26 your (Ran's) picture and caption was published?  Without knowing that it's hard to determine how it relates to the picture and caption that I posted.  I believe that my picture (directly from Yale) predates yours.  It was published September 30, 1925 so the picture was from before that.  The caption, of course, describes the hole in the same terms as Banks described it - the front part was an "approach" and not the green or the green proper.  It's my opinion that the picture and caption are definitive of the way the hole was designed and built since they are contemporaneous with the actual construction.  The discovery of the charcoal layer requires a supposition on your part that the charcoal was built in as part of construction and that the front part of the approach was intended to be part of the green from the construction period.  I think the picture and caption I posted and Banks' description trump your supposition.  

P.S.  You have suggested that Banks was losing it when he wrote the description that George had ascribed to circa 1931 in The Evangelist.  You may not have noticed that Ally corrected me, saying that the Banks description was from a 1925 report.  Was Banks losing it in 1925 while they were constructing the course?  Or is Ally erroneous in saying the description was from a 1925 report?

So, here again is the September 10, 1925 picture and caption.  Please let us know when you can identify the publication and date of your photo and caption.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bryan,

That quote from Banks appeared in the 1925 Hartford Courant before the course opened. Mark Bourgeois printed the full article out for us last month. It read like a conceptual report on the holes, like one I might write to describe the holes before a sod has been turned.

In other words, it could even have been written a good time before the construction photo that accompanied it was taken and published.

I agree that it originally indicated that the approach would not be green. But I don't think anyone has yet disproved the other possibilities.

[Donnie Beck]

Ok this is pointless... If you can not see the difference in the contours between the two pictures than there no point continuing the discussion... The first picture obviously pre-dates the second as the bunkers are not finished. Notice the differences in the slope of the approach to both the left, right, and the falloff towards the pond. The first picture is already grassed meaning it took considerable effort by someone to make it look like the second picture.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ok this is pointless... If you can not see the difference in the contours between the two pictures than there no point continuing the discussion... The first picture obviously pre-dates the second as the bunkers are not finished. Notice the differences in the slope of the approach to both the left, right, and the falloff towards the pond. The first picture is already grassed meaning it took considerable effort by someone to make it look like the second picture.

I don't see it, Donnie...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donnie,

I'm with Ally on not seeing what you see in the top photo.  Are you looking at another, clearer photo or strictly the one posted ?

I don't think there's that much of a time lapse between the two photos.

The sheds are no longer there in my photo suggesting that the major construction has been completed, which jives with my contention that your photo may not be reflective of the "as-built" whereas I think the bottom photo does reflect the "as-built"

[Jim Nugent]

Bill: at SLCC, two eyewitnesses from the 1921 Amateur, both of whom would seem credible, describe #2 in nearly opposite ways.  Chick Evans, defending champ, said #2 had two greens, one front and one back.  The other eyewitness was the pro at SLCC.  He wrote a description of every hole on the course.  He said the green at #2 was behind the swale.  He also said it was a par 4.  That's how the article describing the course listed it.  

There are ways both could be right, but it makes me wonder how reliable eyewitnesses necessarily are.

Those of you who have played both versions of the Biarritz: which do you prefer?  Green behind the swale only (like Fishers), or green that includes the swale and approach, such as Yale has it now?  

Patrick, I read an old thread about Biarritz greens, and several posters back then said they successfully landed shots on the front tier at Yale and ran them through the swale onto the back.  

As for the two photos we're discussing: the green complex looks pretty much the same to me in both.  The caption in one says the green contains the the swale.  Since it calls #9 "famous" and "one of the greatest water holes ever built", the caption probably was written after the course opened.  i.e. the caption may have been written later than the photo, and could describe a different green from the one pictured.  

[Will Lozier]

Those of you who have played both versions of the Biarritz: which do you prefer?  Green behind the swale only (like Fishers), or green that includes the swale and approach, such as Yale has it now?  

Patrick, I read an old thread about Biarritz greens, and several posters back then said they successfully landed shots on the front tier at Yale and ran them through the swale onto the back.  

Jim,

I remember hitting four iron to a front pin (from the tips) and my shot indeed landing on the front tier and running through the swale to the back...and of course having that crazy putt which I am sure I 3-jacked.  I disagree with Pat in that the elevation of the tee relative to the green does NOT take away the option of running the ball to the rear.  Especially with more club and especially at Yale as I played it in F&F conditions during late fall!  Furthermore, with older equipment, I would think this possibility is even more likely.

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Written accounts/articles have frequently been proven inaccurate and/or false, that's why I don't attribute 100 % credibility to them.

As to several posters stating that they landed balls on the front tier and ran them through the swale onto the back tier, I have my doubts.
Golfers, like fishermen, tend to exaggerate.

Could you provide their names or the link.

I hit a really solid, low driver and it landed on the front tier but couldn't make it through the swale to the back tier.
Had it been a little more toward center, it might have just stayed on top of the swale, but there was no way that it could make it to middle or even front third of the back tier, hence I have my doubts as to how the hole plays, versus a pre-construction article describing in theory how the hole was intended to be played.

I suspect that CBM/SR came to the same conclusion I came to, that the back tier couldn't be reached by hitting the front tier and rolling the ball thru the swale to the body of the back tier, and realizing this, built the green with the front tier and swale incorporated into the putting surface.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

By the way, how many commenting on this hole and the play of this hole, haven't played the hole ?

[Will Lozier]

As to several posters stating that they landed balls on the front tier and ran them through the swale onto the back tier, I have my doubts.
Golfers, like fishermen, tend to exaggerate.

Could you provide their names or the link.

Pat,

At 41, my mental capacity is hardly diminished...like yours.  As you well know, the condition of the course plays a large part in determining if this particular play is possible.  In the case of my one visit, the course was in "poor" shape by the standards of most Americans, or F&F by my own.  Having lived overseas, in Surrey specifically, I would compare the Yale I played favourably to the great Heathland courses of the UK.  Thus, the shot I hit seems easily plausible...unless of course you just don't want to believe it.  Your low stinging driver, I would bet, didn't make it through the swale due to softer conditions.  OF COURSE the tee being somewhat elevated gives one a better chance to stop a ball on the front.  But, it certainly doesn't make it impossible to land it there and scoot it all the way to the back.  Are you going to reach the back half of the back shelf that way, probably not.  No one is suggesting that.  Furthermore, shot shape would have a big influence on rollout with a longer club in your hands.  Pretty simple really.

Cheers

[Mark McKeever]

Jim,

Written accounts/articles have frequently been proven inaccurate and/or false, that's why I don't attribute 100 % credibility to them.

As to several posters stating that they landed balls on the front tier and ran them through the swale onto the back tier, I have my doubts.
Golfers, like fishermen, tend to exaggerate.

Could you provide their names or the link.

I hit a really solid, low driver and it landed on the front tier but couldn't make it through the swale to the back tier.
Had it been a little more toward center, it might have just stayed on top of the swale, but there was no way that it could make it to middle or even front third of the back tier, hence I have my doubts as to how the hole plays, versus a pre-construction article describing in theory how the hole was intended to be played.

I suspect that CBM/SR came to the same conclusion I came to, that the back tier couldn't be reached by hitting the front tier and rolling the ball thru the swale to the body of the back tier, and realizing this, built the green with the front tier and swale incorporated into the putting surface.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

By the way, how many commenting on this hole and the play of this hole, haven't played the hole ?

Pat, I will let Joe confirm, but I believe he hit a low draw that landed on the front and chased to the back of the green last time we played out there.  Yes, we both played it.  (Belt notch x 2) 

Mark 

[Jim_Kennedy]

As to several posters stating that they landed balls on the front tier and ran them through the swale onto the back tier, I have my doubts.
Golfers, like fishermen, tend to exaggerate.

Could you provide their names or the link.

Pat,

At 41, my mental capacity is hardly diminished...like yours.  As you well know, the condition of the course plays a large part in determining if this particular play is possible.  In the case of my one visit, the course was in "poor" shape by the standards of most Americans, or F&F by my own.  Having lived overseas, in Surrey specifically, I would compare the Yale I played favourably to the great Heathland courses of the UK.  Thus, the shot I hit seems easily plausible...unless of course you just don't want to believe it.  Your low stinging driver, I would bet, didn't make it through the swale due to softer conditions.  OF COURSE the tee being somewhat elevated gives one a better chance to stop a ball on the front.  But, it certainly doesn't make it impossible to land it there and scoot it all the way to the back.  Are you going to reach the back half of the back shelf that way, probably not.  No one is suggesting that.  Furthermore, shot shape would have a big influence on rollout with a longer club in your hands.  Pretty simple really.

Cheers

Pat,
I do recall one hot and low shot, hit by my friend John Saba, that went into the swale in such a manner that it got airborne when it reappeared. Fun to watch.