[Patrick_Mucci]

Sorry for the delay, I was busy playing in the Met Sr. Am where Mucci  SHOULD have been!

Bill,

Terry McBride passed away at 4:30 this morning.

No golf until Sunday

[John Connolly]

Bill,

If one were to believe Google Earth's altitude measurements, the original Redan at North Berwick plays one foot uphill, 17 to 18 ft at green (with a little crest up to 24 feet at the first pair of fairway bunkers). So tee to green it's flat to marginally uphill (.2% grade).


National's plays downhill by 34 feet (as you recall). From tee box at 40 ft to middle green at 6 ft above sea level - downhill grade of just over 5%.

[Jim Nugent]

John, are you sure that NGLA's redan drops so much? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

If one were to believe Google Earth's altitude measurements, the original Redan at North Berwick plays one foot uphill, 17 to 18 ft at green (with a little crest up to 24 feet at the first pair of fairway bunkers). So tee to green it's flat to marginally uphill (.2% grade).


National's plays downhill by 34 feet (as you recall). From tee box at 40 ft to middle green at 6 ft above sea level - downhill grade of just over 5%.

John,

Your measurements are incorrect at NGLA.

[John Connolly]

John, are you sure that NGLA's redan drops so much? 

I am sure of nothing having never played there. I've looked at some online pics and used the altitude tool in Google earth. I've saved those images but I can't figure out how to import the pic into the post. If I could get some help I'd be happy to share the analysis. I suspect the measurements are flawed as both you and another poster don't support that much elevation loss. And if, in fact, Google Earth overestimated the elevation change, it will be very disappointing as I've come to use the tool quite a bit when evaluating and studying courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill,

If one were to believe Google Earth's altitude measurements, the original Redan at North Berwick plays one foot uphill, 17 to 18 ft at green (with a little crest up to 24 feet at the first pair of fairway bunkers). So tee to green it's flat to marginally uphill (.2% grade).


National's plays downhill by 34 feet (as you recall). From tee box at 40 ft to middle green at 6 ft above sea level - downhill grade of just over 5%.

Google Earth's altitude measurements are not to be relied on.

The Redan at North Berwick is very close to flat (I would guess the green is 3-4 feet above the tee instead of one) and National's is downhill, but not nearly as much as indicated.  If the green were at elevation 6 all the bunkers around the green would be below sea level!    It is maybe 5-10 feet downhill.  I have a topo of it in my office but I won't be back to look at it until Memorial Day.

[John Connolly]

Thanks for the information. Upon remeasuring National's Redan the flattest I can make it is 40 ft on tee to 16 ft at middle of green which still sounds like too much drop from what you estimate, and maybe still too close to sea level. I hadn't thought about the bunkers swimming in the Atlantic if the green was truly at 6 ft! I'm bummed about the Earth altitude tool not being reliable - any other suggestions or tools that you use reliably that are easily accessible?

And architecturally, do you think Redans should play flat to slightly uphill? Is a little downhill OK? If National's is considered by most to be one of the best and it's a little downhill, I guess most would feel it's "allowed".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

10' seems about right,

[Alex Miller]

Thanks for the information. Upon remeasuring National's Redan the flattest I can make it is 40 ft on tee to 16 ft at middle of green which still sounds like too much drop from what you estimate, and maybe still too close to sea level. I hadn't thought about the bunkers swimming in the Atlantic if the green was truly at 6 ft! I'm bummed about the Earth altitude tool not being reliable - any other suggestions or tools that you use reliably that are easily accessible?

And architecturally, do you think Redans should play flat to slightly uphill? Is a little downhill OK? If National's is considered by most to be one of the best and it's a little downhill, I guess most would feel it's "allowed".

google earth seems to have reasonable measurements... they're just not always lined up with the satellite image 

National's redan slopes more front to back than North Berwick so its defenses are not worsened. Visually it is amazing and far superior to the original, but both are great holes!

[Adam Clayman]

Gorge, You are correct about needing to return to the rolling oaks. Amazing how important the proper meld is. Or should I say, an improper one.

[Bill Brightly]

Well, it's good to know that Brightly hasn't made a mistake here!

I never said that the Redan at NGLA is not a great golf hole. It may be one of the coolest holes that I have ever played and I LOVE the natural way it sits on the land. In fact, it is one of the best examples that I can think of to distinguish Macdonald's work from Raynor's when true gca.com morons ( ) attempt to say that "MacRaynor templates" are forced upon the land.

It's just that when considering Redans, I prefer uphill Redans because I think that fits better with the "fortress" nature of the hole's defenses. Downhill Redans are fun because the roll of the ball is increased, but I take away points. I don't think a downhill Redan can be called great, just like I can't call Old Macdonald's great because I don't like the kickmound. Cool golf hole? ABSOLUTELY. Great Redan? No.

I will be making my first visit to Scotland this August and I will finally get to see North Berwick's Redan. I'm curious to see how my perceptions of other Redans might change after seeing NB's.

[Alex Miller]

I'm not a big fan of Old Mac's redan personally either, though there is much to like about the course!

Bill, please let us know what you think of NB's redan. From holes 13-17 I think it might be the weakest of the bunch (barely), but definitely the most important and influential golf hole in that stretch. We'll see if I've just committed a mistake to the mistakes thread. 

[Bill Brightly]

Tom,

Before we make Bill pee in a cup over the Redan comment, he might be responding to the fact that #15 at N. Berwick is essentially a blind shot - which has an appeal all its own. On #4 at NGLA, the second the ball comes off the club, I know if the shot is going to feed left, kick right off that hump or go over the green into the back bunker. In many ways, I think NGLA has a far more difficult and exacting Redan than Berwick, where my normal hard-draw puts me on the green most of the time.

Gib, (and others)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think NGLA's Redan is at least partially blind from the tee. I seem to recall hitting what I thought was a perfectly struck high fade that ended up dead on line with the pin, which was on the left half of the green. I was sure it would hit once and roll to the pin. But when I got there, the  (stupid) ball stopped a couple of inches short of the green. Now I was left with a treacherous downhill putt that I barely breathed on, and it rolled 25 feet below the hole. Lipped out the comeback for a very disappointing bogey.

But isn't much of the green blind from the tee?

[Bill Brightly]

I'm not a big fan of Old Mac's redan personally either, though there is much to like about the course!

Bill, please let us know what you think of NB's redan. From holes 13-17 I think it might be the weakest of the bunch (barely), but definitely the most important and influential golf hole in that stretch. We'll see if I've just committed a mistake to the mistakes thread. 

There ya go Alex! Throw out your bold statement, have thick skin, hunker down and let the gca discussion begin!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

Have you played Piping Rock's Redan ?

[Mike_Young]

The biggest mistake I ever made on this site was that of forming a visual of Tom Paul and Pat Mucci before I met them.  Wow that was a bad too....

[Bill Brightly]

Bill,

Have you played Piping Rock's Redan ?

I have not, but from the photos I have seen I think I would like it a lot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

Have you played Piping Rock's Redan ?

I have not, but from the photos I have seen I think I would like it a lot.

It certainly fits the fortress concept you like with it's elevated green.

But, with that elevation comes blindness.

Or as some would say, you can't have everything

I think it's a great hole.

[Bill Brightly]

But isn't National's partially blind? At least the left side of the green, right?

[Mac Plumart]

I made the mistake of thinking golf courses could be rated effectively and with a minimization of subjective bias.

But after a number of years of studying this...I know it can't be done.  Not scientifically and not without bias...blatant bias or unknown/unrealized bias.

[Sean_A]

Mac

I somehow thought, like you, that some sort of reasonable checklist could be created in ranking courses.  I never really spent time on it and as the years went by I began to think it couldn't be done.  I actually tried to do it for LINKS100.  I couldn't get past the grouping stage.  There was no meaningful criteria other than my feelings and personal likes to break ties...and when you have grouping rankings there are one hell of a lot of ties    

One of my mistakes from years gone by is not giving the little courses their due.  I used to think there was huge disparity between good, very good and great.  Not anymore.  As time has gone by I have come to appreciate much more how many little courses solve land problems and offer variety compared to championship courses.  It is often the case where the land problems lead to some of the most intereresting holes. Its to the point now where I cherish good connector holes much more so than the "bog standard" good holes.  

Another mistake of my past was not to give flat architecture its due.  Like most, I loved all the dunes and holes running wild thru them.  I have come to realize many of these holes are much of a muchness and often constricting on how they play out.  Their prime value is often beauty rather than really good golf.  Since variety is now what I want more than anything, a course playing thru heaving dunes will often be mesmerizing for a play or two, but sometimes don't hold my interest thru 18 holes.  I like big flat breaks in designs which switch up things.  

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

The can't of the green creates some areas of blindness

The entire putting surface is not visible

At Piping Rock, almost the entire elevated putting surface, if not the entire putting surface is not visible

Sean,

"Golfweek" and "Golf Digest" have a checklist.
I would imagine that  "Golf" does as well.

You can't have 300 raters each using their own subjective criteria.

You should have known that

[Sean_A]

Pat

So instead, they use someone else's subjective criteria subjectively    Not good my friend.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Regarding NGLA's Redan, I was reading over articles from 1907 and one of them provides straight line elevation changes for the planned holes at NGLA.  The Redan (then the thirteenth) is listed 43 to 31 feet.  So a 12 foot drop.   Assuming the tee is in the same place . . . it is easy to admit that Tom Doak (5-10 ft) had it about right, but harder to admit that Patrick (10 ft.) had it about right, too.
______________________________________________________________________

Pat

So instead, they use someone else's subjective criteria subjectively    Not good my friend.

Ciao

But they assign numbers so it must be objective.  

[Rich Goodale]

Well, it's good to know that Brightly hasn't made a mistake here!

I never said that the Redan at NGLA is not a great golf hole. It may be one of the coolest holes that I have ever played and I LOVE the natural way it sits on the land. In fact, it is one of the best examples that I can think of to distinguish Macdonald's work from Raynor's when true gca.com morons ( ) attempt to say that "MacRaynor templates" are forced upon the land.

It's just that when considering Redans, I prefer uphill Redans because I think that fits better with the "fortress" nature of the hole's defenses. Downhill Redans are fun because the roll of the ball is increased, but I take away points. I don't think a downhill Redan can be called great, just like I can't call Old Macdonald's great because I don't like the kickmound. Cool golf hole? ABSOLUTELY. Great Redan? No.

I will be making my first visit to Scotland this August and I will finally get to see North Berwick's Redan. I'm curious to see how my perceptions of other Redans might change after seeing NB's.

Bill

Any hole that is not an uphill fortress is not a "Redan."  4 NGLA is a great golf hole, but is not a redan.  You'll love the original.

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()