Is the 17th at Forsgate the best Biarritz green in golf ?

[Jim Nugent]

Sven brings up a very good point. The "green" on a Biarritz hole is past the swale. Anything short of the swale is the approach, whether it is maintained as putting surface or fairway height.

Modern adaptations, including the holes I posted photos, may be able to pin the front (or even the swale: yuck!) but that was NEVER the intent of the design. I like front sections maintained as putting surface because that promotes a fast and firm approach, but the pin should never be up front, unless you are just fooling around...

I think it is important for those of us on GCA.COM to note this, and NOT use the phrase "Biarritz Green" to mean a double-sided green divided by a swale.

Are you sure MacRaynor designed the swale in front of the green at all their Biarritz holes?  Two that give me pause: Yale and St. Louis CC.  Course descriptions of SLCC (some of them) during the 1921 U.S. Am suggest the swale was already in the green.  And as I recall, the evidence at Yale is mixed, with photos and descriptions supporting both views. 

However it was originally designed, I think most Biarritz greens today do include the swale.  Does the hole work better that way?  Does it depend on the site?   

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim,

My belief is that the concept morphed over time, but the key feature was always the play over a raised area with a dip before where the pin should have been placed.  That raised area, or the hogsback as CBM described it, has become the front portion of the green, and the maintenance as green promotes the ability to run the ball to the back, especially on non-links courses.

Sven

[Bill Brightly]

Sven brings up a very good point. The "green" on a Biarritz hole is past the swale. Anything short of the swale is the approach, whether it is maintained as putting surface or fairway height.

Modern adaptations, including the holes I posted photos, may be able to pin the front (or even the swale: yuck!) but that was NEVER the intent of the design. I like front sections maintained as putting surface because that promotes a fast and firm approach, but the pin should never be up front, unless you are just fooling around...

I think it is important for those of us on GCA.COM to note this, and NOT use the phrase "Biarritz Green" to mean a double-sided green divided by a swale.

Are you sure MacRaynor designed the swale in front of the green at all their Biarritz holes?  Two that give me pause: Yale and St. Louis CC.  Course descriptions of SLCC (some of them) during the 1921 U.S. Am suggest the swale was already in the green.  And as I recall, the evidence at Yale is mixed, with photos and descriptions supporting both views.  

However it was originally designed, I think most Biarritz greens today do include the swale.  Does the hole work better that way?  Does it depend on the site?    

Jim,

For me, this is a situation where we can use common sense to conclude that Macdonald, Raynor and Banks never designed the swale to be part of the green, but it was a simple and obvious potential change that those in charge of their courses could make. Clearly, Yale and St. Louis were quick to make this change. Others followed MUCH later, although the practice is spreading.

Here is Fishers Island, built in 1925-26



If Raynor had decided that creating two sections of green divided by a swale was desirable, why wouldn't he do so at Fishers? The front section would create a thrilling short hole, right? In fact, you would have to ask why he would build ANY front sections as fairway once he had been divinely inspired to modify Macdonald's concept at Yale and/or St. Louis. Why didn't Charles Banks build any of his Biarritz holes with the front section as putting surface? Everything he learned came directly from Raynor.


So how did Yale and St. Louis get front sections as early as 1921? The answer is not hard to surmise: as soon as Raynor left the site and others were in control, they simply altered the maintenance practices and began to cut holes up front. Or perhaps they asked Raynor, like many clients might do, if they could put a pin up front and he shrugged and said "do whatever you want." My point is that a fairway height front section of a MacRaynor Biarritz LOOKS like the footpad of a putting surface, so it is hardly a reach to understand why those in charge would decide to cut pins up front.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

Written documents relative to Yale's 9th, prior to its opening, along with photos, would seem to contradict your premise, as would the soil probes of the front tier taken by Scott Ramsey.

Yale's 9th, with only the back tier as the putting surface would be an absolutely impossible hole on opening day.
Ditto today.

[Bill Brightly]

I've already responded many times to your theory about Yale, and it has been refuted by early newspaper descriptions of the hole.

But if I play along and buy that Raynor decided to alter CBM's concept, why didn't Raynor do it at Fishers Island?

[Sean_A]

Sven brings up a very good point. The "green" on a Biarritz hole is past the swale. Anything short of the swale is the approach, whether it is maintained as putting surface or fairway height.

Modern adaptations, including the holes I posted photos, may be able to pin the front (or even the swale: yuck!) but that was NEVER the intent of the design. I like front sections maintained as putting surface because that promotes a fast and firm approach, but the pin should never be up front, unless you are just fooling around...

I think it is important for those of us on GCA.COM to note this, and NOT use the phrase "Biarritz Green" to mean a double-sided green divided by a swale.

So Mucci, your thread really deals with what is past the swale at Forsgate!

Bill

If its short grass, then a hole can be cut there assuming the slopes are amenable. 

Pat, I don't know what your response to me means.

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Bill

If its short grass, then a hole can be cut there assuming the slopes are amenable.  
[/quote]

Can? Yes, it is physically possible. Good idea? Absolutely no in my opinion.  Most of the swales are not long enough (as you face the swale from the tee) to consider pinning the swale. I'd say three or four paces of flat area in the swale is the average. So that means that balls that just carry the front section, and those that just fail to reach the back section, all end up in the dead middle of the swale. Having played MANY Biarritz holes, I'd say this result is goofy and dumb with a pin in the swale. I guess you would see lots of hole-in-ones since you get two cracks at the cup with each tee shot...

Forsgate's is the only one I can recall that actually has enough area to consider pinning the swale, perhaps 10 yards of flat before the upslope.

[Bill Brightly]

If it was the best Biarritz green in golf, I think I would remember it better than I do.

But, in general, I think Biarritz greens are too similar from one course to another.

Tom,

I have no doubt that the "sameness" of the existing putting surfaces on Raynor and Banks Biarritz holes would be very troubling to you.

As a fan of both MacRaynors AND Tom Doak, I imagine that this was one of the most difficult templates for you and the team to agree upon.  I would LOVE to have been privy to the design conversations that you had with Bahto, Klein, Whitten, Urbina and perhaps Keisers. Has that been written about?

The Biarritz green at Old Macdonald is unlike any other that I have played. It is Biarritz-inspired but not a copy by any means.There are so many more internal green contours than one would find elsewhere, yet the depth of the swale is much shallower than most. OM's certainly has the required runup element that CBM envisioned, more so than most current Biarritz holes on parkland courses, where it is nearly impossible to stop big hitters from simply flying the ball to the pin.

It will be interesting to get Pat Mucci's take on the hole when he plays it.    

[Jim Nugent]

If Raynor had decided that creating two sections of green divided by a swale was desirable, why wouldn't he do so at Fishers? The front section would create a thrilling short hole, right? In fact, you would have to ask why he would build ANY front sections as fairway once he had been divinely inspired to modify Macdonald's concept at Yale and/or St. Louis. Why didn't Charles Banks build any of his Biarritz holes with the front section as putting surface? Everything he learned came directly from Raynor.

I have to answer your question with another question:

Why did MacRaynor have to build all Biarritz holes the same?  Not all his templates are the same, course to course.  e.g. he built at least one 'alps' that was nearly flat as a pancake. 

As for Banks, maybe he liked greens better that did not include the swale. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I have no doubt that the "sameness" of the existing putting surfaces on Raynor and Banks Biarritz holes would be very troubling to you.

As a fan of both MacRaynors AND Tom Doak, I imagine that this was one of the most difficult templates for you and the team to agree upon.  I would LOVE to have been privy to the design conversations that you had with Bahto, Klein, Whitten, Urbina and perhaps Keisers. Has that been written about?

The Biarritz green at Old Macdonald is unlike any other that I have played. It is Biarritz-inspired by not a copy by any means.There are so many more internal green contours than one would find elsewhere, yet the depth of the swale is much shallower than most. OM's certainly has the required runup element that CBM envisioned, more so than most current Biarritz holes on parkland courses, where it is nearly impossible to stop big hitters from simply flying the ball to the pin.

Bill:

No, I don't think the conversation has been discussed a lot, but I'm happy to provide my memories of it.

Yes, I was personally very wary of how to include the Biarritz at Old Macdonald, but I assumed from the beginning that we would need to do so, and I know that George and Jim and Brad were all looking forward to it.  I do not remember Mr. Keiser saying much about the Biarritz specifically early in the process, but he really didn't have too much to say about what we should do with any particular hole until we were building them.

Originally the routing was a bit different.  The 7th green was going to be sited where the 8th green is today, and what is now the 16th was going to be two holes ... after a shorter par-4, you'd have backed up to the right up the hill to play a Biarritz, to a green about where the 17th tee is today.  That was Jim Urbina's location for it [he had suggested 15-17 from my original plan], and I was very concerned that we didn't have enough space to do the hole right ... that we were going to be trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

The day we started construction, I was walking with Mr. Keiser and we discovered the location for the present 7th green up on the dune ridge [which was then about 15-20 feet higher].  I asked him if he wanted to go up on top and get a better view of the ocean -- he did -- and whether there were any permitting issues in our way [there weren't].  Then he asked me if the 7th green was moved up there, how would we get back into the rest of the course?, and I said maybe we could build a par-3 back down the hill to where the 8th tee was going to be ... and we both looked at the ridge where the green is today and pointed and said "right there". 

When I went down and looked at the green site more closely, I thought it had the makings of a cool and unusual Biarritz, downhill with the front of the green much higher than the back so that you might play a running approach even from the elevated tee ... and best of all NOT symmetrical.  Jim came and looked at it and we decided to build up the back of the green with fill to enhance the swale, and how to use the existing contours as hazards to the side of the green instead of the symmetrical bunkers, and Jim went ahead and built the hole you know.  It all happened rather quickly, and I don't remember the rest of the committee being too involved, because they weren't on site the day Mike voted to change the routing.

For me, the 9th at Yale was an inspiration, because it is much more complex than most Biarritz holes and the front part of the green is very much in play as a potential hole location.  This may or may not be the "true intent" of the Biarritz ... I don't know Willie Dunn or C.B. Macdonald or Pat Mucci well enough to ask them ... but the Yale hole is certainly part of Macdonald's legacy, so I didn't think it out of character, and neither did George Bahto when we asked him about it.  The only disappointment for me is that they almost never use the front parts of the 8th green for hole locations, when a lot of the appeal to me was that there were some days you'd want to land the ball on the front and run it through the swale, and other days when you'd want to land in front and make it STAY.  That's certainly a feature of the 9th at Yale [and Bill Coore's hole at Streamsong Red], and why I like them better than the others.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Sven

What I am proposing is that CBM  based his "Biarritz" template on an adaptation/template that Tom Dunn created in France of the 16th green at North Berwick West. Why didn't he call it "the gate" since he surely was aquainted with the original? Perhaps marketing
as Biarritz was a fashionable resort at the time. Perhaps he liked Dunn's adaptation at Biarritz better? Who knows? This is not my thesis paper, fully researched and footnoted, just conjecture.

Please share with us your knowledge of CBM's notes regarding the Biarritz. A
Hogback front  to me suggests a crowned shape that would deflect shots away either right or left not the benign fronts that I see on US MacRaynorBank's courses.

Sorry, but I don't have access to the author who I cite's  notes. I see that the article as posted is clipped off. Let me go back and see what citations the full article has and I will send it to you if there is anything.

And #%$¥!}¥$^%. It is a bitch typing all of this on an iPhone.

Best,

Malcolm

And Pat, of course I don't expect you to comment on a green that you have never seen. I was hoping for anyone in our DG who has seen the green to chime in. Just because you started the thread doesn't mean that it is all about you!

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

TD,

The one time that I played Yale the Biarritz was pinned on the front and I stuck my approach to about eight feet.

I was pleased!

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Sven

Sorry, no citations.

I can't figure out how to give you a hyperlink on this worthless phone but here is the address... 

http://www.northberwick.org.uk/dunn.html

Malcolm

[Bill Brightly]

If Raynor had decided that creating two sections of green divided by a swale was desirable, why wouldn't he do so at Fishers? The front section would create a thrilling short hole, right? In fact, you would have to ask why he would build ANY front sections as fairway once he had been divinely inspired to modify Macdonald's concept at Yale and/or St. Louis. Why didn't Charles Banks build any of his Biarritz holes with the front section as putting surface? Everything he learned came directly from Raynor.

I have to answer your question with another question:

Why did MacRaynor have to build all Biarritz holes the same?  Not all his templates are the same, course to course.  e.g. he built at least one 'alps' that was nearly flat as a pancake. 

As for Banks, maybe he liked greens better that did not include the swale. 

Jim, I don't want to be a smartass, but MacRaynor is a phrase. Seth Raynor was the architect. Please specify who you mean: Macdonald or Raynor.

C.B.Macdonald built his holes much differently than Raynor, IMO. I think Raynor built his template features to look more alike than CBM.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've already responded many times to your theory about Yale, and it has been refuted by early newspaper descriptions of the hole.

But if I play along and buy that Raynor decided to alter CBM's concept, why didn't Raynor do it at Fishers Island?

I will have to ask him when I next visit Southampton and speak to he and CBM.

The early photos are indesputable as are accounts of the play of the hole from opening day.

Think about the configuration of the 9th green at Yale.
If the entire surface was not maintained as putting green, you could never get the ball to the back tier, the carry was too heroic on opening day, as it is today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven brings up a very good point. The "green" on a Biarritz hole is past the swale. Anything short of the swale is the approach, whether it is maintained as putting surface or fairway height.

Modern adaptations, including the holes I posted photos, may be able to pin the front (or even the swale: yuck!) but that was NEVER the intent of the design. I like front sections maintained as putting surface because that promotes a fast and firm approach, but the pin should never be up front, unless you are just fooling around...

I think it is important for those of us on GCA.COM to note this, and NOT use the phrase "Biarritz Green" to mean a double-sided green divided by a swale.

So Mucci, your thread really deals with what is past the swale at Forsgate!

Bill,

Not entirely, although the back tier gets the majority of attention.

The uniqueness of the swale at Forsgate is worthy of discussion.
It's enormous, probably 20+ yards from crown to crown, thereby offering more than adequate cupping areas, unlike Yale's which is rather restricted.

The back tier has the iconic thumbprint or horseshoe.
The Knoll's also has spines on the back tier, but the scale of Forsgate's upper tier and the thumbprint are exceptional..

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Raynor had decided that creating two sections of green divided by a swale was desirable, why wouldn't he do so at Fishers? The front section would create a thrilling short hole, right? In fact, you would have to ask why he would build ANY front sections as fairway once he had been divinely inspired to modify Macdonald's concept at Yale and/or St. Louis. Why didn't Charles Banks build any of his Biarritz holes with the front section as putting surface? Everything he learned came directly from Raynor.

I have to answer your question with another question:

Why did MacRaynor have to build all Biarritz holes the same? 

HE DIDN'T

Have you played Fishers Island ?
That's a pretty distinct Biarritz.

As with most templates, they were flexible in that the fit the land.

Not all his templates are the same, course to course.  e.g. he built at least one 'alps' that was nearly flat as a pancake. 

As for Banks, maybe he liked greens better that did not include the swale. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Malcolm:

Here is David Moriarty's summary of CBM's and Whigham's words on the inspiration for the Biarritz template (taken from this thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.75.html):

Briefly on the history of the original concept . . .

CBM and Whigham visited Biarritz (with Arnaud Massy) in early 1906 on their tour of great courses in preparation for the creation of NGLA, and CBM  mentioned what became known as his Biarritz concept shortly thereafter in a letter printed in a June 20, 1906 NY Sun article about his recent trip abroad:

"The best holes have not been found on the five British championship links alone.  . . . The idea for one hole comes from Biarritz.  The hole in question is not a good one, but it revealed a fine and original principle that will be incorporated into my selection."  

No mention of the famous chasm --the description of the hole as "not very good" would seem an incongruous reference if he was referring to the famous Chasm.  While CBM referred to the 12th hole, at that time the Chasm hole at Biarritz was the 3rd hole and was only around 100 yards or less, and flipping the nines doesn't work because of quirks in the layout.  And I have never read any description of the famous Chasm Hole that mentioned a hogs-back or a swale, or the method of playing using the ground game.   So, as far as I can tell, the original Biarritz concept was based on a different hole at Biarritz, likely one down by the water in the Chambre d'Amore (the 12th on the map.)

CBM expanded on the description later that year in his article on ideal holes in Outing Magazine where he provided a sample listing of 18 holes:

"15. 210 yards. Suggested by 12th Biarritz making sharp hog back in the middle of the course.  Stopping thirty yards from the hole bunkered to the right of the green and good low ground to the left of the plateau green."

Again no mention of the famous Chasm.  Rather, CBM described a "sharp hog back" in the middle of the course [hole] ending 30 yards short.  And the green is a plateau, with a large swale short of the green.

H.J. Whigham repeated this early understanding in 1913 when describing  the inspiration for Piping Rock's Biarritz:  

"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green."

Again, nothing about a Chasm, and nothing indicating that they were referring to the Chasm Hole (which was quite famous and called "The Chasm") as opposed to a less noteworthy hole at Biarritz.

I'd add that the Chasm Hole was gone by the time CBM visited the course.  From the description of the inspiration, I have a hard time reconciling the thought that what he saw was anything like the hole at North Berwick.  And as I stated, I have seen nothing in the numerous old photos of Biarritz that I've tracked down that suggest any such green existed there, let alone several (the thread linked to above includes many of those photos).

As I tried to suggest in my earlier post, it is my belief that the front portion of the Biarritz green came to be kept (and even designed) as a putting surface to allow for rollout on courses that did not play as fast and firm as those on a hard sand based surface.  A Biarritz with fairway cut leading up to the back portion would work on turf like you'd find at a seaside links, but probably wouldn't have worked on softer bases (like Yale).  

From the descriptions above, it is clear to me that CBM and Whigham looked at this type of hole as one that demanded that the ball be played over the ground for a good portion of the tee shot, and a well judged shot was required to reach the "back tier" in both distance and line.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

If Raynor had decided that creating two sections of green divided by a swale was desirable, why wouldn't he do so at Fishers? The front section would create a thrilling short hole, right? In fact, you would have to ask why he would build ANY front sections as fairway once he had been divinely inspired to modify Macdonald's concept at Yale and/or St. Louis. Why didn't Charles Banks build any of his Biarritz holes with the front section as putting surface? Everything he learned came directly from Raynor.

I have to answer your question with another question:

Why did MacRaynor have to build all Biarritz holes the same?  

HE DIDN'T

Have you played Fishers Island ?
That's a pretty distinct Biarritz.

As with most templates, they were flexible in that the fit the land.

Not all his templates are the same, course to course.  e.g. he built at least one 'alps' that was nearly flat as a pancake.  

As for Banks, maybe he liked greens better that did not include the swale.  

Pat makes an excellent point, especially if you consider that these guys were smart enough to adapt the concept to the land they were working with.  Yale is different from Shoreacres which is different from ... (you get the point).

Where Pat and I disagree is that I don't believe that the front portion was ever intended by the originators of the template to be used as a pinnable area.  The length of the hole in those days combined with the distance players hit the ball back then suggest that the idea of landing a ball well short of the pin and letting it run to the green (or back tier if entirely maintained at putting surface length).  You could say that OM's use of the back tier only respects this thought, although I agree with Tom that the challenge of trying to hold the front tier would be a fun shot to try from time to time.  I say that with respect to that particular hole, and not with regards to any of the other Biarritz templates I've played (I'd feel cheated with a front pin at the rest of them).

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

One final thought.

With regards to front portions being used as pinnable areas, I'm not convinced that this wasn't the result of watching the play of the holes post construction, and on certain courses realizing that the front tier could be hit and held.  This certainly makes sense at Yale, where the downhill nature of the tee ball enhances this approach.

At OM we have a green designed for front and back pins where the course owners use only the back.  It is entirely possible that a few of the older courses were designed to just use the back, but after a few timid approaches ended up on the front, whoever was in charge decided to go against the intent of the architect(s).

Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Jim, I don't want to be a smartass, but MacRaynor is a phrase. Seth Raynor was the architect. Please specify who you mean: Macdonald or Raynor.

C.B.Macdonald built his holes much differently than Raynor, IMO. I think Raynor built his template features to look more alike than CBM.

Macdonald and Raynor worked on St. Louis CC as a team.  And while Raynor took the lead at Yale, Macdonald closely consulted.  The phrase seems to me pretty accurate on those two courses, i.e. I think I mean both of them.  





 

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Think about how high fairways were maintained in the teens, 20's, 30's and 40's

Think about the ball in use at the same time.

There is no way that a ball could land on the front tier at Yale and roll on that tier, down and back up the swale and into the mid-section of the back tier.

It's impossible.

Scott Ramsey, the Superintendent at Yale, took core samples of the entire putting surface on # 9 at Yale and found greens mix throughout the entire putting surface, indicating that the entire green was intended and constructed as putting surface, and not just the back tier.

Having played The Knoll's Biarritz well over 100 times beginning in the 50's, the only way we could get to a hole location on the back tier was to fly it there or hit the down slope of the swale, which is an extremely small and difficult target to hit.

Luck more than skill usually prevailed.

It's my belief that elevation differentials may have dictated design intent.

With a tee elevated high above the green there is no way that balls could land on the front tier and roll all the way to the back tier.

If tee and green were at equal elevations or if the tee were below the green I could see where the front tier would be maintained as fairway.

But at Yale, the soil probes, early photos and written accounts clearly indicate that the front tier and swale were built as putting surface.

Written accounts to the contrary were written PRIOR to the construction of the hole.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

I think we're pretty close to being in agreement on individual course conditions dictating how the hole was designed and grassed.

I do think, however, that it was the intent of CBM and Raynor to have the Biarritz at Yale play to the back tier, and that the front tier was grassed as green to allow for greater rollout for balls landing on the front section.  Shots back then were generally lower, negating a bit of the effect of the elevation change from tee to green.  It fits perfectly with CBM's mantra of certain types of shots being required on certain holes.

Whether the subsequent change to pin the front section occurred during construction or afterwards, I do not know.  But as you noted, all of the literature about the hole from before the course opened describes the "green proper" being behind the swale, in line with the design intent noted above.

Sven

[Jon Cavalier]

Anyone love Piping Rock's Biarritz as much as I do?









I feel like it certainly deserves a spot in the discussion.

[Jon Cavalier]

Also, here's an admittedly terrible iPhone photo of the Biarritz at Forsgate taken from behind the green.