THE Redan

[Sean_A]

Pat

Changing the number on a card from a 4 to a 3 doesn't change what is in the ground.  Don't tell me you fall for that sucker punch as well? 

Jon

I don't know for certain, but here is my theory.  I think the green for Perfection was moved behind the present hillock when it was made into a par 4 for the 1895 redesign (replacing two par 3s between Pit and Redan).  This meant that the Redan hole could be lengthened to have the tee near Perfection's green.  This must have been quite a dangerous set-up with the tee shot playing between the 4th tee and the new 3rd green. Plus, the 1895 course would have had a lot of 240 to 300 yard holes (about 9 by my count).  So I think the club quickly pushed the tee forward and made Redan the yardage we have today.  Incidentally, I also think perhaps a few years later is when the double plateau Gate green was built. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Perhaps because someone put forth the idea that the hole was a weak par 4 but an incredibly strong par 3.

Really?  In the late 19th century?  There are a number of reasons proposed, Sean's certainly makes sense, but the "weak par 4 strong par 3" theory doesn't convince at all at a time when par was of little significance and medal play rare.

[Jason Thurman]

Perhaps because someone put forth the idea that the hole was a weak par 4 but an incredibly strong par 3.

Really?  In the late 19th century?  There are a number of reasons proposed, Sean's certainly makes sense, but the "weak par 4 strong par 3" theory doesn't convince at all at a time when par was of little significance and medal play rare.

Mark, ignoring Mucci's use of the word "par," the hole is more interesting as a one-shotter than as a two-shotter, is it not?

With that in mind, in the late 19th century, 266 yards was a two-shot hole for most or all players. Shortening it a bit to make it a one-shot hole sure seems to make it a lot more interesting. The people who made the decision to shorten the hole may not have used the word "par," but it's not unreasonable to ponder the thought that they might have wanted more players to have the option of hitting a long approach from the tee onto the green, and thus effectively they were converting it from a par 4 to a par 3.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Changing the number on a card from a 4 to a 3 doesn't change what is in the ground. 

It sure does when you move the tee up 100 yards.

Don't tell me that you didn't notice that as well ?

Don't tell me you fall for that sucker punch as well? 

Jon

I don't know for certain, but here is my theory.  I think the green for Perfection was moved behind the present hillock when it was made into a par 4 for the 1895 redesign (replacing two par 3s between Pit and Redan).  This meant that the Redan hole could be lengthened to have the tee near Perfection's green.  This must have been quite a dangerous set-up with the tee shot playing between the 4th tee and the new 3rd green. Plus, the 1895 course would have had a lot of 240 to 300 yard holes (about 9 by my count).  So I think the club quickly pushed the tee forward and made Redan the yardage we have today.  Incidentally, I also think perhaps a few years later is when the double plateau Gate green was built. 

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Its a bit of a silly argument if the Redan played as a 3 or 4.  From what I can gather, the hole played for a short while as 266 yards, perhaps only for a few events.  It could also be the case that once the pros completed their event the hole was thought to be a par 3.  It doesn't matter though because the hole was the same as a 3 or 4. 

A more interesting question is why was Redan shortened to share a tee with #4.  I suspect the answer has to do with the previous hole.   

Ciao 

I dunno.   IMO a shot to the foot of the dunes and then a 60 yard blind pitch would not make it world famous, unless it was for naffness. Maybe this is another hole improved by technology?   It needs to be a full shot to work its magic.

[Mark Pearce]

Perhaps because someone put forth the idea that the hole was a weak par 4 but an incredibly strong par 3.

Really?  In the late 19th century?  There are a number of reasons proposed, Sean's certainly makes sense, but the "weak par 4 strong par 3" theory doesn't convince at all at a time when par was of little significance and medal play rare.

Mark, ignoring Mucci's use of the word "par," the hole is more interesting as a one-shotter than as a two-shotter, is it not?

With that in mind, in the late 19th century, 266 yards was a two-shot hole for most or all players. Shortening it a bit to make it a one-shot hole sure seems to make it a lot more interesting. The people who made the decision to shorten the hole may not have used the word "par," but it's not unreasonable to ponder the thought that they might have wanted more players to have the option of hitting a long approach from the tee onto the green, and thus effectively they were converting it from a par 4 to a par 3.

Agree with all of this, except the repeated use of the word par. 

[Adam Clayman]

I have never looked closely at these slopes short of the green.  Do many replicas get these slopes right?  

No. But Lawsonia's 4th is as close to these pics I've ever seen. Even the long shot from left of the green, looks like Lawsonia.

Having seen these pics today, two thoughts come to mind. Downhill Redans are NOT Redan holes. They may have greens that resemble C.B, and Seth's interpretation, but, calling them Redans is as misused and as big a misnomer as the word "Sport".

[DMoriarty]

David,

I am perplexed at your seeming desire to prove it was a par3. I you accept the distance of 266 as legitimate and the fact that this would still be considered a par4 by most people and the current guidelines then given the shorter distances hit pre 1900 I see no logic in the idea it would have been a 266 yard par 3. Define substantial in %.

Jon

Jon,  Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I don't care if it was called a par 3 or par 4.   While I accept that the 266 figure might have been legitimate a long time ago (back when it was common to tee off from the previous hole), I am less inclined to believe that the hole played at 266 yards in the late 1800s, even though there is some evidence so suggesting.   The only reason I mentioned scores was because if a substantial number of golfers were scoring 3 on the hole, then it wasn't playing at 266 yards.   I'll try to dig up the old threads that might mention what substantial means.

Sean's theory sounds reasonable to me.  

[Sean_A]

Pat

Changing the number on a card from a 4 to a 3 doesn't change what is in the ground. 

It sure does when you move the tee up 100 yards.

Don't tell me that you didn't notice that as well ?

Don't tell me you fall for that sucker punch as well? 

Jon

I don't know for certain, but here is my theory.  I think the green for Perfection was moved behind the present hillock when it was made into a par 4 for the 1895 redesign (replacing two par 3s between Pit and Redan).  This meant that the Redan hole could be lengthened to have the tee near Perfection's green.  This must have been quite a dangerous set-up with the tee shot playing between the 4th tee and the new 3rd green. Plus, the 1895 course would have had a lot of 240 to 300 yard holes (about 9 by my count).  So I think the club quickly pushed the tee forward and made Redan the yardage we have today.  Incidentally, I also think perhaps a few years later is when the double plateau Gate green was built. 

Ciao

Pat & Spangles

You have taken the conversation out of context (I think anyway  ).  The context was the 266 yard Redan as a 3 or 4.  I believe it is settled that the hole played as ~266 yards at least for some time.  I have seen this recorded a few times and I don't think it was a mistake.  I don't recall how many of the pros scored 3 on the hole for the 1895 tournament,  but I gather it wasn't uncommon...which I don't think is unreasonable given the quality of the field and without knowing the weather conditions.  This was a good field of golfers with Taylor winning the event and the following week winning the Open. 

David

If my theory sounds reasonable then Redan played as a 266 yard hole for a period.  Prior to that time, Redan was 200+ yard hole.  I think the period of time for the 266 yard version Redan was short lived because Hutchinson's 1897 book states the hole can be easily reached in one stroke from the tee. 

Ciao

[Simon Holt]

I heard talk the other day of the course being extend by around 600 yards (huge sigh) and 15 would be taken back over the wall.

Don't ask me about the other changes but lengthening of 1,6,12 and 13 were mentioned.  Ridiculous. 

[DMoriarty]

Sean,  When exactly was the period when it was played at 266 yards?  You mentioned it was played at this distance "perhaps only for a few events."  What and when were these events?

[Sean_A]

David

As I said, I don't know exactly when Redan played 266 yards or when it ceased to play at this length.  It is reported in the history book that this was the case after the 1895 course changes.  There was a professional tourny the week prior to the Open at St Andrews - so early June.  The recently opened course was purported to include a lengthened Redan.   There was also a big amateur tournament before the pro event.  I don't know if a 266 tee was used, but I expect so because the event was to help celebrate the lengthened course.  There are some newspaper articles on the pro tourny, but I don't know where there are.

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

I heard talk the other day of the course being extend by around 600 yards (huge sigh) and 15 would be taken back over the wall.

Don't ask me about the other changes but lengthening of 1,6,12 and 13 were mentioned.  Ridiculous.  

Simon,

I only played the course once, dead into a 25 mph wind for the first eight holes. It was brutally hard. (Never had so much fun getting my butt kicked ) Obviously, we had the wind at our backs on the way in.

I don't have an opinion on this, but do you think it might make sense to have additional teeing options so that adjustments can be made for the wind? I know they do this at Bandon Dunes, but that is a resort course. Might that be a reasonable motivation at NB? For example, if Hole 1 is playing downwind it must only be a mid iron off the tee lest you run out of landing area, so why not add a tee back and left for variation? Just asking.

As an interesting aside, hit hit my very best 3 rescue on Hole 1 into that wind, perfectly straight but I guess too high. The wind seemed to shoot the ball straight up. My buddy hit what I call a skanky-low sliced 4 rescue that was 30 yards past me. Now I had 4 rescue from 150 into the wind, which just laughed at my shot sent to the left edge of the green, and deposited it somewhere on the rocks and sand to the right of the green.

On the next two par fours I hit driver-3 wood-punched five irons, desparately searching for the skill to keep the ball low.

[Sean_A]

Bill

The one issue I have with added back tees on these out n back links is I think the overall goal will be to have each hole "play its yardage" in relation to the other holes on the course.  I rather like the effect of wind and look forward to getting a wind switch.  Its interesting to get holes like 2 & 3 play longer than 11.  The entire concept of paper par becomes meaningless.  For instance, I can really see if 3 is playing driver-wood-short iron that the powers that be will try to make 11 play as a 3-shotter down wind.  I think the net result will likely be a longer, tougher, more homogenized course no matter the wind. 

Ciao

[Simon Holt]

Hi Bill,

Firstly, I agree with all that Sean has said but here are my further thoughts if what I have been told is true.

1.  Why lengthen it?  From the back peg its over 280ish carry, uphill, to the "top" where it runs down to the green.  It has a decent green.  If the pros want to try and drive it then there is enough risk/reward there for them.  Say they pull it back 30 yards....I don't know what that achieves but to make it a long iron and a short iron, which it is for most of us now.

6. Ok.  There is room to move the tee back but again, why?  Depending on pin positions the 3s at NB can play 130, 160, 180, 210 as a set.  Whats the beef?

12.  This really annoys me.  The burn that most of us don't even think about is now an issue for the old guys off our "new" Medal tee, which has been there for years now.  Its supposed to make it harder for pros and low caps but it results in them hitting 7 iron instead of wedge.  Whereas the old guys now struggle to carry the burn, which spoils their day and some of them now refuse to play in club Medals.  There is no where short of the burn to lay-up as the hole wasn't designed for that.  Move it further back?  Crazy.  Again, a move dictated by having space to do it rather than for architectural reasons.

13.  Crazy, no need.

And maybe 17.  Fair enough but its already a tough hole.  Its the only one I would care about if they did it just for tournaments.

To be fair these tees would probably only be used for maybe 1 tournament a year.  I'd rather spend the money to delay the 11th green falling into the sea.

[Simon Holt]

Oh, and 15 moved back over the wall?  I think that hole has had enough written about it for us all to know it doesn't need more length.

[DMoriarty]

David

As I said, I don't know exactly when Redan played 266 yards or when it ceased to play at this length.  It is reported in the history book that this was the case after the 1895 course changes.  There was a professional tourny the week prior to the Open at St Andrews - so early June.  The recently opened course was purported to include a lengthened Redan.   There was also a big amateur tournament before the pro event.  I don't know if a 266 tee was used, but I expect so because the event was to help celebrate the lengthened course.  There are some newspaper articles on the pro tourny, but I don't know where there are.

Ciao

Sean,  On February 26, 1895 the Edinburgh Evening News outlined the proposed changes on the "Extended Course."  The article listed the 15th was as unchanged:  "15. As formerly; distance, 230 yards."   At least one other report seems to indicate that, after Perfection, no other changes took place. (The copy is so bad it is difficult to make out for certain but that seems to be what it says.)

[Wayne_Kozun]

Surely there must be accounts of matches at North Berwick or other books/ newspaper stories that describe the Redan hole in detail and the scores recorded.  A quick search lead me to the full text of the Golfing Annual of 1889 but it only says this about the hole "The fifteenth is 'Redan' a well fenced keep with dangers on either side"

[Bill Brightly]

Hi Bill,

Firstly, I agree with all that Sean has said but here are my further thoughts if what I have been told is true.

1.  Why lengthen it?  From the back peg its over 280ish carry, uphill, to the "top" where it runs down to the green.  It has a decent green.  If the pros want to try and drive it then there is enough risk/reward there for them.  Say they pull it back 30 yards....I don't know what that achieves but to make it a long iron and a short iron, which it is for most of us now.

What is the prevailing wind at NB? I seem to recall the caddy saying that the headwind we played out in was not the normal wind. Having only played the course once, I would be a fool to suggest any new tees. I'm just curious: if the prevailing wind is with you on the first hole, does anyone other than pros or young fools have a go at the green?

[Bill Brightly]

I have never looked closely at these slopes short of the green.  Do many replicas get these slopes right?  

No. But Lawsonia's 4th is as close to these pics I've ever seen. Even the long shot from left of the green, looks like Lawsonia.

Having seen these pics today, two thoughts come to mind. Downhill Redans are NOT Redan holes. They may have greens that resemble C.B, and Seth's interpretation, but, calling them Redans is as misused and as big a misnomer as the word "Sport".

Adam,

Like you, I prefer uphill Redans. I just don't think you can go so far to say that a flat or downhill Redan is not a Redan IF these holes capture all of the other critical elements that are present at North Berwick.

But this makes me wonder what the NET elevation change is at North Berwick from the tee to the center of the green. Does the hole merely PLAY uphill because of the large rise just past the two front bunkers? Or is there still a significant rise in elevation from tee to green? I cannot recall.

[Sean_A]

Bill

I think the back part of the green is darn near the same elevation as the tee. 

David

I don't have access to the newspaper reports of the 1895 tourny.  But I did look in the book and the listed yardage is 266.  We could flip a coin 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

The 230 length is interesting, but so is the fact that a couple sources seem to indicate that the Redan was not modified when the course was extended in 1895.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bill B,

I've played NB more than a dozen times and the wind from the west (as you experienced) was the more common.  Simon could probably give you a more definitive answer.  I've also played it with an east wind and that makes coming back in a brute. 

Carrying the burn on 16 (Gate) was beyond my capabilities.  The 17th was unreachable in two.  Either wind direction provides for interesting play and significant challenges just on different holes.  Do you want your poison on the way out or the way in.

Didn't notice if you said, but did you get on the 16th green in regulation?  It still eludes me.

[Adam Clayman]

I just don't think you can go so far to say that a flat or downhill Redan is not a Redan IF these holes capture all of the other critical elements that are present at North Berwick.

Bill, I'm going that far. BECAUSE, The Redan Hole was so named after a military encampment. What military encampment would choose lower ground?

People can call a hole anything they want. But in the case of The Redan, imo, it's inaccurate for every one that plays downhill. Say a hole has a Redan green. I'm fine with that.

I realize it's picking nits, but after all, this site teaches others the most when there's a distinction beyond semantics. Similar to there being no such thing as a risk reward hole. Only risk reward shot strategies.

[Bryan Izatt]

Almost 7 years ago now, I posted these following stick diagrams of the 1877 and 1895 courses and their respective yardages.  The originals of these were sent to me by Rhic. 

The 1895 one documents the 266 yard Redan while the 1877 one has it at 210 yards.  Neither provides a par for any of the holes, so I think the concept of whether the hole was played as a par 4 or a par 3 is moot.

If you look closely at the 1877 routing, the Redan tee is to the west where the 4th tee is now located.  If you stretch a little bit you could say it's 210 yards from near the wall at the west corner of the current 4th tee.

If you look closely at the 1895 routing (which looks remarkably like the routing hanging on the wall in the starters hut),  the Redan tee is shown as being on the 14th green side of the wall and to the east of the 1877 tee.  It is not shown as being on the sea side of the 14th green.  From where it is shown on the routing there is no way to measure it and get 266 yards - unless you measure beyond the green all the way to the wall.  I checked the distances for holes 1, 2, 3, 16, 17 and 18 based on their location on the stick routing and they are all very close to the yardages from 1895.  The Redan at 266 yards stands out as being different from what's shown on the routing.  I'd ascribe the 266 yardage to an error on somebody's part in putting the write up together in 1895.

Interestingly, the 17th is listed as 540 yards in 1877 and 450 yards in 1895 even though they are located in exactly the same place on the stick routings.  The 450 yards is about right.  Perhaps Rcih's dyslexic grandpa was writing back in 1877.