[Thomas Dai]

A very fine thread.

Nice to see one individual hole, particularly from a personal perspective a hole I'm not familiar with, analysed and discussed in this manner.

As to the inverted bunkers, is the sand firm or soft? It occurred to me, perhaps incorrectly, that even low flighted shots could 'plug' into the surface if the sand were softish.

atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon I think the horseshoe had an opening in the back right, or at least the mounds were substantially smaller.   This is more visible in the 1949 aerial.

David,

the older photo definitely shows the mounding going in a horseshoe around the back of the green (as does the TD restoration) but clearly this is no longer the case in the 1949 version you have posted. I suppose it depends on when the photo of the players was taken but certainly on the evidence of your last photo it could be of the 1949 version.

Jon

[DMoriarty]

Jon, 

The ground level photo is from 1913.  I don't remember the date of the older aerial but if I recall correctly it is very early, so I believe the ground level (1913) photo is much closer in time to the old aerial than the 1949 aerial.

I see why you would describe the mounds as a horseshoe and have used the same description myself.  I also see why you think the older aerial shows a complete horseshoe, but I am inclined to disagree on this second point.  It is hard to tell for sure, but it looks to me that there was an opening in the back right of the horseshoe.

Here is are two images of the green in the older aerial, blown up a bit.  I've highlighted what I think were the locations of the mounds in this photo. 



The next tee was to the right of the green. Leaving the back right open would have allowed golfers to pass to the next tee without scaling the mounds.

[DMoriarty]

Another way to come at this problem is to ask this question:  If the 1913 image is not the 12th green, then which green is it? 

The 12th green was quite famous and oft discussed because of the huge mounds on the green.  I've never read any discussion of any other hole at Garden City with similar mounds on the green.     

Patrick says there were other greens with mounds nearby, but these mounds aren't nearby, they are right on the green or very closely flanking it, and think about how small the green would have to have been for these mounds to be flanking mounds!  I am unaware of any other early green at GCGC which fit the description, and I believe that such an oddity would have been discussed. (Like the 12 green was discussed.)

Patrick suggests the green on the first hole, which a well known (and copied) hole.  I've never read any description of such mounds at the 1st green.   Also, look at the 1913 image of the bunker abutting the first green, on the previous page.  No mounds are visible, yet if this was the same bunkern, we ought to at least see part of the small front right mound which is visible in the old aerial in the ground level image.

Also, notice the mowing lines up into the mounds, particularly the large right mound. The grass is visibly cut short right up into the mound, suggesting it was on the green or at least abutting the green.

I've cropped the 1913 image so it fits on the page, and highlighted where I see the borders of the mounds.  To me they are a pretty good match of the old aerial.



If this isn't the 12th green, then which green is it?

While I can see why you guys have doubts, the photo fits much better with the 12th green than anything else on the course (or anywhere else for that matter.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I have to run, but would ask you the following question.

If this is the 12th green, where's the spine/mound at the back of the green ?

[Jon Wiggett]

David,

yes I can see what you are getting at and think it to be correct.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Another way to come at this problem is to ask this question:  If the 1913 image is not the 12th green, then which green is it? 

David, one of the impediments to answering that question is that we don't have aerial and ground level photos of all of the greens circa 1913.
However, I should be playing GCGC in the not too distant future and will look for some early photos.
There are a number of existing greens that were not there in 1913 and vice versa.

The 12th green was quite famous and oft discussed because of the huge mounds on the green.  I've never read any discussion of any other hole at Garden City with similar mounds on the green. 

There are other greens with mounds immediately adjacent to the green.   

Patrick says there were other greens with mounds nearby, but these mounds aren't nearby, they are right on the green or very closely flanking it, and think about how small the green would have to have been for these mounds to be flanking mounds!  I am unaware of any other early green at GCGC which fit the description, and I believe that such an oddity would have been discussed. (Like the 12 green was discussed.)

# 12 was the "signature" hole, and not just because of the mounds, hence, I don't think you can exclude any other green just because it received less print.

Patrick suggests the green on the first hole, which a well known (and copied) hole.  I've never read any description of such mounds at the 1st green.   Also, look at the 1913 image of the bunker abutting the first green, on the previous page.  No mounds are visible, yet if this was the same bunkern, we ought to at least see part of the small front right mound which is visible in the old aerial in the ground level image.

Where's the photo of the 1st green that you're referring to ?
No mounds are visible because of the angle of the photo which is primarily focused on the bunker and sleepers, not the green

Also, notice the mowing lines up into the mounds, particularly the large right mound. The grass is visibly cut short right up into the mound, suggesting it was on the green or at least abutting the green.

You're deliberately avoiding the issue of the offset.
None appears in your ground level photo, yet we know, from the aerial, that the offset was a good ten yards or more.
And, the slope of the bunker in the aerial is pronounced, not vertical as it is in the photo with the sleepers.

I've cropped the 1913 image so it fits on the page, and highlighted where I see the borders of the mounds.  To me they are a pretty good match of the old aerial.



If this isn't the 12th green, then which green is it?

That's what we're trying to ascertain.

While I can see why you guys have doubts, the photo fits much better with the 12th green than anything else on the course (or anywhere else for that matter.)

You don't know that because you don't have aerial and ground level photos of every green circa 1913.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick I think we are going around in circles.

From my perspective it looks like the 12th hole, and it was labeled the 12th hole in Travis's magazine, and I am not aware of any other hole like it at GCGC at the time that it could have been.  So I think it is the 12th hole.  If you come up with another fitting hole I'll reconsider, but until then there is no reason to keep going over the same points.

I addressed the issue of offset above, along with your other points.  I don't see it the same as you.

Let me know if you find any photos of another hole at GCGC with giant mounds on the green in 1913.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick I think we are going around in circles.

From my perspective it looks like the 12th hole, and it was labeled the 12th hole in Travis's magazine, and I am not aware of any other hole like it at GCGC at the time that it could have been.  So I think it is the 12th hole.  If you come up with another fitting hole I'll reconsider, but until then there is no reason to keep going over the same points.

I addressed the issue of offset above, along with your other points.  I don't see it the same as you.

Let me know if you find any photos of another hole at GCGC with giant mounds on the green in 1913.

David,

OK, but, those giant mounds are not ON the green, they are off the green and not maintained as putting surface.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Judging only from the photos, the inverted bunkers at GC are visually jarring, and starkly unnatural.

Why would anybody want bunkers like that?


Because they're part of the architectural fabric of the course.

Convex bunkers are in evidence from the very first hole.

They appear again on the 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th holes.

I suspect the brightness/whiteness of the new sand is at the core of the objections.

If the sand was darker with some random grass interspersed in the bunker, I would think the objections would turn to praise.

Perhaps the criticism reinforces C.B. Macdonald''s admonition on page 295 in "Scotland's Gift"

[Jon Cavalier]

Judging only from the photos, the inverted bunkers at GC are visually jarring, and starkly unnatural.

Why would anybody want bunkers like that?


Because they're part of the architectural fabric of the course.

Convex bunkers are in evidence from the very first hole.

They appear again on the 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th holes.

I suspect the brightness/whiteness of the new sand is at the core of the objections.

If the sand was darker with some random grass interspersed in the bunker, I would think the objections would turn to praise.

Perhaps the criticism reinforces C.B. Macdonald''s admonition on page 295 in "Scotland's Gift"

I would also note that the current version of the inverted (I like "inverted"better than "convex") bunkers used on 12 today appear quite similar to those in the photo below:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

When the directive was given to restore he hole, it wasn't a partial or incomplete directive.

To restore the hole and leave out significant features would be equivalent to altering an original hole.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

When I first saw the inverted bunkers in the photos, I assumed that the renovation work was ongoing and that the mounds would be sodded or seeded. Apparently I was mistaken.

Maybe I'll get thrown off the DG for writing this, but I think they look ridiculous and they have now edged the "Ryebrows" of Rye into 2nd place on the "Daftest feature on a Great Golf Course" list. I can't help wondering that if these were seen on a resort course in Thailand or China, or even a cheap public/muni course, we'd be rolling about in laughter.

I accept that they were part of a full restoration, but it looks so contrived.

Small natural sand dunes with vegetation:  
Inverted sand bunkers:  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donal,

How do they look as you're standing on the tee about to hit your tee shot ?

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Donal,

How do they look as you're standing on the tee about to hit your tee shot ?

If that's a roundabout way of asking have I played the course; no I haven't. I'm still waiting for my invitation.   

Depending on light conditions, I could imagine that a visitor could mistake them as flashed bunkers from a distance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donal,

The same type of bunkers exist on # 1 and # 3.

On # 3, they're more in play than on # 1 and present an optical illusion as to the general configuration and juxtaposition of ALL the bunkers, concave and convex.

Their location on # 12, at the corners of the fronting trench bunker presents a neat contrast.
Functionally, they tend to deflect 3/4 of the drives hitting them, away from the green.

When you assemble the component parts, the deep front trench bunker, the spines in the green, the general floor of the green and the convex bunkers, they make for an interesting visual presentation.

I'd guess that those viewing them in photos have a different perspective than those viewing them as they play the hole.

I find nothing objectionable about them.

Charles Blair Macdonald thought so much of them that he imported them at NGLA 

[John Connolly]

Patrick,

I've never seen convex (inverted) bunkers. Is sand layered over turfed swells? Surely, they're not composed entirely of sand? Agronomically fascinating and optically intriguing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I've never seen convex (inverted) bunkers. Is sand layered over turfed swells? Surely, they're not composed entirely of sand? Agronomically fascinating and optically intriguing.

John.

On these particular bunkers, the sand is a rather thin layer at the surface.

They are neat looking and serve a function.

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
It looks like the mounds inside the green do not "connect" or make their way around the back of the green. When the course opened, did the mounds form a complete horse shoe?

[Sven Nilsen]

Thought this should probably be added here.

Golf Magazine May 1907 -

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()