[Charlie_Bell]

A friend of mine went to Yale to watch the Yale Invitational today, and the first thing I asked her afterwards was the location of the pin on #9.  She replied that in the morning it was in back of the Biarritz and in the afternoon it was in the front.  She added that she saw a guy pitch a ball from the front to the back, taking a huge divot and earning glares from the spectators -- but he stuck it to 3 feet and made par.


Abomination? Admiration? Other?

[Benjamin Litman]

Given that the front of the green was originally designed as fairway and that the shot came in competition toward the end of the season, I say--with due respect to the work Scott Ramsay and his team will need to do to repair the damage--both "admirable" and "proper." Of course, if the competitor's divot affects my putt the next time I play there, I reserve my right to change my mind.


More relevant, of course, would be the perspective of his fellow competitors. Perhaps Colin can chime in with his view. At the end of the day, I'm just thrilled to hear that they had the pin on the back tier--during the NCAA Regionals in May, conditions didn't allow that tier to be used.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Given that the front of the green was originally designed as fairway


Benjamin,

That's not true.

Early photos and soil probes of the front tier confirm that it was putting surface/green from inception




and that the shot came in competition toward the end of the season, I say--with due respect to the work Scott Ramsay and his team will need to do to repair the damage--both "admirable" and "proper." Of course, if the competitor's divot affects my putt the next time I play there, I reserve my right to change my mind.


More relevant, of course, would be the perspective of his fellow competitors. Perhaps Colin can chime in with his view. At the end of the day, I'm just thrilled to hear that they had the pin on the back tier--during the NCAA Regionals in May, conditions didn't allow that tier to be used.

[cary lichtenstein]

A friend of mine went to Yale to watch the Yale Invitational today, and the first thing I asked her afterwards was the location of the pin on #9.  She replied that in the morning it was in back of the Biarritz and in the afternoon it was in the front.  She added that she saw a guy pitch a ball from the front to the back, taking a huge divot and earning glares from the spectators -- but he stuck it to 3 feet and made par.


Abomination? Admiration? Other?

Obnoxious

[Benjamin Litman]

Pat: I was referring to the hole's design and based my comments off of the "Golf at Yale" book written by John Godley and William Kelly (long available online, now available in print at the pro shop and various Internet outlets, including Amazon). Their book includes the below entry in the hole-by-hole section at the end (emphasis in original). Perhaps the word "fairway" in my post was inaccurate, but the entry confirms that the front of the green was at least designed not as green.


Charles Banks in 1925: “This hole has its original on the Biarritz course at the famous watering hole in France of the same name… There is a 163 yard carry from the back tee. The green proper is behind a deep trench in the approach. The approach is about the same size as the green itself and is bunkered heavily on both right and left with water jutting in on the right front. The fairway is the lake… The green is heavily battered at the back and right and the whole psychology of the hole is to let out to the limit… Correct play for this green is to carry to the near edge of the groove or trench and come up on the green with a roll. The disappearance and reappearance of the ball in the groove adds to the interest of the play.”

Playing again from an elevated tee, the golfer faces another water carry to an enormous two-tiered green, some sixty-four yards deep. What is most interesting in Banks’s 1925 description is that originally the “green proper” was only beyond the deep “groove,” and he considered the flat landing after the water and before the groove to be an “approach” area. It has now been incorporated as the front half of the green, protected on right and left by bunkers.

[Sven Nilsen]

Ben:

There are a number of threads on the origins of Yale's Biarritz, with arguments made on both sides.

Pat was demonstrably involved in all of them, his position is fairly entrenched.

Sven

[Tim Gavrich]

In tournament play, I couldn't imagine any play other than a wedge from the front of the green to the back. The steepness of the slopes on the trench would seem to preclude putting in most cases.

[Matt_Cohn]

Why is there even a debate about whether it's okay for you to play the shot that gives you the best chance of making a low score?

[Jon Wiggett]

Why is there even a debate about whether it's okay for you to play the shot that gives you the best chance of making a low score?

Because a player should avoid damaging the putting surface. Golf is not about only selfishly thinking of yourself but rather being considerate to your fellow golfers.

Jon

[Chris Pearson]

I agree with Matt here—the playing surface is incidental; you should always play the shot that gives the greatest chance of success.


Jimmy Walker played a wedge on the 10th at Riviera earlier this year (granted, he picked it clean as a whistle). Yes, taking a divot on a green is lame, but we're also talking about a Biarritz that can swallow a man.


Ultimately, I think it's cool that a green can be both large and challenging enough to invite shots with clubs other than the putter.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Scott Ramsay is emphatic the front portion was always maintained as green. The reason is soil samples he's taken are consistent with green maintenance practices back then. (I think it is something to do with the presence of arsenic.) His argument is convincing -- who am I to argue soil composition with a super?

I believe there is a thread on this topic from 2-3 years back.

As for players chipping across the swale, this is nothing new: I saw members of the golf team practicing it decades ago. If anyone has a problem with it, blame the RoG or local/toonamint rules not the players.

[Joe Bausch]

In tournament play, I couldn't imagine any play other than a wedge from the front of the green to the back. The steepness of the slopes on the trench would seem to preclude putting in most cases.

Wait till you get north of 50, Tim.  You'll put that shot every time.... and have fun doing so.   

[Sven Nilsen]

Scott Ramsay is emphatic the front portion was always maintained as green. The reason is soil samples he's taken are consistent with green maintenance practices back then. (I think it is something to do with the presence of arsenic.) His argument is convincing -- who am I to argue soil composition with a super?

Mark:


Whether or not the front portion of the green was originally constructed in the same manner as the back portion is not dispositive of the architects' intentions to pin the front portion.


Banks' statements make it clear that he did not think it should (at least at the time he made them), going so far as to call the front portion of the green the "approach."


I don't think this is a clear cut case either way, but I can appreciate the thought that they used a green surface on the approach to facilitate balls running through to the back section.


Sven

[Benjamin Litman]

As I mentioned to Pat privately, I was unaware of the past threads about the front tier of Yale's 9th green when I made my comment and in no way intended to resuscitate past debates. Again, I was simply going off of what was in the book "Golf at Yale," which I bought this spring. As Sven notes, what Banks wrote and what Scott Ramsay found are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Banks's words are from 1925, the year before the course opened. Perhaps when it opened the following year, the original superintendent decided to cut the front tier as green--and it has remained that way ever since. And I, for one, am happy that the front tier is green; some of my greatest individual moments in golf have occurred when the pin is on that tier.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I checked and it wasn't a thread but an email exchange; we later discussed this at the GCA gathering back in 2013.

I argued fairway and offered a 1925 Yale Daily News picture that to me showed fairway, plus the cutline read the front was fairway.

Scott's position was green and he offered:
* photo is not conclusive
* 1926 photos showing hand mowing of green front and back
* video of the 1934 CT open showing maintained green front and back
* soil profiles showing the front and back of 9 are the same -- layer of greens mix on top of a charcoal layer both front and back, no where else is there a charcoal layer on fairway, approach or teeing ground on the YGC.

Scott's argument was that the comments back then were semantic, like a false front on a green. The "true" green is in the back but it all has been green. He said greens in 1926 would be considered fairway height turf on some of today's highly managed golf courses.

Mark

[Bill Brightly]

The argument has been made before, but I think it is important to note that Pat is WRONG. I wouldn't want lurkers to think that Raynor designed both sections to be putting surface. Soil sample cannot change what Banks wrote. Soil samples cannot change history.


The front section of Macdonald's Biarritz design was always intended to be the APPROACH. The long bunkers on both sides of the approach, making the low running shot perilous, were features that caught Macdonald's attention at the NLE course in France.  That others would CHANGE the design and make the front section putting surface is not suprising: the front section does look like a green.


But the one thing we should know about Raynor and Banks is that they did not deviate very far from what Macdonald taught them about the templates. And putting a pin up front is a HUGE deviation. A fun change to Macdonald design, but NOT his intention.

Yale and St. Louis CC were the first two clubs to change the design and pin the front section. Many other clubs have followed suit. I think that is fine; no approach can play as fast and firm as a putting surface. That gives the player the best chance to allow his ball to reach the back section. I just think the front pin locations should be used VERY infrequently.

[William_G]

A friend of mine went to Yale to watch the Yale Invitational today, and the first thing I asked her afterwards was the location of the pin on #9.  She replied that in the morning it was in back of the Biarritz and in the afternoon it was in the front.  She added that she saw a guy pitch a ball from the front to the back, taking a huge divot and earning glares from the spectators -- but he stuck it to 3 feet and made par.


Abomination? Admiration? Other?

nice shot!

yet, not sure what constitutes a huge divot on a green?

maybe should have played it on the front first and back last

[Jim Nugent]

The argument has been made before, but I think it is important to note that Pat is WRONG. I wouldn't want lurkers to think that Raynor designed both sections to be putting surface. Soil sample cannot change what Banks wrote. Soil samples cannot change history.

Even if Raynor only designed the back part as green, Ramsay is real sure they built the front as green as well.  If he is right, I wonder who made that decision?  Seems like a big departure from the architect/builder's plan.     

[Sven Nilsen]

The argument has been made before, but I think it is important to note that Pat is WRONG. I wouldn't want lurkers to think that Raynor designed both sections to be putting surface. Soil sample cannot change what Banks wrote. Soil samples cannot change history.

Even if Raynor only designed the back part as green, Ramsay is real sure they built the front as green as well.  If he is right, I wonder who made that decision?  Seems like a big departure from the architect/builder's plan.     

I don't think its a departure in any way from the concept of the template.  What better way to allow a ball to run from the front to the back then to build the front portion as a green?


Remember, the Biarritz at Yale was different from most of the others built by the CBM/Raynor/Banks team, in that the tees were raised above the green. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think its a departure in any way from the concept of the template.  What better way to allow a ball to run from the front to the back then to build the front portion as a green?


Remember, the Biarritz at Yale was different from most of the others built by the CBM/Raynor/Banks team, in that the tees were raised above the green.

That's why I don't think Pat/Scott are wrong about it. Banks called the rear section the "Green Proper", but that doesn't necessarily mean the front wasn't a "Green", i.e, a "Town Proper" exists within a "Town".     

[cary lichtenstein]

The guy could just take the ball over to the fringe and chip from there. I think he's a selfish sob

[BHoover]

The guy could just take the ball over to the fringe and chip from there. I think he's a selfish sob

Since when can you do so in tournament play without penalty?

I would agree with you if this was a casual round, but not in tournament play.

[Bill Brightly]

The argument has been made before, but I think it is important to note that Pat is WRONG. I wouldn't want lurkers to think that Raynor designed both sections to be putting surface. Soil sample cannot change what Banks wrote. Soil samples cannot change history.

Even if Raynor only designed the back part as green, Ramsay is real sure they built the front as green as well.  If he is right, I wonder who made that decision?  Seems like a big departure from the architect/builder's plan.     

I don't think its a departure in any way from the concept of the template.  What better way to allow a ball to run from the front to the back then to build the front portion as a green?

 

Sven,

I strongly disagree with the first sentence: putting a pin on the front section is a HUGE deviation from the concept of the template. Macdonald envisioned a low running shot that had to travel between the parallel bunkers, run through the swale, and then stop on the putting surface. Simply hitting a much shorter, elevated shot to a front pin is a COMPLETELY different shot demand. And a very boring one, at that...

I agree completely with the second sentence. Given today's turf management techniques in the U.S., I believe that maintaining the front section as putting surface is the best way to get the ball to not check and to release to the green. However, in the mid 1920's I bet the average fairway was far firmer.

Jim,

I have no idea who first decided that the front section should be putting surface. I'm just speculating, but it could have been any of the powerful people at Yale who had a say. It could have been their first greenskeeper, even before the course opened for play. Any amateur architect might have come up with that idea... To the untrained eye, the parallel bunkers almost scream: put a pin up front!

I think we are all familiar with stories about owners making suggestions to an architect. Perhaps someone strongly suggested it to Raynor and he threw up his hands and decided not to fight about it.

To all,

I'm still waiting for the first shred of evidence that Macdonald, Raynor or Banks ever contemplated a front pin location on a Biarritz.

[Kalen Braley]

It seems pretty clear that despite what was built and put into the ground...The architects intent was for the front not to be a pinnable area, aka not actual green. .
 
 I suppose this can be argued until everyone is blue in the face, but that fact appears to be undisputable in light of the evidence presented so far.
 
P.S.  I'm guessing this happened on many golden age courses as the architect would often present a plan, and then leave it to the builders to implement..

[Sven Nilsen]

Bill:

You completely misunderstood the gist of my first sentence.  I was not talking about pinning it, merely grassing it as a green.

Sven

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()