Bill, Emmet stated in writing that Piping Rock had two greens. That was in 1913, the same year the course opened. You think Emmet made it up? Or CBM didn't design it that way, but the club overrode him within six months after play started? Quoting Emmet, "very wisely they (i.e. the club) put the thing (i.e. the course) in the hands of one experienced and competent man (CBM) and then left him alone."
You ask why Raynor didn't make every single Biarritz like that?
I don't know the answers to any of those questions, but I assume a) for variety, and b) because he/they felt those designs best fit the sites.
As for Yale, while I don't want to resurrect the old arguments, it seems almost sure to me that when the course opened, the swale and approach were part of the green. It's also reported that Raynor closely managed the course's construction every step of the way, from start to end. If both those are facts, and I think they are, either Raynor designed it that way, or the club overrode him and imposed its vision of how the course should be built, right under his nose.
Macdonald stepped away from Piping Rock early on in the process, presumably miffed that he had to route the course around the polo field.
If Piping Rock was indeed designed with a two-sectioned putting surface, why did American Golfer say this about the hole:
There is a Biarritz of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hogsback extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hogsback and the green. The hole has to be played with what is now known as the push-shot, a low ball with plenty of run which will land short of the dip and run onto the green.It really does not get much clearer than this! No mention of a dual green. Do you think the author of this article missed the front green??? The hole as designed only had one green.
I have a theory why the front section of a VERY FEW Biarritz holes began to be maintained as putting surface. We have all played with golfers who are amateur architects, right? Guys who say: "Ya know, this hole would be so much better if we moved the green over there and made it a dogleg..." Most of the posters here, myself included, probably think about what we might to if we controlled an existing course...
So my theory is when amateurs looked at the landing zone on some Biarritz holes, they naturally saw what appeared to be a second green, and they instructed the greenskeeper to mow the grass short.
Here's the thing about a Biarritz hole: putting a pin up front COMPLETELY alters the hole. It is no longer the hole that Macdonald envisioned, it becomes another mid-iron one-shotter, and a pretty boring one at that.
What makes you think that Seth Raynor, who dutifully followed Macdonald's ideas of building "ideal" golf holes, almost to a fault, would deviate so wildly? And IF he decided the hole was better with dual greens, why didn't he build that at Fishers Island? (The shorter version of that hole would be pretty cool.)
My bet it that it was the club founders and/or Greens Committees who made this incredibly large alteration to the design.
Occam's razor . The simplest answer is probably correct.I happen to like the front section maintained as putting surface, but the pin should never be placed there! Given today's irrigated, plush fairways, a putting surface is much more likely to allow the ball to bounce and roll as CBM intended.