[Tommy_Naccarato]

From what I can tell in the aerial, it looked like it was once a HUGE WIDE fairway, whittled down to today's version. At least in the aerial it looks wide. In the Mens Locker room hallway, there are pictures that more or less show something only slightly different. It would make sense that it was one huge wide fairway with all sorts of ways to get to the hole. The straight line from the tee, being the least favored.

What does this eclectic group think?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

In looking at the first picture, I saw nothing that comes close to resembing wet lands or a marshy area where the pond now exists.

What year was this picture taken ?

You will be happy to learn that a good number of the trees above the hole in the second picture have been removed, which is a great step in a restoration effort

[Marty Bonnar]

Tommy,
Some questions.
Do you know if the circular building in the trees is a water tank?
If so, is it at a higher or lower elevation than the pond? (It could be that the pond is a settling/filtration device for the tank...)
Did it appear at much the same time as the formation of the pond?

Might be some correlation there....

Martin.

[T_MacWood]

Nice work Tommy. I believe the aerial is from 1938. I'd be interested in rgkeller's opinion of the hole before and after--the width appears to give the hole another demension strategically.

That is an interesting observation about the round structure within the trees.

[Marty Bonnar]

Tom,
Of course, it could also potentially be the 'EA' mother-ship......

Martin.

[rgkeller]

Some observations.

The fairway today is essentially the same width as the fairway in the 1938? in the driving area. It appears that the area of rough short of the right bunker complex toward the seventeenth tee was once fairway.

There is no sign of the third and fourth fairway bunkers down the left side that were supposedly there in the 1930s. The third bunker added in the early nineties is clearly visable in the later photo. This bunker as well as one to the right of six and one to the right of eleven were added to give challenge to the day's longer hitters.

The "tank" is part of the Garden City municipal water pumping station. In the nineties they added a very large underground storage tank in that area.

No one has disputed the assertion that the left bunker area was dry in 1938. The relevant point is that the area was indisputably wet in the late 1960s and afterwards. I talked last night with a long time member (as opposed to a 1998 member) who remembered the problems in that area. Numerous other long time members including previous Green Chairmen, past Presidents and club Captains were consulted the last time this issue arose in the early 1990s.

I note that no one has shown that the bunker was designed by either Emmet or Travis. The 1938 left bunker is of a shape and design not found in other "Travis" bunkers at GCGC. Perhaps it was placed for the 1936 Amateur by a "runaway Green Committee."

I see nothing in that bunker that improves the hole for either aesthetics or playability.

[Nigel_Walton]

I am impressed by how relatively undisturbed the rest of the bunker shapes appear to be.

[BCrosby]

"I see nothing in that bunker that improves the hole for either aesthetics or playability."

Well, I do. I think a bunker makes a lot more sense. I think... No, I'll let Bobby Jones say it:

"Getting in a water hazard is like being in a plane crash - the result is final.  Landing in a bunker is similar to an automobile accident - there is a chance of recovery."

Greenside water changes everything. From a historical perspecctive, it was used sparingly by Golden Agers, thus probably inappropriate for a course with the pedigree of GC.

Second, it you don't think greenside water impacts shot choices from the fairway you are a golfer with a level of self-confidence and skills far exceeding those I am familiar with.

Didn't Hogan say something once about the the little pond on the 11th at ANGC?

Bob

[rgkeller]

Certainly water is more penal than sand.

Travis was particularly a fan of severe penalties. I see nothing in any of his writings or designs to suggest that he would place a bunker where a water hazard was viable.

I like to think he would applaud the pond that replaced that big old sissy bunker that someone built to the left of sixteen.

[BCrosby]

I guess I'm confused.

Are we now sure Travis did not build a bunker where the pond it now? Or is it that we can't be sure he did?

Because if it is the latter, it is reasonable to assume that designers of Travis's era would not view water hazards and bunkers as interchangeable design options. Travis understood, as Ross, Jones and many others understood of the era understood, that greenside water was a drastic, penal and rarely used design option.

Seems to me that the presumption ought to be that Travis would not have located a pond there, absent historical evidence to the contrary.

Bob  

[Steve Lang]

 

Sorry,

Maybe its the top photo quality, but I see a lot of faint bluish areas that may very well be reflective indication of very slight topography features.. I thus see many drainage swales/paths there on otherwise "relatively" flat landscape (2d issues?) in many places.  

I see this effect on the immediate north flank of the bunker and then in the 2nd pic I note no trees in the same shaped area.. now going up from the upper right of the pond.. see the tree shadows?

What is perhaps more indicative of potential drainage problems is the access road cutting from center to upper right to the water tank.  Looks like this road path in first pic turned into a tree canopy lane in second pic and in 3rd pic its now open.. perhaps to provide easement for the underground water supply piping?  

I can imagine the water tank sidewalls are only partially above ground, that is fairly common construction/design for those type things.  Also, very likely the pump station lines/pumps are routinely purged to ground before and after maintenance.

Simple point from above is that the past marshy area - now pond is right in the physical center of this course & small road bounded drainage basin!  Very rational why it could be intermitttently wet!

After finally seeing this aerial, why are y'all in such a snit about the stupid pond?  Looks like in the past one could freely hit into the bunker in two and easily get out of there in three and still make par..  can't do that with the water there!

What a waste of discussion group mind power.  Maybe the "GCA.COM Restorationeers" are full of shit too!

[rgkeller]

Well, I note that those in favor of replacing the pond are full of presumptions - all of which favor their side of the issue.

If Travis built the bunker in question, it is the only bunker of that shape and scale that he built at GCGC.

There is nothing is Travis' work that would suggest he would chose the less severe over the more penal hazard.

[BCrosby]

His choice was not less severe vs. more severe. That distinction doesn't shovel any conceptual coal for purposes of our argument. It is much too broad a focus.

His choice was water vs. sand. A choice about which there is lots of evidence to indicate he would have opted for a sand bunker.

Bob

[AWTillinghast]

There is nothing is Travis' work that would suggest he would chose the less severe over the more penal hazard.

rg
what is the basis for the above quote?
did Travis build a single pond anywhere at GCGC?
in fact, do you know how many, if any, ponds Travis built on any of the golf courses that he designed?

[T_MacWood]

rgkeller
It sounds like you are not certain of the course's architectural evolution (in particular #16)--exactly who did what? If you would like I will dig up my research on the course and let you know about the bunker's origin.

It sounds like you have done a lot of research on Travis and his philosophies...what exactly was his view on the use water as a hazard?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I think you guys are spinning this to your preferences. Steve Lang, have you ever played GCGC? RGKeller, I'm not sure I agree with your posts at all, granted I'm just getting into this, and I won't be back in it till late tonight.

This is what I see, and Tom Mac, see if you agree with me: One extremely wide golf hole with all sorts of lines of getting to the hole while avoiding the deep little and big; but strategically placed hazards, or in GCGC's case--traps. RG, I might agree with you to some degree about the actual width becasue I say a picture of the 16th in the entry hall of the lockeroom where the fairways we much wider, but not nearly as wide as seen in this 1938 aerial. What then are the two bunkers for at the very front left of the fairway?

RG, I guess I'm asking you to look outside the box. Can you subjectively look at the possibilities of the hole that might be different then what you are seeing or what you and others might have set in your minds, ever existed.

[A_Clay_Man]

Is there elevation to the three bunker complex in the middle of the hole? In the first picture there's something going on behind those bunkers. What is that? If it's sand and there is elevation to the three bunkers it reminds me of the cionvex fingers at Wild Horse.

From a pure recovery issue standpoint, I'd say the pond should not be there. Whether I like it or not. But, if there is a physical justification for the pond thats just one the resorationist have to eat.

 I guess if some benafactor wanted to foot the bill for the removal of the pond, no matter what it cost? How could you sell it to any membership that sees the ruination of ANGC's (and others) recoverability aspects by the supposed leaders of the club?

[rgkeller]

Whoever built that bunker before 1938 had no real choice between water and sand because the area then was dry.

Anti pond folk are having a difficult time understanding (or believing) that the bunker was replaced and a pond substituted because of a water issue in that area.

It may be possible to restore the area to its previously dry condition and then rebuild a bunker of undetermined authorship to satisfy a 1938 picture. And it may not be possible.

But such an undertaking will do nothing to make the hole better from any viewpoint and will do less to "trigger" a restoration effort.

The restoration effort at GCGC has been underway for a number of years and moves at the glacial speed that is the favored mode of change at the club.

[AWTillinghast]

Anti pond folk are having a difficult time understanding (or believing) that the bunker was replaced and a pond substituted because of a water issue in that area.

Anti pond folk?  
It's more like anti features that are not in any way consistent with an architect's original intent folk.  

If the wet area can't be resolved, then leave the pond.
If the wet area can be resolved, then the pond should go because it's not consistent with the original architecture or intent (unless of course the cost involved is prohibitive - it is the members' money!!).

[AWTillinghast]

But such an undertaking will do nothing to make the hole better from any viewpoint and will do less to "trigger" a restoration effort.

We will have to disagree on this point.
To my eye, the pond is as much out of place visually and aesthetically at GCGC as the 12th hole.  In that regard, they should both go.

[Mike Benham]

In the 1938 photo, is the turf area 30-40 yards short of the green closely mown or is it rough?

[Steve Lang]

I think you guys are spinning this to your preferences. Steve Lang, have you ever played GCGC? ...

RG, I guess I'm asking you to look outside the box. Can you subjectively look at the possibilities of the hole that might be different then what you are seeing or what you and others might have set in your minds, ever existed.

Tommy_N .. No I've never played GCGC.  You gonna pull a Mucci on me because I haven't and discount my 2 cents worth of thought about obvious synoptics from your pics?     That seems rather defensive and arbitrary to your suggested o-t-box approach premise made to rg.  

I have spent 35 years doing environmental work and quite a bit of drainage stuff.  If that makes what I thought was a simple objective point, "spin or preference" and ripe to be ignored, then tell me from your experience there where all of the surrounding land areas slope to with an overlay.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't the likely suspect, the city's water storage? Are they responsible for the wet conditions that required the pond?

[Steve Lang]

 

Adam,

More possible ways than one come to mind..

- tank leaks, saturating soils to certain elevations depending on filled depth (head) of water in tank

- tank construction blocked an underground sand lense or seepage path(s) that had previously drained subject area

- tank construction capped a groundwater discharge point (spring), forcing discharge to other "area of least resistance"

- associated pipeline or valve leaks

 

[A_Clay_Man]

The timing seems right too. Of course if the info contained in this thread is correct the pond is 24 years old? Thats 1979. The storage was built in the early sixties(?) I'll bet the members at GC had to put up with the slog for a decade before a pond was built. C'mon, how about some facts. Unless they're attorney client privledge.

I know one thing, Cities hate to be sued.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()