Garden City Golf Club #16 Overlay

[rgkeller]

I know a few of Travis' bunkers that the golfer whose ball finds them is dead.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I'm not certain about the 'whins' comment. It also could be Travis, like some other Americans, used the term 'whins' interchangeably with bents and wild grasses (mistakenly).

Bob
I'm not sure about the coffins, I do know Travis often created some extremely deep bunkers (fairway as well as greenside). Maybe Ian knows more about his use of whins and coffin.

The graves at GCGC were different. They look like something you'd see in an old Western. A very low mound--rectangular or oblong (only a foot or so off the gound)--that looks like a shallow grave, when they just piled dirt over the corpse. There would be a series of a half dozen or more of these side by side. Travis also put sand over these.

Pat
I would agree with 1936. After doing a fair amount of digging into the history of GCGC, I'd place the high point between 1933 and 1950 (give or take a years on either end)--there was little or no change during that time. After the improvements by Emmet and Tillinghast to Travis's work and before the loss of the 12th.

[TEPaul]

From Tom MacW's post"

"TE

"But we did our best to improve on something even Maxwell may have fallen a little short on. It seems to be getting the intended effect--so what do you think about that Tom---is that doing the right thing by a golf course and the architects who did it?" (quote from me)

Hard to say...I reckon William Gordon and RTJ thought they were improving upon Maxwell too. All three "names" have passed the test of time....no?"

Tom MacW:

That's precisely where you may be continually misunderstanding what I'm getting at here. No, frankly, despite their reputations elsewhere some of the things William Gordon, RTJ, Wayne Stiles et al did at GMGC simply has not passed the test of time. But everything Maxwell did with the exception of #7 green-end has passed the test of time.

And all this time testing was done blind too which makes it even more valuable and indicative! What I'm saying to you is it doesn't matter what the name and reputation of the architect was, only what he did at any particular course.

It seems to me you sometimes too easily assume that simply because an architect is well respected by you or someone else, even including many others, that whatever he did is worthy of either preservation or restoration. That's just not necessarily the case. Anything any architect does has to pass the test of time with a membership and others that use a golf course. If it doesn't it will probably be altered eventually and it really matters nothing to memberships what you may think about it.

That's why I think it's so fruitless for you to say you're only interested in what is done and not in what a membership thinks. Great architects do have a way of producing great architecture or eventually they probably won't be considered great. But not everything they do is always great. It can be made better.

Whatever is done, if a membership really likes it, if it passes their test of time, not yours, it will stay and be preserved. As far as restoration is concerned it is possible to convince membership to restore certain things but eventually they too have to pass that membership's test of time.

[TEPaul]

"For example GCGC and Travis’s aspargus hazards—there were 3 all together. They were roundly criticized, and Travis didn’t exactly come to their defense…his response was...OK maybe they ain't that great but there only three of them, please don’t over emphasize their place in the greater scheme of things.

I doubt they survived very long….in 1910 Travis was implementing a different type of mounded hazard at GCGC, a hazard (a variation of his humps and hollows) he utilized with many of his future designs. In fact I am not aware of any Travis design after GCGC that had the aspargus hazard. It is information like that should be considered IMO."

Tom MacW:

Where are you getting this kind of opinion? Can you document it and if so why not do it on here? So what if Travis never designed any more "asparagus bed" hazards after GCGC? Are you suggesting that proves they weren't much good?

[T_MacWood]

TE
You are right I have continually misunderstood what you are getting at…it’s somewhat confusing and not always easy to follow. Perhaps if you could condense your thoughts it might be easier for me to follow or perhaps focus on one or two ideas at a times so I might better understand...sometimes I think my brain is going to blow.

Regarding your “name” theory and the inflexibility of the admirers of “names” -- I’m not sure what that is based upon. I haven’t heard anyone say that all Travis should be preserved or restored (look at this thread)…or Ross (look at your own GM or Skokie)…or MacKenzie (again Maxwell at ANGC)….and certainly not Emmet (another example at GCGC). It seems to be an over-simplification and frankly insulting to those intelligent admirers---to imply that those who study and appreciate the work of Travis or Thompson or Alison or Raynor or whoever, have the opinion that everything and anything they did “is worthy of either preservation or restoration.” I do believe however, based on their “name” or reputation or track record or whatever you want to call it (and the fact there is a finite amount of their work), the maestros do deserve extraordinary consideration.  

In regards to your “test of time” theory, your “name” theory and “your blind taste test” theory. Where does the 12th at GCGC fit in? Obviously it didn’t pass the test of time, (and despite being associated with a “name”). Same with the 10th at ANGC. And the 17th at LACC. And the 4th at Lido.

Isn’t  it true for the blind tasting idea to work, it depends upon who is doing the tasting…something may taste very good to you or me, but tastes like total crap to the guy who said lets redesign the old 12th  GCGC. Or the fellows who hired William Gordon at GM (obviously not satisified with the taste of Ross/Maxwell). Or to Cliff Roberts before leveling the 8th green at ANGC. Perhaps they made these decisions in the dark….which may argue against having blind testers making decisions. God knows there have been too many holes (many the work of ‘name’ designers) that haven’t passed the test of time (a few example I’ve just listed)….but who is to say there loss (or flunking the test of time) was a result of lack of merit….in my judgement that doesn’t appear to be the case.

And wouldn’t the student of golf architecture be disqualified from being a blind tester? You know Travis and his stylistic preferences and quirks. You know Thompson and Thomas’s flare for the dramatic. You know Raynor and Macdonald and their distinctive style. I think blind taste work best when the tasters are student’s of the names, but then are they truly blind?

Regarding the asparagus hazard…I’ve already documented the criticism (from Horace Hutchinson)…perhaps you missed it (its on this thread somewhere). Travis also responded to his criticism and didn’t exactly come to the defense of the nutmeg graters, although he did defend the course.

Travis added them in 1906. He added dozens and dozens of features (including dozens of mounds) over the next several years…but no more nutmeg graters. And they appear to be gone by the late 20’s when Emmet was making changes and documenting what he did (he never mentioned eliminating them). And as far as I know Travis never replicated the type of hazard during his entire design career. Draw your own conclusion. What is your opinion of the nutmeg graters?

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

There are two "trench" bunkers, that look like elongated coffins.

One is found on the right side of # 3 and the other is found on the right side of # 7, although it has been abandoned.

The similarities in the two bunkers is striking, and the 7th bunker should be restored, all that's needed is sand, the trench is still there, deep and long.

I would be interested in knowing the purpose of the bunkers.
Were they "saving" or "catch" bunkers, or were they perfect examples of risk/reward with respect to the best position and angle to approach their respective greens from.  The closer you get to those bunkers, the better the angle of attack into greens that slope severely high left to low right.

Restoring # 7 would be duck soup, easy and inexpensive.

[rgkeller]

"The closer you get to those bunkers, the better the angle of attack into greens that slope severely high left to low right."

Why would anyone want to "attack" a left to right sloping green from a right to left lie when a level lie is available on the other side of the fairway?

"Restoring # 7 would be duck soup, easy and inexpensive."

And useless, unless the fairway was moved twenty yards to the right from its present mowing pattern.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

"The closer you get to those bunkers, the better the angle of attack into greens that slope severely high left to low right."

Why would anyone want to "attack" a left to right sloping green from a right to left lie when a level lie is available on the other side of the fairway?

I'll leave that to you to figure out.
The right to left slope is not that pronounced, and gets pretty flat as you get closer to the bunker on # 3 and # 7

"Restoring # 7 would be duck soup, easy and inexpensive."

And useless, unless the fairway was moved twenty yards to the right from its present mowing pattern.

you're a little late to the dance and must have missed an abundant number of posts that addressed that issue, and a number of other issues related to the shifting of the fairway to the right.

[rgkeller]

On three the fairway gets fairly flat about five feet from the bunker.

And I got to this dance about fifteen years before you did.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

You may have been a member at GCGC before I was, but you're a lot later to the architectural dance then me.

P.S.  With that measurement, five feet, I'd like to buy some
       real estate from you.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You are right I have continually misunderstood what you are getting at…it’s somewhat confusing and not always easy to follow. Perhaps if you could condense your thoughts it might be easier for me to follow or perhaps focus on one or two ideas at a times so I might better understand..."

Tom MacW:

You can't handle more than one or two ideas at a time? OK, I'll condense things down to one or two ideas at a time.

1. If something in architecture is popular, respected, interesting, challenging, fun etc it will very like pass the test of time and remain, no matter who the architect is who did it. Whether a club understands the entire career, principles, evolution etc of a particular famous architect or not if something he did isn't respected which would pretty much allow it to pass the test of time it matters not and it runs the risk of being redesigned and changed. If a membership doesn't respect something, it probably won't pass that time test even if someone from Pennsylvania or Ohio who doesn't belong to that club but knows all about that architect says that shouldn't be done because it's the work of a famous architect!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said;

"In regards to your “test of time” theory, your “name” theory and “your blind taste test” theory. Where does the 12th at GCGC fit in? Obviously it didn’t pass the test of time, (and despite being associated with a “name”)."

2. Obviously it didn't! We all know that many courses of the older well known architects that are now becoming more respected in a restorative sense did not have that same respect during the last fifty plus years. And I think we can pretty much generalize about that and consider it a fact.

If a club is to do productive research they first need to know exactly why the 12th hole at GCGC did not pass that time test. The reasons are probably fairly obvious and the point is that now that the club has a renewed interest in restoration they should understand how to restore that green to whatever extent and in whatever way not to repeat those original problems that did not allow #12 to pass GCGC's test of time! If they restore it correctly without repeating whatever made it not work well originally maybe this time it will pass that test of time. Will what they do to make it popular and pass that test of time be an exact restoration of the original? Of course not! Will someone like you have a problem with that?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You two have taken my one little lark of a thread and turned it into one big, huge, stuffed Thanksgiving turkey.

Thanks a lot!

Happy T-day you two chooches!  

[T_MacWood]

TE
You lost me (again)....it seems to me the entire restoration movement is only possible because features, holes or courses have not passed the test of time...by definition for something to be restored it had to be lost (or flunked the test of time).

As an example I assume you are restoring features at Gulph Mills that didn't pass the test of time...and I'm certain there very good reasons to do so (and eliminating some features that have survived the test...until now).

The 12th hole at GCGC and the reasons it was remodeled are well documented. The same with the 17th at LACC. And the 14th at Engineers. And the 12th at Bel-Air. And the 8th at Scioto. And the Maiden at Sandwich. And its encouraging many of these holes did not go down without a fight...Darwin was extremely critical of the loss of the Maiden.

Every case is different and not all decision makers are created equally. Golf architecture is littered with good and bad decisions.

I'm not aware of anyone interested in restoring every feature MacKenzie or Flynn designed during their entire career. I also believe it is not coinsidence that these architects are held in high esteem (there are good reasons for it and the search for those good reasons is why this site exists).

I'm also certain that some architects who aren't as well respected produced a number of quality feature or holes or even a golf courses. At this point I'd bring out the saying about the blind pig finding an acorn, but I don't want to wake up Sean B.

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

You may have been a member at GCGC before I was, but you're a lot later to the architectural dance then me.

P.S.  With that measurement, five feet, I'd like to buy some
       real estate from you.

You may believe and you may have others believing that interest in the architecture and architects at GCGC began with your membership there.

It is more amusing reading your posts than it is interacting with them and I apologize for intruding and shall henceforth make a stronger attempt to remain silent as you continue to indulge yourself.

[HamiltonBHearst]

If GCGC had more members with the knowledge of Mr. Mucci, perhaps a lot fewer misguided changes would have been made over the years.  His well formulated ideas are an asset to this site and should be utilized by the club.  Still one of my favorite places to play.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Not sure why I'm losing you. Perhaps it not worth discussing anymore--it may be a small point or too fine a distinction to many on here.

I suppose the only reason I continue to mention this subject to you is something you said on here some time ago. That was that you didn't really care what memberships think about some of this--and that they should just do the research and the right thing in a restoration sense.

Of course that's true but its idealized. They don't do that kind of research generally. Someone might but then the membership has to be convinced somehow. For anyone trying to convince them to imply they don't care what they think is basically a disaster. They or certainly those that make the decisions for them have to be convinced and to do that they also have to be respected--or at least the perception that their wishes are must be.

I think that's very possible in many cases. Building up pride in the architecture of a great old course of a famous architect amongst a membership is not that hard these days I find but only if the membership is approached correctly. That's basically all I'm saying here.

But first one needs to know why something may have been changed in the first place. Once that's known the membership basically must be convinced that an original mistake is not being repeated through restoration and that the restoration is relevent today.

The 12th hole at GCGC is a wonderful example of that. That original hole obviously had all kinds of interesting characteristics but unfortunately some of them were problematic for various reasons even back then. Those problems cannot be repeated by restoration or it will fail again to be successful.

Unfortunately it's just not enough to tell a memberhip that a Bernard Darwin or a Horace Hutchinson bemoaned the fact that something was changed decades ago and therefore it should be restored today. Unfortunately very few club members today or those making decisions know who Darwin or Hutchinson were and could care less.

You just have to explain and convince them both why something changed--was it for a good reason or a bad one and why it will work again. There's no question that a membership who knew very little about the architectural heritage of their course can have a general reawakening and a reestablishment of pride in what they have or had. If someone can take them to that point then the architecture of that famous name, probably forgotten about, is sort of home free and restoration and preservation becomes so much more possible and so much easier to do.

Collecting the proper amount of research information is so important--you know we agree on that. But once that's done--the next step is what some of us call the "process". That's educating and convincing a membership that it should be restored. If someone blows that somehow basically neither they nor the restoration project will be particularly successful or done at all.

I think you're extremely good at research Tom but I guess what you need to tell me to end this discussion is that you also understand what it takes in the context of the membership of a golf club too. To say that you don't care about them or what goes on within a club or what they think is just not a productive thing for you to either think or particularly to say on here. It tends to offend the very people both you and me and others need to try to both educate and convince.

[TEPaul]

Those who've never been through the "process" of trying to take restoration of an orginal architect through a membership today may not understand the complexities and problems of that "process"--or the importance of doing that process correctly.

But you don't have to go far to see what it's about. There's an excellent example of it right here on this very thread between two members of GCGC--Pat Mucci and rgkeller.

Pat Mucci has said that he believes a club like GCGC which clearly has an undisputably fascinating architecural heritage in the annals of American golf architecture should take every opportunity to consider restoring to that heritage--basically Emmet and Travis. And it seems most of the members, including rgkeller, may share that basic sentiment.

But unfortunately when it gets down to particulars such as the pond on #16 it gets more complicated. Pat says the pond is not original Emmet or Travis and I doubt rgkeller or anyone else disagrees with that.

rgkeller says, though, that he thinks the pond, despite not being original Emmet or Travis, works well today for a number of reasons. He says it serves the same or even a greater penal purpose as a Travis "asparagus bed" mound or an Emmet bunker.

Is the degree of penality the sole purpose of what any feature to the left of #16 green should serve? I don't know but I think anyone interested in convincing rgkeller or what's best to do there needs to work with him on that if they want to change his mind.

Next rgkeller has asked those who advocate restoring that bunker (on the aerial) to prove to him that that bunker is Emmet or even that Travis had "asparagus bed" mounding there. At the very least those interested in convincing rgkeller should prove to him what was there and by whom at any particular time. Then they have to convince him how well it would work. If they can't at least do the first thing they'll probably have a problem convincing him.

In that vein there's the issue of a wetness problem there. When it happened, why, and what it would take to correct it needs to be produced and explained to him too to convince him. That should be attempted.

Simply saying that Bernard Darwin or Horace Hutchinson may not have liked something to the left of #16 probably won't do it for him. He needs to be convinced in light of what's going on today not necessarily 90 years ago.

In my opinion, those are the things that should be happening at GCGC and they should be happening on here too. It's of no real worth for a discussion between Pat and rg to devolve into who became a member first or who knows more about architecture. And it's of no worth for contributors on here such as me or TommyN or Tom MacWood who do not belong to the club to tell rg he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He does know what he's talking about or certainly thinks so and much of it is questions that should be answered first. Certainly questions that he's already asked others to prove the answers to. Questions like what was there and when and by whom? When did a wetness problem occur and why? Would restoring Emmet or Travis there solve that wetness problem as the pond has or recreate it? Would an original Travis mound or Emmet bunker or whatever else either might have built there work better in playablilty and look better than the pond?

If there's anyone at all who can supply that information and prove the answers to those questions instead of just throwing some personal assumptions about those things at rgkeller, they should do it.

And then, and at that point, they'll see if they're convincing him to get rid of that pond and restore something original there by Emmet or Travis. But just continuing to tell him he doesn't know architecture, doesn't know GCGC as well as someone else, or that he doesn't respect or understand Emmet or Travis probably won't do much to convince him of anything except that the "process" of attempted restoration really can be an antagonistic one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If the pond is allowed to remain, then it really doesn't matter what Emmett and/or Travis intended, does it ?
  # 16 will never be restored and golfers will forever be deprived of experiencing what the "Masters" created.

But, if the decision was made to remove the pond, I'm sure that Tom MacWood and/or others could reasonably determine what existed.

And, even if they couldn't, the photographic evidence of the detailed features and configuration of the golf course in 1936 is clearly documented, and thus, # 16, as it existed in 1936 could be restored quite easily.

The decision to restore leads to the question,
restore to when, what date, whose architecture.
The selection of the year 1936 eliminates all of those problems/decisions, and the photographic evidence is indisputable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

You may believe and you may have others believing that interest in the architecture and architects at GCGC began with your membership there.

I've never said that, written that or iimplied that,

That is your own spiteful and/or resentful remark

As far as my interest in restoration at GCGC, I'm clearly on the record with respect to my position as expressed in letters to the former and present green chairmen and Presidents over the last few years.  I think it is a worthwhile cause.

I didn't ask to be put on the green committee, I was invited, almost immediately after I became a member, by the chairman.

In the limited amount of years that I've been there, I've never heard you champion any type of restoration effort anywhere on the golf course.  But, I'm not there every day, so perhaps I missed it.

You were the one that brought the issue of the pond on # 16 public by starting a thread on it.  The fact that I totally disagree with your position bothered you to the extent that you personalized the issue.  God forbid that someone, especially from New Jersey, express an interest in seeing a restoration effort move forward.

Keeping a pond on # 16 is architectural heresy, but, your position doesn't surprise me.

[A_Clay_Man]

Is it just me or is it as obvious as the balls on a tall dog that there is a gigantic difference between the penalty of the pond and the thrill of recovery from some nutmeg grater or asparagus bed?

Maybe this would be a good place to start RG on his road to salvation?  Salvation as in recovery...hmmm... I wonder....?

[BCrosby]

A Clay

It should be obvious. Water hazards and bunkers are not interchangeable design choices. The presence of water vs. sand has a profound influence on approach shot choices. It changes everything.

Those who think bunkers and ponds are interchageable or who think that Travis always chose the most severe hazard possible have forfeited their right to my attention on matters of gca.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

Bob
I agree with you regarding the pond and the bunker. But I'm confused why everyone is talking about Travis's nutmeg hazards (its unclear they were even close to where the pond is and unclear if they survived Travis's reign...aproximately 1906-1912) and not the hole that Emmet perfected in the late 20's.

Adam
Why would you restore a feature that you're not certain ever existed...what is thrilling about the nutmeg graters?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
If the pond is allowed to remain, then it really doesn't matter what Emmett and/or Travis intended, does it?"

It sure doesn't Pat. You and I are obviously going in the same direction on that but we probably have differences in method. You've stated in no uncertain terms that your method is to get the club to resolve somehow to get rid of that pond first and then decide what to do and how to do it next.

My method is to present the golf club with a ton of documented historical evidence of the evolution of the golf course first. That should answer what was there when and why and why things may have changed. The club can concentrate on that historical evidence and come to a conclusion of why decisions were made and why things changed. In light of that they can objectively decide if mistakes in decision making were made when and why and how in the evolution of the course and in the context of Emmet and Travis's heritage which they seem to be proud of and care about.

That's sort of the way my club did it and in retrospect it worked like a charm for those trying to put the architectural plan together including our architect. After we did that it continues to make it basically a snap to uphold our best architectural heritage on an ongoing basis with our membership.

You guys at GCGC need that research collected, compiled and presented first. Restoring the architectural heritage of Emmet and Travis ain't that easy anyway compared to other clubs because there were two of them and only one thing can be done with any feature. But like any other club into this kind of thing you need to do the complete research first--complete as much as it can be done. That just makes it so much easier than trying to do it the other way around which is let's just go for it and then figure out how to do it later.

I don't know whose got the historical material--whether its the club or Tom MacWood or a bunch of others out there somewhere but call it all in now, collect it, compile it and analyze it first. Once you have it if you want me to write the club a straight architectural evolution report or booklet with supporting photos like I did with GMGC, I'll do it. I've done it before and now that we're down the line in our project its obvious it worked like a charm architecturally and with the membership process that followed.

What's wrong with doing it that way? You tell me. It worked for us why couldn't it work for you?
 

[T_MacWood]

This thread illustrates why bad decisions can be made....lack of accurate information. There is a wealth of information out there on GCGC's evolution (beyond the club history and The Old Man....if those are your sources you are in bad shape).

Pat and rg are by far the most knowledgable about how the course plays today (on GCA). I don't think that rg frankly has delved too deeply into architectural history of the course (I'm sure he is not alone), I believe Pat has a better understanding, but he would even admit there some he's not clear on. I have as good a grasp as anyone of the evolution (and some of the reasons the architects did what they did), but I'm certain there is a lot more info to be had.

If the club is interested in making decisions based on a complete understanding of the facts (in conjuction with the advice of an architect)...I'd be glad to lend them my help in uncovering those facts.

(Although a working stiff with a family to support...I would more or less do the work for free....GCGC is too important)