[T_MacWood]

TE
"Are you saying you've shared whatever you have with them regarding hole #16, the pond situation and the area to the left of the green, who did what why and when before it?"  Yes, everything.

"It seems like Pat and rgkeller aren't aware of that evolution to a good degree of accuracy. Is anyone at the club aware of those things that anyone's aware of? Yes. How about Joe Donohue?"  I don't know. When was last time you spoke to him?

"Something ought to be around to fill in those gaps. How about aerials--does the club have something like a good stagger of chronological aerials from the Met area or perhaps even the National archives?"  The aerials are included (thanks to Craig Disher).

"I hope the club has or can come up with more than just articles and things like general comments from people like even Darwin and Hutchinson."   What do you have against Darwin and Hutchinsons (two pretty astute guys in my view)? The many articles by Travis and the few by Emmet are very illustrative. Not only explaining what they did, but why. In fact the articles may be the most valuable information available (including a large number of photos). One of the most interesting aspects of Travis IMO, was Travis the critic--he was an outspoken critic and encouraged others to do the same. He published letters from GCGC members who were critical of his changes and then responded. He got into exchanges with others over the design: Travis vs Darwin, Travis vs Hutchinson, Travis vs Emmet. How many golf courses can claim that? It was a different era, and IMO the openness of the debate was a major factor in the quality of the results.

"How about club committee and board minutes?"  Those are difficult to access from Ohio.

"They can sure help to develop an evolutionary understanding of the who, when and why of chronological aerials and such."  I would agree.

"It seems to me from the history books that the club is at least certain on what Emmet originally did in detail".  IMO the book falls woefully short. It does cover the early years well, but practically ignores the most important years and events. For example when Travis published a detailed critique of the course...which ultimately resulted in his hire...which ultimately resulted in the course today. In fact there is practically no information on Travis's changes in that book (the most critical changes to the course). No mention of Emmet's later comments about his in ineptitude when designing the original course. And no mention of Colt, Tillinghast and the changes Emmet made after Travis. No mention of the Emmet-Travis fued. He does mention a new watering system went in in 1957, but nothing about the original system circa 1913. He also says the first green changed was the 12th. He obviously was not aware of the greens Emmet altered in the late 20's and Tillie's changes.

Have you performed much research on Garden City?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Thank you for those very comprehensive responses.

I have nothing at all against Darwin or Hutchinson. Why would you assume so? I only mention them because if what they said about GCGC was only general in nature I wouldn't put too much stock in that by trying to translate it into the specific about the course, if you know what I mean.

The correspondence from Travis to members and such sounds like some awesome material and potentially extremely helpful to guide restorationists.

I did not say that the history book goes into much valuable detail about the evolution of the course. All I said is it seems accurate with what Emmet did ORIGINALLY. That of course would be before 1900, before Travis's changes, before Emmet changed Travis again, and whatever else was done following Emmet.

All that needs to be documented in detail if its possible. And when that's done the club, if they're interested in some complete architectural restoration then needs to determine and decide if its Emmet they want to restore, or Travis or some combination of both or do perhaps something a bit different. Whatever they decide to do has to work well today too. There's little point in restoring to original architects if it doesn't do that. There's little point in restoring to original architects just for the sake of that alone. Again, it has to work well today and one never wants to restore things that don't or things that may have been considered mistakes etc. That's the kind of thing detailed research can uncover! I didn't mean to suggest that GCGC should send you their minutes, I was just wondering if the club had them.

And I doubt Chip Oat has anything against Emmet or anyone else who was there. Chip Oat seems only interested in what he believes makes that hole play best. If that turns out to be Emmet--so be it, if it turns out to be Travis--so be it, and if it turns out to be some other wrinkle--so be that too! The idea is to make the course play as well as it can and hopefully in the context of either Emmet or Travis or both!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

That's a novel idea.

Did Gulph Mills hold an open forum with the membership to decide how the golf course could play better ?

Perhaps GCGC should do the same, ask the membership how the golf course can play better, ignore the Emmett-Travis architecture and have improvements in play made through a general vote of the membership.

This should be done every 5 to 10 years to make sure that the latest fads aren't bypassed.

Do you suggest the hole by hole vote, or a general vote on a master plan for all 18 ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
That's a novel idea.
Did Gulph Mills hold an open forum with the membership to decide how the golf course could play better?"

Patrick:

I'm so glad you asked me that and I'm even more thrilled that you did it in sort of a facetiously sardonic way! Indeed we did open up our master plan to a complete and detailed hole by hole review of the entire membership or anyone who chose to come!!! And a great many did come! Matter of fact we did it four times in four open membership forums!

And what happened? At first there were all kinds of objections and off the wall remarks and ideas. But you know what--that gave us the opportunity to speak to them all about the logic of architecture, about the logic of restoration and restoration architecture. And furthermore we were able to do it in an incredible step by step, feature by feature detailed way! It gave us that truly valuable opportunity to EDUCATE! Basically there were two of us who stood up there and did this through four forums--me and the lady who is soon to be our Green Chairman. And do you know what---it worked like a total charm and we were able to gain membership approval for the plan and to restore what was best to restore pretty much as the master plan outlined!

Most of it is done now and the feedback from the membership is almost without a single objection after the fact. Bill Coore told me some years ago that restorations going through a membership will not only almost automatically hit resistance--but not only that the resistance in any membership anywhere will be the exact same issues. The first and worst is the issues of trees and it will go on to other remarkably similar things. He said you can absolutely count on this resistance and on the same issues from any membership anywhere. He said the only thing that will surprise you is who it is who will fight you and fight you longest. He said it will always surprise you that the ones who do may not be at all the ones you expected.

That was true with GMGC but we just kept on with our policy of complete openness and the process of education on the logic of architecture, the logic of original design intent, the logic of restoration etc. It worked. Bill Coore said the most important thing of all in this area of both an architectural plan and the all important process of memberhip approval is openness and definitely education. He was right.

You know your architecture Pat--but on the issue of selling it to the membership of GCGC an attitude like yours will continue to foster the resistance it apparently has at GCGC for so many years and probably will continue to for years to come.

GMGC is no different than GCGC or any other golf club that has a restoration plan before them. I know what I'm talking about because it worked so well for us. You can stay stubborn and keep fighting me on this but if you do you'll just continue to be stuck in a mire of inaction for probably years more to come.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

There is no question that the right to left cant of the fairway is a serious factor.  I think 16 with a wider fairway would help restore some of the missing shot making options--angles on running the ball up to the green.  There really is not much room on the right today, unless the course is extended into Mr. Dehler's backyard.  I agree that the left should be extended as much as possible.  A wider fairway may appear easier, but the greed factor of trying to get as left as possible for a better 2nd shot angle will possibly make the hole play tougher.  Is there any probelm with the restoration of the cop bunker?  It would surprise me if there were a controversy over its restoration.

You get it RMD!

There is just so much left side that needs to be expanded on this fairway, regardless of what RG Keller and others feel about the pond. The right side needs it too, but not nearly as much. I'm telling you, all that is needed on this is a spray can and the authority to tell the amigo on the mower where to cut.

Chip, Chip, Chip!--you had to get a Merion reference in there and spin it in your direction didn't you!   Without trying to start WWIIIIIII, lets push the subject of depth and style of the Merion bunkers out of this thread. We don't want Tosh and Buddy getting ideas with sugar plum fairies dancing in their heads.

[T_MacWood]

I'm not sure I would agree that the Gulph Mills and Garden City are comparable. What is lost in this debate is the fact that GCGC is one of the best preserved golf courses in America--perhaps the best preserved great golf course.

There have been very few changes to the course since Travis's time (1906-1916)--the most glaring being the 5th and 12th by RTJ--that is ninety years of stability, which is extraordinary. GMGC has had succession of architects tinkering with the course decade after decade--it appears the tradition at GM was and is change.

I reckon the attitude of the respective memberships is also quite different. GM known as a blue blood bastion where golf may or may not be the top priority, where as GCGC is an extremely serious golf club where Travis's spirit proudly lives.

I agree presenting information is key, but I also believe it is the nature of GCGC to resist change, which is why the course is so well preserved. However if the information is presented as not change, but reversing a few perverse changes of the past (and re-establishing Travis and Emmet) IMO the club will most likely give it their blessing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It was my understanding that GMCC could never implement a true restoration to the original golf course because the land that held the practice range was allowed to escape the club's grasp, forcing the club to incorporate the range into the property at the expense of a number of holes.

From a practical standpoint, this would preclude a true restoration, so from the outset, the circumstances at GMCC are different from those at GCGC

It was also my understanding that aerial photographs of GMCC were limited to only three years, 1926, 1939 and 1958, and that none of those years has a particularly significant event tied to them.

Lest you think that I'm impeding restoration work, could you describe for me the restoration work, or any restoration work that occured in the ten to twenty years prior to my membership ?

Could you also list the changes to the golf course that depart from the Emmett-Travis architecture that existed in 1936, ten to twenty years prior to my membership ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm really not interested in taking this discussion about the proper way to get GCGC's membership to buy into whatever restoration needs to be done there down some personal road of when you became a member and what was done before or after you got there. I didn't know that whatever restoration efforts may be under consideration were all your doing anyway. None of that is the point here. The point is the best way to approach and get the membership's cooperation.

Frankly, what Tom MacWood said about the preservation of the course may be true and that the club is seriously into their heritage. If that's so getting the membership to go along with whatever restoration remains to be done at GCGC should be a far more conducive atmosphere to get a membership to go along with it. So I just can't imagine why things are so stalled the way they seem to be. It should be easier than what we did at GMGC with our membership but still it doesn't seem to be.

It doesn't really matter to me, I'm just telling you what I'm certain is the way to approach GCGC's membership but if you don't want to listen so be it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

As you know from extensive personal experience,
each club and each membership is unique.

[ChipOat]

Tom MacWood:

Why do you assume that I am not a fan of Devereaux Emmett?

Tommy N:

It was Tom Paul who raised the Merion issue - not me.  Once on the table, would you really expect me not to comment?

And as to the spinning of any opinion by anyone (particularly on this DG), in what other direction have you ever seen that opinion spun?

And since you did NOT call me before your recent East Coast trip and invite me to have dinner/alcohol with you to discuss this and other matters in an alternative forum, please refrain from taking pot shots at my posts.  There's good restaurants with active liquor licenses both near where I live and where I play golf.

Besides, I was careful to return to the topic of the thread.

[T_MacWood]

chipoat
"In my view, the green should be reconfigured so that the ideal angle of approach is from the LEFT side, not the right."
Why, don't you like the way Emmet configured the green?

"As to the original topic of this thread, I favor the pond over the bunker as it's more penal.  Furthermore, I'd like to see that pond go right up to the edge of the green."
Obviously not on the same page with Dev again.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I’m certainly not against removing that pond on #16—I think it should be a serious consideration of Emmet or Travis restoration. But if its removal was to be considered and that bunker in the top photo on this thread was to be restored that does logically bring up a series of questions, a few of which have already been brought up on here. There’d certainly logically be questions of playability from members and others. The questions that've already been asked on here I can’t see have been answered very well by those who know the golf hole and are advocating a removal of that pond. They should be answered and intelligently!

Jeff Goldman asked a very pertinent question about the playability of that left greenside bunker if it were restored today. He asked if architects and others take into consideration that a bunker there today is far easier to recover from for technological reasons than it may have been in the early years of Travis and Emmet because the SW was not yet invented and today clubs such as a 60 degree SW make recovery easier. Jeff Goldman’s question in this regard is post #159. Your response to it in post #160 was;

“Jeff,
How does that apply to a greenside bunker?”

Why bother to answer a perfectly legitimate question with another question? The question is does technology make recovery from a bunker exactly restored to the way it may have been in the 1930s, 1920s, or teens easier today due to technology? Of course it does! Members and others are logically going to be asking questions like that if restoration from the present far more penal pond to a greenside bunker is to be seriously considered. And they will be demanding logical answers to their questions. I doubt any of them will be satisfied with an answer that’s another question, particularly one like “how does that apply to a greenside bunker?”

Thankfully, a few posts later you advocated that the sand should be raked once a month instead of regularly to make lies more difficult to recover from. Was it done that way in the days of Travis and Emmet? That’s an answer, Pat, and in theory it’s an effective one, but, come on, how realistic is it to assume that GCGC or any other club today would agree to do that? Do you think the members of GCGC and others would accept an answer like that? I don’t. Do you know of a single golf club today that dedicatedly foregoes raking their bunkers regularly to effect more difficult playability---particularly when they have been raking them probably for decades if not always? I surely don’t. I wouldn’t mind seeing that happen but I doubt it ever will. The last golf club I know of that never maintained their bunkers with raking---PVGC—now does maintain them with regular raking—unfortunately. You might not want to open a restoration discussion up to membership participation but I hardly think it possible that you will stop their questions if you don’t.

The reason I mentioned Merion and Chip Oat’s excellent question about bunker playability at Merion today vs yesteryear when I met him at NGLA is Jeff Goldman asked if technology makes bunker recovery easier today and do clubs and architects think about this when undergoing restorations? Merion is a good answer to Jeff’s question and may be a good answer for the logical and legitimate questions from members of GCGC in regard to a restoration of the bunker left of #16 greenside.

Chip Oat wondered a few years ago if Merion considered that when their original bunkers were designed and built players in those days had nothing better to play out of them than something comparable to a 9 iron today. Obviously that made their playability and the effect of them far harder.

Merion may not have thought of this when they did their bunker restoration, but on the other hand they may have, and at the very least they did do something about it anyway. The fact is that the bunkers of Merion today are more difficult to play out of than they used to be a few years ago. The sand surfaces today are actually easier to play from today for everyone than they were in 1999 but due to architectural changes and obviously the reestablishment of DEPTH, the bunkers today are probably harder to recover from than they used to be including good players with 60 degree SWs.

So the answer is there are two ways to make bunker recovery harder---first—do not rake the sand surfaces which would seem to be an extremely hard sell to memberships anywhere today, and---second---restore a bunker such as the old greenside left one at GCGC’s #16 green to be ARCHITECTURALLY more difficult to play from by creating more depth or height to play out of. Are those interested in restoring that bunker willing to consider that in response to membership questions and concerns about playability and penalty? They should be willing to consider that! They should at least be willing to disucuss it with those concerned about playability and penalty. They should at least try to answer those questions intelligently if they want to satisfy the questions and concerns of members---questions and concerns they have little chance of squelching by not talking to members or not answering their questions.

And if architectural depth or height is the answer to those concerns how would it be done? If there is a wetness problem in that area—digging down might not be practical. In that case the face of the bunker will probably need to go up.

If these issues and questions are not addressed or not addressed intelligently I doubt those who do NOT advocate the removal of the more penal pond will ever be satisfied and even those interested in restoration of that bunker who are asking perfectly legitimate questions of playability and penalty today vs what it might have been in the time of Travis and Emmet will be satisfied either. And if none of those questions are answered properly that bunker will probably never have a chance of being restored and the pond will probably stay.

[TEPaul]

Chip and TommyN:

Chip, that's very interesting what you say about how you'd prefer to see #16 GCGC play. It's very interesting that you say the pond is more penal and you prefer that. It's even more interesting that you say you believe the play from the left side of that hole should be reconstituted (if in fact there ever was fairway there). I'm assuming you might mean from original fairway to the left of the mid-hole fairway bunkering. More interesting still that you say you'd prefer the pond to come in closer to the green edge and possibly better guard an approach from the far left side!

The reason I say all this is due to something I did not remember and just learned in a post from Pat. I forgot that the pitch of the green is from right to left (Pat said a recovery from a right bunker sloped away and from a left bunker the recovery was into the slope or pitich of the green!).

My point is that if originally a tee shot to the far left side of the fairway created a shorter shot to the green and also a more conducive angle of approach into the more receptive right to left pitch of the green then the more penal pond guarding the approach from that side and that more ideal angle would serve as an ideal "indirect tax" for that particular option and would essentially create excellent staggered architectural concept!!

But that would presuppose that driving the ball to the left of those mid-fairway bunkers was not that difficult to do. Howeer, if it was extremely risky to drive it to that far left side than perhaps the pond does not belong (as an "indirect tax") and the bunker would be of good architectural logic, the reason being the golfer had taken a big risk off the tee and deserved a commensurate reward of being able to play a shorter approach up into the unguarded (no pond covering a portion of the shot) green. From that far left angle if the green also pitched from right to left as Pat says it does that would be additional reward for the higher risk of driving to the left side. However, if that was the way the left fairway once was the right side of the mid-fairway bunkers should be more accommodating and easier to drive to but from which the approach to the green would be made more complex and risky by the bunkering greenside right and also the pitch of the green from right to left making hitting and holding the green from that angle more difficult.

This to me is excellent conceptual architectural workup but I suppose it should all be moderated by what Dev Emmet said about the width of fairway at GCGC. He believed that many fairways were too wide and needed to be narrowed to make the golf course more challenging. It doesn’t appear clear what Travis might have thought of fairway width but that too should be determined.

Or would it just be better to consider what would make the hole play better and more optional and more strategic today despite what the two of them may have thought about extremely wide fairway widths?

[T_MacWood]

When was the sand wedge invented? Why has it taken us so long to re-adjust our hazards to account for Sarazen's technological breakthrough?

Perhaps we are a bit slow...I say we rebuild every bunker in the counrty...make them all two or three or four feet deeper...or better yet I say we convert all sand traps into water traps...a la #16 at GCGC.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

That's not a very good attempt to answer some legitimate questions that many golfers today have. The question remains--do the bunkers of some of the older courses present the golfers of today with the type of challenge that those architects of yesteryear intended that they should have?? And if the answer appears that they don't then the following question should be--what is the best way to do something both preservationist and constructive about that?

[T_MacWood]

That is one question, but not the only question.

Is there historical precidence for making bunkers more difficult as technology improves?

Was 'Hell' bunker made more difficult when golfers went from the eligant wooden playclub to iron headed clubs?

Were bunkers altered when the ball went from feathery to gutta percha to Haskel?

What was the percentage of golfers who could easily extract their ball from sand in the 1920's and what is the percentage today? Are we going alter bunkers for a very samll percentage of golfers and make the game more difficult for the average Joe?

Were Merion's bunkers actually much more shallow in the early years becoming much more penal over time based on sand splash or is that a wive's tale? If it is true hasn't the technology more or less evened out that evolution?

How many bunkers remain that are the handcrafted work of Thomas, Thompson, MacKenzie, Colt, Travis, Emmet, Simpson, Valentine, etc...and should we be replacing all these rare works with a machine made common Fazio or Hawtree?

Instead making bunkers deeper, wouldn't it be less costly and less evasive to alter the sand...creating furrows or not raking or some kind of growth?

Before speculating on the pond being an equivalent replacement of the bunker...shouldn't one be aware of the depth of the bunker? How deep was the bunker at #16? Is there a bunker in the world is that is roughly equivalent to a pond in regards to penalty....where is it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In response to your post # 188, evidently you totally missed my response to Jeff in post # 170, where I addressed that issue, specifically and globally.

[ChipOat]

Tom MacWood:

1) Evidently I am not in synch with Devereaux Emmett on this particular hole.  However, there are many things about GCGC that I like very much.  More to the point, I am a big fan of St. George's GC in Stonybrook, NY which was Emmett's attempt to create another NGLA for HIS friends a la C.B. MacDonald.  As I have said several times around here, St. George's is right up there with Inwood as a true "hidden gem".

Your generalizing supposition is much more incorrect than correct.

2) As to my comments about the hole in question, the long hitter has an "architectural advantage" on #16 as a) the angle of the green is more receptive to a 300 yard drive than a 240 yard drive and b) the fairway is wider for the longer hitter, as well.  Two other holes that also share these "problems" are #10 at Merion and #17 at National.  I prefer strategic holes where the optimum angle of attack to a green is "reachable" by the mid-length player and where the landing area for that position is at least as wide, if not wider, than where the long hitter can go.  The long hitter has an inherent (fair) advantage as it is - which is fine.

The first thread in which I participated on this DG (12/01, I think) was one of several in which I have discussed that issue at some length.  I have referenced the different length hitters as "Cashmere Insert" and Thunder Buns".  Check it out if you wish.

3) As to your (I assume) tongue-in-cheek suggestion regarding the deepening of all bunkers in this country, that's a fine idea!  There's a thread right now about the Seminole bunker restoration in 1981 that speaks volumes regarding Golden Age architects' originally-intended shot values.  Deeper bunkers with a hickory shafted niblick??  In the words of former (I hope) poster CuriousJJ, "bring it on, bitch!".

4) Sarazen began using a SW in the early 30's and I'm told they were commonplace among the top players by 1937 or so.  Ralph Maltby was among the first to market a "Third Wedge" in the early 1980's (I had one) - I'm guessing that they were pretty much the norm by the mid-90's if Dave Pelz is to be believed.  I have also been told by Pelz that the improvements in flange/bounce/lie design since 1990+ have made the effectiveness of these wedges significantly greater than anything Wilson or MacGregor made from the late 40's on.

Whatever the chronology, give a 1920's-era Niblick a try from a deep greenside bunker.  It's REALLY hard - at least for me.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Chip, I can see this is a matter that will be discussed heavily this upcoming late June  

For exact hint when, check the Yankees upcoming schedule for the 2004 season--It will become fully clear then!  

[Jeff Goldman]

TEPaul,

   In theory I agree with Pat Mucci's view that the best way to return difficulty to bunkers is via manipulation of the sand, either by raking practices, or perhaps by the type of sand used.  I know nothing about sand quality, etc. but I have noticed that a few courses in Chicago have almost "sandbox" sand in the bunkers, which is a lot harder for me to play out of, and may be more difficult for better players to get spin, etc., than playing out of than hard packed sand - doesn't Southern Hills have this too?

    As to recapturing bunker depth, or creating it, it certainly doesn't affect the best players - didn't do a damn thing at Olympia Fields, and believe me, to a bogey golfer, those things are cavernous!  They need to put in steps so some of the older members can get in and out (I'm not kidding).  I don't know enough about the original course to comment yea or nea on the project, but Ran has praised the restoration of "the rugged bunkering style" or some such.  I think they look and play great.  (okay, pile on).

    As to the original question, again, without ever seeing tjhe course and accepting on faith that it is one of the best classic designs in the world, my view is that there are very few Emmet and Travis designs left, and they aren't making any more.  They should be preserved as close as possible to their original state.  Not raking bunkers or putting in soft sand doesn't affect this, nor, really, does putting in back tees.  I think that a green should almost never be changed, and green complexes should be preserved to the greatest extent possible.  Obviously, that's the obligation of the members.

Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Chipoat,

The concept of hitting to the left of the row of left side fairway bunkers is misquided because the aerial doesn't reveal the right to left nature of the terrain.

The area between the bunkers and the left rough is extremely narrow.  It is further narrowed by the slope of the terrain, right to left.  It would be a foolish target for any level of golfer.  It is doubtful that a straight drive, or a drive with draw or hook could come to rest there, understanding the nature of the trajectory required to clear the bunkers.
A cut or fade would have a better chance, but who would aim into the rough, to a super narrow corridor of fairway bordered by menacing bunkers

I think the play is in conformity with risk/reward found throughout the golf course.
The ideal drive is a drive right of the bunkers, allowing either the terrain or the flight of the ball to bring the ball close to the bunkers, setting up the shortest, but most aerial approach to a green angled right to left.

Emmett also allowed for the ground game for those choosing a longer or safer route to the right.

The green sits below the level of the fairway in the drive zone, this falloff, coupled with the right to left nature of the approach area allows a ball with less carry to navigate its way to the green via the terrain and/or reduced ball flight/height.

However, with the pin along the right perimeter of the green, approaches from the latter angle would have a difficult time getting close to the hole, and shots that bounced straight, or were hit a little right of the target line would find deep, difficult bunkers to the right of the green and face a very difficult down hill recovery shot.

I don't believe that going left of the left side bunker line was ever intended as a prudent line of play.  So I believe we can dispense with that theory, the terrain and relative position and dimensions of the bunkers, left side fairway and rough won't support it.

The concept of deepening every bunker to counter the Sand Wedge and L-Wedge doesn't justify the expense.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
In response to your post # 188, evidently you totally missed my response to Jeff in post # 170, where I addressed that issue, specifically and globally."

Pat;

Let's get serious here! I didn't miss your response in post #180 to the issue of Jeff Goldman's question at all. If you call post #180 addressing that issue and those questions 'specifically and globally' no wonder you'all at GCGC aren't getting anywhere on this pond remaining/bunker restoration issue on #16.

I'd hate to see anyone stand up in front of a membership with these concerns or even address their concerns on this issue individually the way you did in post #180. You aren't answering their concerns at all--all you're doing is once again responding to a legitimate questions with other questions--and most definitely not answers. Yours aren't answers at all and frankly what you're doing is playing right into the concerns of those who are in favor of the pond remaining.

Tom MacWood;

You asked some pretty good questions there. Now those questions are going to need some pretty good answers!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're chasing a phantom and creating a diversionary issue where one need not exist.

What was the original bunker depth on # 16 ?
What was the bunker depth when Travis redid the golf course?
What was the bunker depth when Emmett redid the course
What was the bunker depth in 1936 ?

Without being able to accurately answer those questions, your question has no relevance, no point, and bunker depth for a restored greenside bunker becomes an interpolated decision, based on photos, site excavation and the study of other greenside bunkers.  This allows one to form a best guestimate of their inteded depth.

You're gettin bogged down in unnecessary pursuits.

Do you really think it makes a difference if the bunker depth is at 3'6" or 3' 9" or 3' 3" ?

Do you feel that the bunker maintained but one depth over the 70+ years of its existance  

This is a pretty simple issue, and you're clouding it.

[TEPaul]

"I don't believe that going left of the left side bunker line was ever intended as a prudent line of play.  So I believe we can dispense with that theory, the terrain and relative position and dimensions of the bunkers, left side fairway and rough won't support it."

Pat:

I don't feel that #16 was designed with fairway intended to the left of those three fairway bunkers either. I know TommyN suspected as much but I would doubt that and said on the first page of a post I removed that I've seen lots of aerials that look like they show fairway area but it never was that. TommyN does have a point though that it does sort of look from the aerial as if fairway could have been once intended there as otherwise one would wonder what those short left side bunkers are all about. But still I doubt it.

It also looks like somebody added a bunker in the center scheme there making it three instead of two. Who did that?

But when you say this;

"The concept of deepening every bunker to counter the Sand Wedge and L-Wedge doesn't justify the expense."

I haven't heard anyone or any member of GCGC advocating deepening every bunker at GCGC, have you? What I have heard though is some counter removing the pond because they feel something penal in that area is justified. Those are the opinions you need to counter and convince if you're going to be successful in getting the membership to agree to remove that pond and replace it with a bunker. In the meantime maybe you should do some homework on whose bunker that was exactly to the left of #16 in that aerial. It would seem it must be Emmet redesigning a Travis redesign. Also figure out how deep or how high you can make it to compensate for the penal aspect of that pond if it's removed.  

That might begin to persuade some of those who aren't for the pond removal and bunker restoration. And again, this is a single bunker being restored in the place of a pond. Who's asking that the rest of the bunkers at GCGC need to be deepened or heightened? Nobody is so why mention that?

Jeff Goldman:

The idea of furrowing sand surfaces in bunkers these days or not raking them has been mentioned before as a solution to make bunkers play more challenging but as much as I'd like to see it tried that probably is not an idea that's going anywhere at a single course today. I tried to suggest that at my club and it didn't even start to fly--I basically got cut off after about a sentence!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Go ahead, feel free to answer all those questions.

Regarding the bunker deepness issue...you brought that up when you comapred the pond to Merion deepening their bunkers.

Tommy is correct. Travis wrote about the short hitter taking a straight line, "On the other hand, the poor player--who in the majority of cases is such by reason of lack of length--need not tempt fortune by essaying the hazardous shot to the right; ample room is permittied him to the left, or even on straight line to the hole if he is sufficiently accurate. Then he has to decide whether he will'go for' the green on his second."

chipoat
1) Evidently I am not in synch with Devereaux Emmett on this particular hole. However, there are many things about GCGC that I like very much. More to the point, I am a big fan of St. George's GC in Stonybrook, NY which was Emmett's attempt to create another NGLA for HIS friends a la C.B. MacDonald. As I have said several times around here, St. George's is right up there with Inwood as a true "hidden gem".  Are you certain St.George's was built for HIS friend? Inwood is the work of Herbert Strong.

Your generalizing supposition is much more incorrect than correct.  Maybe, maybe not.

2) As to my comments about the hole in question, the long hitter has an "architectural advantage" on #16 as a) the angle of the green is more receptive to a 300 yard drive than a 240 yard drive and b) the fairway is wider for the longer hitter, as well. Two other holes that also share these "problems" are #10 at Merion and #17 at National. I prefer strategic holes where the optimum angle of attack to a green is "reachable" by the mid-length player and where the landing area for that position is at least as wide, if not wider, than where the long hitter can go. The long hitter has an inherent (fair) advantage as it is - which is fine. The drive was designed by Travis to reward those willing to temp the right hand pots (180+ yard carry) to set up the easier approach. He also built mounds along the left to prevent the long hitters from hugging the dogleg (without the mounds and bunkers on the left, under favorable wind conditions they could easily reach the road down the left--the ground was very firm) The less risky shot--short left--resulted in a much more difficult approach, but Travis left plenty of room to the right for those who lay up, either short of the road or just over the road. He deliberately created additional 'fairgreen' to the right for those lesser golfers and to promote the gamble to the right--otherwise the strategy wasn't viable due to the very firm ground. (Emmet enchanced the startegy by rebuilding the green and adding new greenside bunkers to promote the appraoch from the right.)  It is refreshing to find a hole where the outside of the dogleg is the preferred angle of attack. In the 1950's the great writer HB Martin said at the 16th Emmet was responsible for "...making a hole which many experts consider architecturally perfect." Obviously you don't agree.

The first thread in which I participated on this DG (12/01, I think) was one of several in which I have discussed that issue at some length. I have referenced the different length hitters as "Cashmere Insert" and Thunder Buns". Check it out if you wish.  I'll take your word for it.

3) As to your (I assume) tongue-in-cheek suggestion regarding the deepening of all bunkers in this country, that's a fine idea! There's a thread right now about the Seminole bunker restoration in 1981 that speaks volumes regarding Golden Age architects' originally-intended shot values. Deeper bunkers with a hickory shafted niblick?? In the words of former (I hope) poster CuriousJJ, "bring it on, bitch!".  That was a strange one...do most courses have three to four feet of extra sand? Was that the problem at Merion...several feet of sand accumulating over the years ...why hire Fazio when all you needed was to pull up a dump truck...regaining the "Golden Age architects' originally-intended shot values"?

4) Sarazen began using a SW in the early 30's and I'm told they were commonplace among the top players by 1937 or so. Ralph Maltby was among the first to market a "Third Wedge" in the early 1980's (I had one) - I'm guessing that they were pretty much the norm by the mid-90's if Dave Pelz is to be believed. I have also been told by Pelz that the improvements in flange/bounce/lie design since 1990+ have made the effectiveness of these wedges significantly greater than anything Wilson or MacGregor made from the late 40's on.

Whatever the chronology, give a 1920's-era Niblick a try from a deep greenside bunker. It's REALLY hard - at least for me.

What took so long to implement the chipoat "recapturing Golden Age architects' originally-intended shot value" policy? Ever tried to extract a gutta from a bunker using a needle nose wooden playclub? Talk about REALLY hard....Currious JJ was born 120 years too late.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()