Garden City Golf Club #16 Overlay

[TEPaul]

"TE
I don't recall if the history implies that or not, but he didn't begin altering the course until 1906. I wouldn't get too caught up in the pre-1906 golf course...there is very little left of that golf course thanks to Travis."

Tom:

The history book does imply it might have been Travis who was responsible for lengthening the course prior to the 1902 US Open. The history book implies that and it certainly makes no mention that Emmet did it, although that certainly doesn't mean he didn't. If Travis started working on that course 4-5 years prior to 1906 I think that might be interesting to know at least. It wasn't the first thing Travis did in architecture!

This is a unique situation of a golf course who had two designers who apparently worked at somewhat of a counterpoint to each other through the first third of the course's evolution and it would be nice for the club, I would think, to know who did what, when and why. I don't think its any secret that Emmet and Travis did not get along.

But the question remains--do you or Pat or anyone else that you know of think that green moved short and left of where it was in Emmet's original 1898 design?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Paul,
If you look at the overlay of aerials, the green hasn't been moved since 1938.

Tom, For someone that lives the word of Max Behr like I do, I'm a bit confused. Why do you think that there doesn't exist the possibility of a fairway with no boundries at the 16th, which was the common practice of the day? (Many areas around the hole were of an unkept height, but ht egrass was sparse enough to find a ball with ease as ell as play a dhot out of it. Granted it could have been of a more sparse rough grass then what we accustomed to today, I think your losing site of the strategerie (A Bush term) of what the hole is showing. Those tiny bunkers way short left of the fairway are there for a reason, and I don't think they are there to catch a wayward shot that's way left of the rough. But ultimately since this is a museum of Golf Architecture circa the early 20th century, I would say that the possibility of several lines to the hole do in fact exist in what we are seeing in all of the aerials--with the exception of the cut of fairway and the knowledge of the height of the rough of the current/newest aerial. The hole more then likely plays nothing like the original. But that's my opinion and for what its worth.

As far as bringing-up information in written word on the 16th, Tom, you have me there. I can only go by what I can find, and what is seen in the photos, as well as how many GREAT golf architects layed out things on the ground when seen from up above. Withte bunkers seen in the 1938 photo, it is evident that there were several lines to the hole--in the Map Quest version--Those lines are generally all withheld with-in the bounds of the fairway. (Look only then where are the fairway bunkers throughout the hole.)

[T_MacWood]

TE
Travis wrote a famous article early in 1906 -- "The Merits and Demerits of Garden City" -- in which detailed the course's many faults and his suggestions as to how to improve it. Later that year he began altering the course...and as they say the rest is history.

I wouldn't get too caught up with pre-1906....the course frankly wasn't very exciting. Those old pictures found in the club history (in the chapter giving the original yardage) are all post 1906.

Emmet:  " While we managed the course--Geo. L. Hubbell, who has always been secretary of the club and who has contributed greatly to its success, and myself, were floundering around in more or less complete ignorance of the art of greenkeeping, and I may also say of the princples of golf architecture...."

I'm certain Emmet didn't consider himself an architect in 1897-98. GCGC as a great design began with Travis in 1906.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW & TommyN:

I'll try to answer your posts together to explain why I'm asking the questions I am.

TommyN, I tend to agree with you about the width and multiple directions of play that seem to show up on that first aerial. Sometimes it is hard to pick out fairway lines on old aerials and often areas that were always rough look like they may have been fairway and never were. However, it seems to me that all of what you described as fairway probably once was with Travis’s redesigned #16 hole. That (in the first aerial) has to be Travis’s redesign and not Emmet, in my opinion, although it may even be possible that they did it together before 1906 as I’ll explain later. What you thought were some of the optional lines of play on that hole are just about perfectly confirmed by the quote Tom MacWood supplied from Travis anyway;

"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."

And also you do have a very good point about those short left bunkers. It doesn’t make much sense that they would’ve been designed and placed 15-30 yds out in the left rough! They no longer exist today!!

I’m certainly not saying that green was moved after 1938. It was more likely moved decades before that and very likely by Travis. I suppose one might even make a case that it was moved as early as 1906 and possibly even before that but probably more likely in the teens or early 1920s. But if Travis moved it and redesigned the hole as he clearly did it would’ve been done before 1927 because that’s when he died. Emmet died in 1934.

But why would I say the green was moved shorter than original and left maybe 30-50 yds from where Emmet originally had it in 1898? Because when comparing that first aerial on here with the drawing of Emmet’s 1898 course the green just isn’t in the same place. Of course I’m making an assumption that that drawing of Emmet’s original 1898 course is accurate and in scale but looking at it and what I know about the course from that early time, for instance the 3rd green is in the exact same place it’s always been from the original nine hole course to today!! Not only that but everything else I know from that early time is in the correct place and in scale too on that drawing. Even the greens from that 1898 course drawing are drawn in the shapes they apparently were built apparently. Otherwise why would they have the varied shapes they do on that drawing of Emmet’s 1898 course?

But the varying lengths of #16 over time also tells a story. I’m assuming the back tee today is in the same place it was in Emmet’s original 1898 hole because it always appears on everything including those aerials to be in that little cut-out on the edge of the property. If that’s so and the hole’s length was lessened from that early time it could only mean that the green’s position changed and came forward commensurately to the lessened hole yardage.

And of course although one can scale off an aerial, just lining things up on landmarks that’ve always existed is good enough on an actual aerial. Doing all that one can see that Emmet’s 1898 #16 green would be in just about the same positon as the front half of the 17th tee today!! The way to confirm that is to notice its relationship and proximity to the 3rd green that’s always been where it is today (same as on all those aerials as well as Emmet’s early 1898 course drawing)! Not only that but the position of the old tee to #17 can be easily compared and placed from the original roads on Emmet’s 1898 drawing to the same road that appears on the first aerial on here.

In other words, everything from the old drawing to the aeriasl lines up perfectly showing the exact dimensions of movements and change. It appears to me that the present #16 green is very close to the old 4th  tee on Emmet’s 1898 course.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It seems to me that the Emmet/Travis evolution of GCGC could probably be looked at in four basic stages and I see no reason why the club wouldn't be interested in documenting it as exactly as possible in hole by hole detail if not always for restoration information and purposes at least for historical interest of a remarkable course from two very interesting architects who certainly not always worked in concert--even in architectural philosophy. I think the stages would be;

1. The 1898 course of Emmet/Hubbel. That seems very certain from Emmet's drawing.

2. Possibly a stage preceding 1906 when both Emmet and Travis may have worked together on the course in concert. That makes some sense as Travis was instantly made the green chairman on joining the club in 1899 and we do know from Quirin and the most recent history book that he returned from his US Amateur championship at ACCC in 1901 strongly recommending additional length be added to the course. And we know that a good deal of length was added before the 1902 US Open. Furthermore, as you mentioned, Emmet was not very experienced at that time and Travis had already had some design experience previously at his beloved Ekwanok!

3. The period beginning in 1906 when Travis became critical of GCGC and began perhaps almost 20 years of redesigning it thereby estranging his friendship with Emmet.

4. After Travis died in 1927 when Emmet obviously returned to redesign some of Travis. Since Emmet died in 1934 that would appear to be an excellent time to look to restore to if the club is truly interested in restoring to their extremely interesting Emmet/Travis heritage.

Pat says 1936 is a good year to look to and who could disagree if one was interested in a real restoration to Emmet/Travis seeing as that was the year of the well known 1936 US Amateur?

There might be an interesting irony here regarding Pat and his interest in returning the stymie to golf. Apparently the eventual winner of the 1936 US Amateur stymied his opponent on that very same 16th green!!! And according to the records of the USGA that very incident truly hastened the stymie on its eventual journey out of the rules of golf. For that reason I'd like to propose a local rule that might be adopted by GCGC alone (and that the USGA wouldn't put up a fuss about it). I propose that when anyone plays match play at GCGC that the players have the OPTION of being able to agree to play the stymie--BUT---ONLY on that historic #16 green and nowhere else!! How cool would that be---a local rule permitting it on just one hole in the world!!??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

"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."

I think the above quote could be misleading to those who view the issue solely in the context of the aerial photo that Tommy Naccarato posted.

For golfers standing on the tee on # 16, the 16th green/putting surface is not visible.  

You may recall, that on an earllier post, I indicated that the green sits below the fairway in the driving zone.  In addition, elevated features. bunker lips, the old elevated road bed that bisects the hole (rough & fairway) and other features serve to obscure the golfers view.  Add to this the dogleg left nature of the hole and you can understand that aiming at the green is difficult to impossible for several reasons.

When Travis referenced not tempting the hazardous shot to the right, I believe he was referencing the fairway carry bunkers up the right side, and indicated that shots hit to the left of those bunkers had ample room, or that a shot hit straight down the fairway was a viable alternative as well.

The visual from the tee demands a middle to right side tee shot, and not one aimed at the left side bunkers or to the left of the left side fairway bunkers.  Standing on the 16th tee and aiming left of the left side fairway bunkers has to me one of the most uncomfortable, unnatural set-ups one could face, and I doubt, in the context of the other tee angles and intended lines of play at GCGC that either Travis or Emmett would create such an awkward or uncomfortable shot, a mis-directed shot.

The driving corridor, as viewed from the tee on # 16, provides ample information for a golfer to choose his route, and aiming left of the left side fairway bunkers isn't one of them, unless of course, the golfer has a huge slice.

I don't believe that Emmett/Travis ever advocated hitting left of the left side fairway bunkers.  The area is too narrow, too penal for a missed drive, and with the right to left cant of the terrain, almost impossible to execute.

Today, a prefered line on the tee shot is at the jalousied windows on a house, in the distance, well to the right of the green, over behind the 3rd green.

Even if you could see the green, a straight line from the tee to the green would bring you close to the left side fairway bunkers.  But, the visual provided by the framing bunkers, left and right, dictates drives between them, or, for the more confident and proficient, over the right side bunkers.

A Clayman,

The current issue on the immediate agenda was the pond.
The top shot bunker on # 16 would not be high on my priority list, I'd rather have the same type of bunker restored in front of the 14th green, leaving the top-shot bunker on # 16 as one of the last items on a restoration list.

If Tommy Naccarato or CDisher could post pictures of # 14 green circa 1936 and currently, I think you'd agree with my thinking on that matter.

TEPaul,

I've been extremely consistent, and unwaivering.
My goal is simple, a sympathetic restoration to 1936.

The heart of the matter, and critical question is:
Why has/is GCGC reluctant to embark upon a restoration effort ?

[TEPaul]

"The heart of the matter, and critical question is:
Why has/is GCGC reluctant to embark upon a restoration effort?"

Pat:

Why don't you tell me what you're opinion on that is? I think I've already given you some really valid reasons why I think the club is taking so long, the primary reason being you all just aren't really approaching the restoration process correctly to both educate and thereby encourage and convince your membership to buy into a more comprehensive restoration. The only way I can think of to do that most effectively is to try to first respect their opinions or at least act like it whatever their opinions may be at first. Only then can you attempt to convince someone who may not at first agree. Giving them some really good research helps so much too.

I know you'll just think of some other reason to disagree with this but I can almost guarantee you'll just continue to wonder why GCGC has/is continuing to be reluctant to embark on a restoration effort. You and I are on the same page on wanting to see a really good Emmet/Travis restoration. I'd love to see it and so would you but you'all have to go about this differently or it'll happen later rather than sooner or it just may not happen at all.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What do you make of those Travis bunkers short and way left? Do you think he just threw some bunkers in about 20+ yards out in original left rough? I've always heard Travis's rebunkering of GCGC was some of the toughest and most functional in golf architecture but I never knew he was also the first completely superfluous "eye candy" bunker architect too!  

Those things meant something Pat and the most logical assumption would seem to be fairway!

Now, there's very little doubt that Emmet was a bit of a fairway narrowness advocate and I've got his own quotes from the club's own history book to prove that. And everyone knows Emmet outlived Travis and that he probably came back to that hole and narrowed what Travis may have done there.

In all liklihood Emmet also threw a big bunker into the left side of Travis's green instead of what Travis apparently had there. I think we can all be pretty sure that huge Emmet bunker had some problematic wetness issues for whatever reason and then look what happened next---you all got a POND!

[T_MacWood]

TE
The green didn't move. It was in the same place in the drawings from 1900 and 1905 and the aerials from 1938 and 1947.

Interesting speculation about Travis and Emmet (what about Hubbell...and/or Macdonald, who was also a member at the time) lenghtening the course...whatever happened prior to 1906 is more or less a sidebar...the golf course was completely overhauled.

1. The 1898 course of Emmet/Hubbel. That seems very certain from Emmet's drawing. That drawing was made in 1950.

2. Possibly a stage preceeding 1906 when both Emmet and Travis may have worked together on the course in concert. That makes some sense as Travis was instantly made the green chairman on joining the club in 1899 and we do know from Quirin and the most recent history book that he returned from his US Amateur championship at ACCC in 1901 strongly recommending additional length be added to the course. And we know that a good deal of length was added before the 1902 US Open. Furthermore, as you mentioned, Emmet was not very experienced at that time and Travis had already had some design experience previously at his beloved Ekwanok! I don't consider this an important stage architecturally.

3. The period beginning in 1906 when Travis became critical of GCGC and began perhaps almost 20 years of redesigning it thereby estranging his friendship with Emmet. The major overhaul took place between 1906 and 1912...the golf course today was made during this time. Colt was also brought in to advise at this time.

4. After Travis died in 1927 when Emmet obviously returned to redesign some of Travis. Since Emmet died in 1934 that would appear to be an excellent time to look to restore to if the club is truly interested in restoring to their extremely interesting Emmet/Travis heritage.   Tillinghast and Emmet made limited changes that improved the course.

There really is no need to speculate and create possible scenerios...the evidence is out there.

Pat
I'll take your word for it. It was Travis's plan not mine.

"The former [good player] will either have to place his tee-shot to the right, at great risk, or else his second shot will require to be exceedingly good to reach the green....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 permitted 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."

Sounds like three definitive routes to me...I think Tommy was right.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think those bunkers were to provide a bit of a challenge to the short hitter, those that chose to play safe after carrying the top-shot bunker.

If you recall the land slopes right to left from the high point, near the property line, through the 16th fairway, with the slope steepening through the 15th fairway, down to the trough near the 15th fairway and 14th tee.

Don't look at the aerial in a two dimensional context.  Incorporate the terrain in your evaluation.

With respect to the question, I believe that I know the answer, I was curious as to what others thought.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

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."

Sounds like three definitive routes to me

If you'll review the photo Tommy posted on page 1, I think you will see all three strategies for the play of the hole, as described above, rather quickly.

Keep in mind the right to left slope of the terrain and its effect on the drive, in the context of the configuration of the bunkers.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- In this whole ten page thread I have not heard one word about the context of the 16th as it relates to 14th 15th 17th and 18th holes. What I mean to say is, usually the 16th hole is a key hole for most courses. Not always but many times it's where "a big finish" starts. In evaluating what to do, can the 16th live in a vacuum?

Tom Paul- Timing seems right for those Behr articles to start in '26 and the narrowing of the 16th fairway at GCGC. Wouldn't you say?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A clayman,

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

The club can barely bring one restoration feature up for discussion and you want to bring in holes # 14, 15, 17 & 18 ?

A journey, no matter how long, begins with one step,
let's take that step first, then worry about the others.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- I wasn't advocating fixing the other holes, I was asking if there are any clues within those other holes that make sense for the 16th.

Honestly, With all the great info coming out of this thread, the task of figuring what, when and who did what where and when seems almost comical. Perhaps that fickle history can free up your committee to actually figure out what's right for the hole, not necessary what was right, then.

[TEPaul]

"TE
The green didn't move. It was in the same place in the drawings from 1900 and 1905 and the aerials from 1938 and 1947."

Tom;

Assuming that 1898 drawing in the history book is accurate and in scale and every single thing I can see of it would indicate it is accurate and in scale that 16th green surely seems to have been moved and probably by about 30-40 yards left. The later aerials (which obviously don't lie) just don't have it in the same place that Emmet's 1898 #16 green drawing does. If you have that drawing or that history book that has it in it just check it out. The old 17th tee was no more than about five steps from the right side of that old #16 green and that old #17 tee (much shorter than the present back 17th tee) which can still be seen and placed in that aerial on here is probably about 45 yds from the present 16th green. You might not have any text on that but if that 1898 Emmet drawing is accurate and in scale that green was moved left. Furthermore somewhere in that history book it does say that Travis redesigned that hole into a dogleg (left) and anyone can see the old Emmet 16th hole was dead straight. Furthermore the eventual differences in the length of #16 would basically prove this so---assuming that the back 16th tee never changed and I can't see it ever has.

[TEPaul]

"Don't look at the aerial in a two dimensional context.  Incorporate the terrain in your evaluation."

Pat:

On an aerial the two dimensions of length and width basically never lie. The dimension of height (or depth--including slope) are very difficult to impossible to pick up on aerials (without things like very low sun shadows). But it really doesn't matter much. The 3rd dimension of height (or depth) certainly does effect playability but again the dimensions of length and width just don't lie on an aerial---and all we're concerned about here is the dimension of width which is obvious and accurate on an aerial. The only thing that can't be well determined is the demarcation of old fairway lines but again those far left bunkers are definitely saying something to do with width. Again, why would Travis build bunkers 20+ yards out in the rough? Did he do anything remotely like that anywhere else on his redesign of the golf course? I doubt it!

[TEPaul]

"1. The 1898 course of Emmet/Hubbel. That seems very certain from Emmet's drawing. That drawing was made in 1950."

Tom:

What difference does it make when it was made? All that matters is whether that drawing is accurate and in scale or not to what that 1898 course once was, particularly the placement of the 16th green on that drawing and on the ground. Do you have something to prove that the 16th green on that drawing is not accurate and in scale to where it once was on the ground?

[T_MacWood]

TE
The reason I pointed out the date of the drawing was so no one would mistakenly attribute it to Emmet or mistakenly dated it to 1898. There are drawings from 1900 and 1905 that the 1950 drawing is loosely based upon and the green didn't move. It did eventually change its shape--the 1898 green being shaped like a baseball infield--part semi-circle, part triangle.

May I ask what the point of this excercise is? Are you interested in restoring the 1898 golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

Pat- I wasn't advocating fixing the other holes, I was asking if there are any clues within those other holes that make sense for the 16th.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by clues.
I'd appreciate it if you could expand on this.

TEPaul,

The aerial Tommy posted clearly shows a narrow neck of fairway left of the left side fairway bunkers, what are you talking about with respect to the location of bunkers that are 20+ yards into the left side rough ?

There is another set of bunkers right on the rough line.

It is possible that those bunkers were also meant to catch errant balls on # 15 as well.

[ChipOat]

Patrick:

After I've played a course 20+ times it becomes an irresistable impulse for me to strongly advocate renovation to my personal tastes as being superior to a sympathetic/sensitive restoration to the original intents of the likes of Tillinghast, Emmett, Travis, Crump, Wilson, Flynn, MacKenzie, et al.  Armchair golf architecture is so much more satifying when humility and alternative points of view are both discarded - especially after a couple of drinks.

Tom MacWood:

1) It sounds like you and I disagree as to the definition of "fan".

2) I brought the peripheral issue up because, after Tom Paul got me thinking slightly off-topic anyway, it seemed like a fair thing to do.  A couple of folks have responded to it so one of Ran's goals for this DG seems to have been satisfied - if somewhat obliquely.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I don't think those two bunkers on the left are for the 15th at all. They are your prototypical GCGC bunkers where Travis imitated both sides of the fairway with bunkering like at #3 or #4. Look at their shape and placement in comparing it to the bunkering that existed at holes. Lets just say it was "good" repetitious!  

Tom Paul, As I said before, I have no doubt in my mind the hole provided play from that side--I'll let you figure out how much, but from my observation, it allowed differing lines of play.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- It has been my experience that great golf courses have a certain flow to them. Hard to put into words because each is different, like the character of a person. But, what I was asking for, is if there is anything about the flow of features that would assist you in understanding the significance of the 16th hole and whether that significance relates to not only the pond but the questions raised about other aspects of this hole. The flow I was asking about is in relationship to the holes preceeding and following. Almost like what Tommy says about the mirror image bunkers that he implies are a reocurring motiff. Is the 16th hole a breather, a builder or is it just an average hole for the course?

[TEPaul]

"May I ask what the point of this excercise is? Are you interested in restoring the 1898 golf course?"

Tom MacW:

What is the point of this excercise? It's simple really. If that green was moved, the next logical question is who moved it, who designed and built it and why did they do all that if there was something else there previously of another design and in another place?

If that green was moved then the subject gets into a comparative one as to the evolution of a very interesting old golf course. If Travis moved, redesigned and rebuilt that present green I'd think it would be interesting to know and I'd think the club would be interested if they're interested in the details of the evolution of their golf course and restoration.

Am I interested in restoring the 1898 course? Of course not but I am interested in how the golf course evolved in detail from the 1898 course. The 1898 course was Emmet/Hubbell. Travis definitely evolved the course from that 1898 course and exactly how he did it and in detail is interesting to know. It's also interesting to know what Emmet or anyone else may have done to the course after Travis died. It's interesting to know what anyone did to the course after Emmet died and on and on until the present. Basically that's nothing more than trying to track the architectural evolution of a golf course in detail from beginning to present. Once you've done all that you have the raw research material from which to make intelligent restoration decisions if restoration is something of interest. Apparently it is of interest to GCGC despite their glacial pace in doing it.

Why would it be important in the case of hole #16? It's simple. The club is trying to decide whether to remove a 1970s pond on that hole. Once they do that they’ll need to know what to replace it with. My recommendation would certainly be to try to decide what to replace it with before they decide to remove it but anyway they seem to want to do it the other way around. No problem, really, if they decide to remove it obviously they will replace it with something else. But what would that be?

And if and when they do decide to remove the pond and replace it with something else it would be interesting to know now where that something else came from, who did it, when and why. This to me is all just part of the raw research of intelligent restoration architecture.

Now, you seem to have said that if they remove the pond they should restore a bunker in its place that shows up on that 1930s something aerial and which you believe was put there by Devereaux Emmet. If that green was moved by Travis, and Travis redesigned the rest of the hole, as he apparently did, from what was originally Emmet don’t you think it would be interesting to know what Travis had to the left of #16 green? It appears the club and some of us may have some idea what Travis did have to the left of the 16th green (something once described as “asparagus bed” mounds or “nutmeg graters laid on their side”).  

Once the club has that kind of evolutionary information they can decide what to do next, basically if they want to restore to Travis or Emmet or whatever in that area. You seem to advocate restoring to a bunker Emmet put there. But does the club care what a guy from Ohio or a guy from Philadelphia who has nothing to do with the club thinks should go there? I have no idea—probably not. Do you think they really care what somebody says Darwin or Hutchinson said about the look of the course generally once? I don’t know, maybe they do maybe they don’t. They can decide that someday, I hope, and we’ll all see.

Then there may be some practical issues to do with what’s restored there if they decide to remove the 1970s pond. If there was a wetness issue in that immediate area what does anyone suppose would work better there---a bunker with some depth or mounds that may look like an asparagus bed or nutmeg graters? Seems to me logically the latter may work better for obvious reasons of resolving wetness issues and what that does to maintenance and playability but I’m not certain of that. Drainage issues, in that vein, could probably be resolved now on that score with a little more practical research.

And what about the rest of the hole? What about what appears to have been some pretty interesting width on that fairway and its mid-body and potentially interesting lines of play? It looks to most from that aerial that the hole once had that width. What happened to it? Did Emmet shrink it down after Travis died? Emmet was apparently known to advocate narrower fairways if one’s to believe his specific quotes on that very subject in regard to GCGC that can be found in the history book. Did Travis believe in narrowness or width? Hard to say but judging from what he apparently did on that hole it appears he may have believed in general width broken up by bunkering inside fairway lines that may have in effect created some relatively narrow multi optional lines of play!! Some of us think that’s interesting. Some of us think that highly strategic architecture. Max Behr certainly did.

With all this now we may even be getting into some comparisons between the philosophies of Emmet and Travis—a comparison GCGC may be interested in, to say the least! Those types of comparisons are also a lot of what we all try to do on this website.

Again, did that #16 green move left? Judging from a general placement comparison of that Emmet 1898 course drawing you say was done in 1950 to the aerials above it sure appears to me it did. Either that drawing is wrong or the green pretty much seems like it had to have been moved. One can see if a golfer standing at the approach to that old 1898 green in that 1950 drawing hit a ball over that old green and over the trees behind it the ball would probably land on the 3rd green behind it. That certainly can’t be said if someone hit a ball 30 yards over the present 16th green. If they did that the ball would probably be 45 or more yards to the left of the 3rd green. The important thing to note is according to the history book that 3rd green has never moved! It’s been in its present place since the original nine hole course at GCGC in 1897.

I don’t know if these things are true or not, I’m just trying to find out—but I’d like to find out and I’d suspect GCGC would too. I’d like to look at some of those old 1900 or 1905 drawings to see how they compare to the 1950 one as well as to these aerials. If a green was moved, determining who did it when and why is not an insignificant thing on a golf course with GCGC’s history and heritage. Matter of fact, the evolution of every green and every hole at GCGC should be checked and documented. A course like that deserves it, in my opinion. Then the club can better understand what to do if restoration to their interesting heritage of two (and more) architects is to be in the cards for them.

[T_MacWood]

Fascinating...the club has all the drawings and aerials, including a drawing post-Travis and pre-Emmet II. Perhaps you can take all my research (of course in conjunction with the most recent club history that you are working from at present) and really get to the bottom of this.

But does the club care what a guy from Ohio or a guy from Philadelphia who has nothing to do with the club thinks should go there? I have no idea—probably not.

 I agree, but I do think they may be thankful a guy from Ohio spent a good amount of his time digging up the 'raw research material'.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

"Fascinating...the club has all the drawings and aerials, including a drawing post-Travis and pre-Emmet II. Perhaps you can take all my research (of course in conjunction with the most recent club history that you are working from at present) and really get to the bottom of this.

But does the club care what a guy from Ohio or a guy from Philadelphia who has nothing to do with the club thinks should go there? I have no idea—probably not.

I agree, but I do think they may be thankful a guy from Ohio spent a good amount of his time digging up the 'raw research material'."

Tom;

Perhaps. To me there's a huge difference between having it all and doing something effective with it. Collecting really good research is hugely important--the all important first step, in my opinion. But doing something with it in detail such as really analyzing it is surely the all important second step--certianly if a club is interested in a really good restoration.

When I hear members and such who are interested in really good restoration saying things like "I assume" or "I suppose" about the architectural evolution of a golf course like GCGC and the detail of it I pretty much know they either haven't got that research material or they may have it but they aren't really analyzing it correctly.

I see enough courses today who have always had it either at the club or out there somewhere that collected it and started analyzing it correctly in a restoration effort. That would include the likes of NGLA, Gulf Stream, Yeamans, Fox Chapel, Mountain Lake, Kittansett, Plainfield, Skokie, Aronomink, maybe Merion and even my own golf course. There are even some others like PVGC that have it but need to really look carefully at it.

The same for GCGC. Hopefully they'll get it all together and really analyze it in detail and do something comprehensive in a restoration. Then, I'm certain they will be very grateful to the guy from Ohio who gave it all to them in the first place if that's what you've done.

I'd love to see it all myself just for my own education as much as anything else. I'd like to see those old drawings at least to see if that 16th green got moved. If that 1950 drawing of the 1898 course is in any way accurate and in scale, at least the 1898 16th green placement--something is going on there that needs some explaining and clarification. The way that green is now compared to the 1950 drawing of 1898 just doesn't compute.