Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on November 08, 2015, 09:16:08 PM
-
of same maximize the options of play on this hole ?
This thread's premise is based upon the entire area, front tier, hollow and back tier mowed as putting surface.
Biarritz's where the tee and green are at similar grade seem to allow for more options of play.
Mountain Lake would seem to present close to the ideal options for play.
As great a hole as # 9 at Yale is, play tends to be one dimensional.
Would you prefer to play a Biarritz where the green is well below the tee ?
Equal to the tee ?
Above the tee ?
WHY ?
-
I like the look of the downhill Biarritz at Old MacDonald, but I think the flat hole works best to help one skip that tee shot to the back tier.
-
Bill,
I agree that the visual is more informative with the elevated tee.
I wonder what the ideal differential is with respect to providing enhanced visibility while maximizing the playing characteristics
-
I played the Biarritz at Shoreacreas the other day which is at the same level as the tee. I enjoyed the mostly hidden swale. When my ball hit the front tier and rolled, it disappeared for a few seconds, and then magically reappeared as it rolled up the back of the swale and onto the back tier. The suspense of waiting and wondering about my ball's fate made for some great fun. Would the same excitement exist if the green was lower or higher?
-
Bill,
I agree that the visual is more informative with the elevated tee.
I wonder what the ideal differential is with respect to providing enhanced visibility while maximizing the playing characteristics
I'm sticking with flat (or level is a better description). A downhill shot will stop more quickly, you lose the visual excitement with an uphill shot. Level the ball will run and you can see it happen.
-
Are there any examples of downhill Biarritz holes, where the front of the green slopes away towards the gully?
-
I may be mistaken, but I recall thinking that the downhill Biarritz at Old Mac worked well for exactly that reason - the front portion of the green is angled to propel the ball toward the back.
Here are two photos that (I think) illustrate this point:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5756/22279619614_fefbdf929c_c.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5773/22876360166_21a8cbcdbb_c.jpg)
And while I also tend to agree that you lose some of the visual appeal on an uphil Biarritz; the fifth at Fishers would seem to be an exception disproving that rule.
-
Yes. The example at the Old White is the best case for this discussion that I have seen.
Lester
-
Hard for me to answer that. If I remember correctly, at Hackensack GC the Biarritz hole the back portion of the green might be a tad higher with the other 2 sections lower.Bill Brightly took this pic of me on Hackensack's Biarritz hole.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af43/nashcarr/DSCF4644_zpsf925b9f8.jpg) (http://s992.photobucket.com/user/nashcarr/media/DSCF4644_zpsf925b9f8.jpg.html)
I think having the hole slightly above the the tee box would offer a better result on a well struck shot.
-
Being flat and open in front, Mountain Lake's biarritz hole (#5) allows for a lower shot to roll on the green, rather than only land on the green, especially helpful when the hole is on the back beyond the slope; the green narrows somewhat as it deepens making an aerial shot not only longer but more risky.
-
The back tier at Hackensack is higher than the front. And the back tier at Mountain Lake is also deceptively slightly higher. In both cases, long on these holes is just not a good idea with back tiers sloped back to front.
-
If we're honest with ourselves, I think we all know the Biarritz is an obsolete template. The only way I'm going to purposefully land a ProV1x short and run it through the swale is if the green is elevated above the tee severely enough that I miss out on the "joy" of watching the ball disappear and reappear anyways. It's still a satisfying shot when you hit a long iron to the rear section of the green and stick it a few feet from the pin, but I would happily take the bet against anyone who thinks we can go to a Biarritz hole somewhere in the US for a day and see more than 10% of the balls hit take the intended "disappear and reappear" route to the back plateau.
-
Back section at the Old White is higher as is the back section at Cavalier Golf & Yacht.
Lester
-
If we're honest with ourselves, I think we all know the Biarritz is an obsolete template. The only way I'm going to purposefully land a ProV1x short and run it through the swale is if the green is elevated above the tee severely enough that I miss out on the "joy" of watching the ball disappear and reappear anyways. It's still a satisfying shot when you hit a long iron to the rear section of the green and stick it a few feet from the pin, but I would happily take the bet against anyone who thinks we can go to a Biarritz hole somewhere in the US for a day and see more than 10% of the balls hit take the intended "disappear and reappear" route to the back plateau.
I've probably seen around 500 shots of this type on the Old Mac example so far this year. Way more than 10%, and far from obsolete.
Sven
-
If we're honest with ourselves, I think we all know the Biarritz is an obsolete template. The only way I'm going to purposefully land a ProV1x short and run it through the swale is if the green is elevated above the tee severely enough that I miss out on the "joy" of watching the ball disappear and reappear anyways. It's still a satisfying shot when you hit a long iron to the rear section of the green and stick it a few feet from the pin, but I would happily take the bet against anyone who thinks we can go to a Biarritz hole somewhere in the US for a day and see more than 10% of the balls hit take the intended "disappear and reappear" route to the back plateau.
I do not disagree, the Pro V1 has helped make the template obsolete for many players.
However, I've come to believe that the single most important feature of a good Biarritz is a REALLY firm putting surface. When the rear portion is really firm at Hackensack balls flown to the back will roll over and then it is straight downhill. That changes EVERYTHING when planning your shot on the tee. Of course, the front section has to be really firm as well so that the ball does not check and the first bounce is significant, and the ball can make it through the swale to the back section. Sadly, these firm conditions are usually only present in October when the superintendent does not have to water as much to keep the greens healthy.
Although I have not played the hole, I imagine that the approach at Fishers is extremely firm and that is why their hole works so well.
-
If we're honest with ourselves, I think we all know the Biarritz is an obsolete template. The only way I'm going to purposefully land a ProV1x short and run it through the swale is if the green is elevated above the tee severely enough that I miss out on the "joy" of watching the ball disappear and reappear anyways. It's still a satisfying shot when you hit a long iron to the rear section of the green and stick it a few feet from the pin, but I would happily take the bet against anyone who thinks we can go to a Biarritz hole somewhere in the US for a day and see more than 10% of the balls hit take the intended "disappear and reappear" route to the back plateau.
Jason,
I'm going to tentatively disagree with you here. I've played two Biarritz holes this year (Lookout Mountain and Midland Hills) and I played both holes with a running shot. I'll agree with you that the Pro V has had some impact on this type of hole on the average American conditioned course, but the long nature of the hole (typically over 200 yards) means balls are coming in with a flatter trajectory. Maybe for pros or plus handicaps the play is to fly a long iron to the back tier, but most people are hitting hybrids or fairway woods that probably aren't going to hold.
The "disappearing" shot may be mitigated because it is not the only option as it was 100 years ago, but I wouldn't go as far to say this type of feature is obsolete. If the hole is played at 170, it's silly to run a ball up with modern technology, but my two experiences at a longer distance allowed the hole to play as designed.
-
Joe,
Did you play the running shot because you study GCA and thought it would be fun? Or was it the best shot for you to get to the hole location?
We are restoring a Biarritz at my home club, and while I am excited and think the green will be fun regardless, I do not expect players who have the ability to fly it to the hole to choose not to.
-
If we're honest with ourselves, I think we all know the Biarritz is an obsolete template. The only way I'm going to purposefully land a ProV1x short and run it through the swale is if the green is elevated above the tee severely enough that I miss out on the "joy" of watching the ball disappear and reappear anyways. It's still a satisfying shot when you hit a long iron to the rear section of the green and stick it a few feet from the pin, but I would happily take the bet against anyone who thinks we can go to a Biarritz hole somewhere in the US for a day and see more than 10% of the balls hit take the intended "disappear and reappear" route to the back plateau.
Jason,
I'm going to tentatively disagree with you here. I've played two Biarritz holes this year (Lookout Mountain and Midland Hills) and I played both holes with a running shot. I'll agree with you that the Pro V has had some impact on this type of hole on the average American conditioned course, but the long nature of the hole (typically over 200 yards) means balls are coming in with a flatter trajectory. Maybe for pros or plus handicaps the play is to fly a long iron to the back tier, but most people are hitting hybrids or fairway woods that probably aren't going to hold.
The "disappearing" shot may be mitigated because it is not the only option as it was 100 years ago, but I wouldn't go as far to say this type of feature is obsolete. If the hole is played at 170, it's silly to run a ball up with modern technology, but my two experiences at a longer distance allowed the hole to play as designed.
Joe:
Your point on the distance of the hole is a key aspect of the template. CBM's original intent had a distance of 210 yards, and that was in 1907.
Sven
-
Keith,
I thought it was the best play. Both holes I referenced played about 210-220 yards to the pin on the back plateau. I chose to hit my 3 iron to the front part of the green and hoped it ran back. Another option would be to try and fly my 5 wood to the back. but I didn't think that was the prudent play considering a miss with the running shot probably leaves me short while a miss with the longer club leaves me to the sides of the green.
There aren't many players who can hit a 200 yard shot that lands softly. For those who can fly it there, the hole might not be as much fun, but why worry about how it plays for 1% of the rounds when 99% of players can have all the fun? If the best players want to play the hole as designed, they certainly have the skill to hit a low running shot through the valley.
And I will add, I agree with Bill on the firmness. Both of my rounds were on relatively dry days where I could count on a bounce.
-
Joe:
Your point on the distance of the hole is a key aspect of the template. CBM's original intent had a distance of 210 yards, and that was in 1907.
Sven
Sven,
210 yards in 1907 might be comparable to 240-250 now? I wonder how a biarritz at this length would play? It would be very daunting if I had to try and hit a 3 wood or driver on this type of hole, but it would guarantee that my shot was a running one. Are there any examples of the biarritz today at this length?
I'm not advocating that the hole should be lengthened to this level, but I'm curious how it would play. Then again, the average golfer should still be hitting a fairway metal at 210 yards even today. Even with new technology, I don't think it is obsolete.
-
Joe,
Did you play the running shot because you study GCA and thought it would be fun? Or was it the best shot for you to get to the hole location?
We are restoring a Biarritz at my home club, and while I am excited and think the green will be fun regardless, I do not expect players who have the ability to fly it to the hole to choose not to.
They will fly it there, Keith. It's kind of funny but the older guys at your club, the ones who can barely reach the green with driver, will have the most fun on the hole. They'll get the thrill of the ball disappearing into the swale and then reappearing on the back portion.
Here's an idea that I tried to get started at my club: Rather than a putting contest after a member guest, have a Biarritz shot contest. Everyone gets two or three shots. Closest to the pin wins but the ball must first land on the front tier. Golf Chairman shot me down, but I think it would be a cool way to show the membership how the hole was designed to be played.
-
Bill:
Your Biarritz is 224 and 230 yards from the Blues and Blacks. How many guys are flying it to the hole from back there?
Or is most of the play from the 200 yard range?
Sven
-
Sven,
Our Biarritz plays 245-260 from the Blacks! (We added a new back tee at the suggestion of George Bahto.!)
And all the guys fly it there...
-
Sven,
Our Biarritz plays 245-260 from the Blacks! (We added a new back tee at the suggestion of George Bahto.!)
And all the guys fly it there...
Maybe I've been watching golf on firm turf for too long. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around "all the guys" hitting and holding the back portion of a Biarritz from 260 yards.
Even from 200 yards, I have to think the running shot is the preferred play for about 95% of players.
-
Sven,
Our Biarritz plays 245-260 from the Blacks! (We added a new back tee at the suggestion of George Bahto.!)
And all the guys fly it there...
Maybe I've been watching golf on firm turf for too long. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around "all the guys" hitting and holding the back portion of a Biarritz from 260 yards.
Even from 200 yards, I have to think the running shot is the preferred play for about 95% of players.
Sven,
I'm with you.
I want to know who's flying irons 240-260 to the middle of the back tier and holding the green.
And I want to know what Biarritz they're playing
Why do so many address architectural and playability issues as if they're golfers of PGA TOUR PRO caliber?
I've played with a good number of GCA.comers and lurkers and the only ones who played like a PGA TOUR PRO, were PGA TOUR PROS😜
-
The Biarritz at Cabot Links is 230 yards from the Green tees which is a pretty good poke. That is about the length of my average drive so I have no choice but to run the ball in.
-
If a Biarritz is 220 a cross bunker would normally be around 180 from the tee. Am [size=78%]I the only one that would have trouble trying to hit a low shot that flies more that 180, stays straight and does not fly to the back? I personally am better off hitting a full high hybrid and hoping for the back tier. That is more a statement about my game though.[/size]
-
If a Biarritz is 220 a cross bunker would normally be around 180 from the tee. Am [size=78%]I the only one that would have trouble trying to hit a low shot that flies more that 180, stays straight and does not fly to the back? I personally am better off hitting a full high hybrid and hoping for the back tier. That is more a statement about my game though.[/size]
Keith:
Where do you get the thought that a cross bunker is an essential element of the hole? Flanking bunkers are a different story.
Sven
-
According to the pin sheet, they never pin the front of the Biarritz at Old Mac. Does that take away from its credentials as a Biarritz? Why would you not pin the front of a Biarritz from time to time? I found the Biarritz at Old Mac to kick hard from right to left, an added challenge to the hole.
The first one I played was at Fox Chapel. Pounded that three-iron to the front, ran it up to the back and had a look at birdie. I was hooked. Yale's B unfortunately has that steep-ass back portion, which I think makes it harder to pin (am I correct?)
When I visited Camargo, I found that they cut the front portion to fairway height and believe that all B should be configured like this.
Lots of food for thought. I think a slightly elevated tee works best, but not one that turns it into a drop-shot hole.
-
Ron:
"Green behind the swale." Go back and read what CBM wrote about the template.
Sven
-
Am [size=78%]I the only one that would have trouble trying to hit a low shot that flies more that 180, stays straight and does not fly to the back?[/size]
I keep coming back to this thought from Keith.
First, the idea of keeping the shot straight is exactly the challenge CBM was trying to create.
Second, and a reason that I don't think any hole of this style with a cross-hazard (like Yale) is a true Biarritz, I don't think he really cared how you covered the ultimate yardage.
Sven
-
Ron:
"Green behind the swale." Go back and read what CBM wrote about the template.
Sven
I don't know what this means. i don't have any writings from CBM at my disposal, so I'll have to count on you for elaboration. Wasn't the Biarritz originally in France? Was CBM describing the original or was he giving his own opinion.
-
Second, and a reason that I don't think any hole of this style with a cross-hazard (like Yale) is a true Biarritz, I don't think he really cared how you covered the ultimate yardage.
Sven
Didn't the original Biarritz traverse a canyon? Would said canyon be considered a cross-hazard?
-
Second, and a reason that I don't think any hole of this style with a cross-hazard (like Yale) is a true Biarritz, I don't think he really cared how you covered the ultimate yardage.
Sven
Didn't the original Biarritz traverse a canyon?
No.
-
Sven and Pat,
The hole can measure 260 from the Black tee when the pin is all the way back. A pin in the center of back section plays 245, so it is a 230 carry to make it over the swale.
That is just about my maximum carry these days, but I can hold the green with a high driver that just carries the swale.(Except when the green is really firm.)
The bigger hitters use 3 wood or rescue club. Remember, the back section is 30 yards deep, so there is room for the ball to stop.
Sven, I agree that carrying the ball 200 and letting it roll out would seem like a better play than using out driver. I tried that but there are two problems: 1) If my 200 yard shot was too elevated it did not have enough roll to make it up the swale and 2) when I tries forcing a low draw or some other shot that would fly low and roll out, my direction was poor and I was missing left or right in the short flanking bunkers. That was leaving a really difficult 30-40 yard bunker shot and I was lucky if I made bogey. So I went back to using 3 wood or 3 rescue from the Blue tees, and driver from the Blacks, taking my chances with the back side bunkers when I miss.
-
Sven,
In the Evangelist, George Bahto states that the Biarritz usually has a framing bunker short of the green. I have played Piping Rock, Chicago, Westhampton and Tamarack which all have the framing bunkers short. I have also played Fishers Island, Yale and The Creek Club all of which require you to carry the ball some distance in the air.
-
Bill,
The back tier at your course is very large, as is Forsgates.
Westhamptons is much smaller.
The carry at your course is more than 230.
What amateur plays a hole/feature that requires a minimum carry of 230, at 230 ?
Most would play it at 240 to allow for margins of error, wind, etc,. etc..
Nobody's hitting irons and regularly flying them straight at 240 other than the PGA Tour Pros
-
Hello again,
Because there are so many variables, this thread is difficult to give answer...
1. the origins of this style are still nebulous to me; I've never heard a definitive answer as to which of the original French course (or amalgam) was grafted in the first iterations made over here.
2. the intents of the style are still unclear to me; the maintenance of the front pad as green or fairway (and finding pleasure in both) has solid arguments of facility and appearance on either side .
3. the contemporary application of this style is still in doubt with me; I think a 200-230 shot, "behaving like that..." was much more natural adjunct/natural point of challenge to the players and equipment of the era in which it was founded, then to the hi-flying, go far controlled spin properties of the game today. I think if Mac or Raynor or Banks watched a crack player of today loft a 7-iron to the front pad of Yale's Biarritz, they would be appreciative of the skill, but disappointed in what the hole permitted or provoked.
The only thing I can kind of hang my hat on is that in whole or in part, is that I believe Charlie thought you should "see" the shot; that part of the amusement and conjuring of the hole is to have that moment when you see the fortune of your shot...that a contour such as this is essentially pointless if the player is blind to the action.
With that one notice in mind, I have to think that the hole is best realized (despite the other unsettled matters) when it is AT LEAST level, or a tad downhill.
cheers
vk
-
Sven,
In the Evangelist, George Bahto states that the Biarritz usually has a framing bunker short of the green. I have played Piping Rock, Chicago, Westhampton and Tamarack which all have the framing bunkers short. I have also played Fishers Island, Yale and The Creek Club all of which require you to carry the ball some distance in the air.
Keith:
George also thought the inspiration for this hole was the Chasm Hole at Biarritz. It was not.
This is taken from David Moriarty's description of the origin's of the hole in The Original Biarritz thread, which is worth a read (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.75.html):
Briefly on the history of the original concept . . .[/size]CBM and Whigham visited Biarritz (with Arnaud Massy) in early 1906 on their tour of great courses in preparation for the creation of NGLA, and CBM mentioned what became known as his Biarritz concept shortly thereafter in a letter printed in a June 20, 1906 NY Sun article about his recent trip abroad: "The best holes have not been found on the five British championship links alone. . . . The idea for one hole comes from Biarritz. The hole in question is not a good one, but it revealed a fine and original principle that will be incorporated into my selection." No mention of the famous chasm --the description of the hole as "not very good" would seem an incongruous reference if he was referring to the famous Chasm. While CBM referred to the 12th hole, at that time the Chasm hole at Biarritz was the 3rd hole and was only around 100 yards or less, and flipping the nines doesn't work because of quirks in the layout. And I have never read any description of the famous Chasm Hole that mentioned a hogs-back or a swale, or the method of playing using the ground game. So, as far as I can tell, the original Biarritz concept was based on a different hole at Biarritz, likely one down by the water in the Chambre d'Amore (the 12th on the map.)CBM expanded on the description later that year in his article on ideal holes in Outing Magazine where he provided a sample listing of 18 holes: "15. 210 yards. Suggested by 12th Biarritz making sharp hog back in the middle of the course. Stopping thirty yards from the hole bunkered to the right of the green and good low ground to the left of the plateau green." Again no mention of the famous Chasm. Rather, CBM described a "sharp hog back" in the middle of the course [hole] ending 30 yards short. And the green is a plateau, with a large swale short of the green. H.J. Whigham repeated this early understanding in 1913 when describing the inspiration for Piping Rock's Biarritz: "There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green." Again, nothing about a Chasm, and nothing indicating that they were referring to the Chasm Hole (which was quite famous and called "The Chasm") as opposed to a less noteworthy hole at Biarritz.
Sven[/size]
-
The only thing I can kind of hang my hat on is that in whole or in part, is that I believe Charlie thought you should "see" the shot; that part of the amusement and conjuring of the hole is to have that moment when you see the fortune of your shot...that a contour such as this is essentially pointless if the player is blind to the action.
I believe the second Biarritz CBM built was at St. Louis CC, which opened around 1914. The green is elevated above the tee: you cannot see your shot run through the swale. So almost from the start, he apparently wasn't that concerned about blindness.
-
Thank you, Sven. That answers the second of my questions...or was it the first? Or both?
-
When I played the Biarritz in April 2014, my 7 iron with the ProV1x landed a few feet short of the pin, on the green, pretty close to the pin, ... an awfully good shot, I'd have to say ... then took one bounce and rolled across the tier and into the deep swale. My next three strokes had me feeling like Sisyphus, but my fourth putt made it to the top of the putting surface where, disheartened, I didn't give the hole any more opportunities to savage me. None of that shock of delight at the tee for me, as my ball disappeared into the swale, the deep and wide swale, and seemed to die there.
At the end of my quick tour around the course, I circled back to the Biarritz and hit an 8 iron, which landed about 8-10 feet short of the green, started rolling smoothly at once, and wound up close enough to the hole to kick in. As no one else was on the course and daylight still remained, I went back to the tee and played the hole again, with two more 8 irons this time, and achieved the same result as previously, with more or less long kick-ins. No longer a tragic Greek figure, I decided the Biarritz in West Virginia was at least the equal to the one in Connecticut, with the advantage that, unlike at Yale, I didn't have to see my desolate tee shot staring at me as I worked myself all the way to the hole.
-
Back to Keith's point on the cross-bunkers or hazards. There are more examples of Biarritz holes built without this type of obstacle than those with it. Shoreacres, the Links Club, Sleepy Hollow, etc. There are a few where the flanking bunkers pinch the opening to the hole (see the Deepdale hole as a prime example).
I believe that CBM thought that the shot required would be in the air, I don't think he ever envisioned the hole being played by carrying the ball all the way to the back tier. The shot demanded by this template was a ball that would land on or near the "hogsback" or front portion of the green (whether grassed as such or not) which would bounce and roll through the swale to the back portion. The key to the hole was being able to judge where the ball would first bounce and how it would react after that point (with historical distance ideas and firmness of turf back then being kept in mind). This thought may have changed in certain instances, with the hole at Yale being an interesting if not overthought discussion.
The question as to whether or not the original concept has now become obsolete depends on who you talk to. Assuming the hole is pinned in the back section, the great majority of players are still going to attack the hole as CBM envisioned. For the elite, the hole becomes a long drop and stop hole.
But does this make it obsolete? If so, are there holes at ANGC that are now obsolete as they are played by the pros in a different manner than the architects intended? Did the unreachable par 5's on tour become obsolete once Tiger started dropping 3-woods to 15 feet?
-
The reason that the Biarritz is obsolete in my eyes while the holes at Augusta are not is simple: The holes at Augusta are still compelling even if they don’t play exactly as Mackenzie and Jones envisioned. The Biarritz, on the other hand, is a one-trick pony. The template calls for a long, flat green (aside from the swale itself) with penal bunkering. For the player who can carry the ball to the back tier, it’s a wholly uninteresting idea where the architectural challenge is almost entirely determined by whether or not the tee shot hits its target. The Biarritz can be very exciting for the <80 mph swing speed guy who carries the ball 200 yards or less and is playing the right course in the right conditions that allow his ball to bounce out of sight and then reappear, but it’s pretty dull for the guy who can just hit it over the swale. For the latter, it’s just funky-looking target golf with a flat putt awaiting a good strike and punishment awaiting a poor one. It’s not entirely the hole’s fault of course – much of the hole’s interest has been compromised by equipment changes that Macdonald couldn’t have foreseen. But as a lover of long par 3s who plays them with modern equipment and a 105 mph swing speed, I’m not enthralled with the Biarritz.
I did play Black Creek last year, with its meaty Biarritz that’s intended to give a player in 2015 a taste of what it was like hitting at a Biarritz in 1915. We went back to 270 and hit a ball with our drivers just for fun. Maybe if I had hit the shot well enough to watch it run through the swale I would’ve chortled with joy, but I suspect I’d only pull that shot off one out of every 15 plays at best. It’s just not a template that scales well for the modern game in my eyes. I think a good Short or Eden hole can be more exciting today than it was in Macdonald’s day, and the Redan has never stopped being a blast to play. But it seems to me that the Biarritz is decisively less interesting today than it used to be.
-
Bill,
The back tier at your course is very large, as is Forsgates.
Westhamptons is much smaller.
The carry at your course is more than 230.
What amateur plays a hole/feature that requires a minimum carry of 230, at 230 ?
Most would play it at 240 to allow for margins of error, wind, etc,. etc..
Nobody's hitting irons and regularly flying them straight at 240 other than the PGA Tour Pros
I played the hole from the Blacks two weeks ago. The pin was in the back of the green and I shot the distance at 256. I'd say the pin was 10 paces back from center, so let's call dead center of the green 246, ok? The entire green including swale is 78 yards deep. The swale is about 12 yards deep from front to back. The back portion of the green is about 36 yards deep. So there is 18 yards from the center of the (back) green to the edge of the swale. 246-18=228.
But I will shoot those specific distances the next time I am there.
-
Sven,
In the Evangelist, George Bahto states that the Biarritz usually has a framing bunker short of the green. I have played Piping Rock, Chicago, Westhampton and Tamarack which all have the framing bunkers short. I have also played Fishers Island, Yale and The Creek Club all of which require you to carry the ball some distance in the air.
Keith:
George also thought the inspiration for this hole was the Chasm Hole at Biarritz. It was not.
This is taken from David Moriarty's description of the origin's of the hole in The Original Biarritz thread, which is worth a read (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.75.html):
Briefly on the history of the original concept . . .[/size]CBM and Whigham visited Biarritz (with Arnaud Massy) in early 1906 on their tour of great courses in preparation for the creation of NGLA, and CBM mentioned what became known as his Biarritz concept shortly thereafter in a letter printed in a June 20, 1906 NY Sun article about his recent trip abroad: "The best holes have not been found on the five British championship links alone. . . . The idea for one hole comes from Biarritz. The hole in question is not a good one, but it revealed a fine and original principle that will be incorporated into my selection." No mention of the famous chasm --the description of the hole as "not very good" would seem an incongruous reference if he was referring to the famous Chasm. While CBM referred to the 12th hole, at that time the Chasm hole at Biarritz was the 3rd hole and was only around 100 yards or less, and flipping the nines doesn't work because of quirks in the layout. And I have never read any description of the famous Chasm Hole that mentioned a hogs-back or a swale, or the method of playing using the ground game. So, as far as I can tell, the original Biarritz concept was based on a different hole at Biarritz, likely one down by the water in the Chambre d'Amore (the 12th on the map.)CBM expanded on the description later that year in his article on ideal holes in Outing Magazine where he provided a sample listing of 18 holes: "15. 210 yards. Suggested by 12th Biarritz making sharp hog back in the middle of the course. Stopping thirty yards from the hole bunkered to the right of the green and good low ground to the left of the plateau green." Again no mention of the famous Chasm. Rather, CBM described a "sharp hog back" in the middle of the course [hole] ending 30 yards short. And the green is a plateau, with a large swale short of the green. H.J. Whigham repeated this early understanding in 1913 when describing the inspiration for Piping Rock's Biarritz: "There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green." Again, nothing about a Chasm, and nothing indicating that they were referring to the Chasm Hole (which was quite famous and called "The Chasm") as opposed to a less noteworthy hole at Biarritz.
Sven[/size]
Sven,
Can you expand on how the approach of this hole may have been bunkered? Were there hazards on both sides?
-
According to the pin sheet, they never pin the front of the Biarritz at Old Mac. Does that take away from its credentials as a Biarritz? Why would you not pin the front of a Biarritz from time to time? I found the Biarritz at Old Mac to kick hard from right to left, an added challenge to the hole.
The first one I played was at Fox Chapel. Pounded that three-iron to the front, ran it up to the back and had a look at birdie. I was hooked. Yale's B unfortunately has that steep-ass back portion, which I think makes it harder to pin (am I correct?)
When I visited Camargo, I found that they cut the front portion to fairway height and believe that all B should be configured like this.
Lots of food for thought. I think a slightly elevated tee works best, but not one that turns it into a drop-shot hole.
Ron,
My opinion is that the pin should almost never be placed in the front section. (I kid with our superintendent that it is OK to put it there for outings only when he wants to give the grass in back a rest.) My reasoning is that the front section was designed to be the approach on every Biarritz (yes Pat, even Yale's!) and the challenge was to run it between the hazards in order to reach the putting surface. The fact that most courses are maintaining the front section at putting surface height does NOT mean a pin belongs there. In fact, it turns a very difficult hole into a rather boring 170-180 par three. And if you really care about your handicap, every time you play to a front pin your playing a course that is rated too highly...
I agree the front should be maintained as putting surface because that is the best way to replicate the very firm surface that probably existed when Macdonald, Raynor and Banks built their holes before modern irrigation systems were installed. Just don't put the pin there and NEVER in the swale, unless you want something goofy for a Greenskeepers Revenge day .
-
Sven,
In the Evangelist, George Bahto states that the Biarritz usually has a framing bunker short of the green. I have played Piping Rock, Chicago, Westhampton and Tamarack which all have the framing bunkers short. I have also played Fishers Island, Yale and The Creek Club all of which require you to carry the ball some distance in the air.
Keith:
George also thought the inspiration for this hole was the Chasm Hole at Biarritz. It was not.
This is taken from David Moriarty's description of the origin's of the hole in The Original Biarritz thread, which is worth a read (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.75.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.75.html)):
Briefly on the history of the original concept . . .CBM and Whigham visited Biarritz (with Arnaud Massy) in early 1906 on their tour of great courses in preparation for the creation of NGLA, and CBM mentioned what became known as his Biarritz concept shortly thereafter in a letter printed in a June 20, 1906 NY Sun article about his recent trip abroad: "The best holes have not been found on the five British championship links alone. . . . The idea for one hole comes from Biarritz. The hole in question is not a good one, but it revealed a fine and original principle that will be incorporated into my selection." No mention of the famous chasm --the description of the hole as "not very good" would seem an incongruous reference if he was referring to the famous Chasm. While CBM referred to the 12th hole, at that time the Chasm hole at Biarritz was the 3rd hole and was only around 100 yards or less, and flipping the nines doesn't work because of quirks in the layout. And I have never read any description of the famous Chasm Hole that mentioned a hogs-back or a swale, or the method of playing using the ground game. So, as far as I can tell, the original Biarritz concept was based on a different hole at Biarritz, likely one down by the water in the Chambre d'Amore (the 12th on the map.)CBM expanded on the description later that year in his article on ideal holes in Outing Magazine where he provided a sample listing of 18 holes: "15. 210 yards. Suggested by 12th Biarritz making sharp hog back in the middle of the course. Stopping thirty yards from the hole bunkered to the right of the green and good low ground to the left of the plateau green." Again no mention of the famous Chasm. Rather, CBM described a "sharp hog back" in the middle of the course [hole] ending 30 yards short. And the green is a plateau, with a large swale short of the green. H.J. Whigham repeated this early understanding in 1913 when describing the inspiration for Piping Rock's Biarritz: "There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green." Again, nothing about a Chasm, and nothing indicating that they were referring to the Chasm Hole (which was quite famous and called "The Chasm") as opposed to a less noteworthy hole at Biarritz.
Sven
Sven,
Can you expand on how the approach of this hole may have been bunkered? Were there hazards on both sides?
Bill:
From the original description of the template from CBM's write up of his ideal course, there was to be a bunker on the right and low ground to the left. In front of the "green" was the hogsback feature, which we now see incorporated as the front portion of the green.
The most common theme I've seen is to have flanking bunkers on each side of the green. Sometimes they extend all the way up to the hogsback, sometimes they are just located by the rear portion. In some instances, those bunkers pinch in just before the landing area, allowing a shorter straight ball to run through but punishing those slightly off line. In certain instances, a carry at least to the front of the hogsback was required, but that was the exception rather than the rule. As always, CBM and SR were adapting these holes to the land available.
I agree with you that the front portion should never be pinned. If it is, it just isn't a Biarritz hole. I also think that the holes should be of a length to require the type of shot CBM envisioned (excepting how Jason and the rest of the 105+ swing speed crowd play the hole). In addition, the green surface should be firm enough so that any ball landing on the back portion only has a slight chance of holding the green.
The two modern Biarritz's that we talk about (Black Creek and OM) come up a bit short in meeting the original concept. OM is just too short of a hole, although it is very hard to hit and hold that back portion. Its saving grace is that it is on just about the firmest turf you'll find in the U.S. Black Creek's is also a shorter version (adapting for distance changes over time). They do have a back set of tees stretching out to 240 (I'm not so sure about the 270 number Jason threw out there, perhaps they have a way back set that's not on their card), but the tees most folks are going to be playing only stretch the hole out to a little more than the yardage CBM was building.
There's an interesting discussion somewhere in here about the lengthening of ANGC while maintaining the members tees and the lack of lengthening in general of Biarritz holes over the years. I'd guess most of them still play close to their original yardages, with some perhaps having been lengthened a bit but none "tiger-proofed." Jason is right that the hole does still work very well for a set of golfers, he just underestimates how big that set is. And he and I can agree to disagree on the interest of the hole, he probably wouldn't appreciate the thought that someone who could play the aerial route might choose to play the running shot, even if it wasn't the scorecard prudent method.
Sven
-
The two modern Biarritz's that we talk about (Black Creek and OM) come up a bit short in meeting the original concept. OM is just too short of a hole, although it is very hard to hit and hold that back portion. Its saving grace is that it is on just about the firmest turf you'll find in the U.S. Black Creek's is also a shorter version (adapting for distance changes over time). They do have a back set of tees stretching out to 240 (I'm not so sure about the 270 number Jason threw out there, perhaps they have a way back set that's not on their card), but the tees most folks are going to be playing only stretch the hole out to a little more than the yardage CBM was building.
There's an interesting discussion somewhere in here about the lengthening of ANGC while maintaining the members tees and the lack of lengthening in general of Biarritz holes over the years. I'd guess most of them still play close to their original yardages, with some perhaps having been lengthened a bit but none "tiger-proofed." Jason is right that the hole does still work very well for a set of golfers, he just underestimates how big that set is. And he and I can agree to disagree on the interest of the hole, he probably wouldn't appreciate the thought that someone who could play the aerial route might choose to play the running shot, even if it wasn't the scorecard prudent method.
Sven
Black Creek's Biarritz is around 285 yards from the back of the tee box to the back of the green. As Doug Stein discussed with us on the day we played, this was a very intentional decision to make it feasible to replicate the shot with modern equipment as closely as possible to what it would have been in Macdonald's day. He suggested before the round that we all try a shot from back there, and after my initial objection I gave it a go. Playing from near the back of the tee it was playing every bit of 270 during my round. Of course, we were only back there for kicks after hitting our "real" tee shots from about 230. I don't know how often the tees are moved all the way back, and I would guess it's not frequent.
And yeah, I'm not compelled by the options that become available when someone decides to abandon the "scorecard prudent method" for the sake of some giggles. You can convince yourself that almost any hole is interesting if you abandon the concept of trying to finish it in as few strokes as possible, but I think the object of the game is an important thing to keep in mind when evaluating golf holes. I guess that's just my inner retail golfer...
-
Jason:
I'd suggest you find Devereux Emmet's write-up on Piping Rock, in which he describes the merits of their Biarritz (the first built in the US). He calls it a "cleek shot" with a driver perhaps being necessary for the shorter players. Your Driver from 270 yards was probably overstepping the intentions of the hole by a bit. But since we've brought up strategy, perhaps you would have been better off dialing it back to a straighter club thus ensuring you'd hit the green and hope for the roll out. Surely you can hit your hybrid on a rope, even with your 105 mph swing speed, and at 285 to the back it must have been right in your range to land one on the front tier.
I'm sure Seve loved the Biarritz. Its a shot makers hole, where skills like delofting the club come into play. The game was more fun when everyone wasn't telling me how one-dimensional it should be.
Sven
-
Whenever we talk about how Biarritz holes play in 2015, it makes me wonder how they played when they were first built between the years 1910-1929.
How firm was the turf? And how would that turf comapre to the lush grass we play on today?
What was the first bounce like then compared to modern times? Did the ball bound forward or did it check a bit like it does so often now?
-
Bill:
Here are Emmet's words on Piping Rock from the Nov. 1913 edition of Golf Magazine:
"The ninth is a very uncommon hole. I have never seen one like it. There are two large greens, one beyond the other, with a hollow between them and serious trouble on either side in the shape of bunkers. It must be 220 yards (I speak from memory) from the tee to the center of the farthest green. It is slightly down hill, so that one can see exactly what there is to do. It will take a fine cleek shot or a difficult drive with wooden club by a second class player, as the gulley which separates the two greens must be run through at the end of the shot. This is one of the only good cleek holes I have ever seen. There is a slight upward slope beyond the green so that there may be no fear of hitting the ball a little too hard - the difficulty being to get there."
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Piping%20Rock%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20Nov.%201913%202_zpslte8slbj.png)
-
Sven,
This is a very important find.
It states, that in 1913, both the front and back tiers were maintained as putting surfaces.
Over the years we had heard a number of contributors claim to the contrary, but, Emmett's written words confirm that both tiers were maintained as putting surfaces/greens.
Bill:
Here are Emmet's words on Piping Rock from the Nov. 1913 edition of Golf Magazine:
"The ninth is a very uncommon hole. I have never seen one like it. There are two large greens, one beyond the other, with a hollow between them and serious trouble on either side in the shape of bunkers. It must be 220 yards (I speak from memory) from the tee to the center of the farthest green. It is slightly down hill, so that one can see exactly what there is to do. It will take a fine cleek shot or a difficult drive with wooden club by a second class player, as the gulley which separates the two greens must be run through at the end of the shot. This is one of the only good cleek holes I have ever seen. There is a slight upward slope beyond the green so that there may be no fear of hitting the ball a little too hard - the difficulty being to get there."
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Piping%20Rock%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20Nov.%201913%202_zpslte8slbj.png)
-
Pat:
Is it really that important? Emmet clearly delineates that the pin was in the back section.
Sven
-
Sven,
We have been doing some research on the Biarritz concept. Clearly, we have not had the same success as you have. I know you mention that most were not designed with bunkers short to frame the hole. The Piping Rock photo shows a framing bunker short. Do you have early photos or evidence of other holes that were built without that bunker? Thanks
Also, was Piping Rock the first Biarritz that Mac/Raynor built?
Thanks
-
Keith:
Piping Rock was the first.
Here are a few early aerials or map images of courses. Hopefully there's enough definition to pick out the Biarritz Holes.
Sleepy Hollow (top left of photo) -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Sleepy%20Hollow%20Aerial%201926_zpsx6kd2wpn.jpg)
Lido (far right, there was a carry over a sandy area before reaching the turf before the green) -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lidomapforsharing-2_zpslfs28twc.jpg)
Links Club (the Biarritz is pretty much right in the middle of the course) -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Links%20Club%20Aerial_zpsty980c24.jpg)
Shoreacres -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shoreacres%20Biarritz_zpsni9q1oin.png)
Yeaman's Hall -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Yeamans%20Biarritz_zps3wa9bicy.png)
-
Keith:
If your question has to do with a crossing bunker short of the front tier, here are some examples of courses that had them -
Blue Mound - had one in its early days, wasn't there last time I looked. Not sure if it was original.
Chicago Golf - had and still has one.
Fishers - no cross bunker, but you could say the terrain provides that feature.
Oakland - severe pinching of the flanking bunkers as well as two bunkers well short of the green.
Yale - same idea as Fishers.
The biggest confusion relating to this hole is that the mistaken thought that the Chasm Hole at Biarritz was its inspiration. Not only was the Chasm Hole no longer part of the course when CBM visited, he clearly notes that he took his concept for the par 3 Biarritz from the short par 4 12th Hole (the Chasm Hole, when it existed, was always part of the front 9). His writings on the template make no mention of a compulsory carry, but focus on the "hogsback" feature short of the green.
We do know his disdain for being able to putt your way all the way to a par 3. It isn't surprising that a cross bunker was added to some of their versions, just like how he "corrected" his version of the Eden at NGLA.
Hope this helps (I do have other photos and maps, but would have to search for them if you want to see them),
Sven
-
Thanks Sven. I am a bit less interested in the muse than I am in the product. Would you say that some cross bunker, or forced carry was present in most of the original MAc/Raynor versions? Or no?
-
"It isn't surprising that a cross bunker was added to some of their versions, just like how he "corrected" his version of the Eden at NGLA."
Sven -
I had not heard before that the Eden at NGLA was "corrected". Could you amplify?
Bob
-
Keith:
Its a tough question to answer, as most of the aerial photos I have are from 20 to 30 years after the courses were built. I will say I've been surprised going back through the old photos and course maps and seeing how many did. I might have to retract the "exception" comment.
Sven
-
"It isn't surprising that a cross bunker was added to some of their versions, just like how he "corrected" his version of the Eden at NGLA."
Sven -
I had not heard before that the Eden at NGLA was "corrected". Could you amplify?
Bob
Bob:
The correction was to the original St. Andrews layout, which could be played with a putter. CBM noted that he did not think the hole should be played that way, and designed his Eden at NGLA accordingly.
Sven
-
Gotcha. I had read your first comment to suggest that the Eden at NGLA had been redone at some point.
Bob
-
Sven,
This is a very important find.
It states, that in 1913, both the front and back tiers were maintained as putting surfaces.
Over the years we had heard a number of contributors claim to the contrary, but, Emmett's written words confirm that both tiers were maintained as putting surfaces/greens.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Piping%20Rock%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20Nov.%201913%202_zpslte8slbj.png)
Emmett did NOT say the front section was maintained as a putting surface. He merely referred to it as a green. And he described the length of the hole using only the rear portion, he did NOT give a wide yardage fluctuation such as "170-220." And the shading on the front section is obviously much darker than the rear, which would indicate a higher cut on the approach.
-
Sven, do you read Emmett's statement as saying the swale was also part of the green? Or does he indicate two separate greens, with a swale between them that was not maintained as green?
-
Pat,
To paraphrase a famous GCA poster, common sense is not that common.
Let's think about what we know. CB Macdonald was a great golf course architect, right? You love what he did at NGLA. You know what he wrote in Scotland's Gift about the ideal "classical "golf course. You know that he streesed the importance of par three hole varying in length.
How could he possibly design a front section on his longest par three so that there was a playing distance rougly equal to the Redan and Eden hole? There is NO WAY Macdonald would do that!
Playing to the front section of a MacRaynor Biarritz hole is an absolute letdown. The hole becomes SO much easier. I'll never be able to conceive Macdonald designing such a boring hole.
-
Sven, do you read Emmett's statement as saying the swale was also part of the green? Or does he indicate two separate greens, with a swale between them that was not maintained as green?
Jim:
I read it as saying the pin was on the back portion.
Sven
-
Bill,
Devereaux Emmett was a highly respected, talented architect.
In fact, I think Macdonald may have solicited his advice in planning and designing NGLA.
When he stated that both tiers at Piping Rock were maintained as greens, are you stating that he was lying or ignorant when it came to identifying what a green looked like ?
Emmett was crystal clear and no amount of wishful thinking on your part can change that ;D
-
Pat,
As Sven points out, it does not matter a bit what anyone calls the approach. It is still the approach and the pin is located on the back section beyond the swale. This is exactly what Macdonald wrote about in Scotland's gift and he listed the yardage as 210.
Whether ones likes the look and play of these holes or not, we should all agree that all Biarritz holes are very tough pars. To put it politely, when the pin is up front, the holes generally SUCK. They play as BORING 170-180 shots and it is such a letdown when a player sees the pin is located up front. Macdonald never said one word about a two-sectioned green and he did not build golf holes that suck. This is where applying common sense helps. Sticking a pin in the front section of a Biarritz just because the front section resembles a putting green is what committees do.
-
Thanks Sven. I am a bit less interested in the muse than I am in the product. Would you say that some cross bunker, or forced carry was present in most of the original MAc/Raynor versions? Or no?
Keith:
I did a fairly comprehensive review of all of the images I could find of MacRaynorBanks Biarritz holes, and from what I can tell the cross bunker/carry concept was the exception. If I had to put a percentage on it I'd say only 30-40% had them, if that.
Certainly not an exact study, but the best I could do with what I have available.
Sven
-
Pat,
To paraphrase a famous GCA poster, common sense is not that common.
Let's think about what we know. CB Macdonald was a great golf course architect, right? You love what he did at NGLA. You know what he wrote in Scotland's Gift about the ideal "classical "golf course. You know that he streesed the importance of par three hole varying in length.
How could he possibly design a front section on his longest par three so that there was a playing distance rougly equal to the Redan and Eden hole? There is NO WAY Macdonald would do that!
Playing to the front section of a MacRaynor Biarritz hole is an absolute letdown. The hole becomes SO much easier. I'll never be able to conceive Macdonald designing such a boring hole.
BINGO!
-
Regarding Piping Rock's Biarritz, there is no question that the pin was intended to be on the back section. H.J. Whigham was with Macdonald when they discovered the inspiration for the hole in Biarritz in 1907, and he helped Macdonald build the Piping Rock course. He also put to pen many of Macdonald's early descriptions of the concepts underlying Macdonalds holes. Here is a more complete quote of H.J. Whigham's description of the hole at Piping Rock, from Town and Country:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight, otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock."
Note that the swale is largely a defensive feature, in that it punishes the drive that was almost but not quite long enough to carry the swale. Punishing the almost-perfect overreach of the better player was typical of CBM's design approach.
For what it is worth, Walter Travis strongly disagreed with with Whigham's characterization of the proper shot as a "push" shot. Travis called it a "straight-arm shot" but it is clear they are both talking about the same thing; a very straight shot that would land on the first plateau and run through the dip and onto the green.
-
Whenever we talk about how Biarritz holes play in 2015, it makes me wonder how they played when they were first built between the years 1910-1929.
Bill,
I think they played like par 3 1/2, not too disimilar from the par 5's that play as a par 4 1/2's.
I think my first experience with a Biarritz may have been # 13 at The Knoll in the mid 50's.
# 13 was always one of the hardest holes on the golf course because you had to be long and straight, and, the green had a spine in it, so putting was also a challenge.
Getting to the back tier was a considerable challenge and we used 3-woods or drivers. Nothing less could reach the back tier.
A par was a great score.
Birdies were virtually unheard of.
How firm was the turf? And how would that turf comapre to the lush grass we play on today?
I think Mother Nature was the primary factor in determining the quality of the playing surfaces.
However, due to their elevated footpads I think they dried out sooner Han other sections of the golf courses.
And, I suspect that they got plenty of sunlight and wind due to the absence of nearby trees
What was the first bounce like then compared to modern times? Did the ball bound forward or did it check a bit like it does so often now?
My recollection from the 50's is that courses were far firmer than the wall to wall green we typically see today.
-
I think that is right, Pat. I think the ground underneath the grass was generally FAR firmer when we were kids. And my guess it was at least that firm when golf was played at our NJ clubs in the 1920's. I mostly played municipal courses until I went to college. I always remember being invited to Saucon Valley in 1977 and walking down the first fairway of the Grace Course. The turf was so plush, so full of grass, so tight, so perfect. (I said it felt like I was playing golf on my Mother's dining room carpet!) That type of turf management became the standard at good US clubs. And THAT type of turf does NOT make for a good biarritz hole, IMO.
-
Bill,
What I also find interesting about Biarritz holes is the introduction of flanking kick plates.
I'd be interested to discover whether their introduction was to make the hole play harder or easier.
In other words, what were the architect's thoughts behind them.
The kick plates were probably at the 180-190 mark.
One would think that they were intended to help, to deflect balls heading into the flanking bunkers back toward the putting surface.
I know that Banks used them, I wonder if Raynor or CBM employed them ?