Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: ChipOat on November 01, 2008, 09:07:58 PM
-
For those on GCA who haven't played it:
The 9th at PRC (played it today) appears to have a Biarritz green complex EXCEPT only the "back" part is putting surface - the deep swale and the front part are "closely mown portion of the course through the green" i.e. fairway. That is, a full 3/5 of your basic Yale Biarritz is not part of the putting green at Piping.
It's still a fine hole, but what you've got is a long par 3 with a Valley of Sin-type front and a big swale in the fairway before you reach the edge of the green.
What the hole is missing is several playability characteristics that I ascribe to a "true" Biarritz:
1) Unlike Yale and Fishers Island, you can be short and still lie "1".
2) You are less likely to be able to run the ball through the swale to the back shelf with a low, boring shot due to the height of the grass and the softer turf.
3) There are no hole locations short of the swale.
4) You can't really putt through the swale for the same reasons as in #2 above.
Since George B. has educated us as to the accurate characteristics of both a true Cape and a true Redan, perhaps he will enlighten us as to what defines a true Biarritz.
Or maybe that's already been done in a previous thread that I didn't see.
-
Chip,
Chicago and many others, the front portion of the green is approach length. My feelings on this are that the motivation was to recreate a deceptive rise and false front of the original.
-
Chip:
Piping's #9 is a real Biarritz alright and it's always been called a Biarritz. It never had green space before the swale and originally few did. Yale's is one that did. Quite a few do now though.
-
Chip - yes it has been discussed quite a few times but here goes:
you asked:
"The 9th at PRC (played it today) appears to have a Biarritz green complex EXCEPT only the "back" part is putting surface - the deep swale and the front part are "closely mown portion of the course through the green" i.e. fairway. That is, a full 3/5 of your basic Yale Biarritz is not part of the putting green at Piping."
It's still a fine hole, but what you've got is a long par 3 with a Valley of Sin-type front and a big swale in the fairway before you reach the edge of the green.
What the hole is missing is several playability characteristics that I ascribe to a "true" Biarritz:
1) Unlike Yale and Fishers Island, you can be short and still lie "1".
Chip it is the first Biarritz built by Macdonald and a true prototype although it lacked the topo of the original in France, that played from an 80' cliff over the Bay of Biscay to a 50' cliff beyond.
Yes you still lie "1" ....... he never built one at NGLA, probably because he didn't think he had the topography he was looking for. PR was the first course after National and the 9th there was the first version.
2) "You are less likely to be able to run the ball through the swale to the back shelf with a low, boring shot due to the height of the grass and the softer turf."
To do that the turf has to be firm as it was when this hole was first built and yes, the grass would have to be cropped short in order to get the "roll" thru the swale. That was the way the hole was meant to play in the early days.
3) "There are no hole locations short of the swale."
There was never meant to be pins in the fronal area (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and certainly not in the swale!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) "You can't really putt through the swale for the same reasons as in #2 above."
Answered above.
Chip - we recent uncovered factual information that told us there was never meant to be putting surface short of the swale and not in the swale. It was from the Yale archives.
As I stated before a number of times, when I first began researching Macdonald and Raynor there were just two courses that had full putting surfaces throughout. I encouraged others to think about doing that and at this point there are well over half the Macdonald Raynor courses fully planted Biarritz holes.
The "full putting surface" has been an evolution over the years - I like it either way, mostly relating to the type of course it would be on and whether they wanted to live with the maintenance it would entail.
Hope this helps.
-
It seems like a lot of the older Biarritz complexes were halves.
Does someone know how many currently full length Biarritz complexes were originally intended as halves or vise versa?
-
Patrick: as stated above ............. none
These holes were originally built at between 220 to 235 yards from the middle of a SINGLE tee. Shorter tees were added to the holes by clubs later.
-
George-
Thank you for your answer....I should have read your post before posting my original reply.
-
George,
Do you believe that mowing all tiers and the swale to putting green height enhances the hole and the options relating to the play of the hole.
The 11th at The Creek appears to be a better hole with the entire footpad mowed as green.
Likewise Yale and Mountain Lakes.
I would think that the Knoll and Piping Rock would benefit as well since that change in maintainance practices enhances the hole, vis a vis diversity and options of play.
-
Pat I do think it a better hole fully putting green.
Concerning the Knoll: I have enuf problems getting the course maintained to maximize the course's potential because of the town, the lack of enough funding and the crews ..... it's a lot better - I'm winning !! but it's like torture getting things done in that environment.
So in the case of the Knoll, I'd love to see it all putting surface but I'm not sure we can get there. It's taken me (with little "official" power) to even get the approach section mowed as fairway instead of rough with a dew line through to the green ......... finally got it all short-grassed now - I'm winning !!
-
George:
You say information has recently be uncovered at Yale that indicates Macdonald/Raynor Biarritzes were not supposed to have green space in the section before the swale. Any chance you could post whatever that information says? There are a number of clubs who already have transitioned the section before the swale to green space including The Creek and Fox Chapel. With both those clubs I believe I know that issue was pretty undocumented when they did it.
I generally like green space before the swale on Biarritzes but I doubt I would recommend that on Piping Rock's 9th. That "Biarritz shot" was the first golf shot I was taught at Piping as a kid (and the first golf shot I ever hit in my life on a golf course was to The Creek's Biarritz). Back then the "Biarritz shot" at Piping Rock worked very well if you hit the correct shot with a pretty low trajectory. The idea was to get the ball on the ground at least ten yards before the swale and with the right "weight" to run into the swale, disappear for a second and then run up onto the green space past the swale. If you left your tee shot short of the swale the same kind of shot was the play too in those days (nowhere near as many golfers back then, even good ones, used something like a sand wedge to loft a chip onto a green surface).
That "Biarritz shot" was taught to a bunch of us kids by a pretty well known old Scottish pro at Piping Rock we all called "Spence". I think his real name was something like Spencer Cortiss. That was back in the 1950s and before Tom Nieporte came to Piping Rock. At Meadowbrook back then was a really good teaching and playing pro by the name of Shelley Mayfield.
-
George:
Why, exactly, do you consider the Biarritz a better hole with the front part mowed NOT AS MACDONALD PRESCRIBED?
Just curious. My feeling is that, as long as the front part is mowed tight and kept firm, it's better as approach because it's cheaper to maintain, and because nobody wants to play to the front hole locations anyway.
The only exceptions to this would be the holes with an abrupt hazard at the front of the green -- i.e. Yale and Old Macdonald. In those cases, it's a totally different hole with the pin in front, but an interesting one.
-
Chip - yes it has been discussed quite a few times but here goes:
Chip - we recent uncovered factual information that told us there was never meant to be putting surface short of the swale and not in the swale. It was from the Yale archives.
The "full putting surface" has been an evolution over the years - I like it either way, mostly relating to the type of course it would be on and whether they wanted to live with the maintenance it would entail.
George,
Do all of the Mac/Raynor greens have a layer of cinders in them? There is a reason why that question is critical:
If every course that has a Biarritz, was built with the cinder layer below the surface, we would be able to know with 100% certainty that there was never any intent to maintain the front half of the hole as putting green. All one would have to do is probe the soils in the front halves of all the Bairritz greens to see where the original putting surface was intended.
-
Some of the reading that I have been doing about grass seed evolution, and early golf course design, has really amazed me.
I think that many of these old golf courses were actually seeded with bentgrass as the predominate variety in the fairway mix. I had always assumed that bentgrass fairways was a relatively new development. But I think it is safe to say that golf courses of the caliber that MacDonald and Raynor were building, would have been seeded with the finest textured grasses available in the bentgrass and fescue lines.
What that all means is that the front half of the Biarritz hole could have been cut a height that was not really significantly higher than the putting green. It means that all of the fairway would have been covered with a turf that the ball would really react to.
That may not seem like a revelation to anyone else, but it sure is to me. For I had always thought that any reaction that the ball in those days would have had to the terrain, was a function of keeping the course dry and rock hard. In other words, it was entirely irrigation related. But now I am beginning to think that it was equally a function of some really good grooming practices of fine leaved turf.
-
"The only exceptions to this would be the holes with an abrupt hazard at the front of the green -- i.e. Yale and Old Macdonald. In those cases, it's a totally different hole with the pin in front, but an interesting one."
TomD:
I couldn't agree more. The best use of green space before the swale on Biarritzes are on those ones that have something really dangerous right in front of that front section such as The Creek. Front pins on that green are wonderful because the idea with most golfers is to get the ball far enough into the green to not risk the hazard in front. The problem then becomes avoiding going so far into the green that the ball may roll into the swale or even worst to the back section.
But you're right about a lot to maintain. I've walked off the length of both The Creek and Fox Chapel's Biarriates and both of them are right around 80 YARDS long. That's a potential putt of over 200 feet!!!
-
Bradley:
I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?
-
Tom D
you asked: “Why, exactly, do you consider the Biarritz a better hole with the front part mowed NOT AS MACDONALD PRESCRIBED?”
Only because like the dramatic appearance and I sort of like the idea of golfers occasionally faced with a very long putt (or chip) ..... I guess I also was influenced by the huge greens at The Monster course at The Concord Hotel in the Catskills early on - huge fun greens.
TD: “Just curious. My feeling is that, as long as the front part is mowed tight and kept firm, it's better as approach because it's cheaper to maintain, and because nobody wants to play to the front hole locations anyway.
The only exceptions to this would be the holes with an abrupt hazard at the front of the green -- i.e. Yale and Old Macdonald. In those cases, it's a totally different hole with the pin in front, but an interesting one.”
That’s my problem - the firm and fast aspect. Many courses aren’t kept firm enough in the front to fully afford that running shot. I hate front pins but as you say above it works at Yale with the pond and what you now have at Old Macdonald with the abrupt approach which may be even more interesting (and less penal) than the Yale pond short of their green.
-
Tom Doak & TEPaul,
I'd disagree with both of you for several reasons, one of which George Bahto touched upon, namely, that the approach areas aren't maintained as firm and fast as they were in the days prior to automated irrigation systems, thus muting the playing intent.
Secondly, because the nature of the game has transitioned to a mostly aerial game.
Thirdly, because the INCREMENTAL costs to maintain the extended green are inconsequential.
Fourth, because the hole exponentially gains playing variety by having hole locations in the swale and on the fronting tier.
When one examines the enormous variety presented by the 11th at The Creek, with a green approaching 80-90 yards in depth and a number of teeing locations, you have a hole with the putting surface elevated above the surrounds that can play from about 100 to almost 300 yards.
The Creek has the additional asset of the wind, which can expand or shrink the effective playing yardage.
If a hole can be significantly enhanced by simply mowing and maintaining an extended putting surface, WHY WOULDN'T YOU DO IT ?
-
I believe what follows just might be one of the neatest and most valuable pieces of research information I've ever seen in my years on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.
The reason I say this is this information from the contemporaneous observation and report of a truly recognized architect and architectural expert has apparently not been seen in many, many decades and as such has completely escaped all the researchers any of us are aware of or familiar with. In fact this article, could've been residing in God Only Knows what repositories for up to 95 years.
The primary reason I think this information is so good is because it not only explains a particular hole (The 9th at Piping Rock) in specific detail, but it also finally answers one of the most mysterious questions I'm aware of about a famous Macdonald/Raynor "Template" hole!
I'm speaking of course about the so-called Macdonald/Raynor American "Biarritz" hole and whether or not there was ever ORIGINALLY intended to be green space BEFORE the swale or if, in fact, there ever was.
I think many of us on here are also aware that the Macdonald/Raynor "Biarritz" has its name taken after a famous hole in Biarritz France that played across a deep gorge or finger of a bay. No one seems to know if that French hole had a dramatic swale in it.
And I think many of us suspected that despite the name (Biarritz) the actual prominent and massively long green formation and dramatic swale may've been borrowed by Macdonald (conceptually for a par 3 rather than par 4 green) from North Berwick's #16.
So what until you read this:
"The ninth (Piping Rock) 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 a 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 too hard---the difficulty is to get there."
Piping Rock's Biarritz 9th is the first American Biarritz done by Macdonald/Raynor in 1913, and as most of us know it was obviously something of a combination concept hole from various things Macdonald was aware of abroad (Macdonald always did explain that many of his template holes were parts of holes or various parts of hole principles from abroad reinterpreted in various ways over here).
But better yet, that first hand description of Piping Rock's Biarritz from the year it opened (1913) was by none other than Devereaux Emmet, Macdonald associate or design committee member with Whigam and Travis before Macdonald dropped him) at NGLA!!! Who would know the real design deal and concept on a particular Macdonald/Raynor hole better than him other than Macdonald, Raynor and perhaps Whigam? And the best point is he was right there in 1913 looking at TWO GREENS one beyond the other on Piping's 9th!
So there you have it----eg the very first Macdonald/Raynor Biarritz proves that green space was not only intended but in that particular case (the 9th at Piping Rock) actually originally HAD IT. (Personally I think the fact that it was apparently TWO GREENS with a swale between them that probably wasn't even green space makes the whole thing even more interesting than ever suspected!!!).
But I've also got to mention that this information just shows what's still out there on research material that we don't know about and has been long forgotten and it also shows that even some of us who think we are experts on this old stuff and their concepts still have a lot of digging and researching and rethinking to do.
For this particular information I'd like to thank our very good friend and remarkably dedicated researcher, The Creek Club's George Holland. This guy is a dedicated research mole unlike any other I've seen in that he will not stop at anything to find stuff. I bet he's probably behind some furnace in the cellar of an old clubhouse as I speak checking to see if Raynor's routing of Cypress Point might, by chance, be back there. ;) And this also indicates how cool unselfish research collaboration can be and can be on this website from its many and various resources and sources. Let's hope we have seen the end of some putting opinions on here with what they say is informational support and then "pledging" never to show it to anyone or to help others or those associated with them with it!
Way to go, George Holland, you just found the answer to one of the longest on-going questions and hole and hole concept mysteries on this website, maybe in architecture of how one of Macdonald/Raynor's template holes was intended to be or once was---and there's even a little wrinkle in it (that it may've been two greens, one beyond the other, separated by a swale that was not green space) that I don't think anyone on here EVER suspected before.
With this information, what will some of those Biarritz hole courses and clubs do now-----eg they may have an additional maintenance and playability option.
-
TEPaul,
Your last post is interesting and informative.
However, it brings you into clear conflict with an earlier post where you agreed with Tom Doak.
Your most recent post supports my contention relative to creating variety in the hole and in the play of the hole.
One has to wonder if the reference to two (2) greens is solely in the context of a visual reference, since the area in the swale wouldn't be visible.
One also has to wonder about the manner in which the swale was maintained.
Was it as putting surface ?
Tightly mown (ie fringe/collar)
fairway height ?
rough
I'd lean toward # 1 or # 2, but, it could have been # 3.
If we accept that CBM's/SR's first Biarritz incorporated both tiers as putting surface, then, shouldn't all Biarritz's have that configuration ?
Don't Biarritz's FUNCTION better when the swale is cut to putting surface height, irrespective of whether you're playing them aerially or along the ground ?
And, doesn't the hole acquire an even more diverse character when hole locations can be in between the two tiers.
Thanks for posting this info and thanks to George Holland for his efforts in discovering this info.
-
TEPaul,
Upon further reflection, this really is a wonderful revelation, one that should clear up, or at least clarify the original design intent of the Biarritz.
George should be thanked for his efforts.
It's really a great find.
George Bahto,
Get to work, you now have the smoking gun as exhibit "A"
-
"Your last post is interesting and informative.
However, it brings you into clear conflict with an earlier post where you agreed with Tom Doak."
Pat Mucci:
Brings me into conflict with an earlier post where I agreed with Doak?? ::)
Well, Pal, I guess this just shows the beauty of some really good research, doesn't it? ;) Up until George Holland found that article (about a day ago), as far as I can tell, everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, was just speculating about whether any Biarritzes had green space in the front section. Well, now we know for sure, don't we? I think that gives all of us a much more informed basis to begin to build an informed opinion on what it should be, dont' you, even if that means changing our minds? ;)
-
George:
Why, exactly, do you consider the Biarritz a better hole with the front part mowed NOT AS MACDONALD PRESCRIBED?
Just curious. My feeling is that, as long as the front part is mowed tight and kept firm, it's better as approach because it's cheaper to maintain, and because nobody wants to play to the front hole locations anyway.
The only exceptions to this would be the holes with an abrupt hazard at the front of the green -- i.e. Yale and Old Macdonald. In those cases, it's a totally different hole with the pin in front, but an interesting one.
Not if its towards the back portion of the front section where it can literally fall off into swale, no?
-
Emperor:
Given the current excessive speeds of golden Era greens, I would be skeptical of a hole location on the front part of a "full Biarritz" green that is set so close to the swale that the possibility of "losing" a putt down into it is high. You could well end up with a #7 @ Shinnecock or #18 @ Olympic situation.
As you may be aware, one of my pet peeves is Golden Era greens that are maintained at speeds far in excess of the architect's original intent. That seems to include darn near all of them these days and I did at least one thread about it whilst you were "on sabbatical". Hole locations where putting off the green (or into a deep swale) are a "clear and present danger" for a reasonably capable golfer do not ring my chimes.
-
Tom P and George H:
Thank you for "doing the heavy lifting" with regard to finding this article.
It's interesting to note that the front part of the green at Piping Rock was done away with before 1926, when the first aerial photo of it was taken. Perhaps the reason for this is to be found right in the second half of Emmet's text, from which I quote:
"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 too hard---the difficulty is to get there."
Notice that all of his interest in the hole is with the flag in the back section. In fact, that last sentence specifically addresses Tommy N.'s earlier comment about the putting the hole just in front of the swale -- it doesn't sound like Emmet would have liked that.
-
"Tom P and George H:
Thank you for "doing the heavy lifting" with regard to finding this article."
Chip:
I do no "heavy lifting" at all. It's George Holland who does that. He goes to bed about 3:30am and gets up at about 4:05am (that is if he actually feels he needs to sleep at all). He's the one who's the research ferret. I just go out for chinese lunches, come home and take a lot of naps, and just wait for him to call me if he thinks he has something good and then I analyze it. ;)
When Emmet made that comment about the upslope in the back of the green he was talking about the berm behind the back of the rear green section. To get up on that one would've had to hit it about 250 yards back in that day. That was a big driver for most anyone back then.
-
That was Tom Doak thanking George H. and you but I share his gratitude and appreciation.
-
Chip et al:
You've got to see this photo in 1913 from the tee of the Biarritz because you can see what seems to be the right half of the fairway of the original 8th hole. It looks like the fairway came much father over to the right than it does now and of course there were no trees on that hole then as there are now on the right corner. I might be crazy but it looks to me like originally if one wanted to get over even to the mid right of that fairway from even the old tees which were left of where the back tees are now one may've had to hit the ball right over that building. One thing we sure do know, and that is when Macdonald designed the 8th and in the first year it was in play, at least, that building sure was there and in play. I mean I grew up at Piping Rock and I never even knew until yesterday there ever was a building anywhere near that area. I'd heard there was a race track out there before the course and I believe I know where it once was but there was no vestige of it even fifty years ago.
George Holland, once again, you're a research star. It maybe incalculable what you've just come up with here for Piping Rock to think about. I don't care if Wall Street is tanking and the world's economy is going to hell in a handbasket, you tell those moguls next door to you at Piping that they better think about some serious money right now to begin to do things like restore that miniature grandstand that obviously inspired Macdonald to route a Road hole in that area.
Do not let that club rest Motor-mouth! I know you aren't.
Famous clubs all over the world----if you want this man George Holland to find this kind of incredible information for your club the way he has with The Creek and now Piping Rock get in touch with me and I'll tell you what you need to do. He doesn't know how to negotiate this stuff for himself so I'm telling you that you will not need to actually pay him other than his expenses. Just make him an honorary member of your golf club right now, wherever it is in the world, and he may do this kind of thing for you too.
-
Bradley:
I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?
I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces - to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.
Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.
You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.
Maybe George knows?
-
Bradley:
Read post #17 of this thread. From that article The Creek Club's GEORGE HOLLAND found in the last few days by Devereux Emmet in 1913 (the year Piping Rock opened for play) he explained there were two greens on that Biarritz (one right in front of the other). He was there then and he saw it and that isn't just anyone, it's Devereux Emmet, the man who designed the original GCGC, and a ton of other great courses and helped Macdonald design NGLA. We'll never find better proof than that, period!
-
Emperor:
Given the current excessive speeds of golden Era greens, I would be skeptical of a hole location on the front part of a "full Biarritz" green that is set so close to the swale that the possibility of "losing" a putt down into it is high. You could well end up with a #7 @ Shinnecock or #18 @ Olympic situation.
Chipoat,
That's a repetitive theme in CBM/SR/CB greens.
One only has to examine many of the greens at The Creek, NGLA and others to see the dire consequences of "going long" on their greens.
It was clearly a punitive result.
Try recovering from being over # 15 and # 16 at The Creek.
As you may be aware, one of my pet peeves is Golden Era greens that are maintained at speeds far in excess of the architect's original intent. That seems to include darn near all of them these days and I did at least one thread about it whilst you were "on sabbatical". Hole locations where putting off the green (or into a deep swale) are a "clear and present danger" for a reasonably capable golfer do not ring my chimes.
Chipoat, many agree with you, but, I think you have to differentiate between approach shots and putts.
I would submit that recovery from over the 16th green at The Creek is far more difficult as the green speeds increase, but, perhaps that places an emphasis on tactics, on being below the hole.
Have you played Deepdale lately ?
Over the last month or so the greens have been extremely fast, causing good golfers to putt "defensively". At higher speeds those greens are frightening.
Hoping to two putt from 6 feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge.
Hoping to keep your ball on the green from 20+ feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge.
Somewhere, there has to be a prudent balance.
-
"Hoping to two putt from 6 feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge.
Hoping to keep your ball on the green from 20+ feet isn't my idea of a reasonable challenge."
Pat and Chip:
Neither of those examples are my idea of a reasonable challenge either, but I do not mind if either of those examples gets the attention of any golfer as something to at least think about (given certain putts from certain breaks or angles) versus the same putts to the same pins if the green was say at 9. I believe those kinds of examples should be very doable but they should get your attention at least!
If you don't know what I mean by the above I'd be glad to elaborate. ;)
Well, let me just give you an example anyway. Let's say you have a downhill breaking putt of around six feet and like Woods' seems capable of doing you just decide to sort of take the break out and ram it into the back of the cup and you miss. For that I think a realistic three putt beginning with a first putt from six feet should be a realistic possibility!
In that light, I'm sure you can intuit what I'll say about some 20' putts possibly getting all the way off some greens with some pins. I see nothing wrong with those kinds of things being such that they most certainly occur to any golfer.
-
TE
A while ago Anthony Pioppi posted an article from a CT newspaper that described Yale's 9th as having the putting surface "beyond the swale." Maybe someone can find that post? I have the article in my office.
But in any event, I think maintaining the front section as putting surface, the firmest and fastest surface, is the truest way to honor the architect's intent, because it allows a far greater percentage of players to actually reach the rear section. As Pat Mucci suggests, modern irrigation systems prevented shots running through the swale.
-
Mr. Paul,
No question, Dev Emmet's word is unimpeachable.
How incredible is it that no one else ever describes the Biarritz as a hole with "two greens"?
-
Bradley,
The Depression and WWII might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept, as well as the failure to create that concept in modern times.
-
"Mr. Paul,
No question, Dev Emmet's word is unimpeachable.
How incredible is it that no one else ever describes the Biarritz as a hole with "two greens"?"
Bradley:
Maybe they did. I think the real point of what George Holland just found and that all of us really need to appreciate is that Emmet wrote that article 95 years ago and there may not be anyone we know who's alive today who's ever seen it. That's 95 years Brad, since that article was written. That's almost a century and that's a long time ago! ;)
You know why this information find of George Holland's happened the other day, don't you? The USGA apparently just digitized and put onto their website a whole bunch of pre-1914 Golf Magazines! That stuff like THAT article may not have been seen or considered for as long as most people we know have been alive! THIS is what is starting to happen today because of the perceived interest and George Holland is really dilligent and he happened to find it and read it first.
That should be an incentive to all the INTERNET researchers we have on this website to do what George Holland just did and be a research star like he is today. I admit, I'm not very good at that kind of INTERNET research. I'm much better at analysis of research information despite what a few on here say about me.
There is a ton of fascinating and informative stuff out there Bradley and the information age is about to make it available to us again!
I think it's very exciting!
What you are into in the realm of the evolution of grass for golf is going to pay enormous informational dividends. I don't know specifically how but I can just feel that it's going to do that! Keep at it and keep collaborating the way you have.
-
Bradley,
The Depression and WWII might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept, as well as the failure to create that concept in modern times.
Mr. Mucci,
I think also that the development of newer mower technology changed some of these hole concepts too.
In 1913, the best way to mow the 9th green at PR was by hand - the whole huge thing. You probably weren't going to pull a horse drawn 3-gang mower in to that swale.
Even your beloved 12th hole at GCGC might have been changed after the light weight sidewheel mowers that maintained the tight cut on those mounds went off the market - replaced by heavier motorized mowers.
It might not have been the economics so much as it was the changes in technology.
-
"Bradley,
The Depression and WWII might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept, as well as the failure to create that concept in modern times."
Patrick:
I do not think the question of what might have been responsible for the demise of the original concept of the Biarritz green (----which IS----eg whether the original concept of Macdonald's was to have green space in the front section and whether any of his Biarritz holes originally had that) is the question here; at least not yet.
The only question to be answered at this time is if front section greenspace was EVER the concept of Macdonald's and whether any of his biarritz holes originally had that.
To date some pretty good experts on Macdonald said they do not think that was the case and perhaps the best of them just mentioned on here that he found some recent information at Yale to support the fact that front section greenspace was never intended.
Considering what this 1913 article of Devereux Emmet's that George Holland found recently said, I, for one, would disagree with the opinion that front section greenspace was never intended and never was originally the case. I believe Devereux Emmet in his 1913 article proved that front section greenspace was both intended and created at Piping Rock in 1913! ;)
-
Bradley,
I'd be interested in studying the time line or chronology of walking mowers in the context of their weight and ability to mow difficult terrain.
The demise of the mounds at # 12 at GCGC appears NOT to be the product of mowing issues, at least according to Mel Lucas, who was the superintendent at GCGC and Piping Rock, at the same time.
Somerset Hills has similar terrain on their 5th green and they seem to have conquered any mowing difficulties over the years.
# 12 at GCGC was destroyed in the 60's, before riding mowers came into vogue.
-
"# 12 at GCGC was destroyed in the 60's, before riding mowers came into vogue."
I, for one, would like to find out when "riding" green mowers did become uses prevalently, particularly the so-called "triplexes". It seems like almost unintentionally those things did a lot of architectural greenspace shrinking simply because they just weren't very maneuverable into complex corners and periperal greenspace angles. If anything was primarily responsible for the rounding out of green shapes it sounds to me like it was the era of the greenspace triplex mower.
-
Chip:
As per your original questions about Piping's Biarritz (By the way, this thread is yours, is it not, or is it Tom Doak's? :) ), there is another element of that 1913 Biarritz that needs to be checked out. The Devereux Emmet 1913 article and photographs really must be posted on here for everyone's consideration.
It seems originally there was a rather large cross bunker immediately in front of that front green section that Emmet mentioned was a green in front of the green beyond the swale.
I cannot be sure but I believe that particular carry bunker is now gone or has been significantly minimized. But do not fret, the remarkable researcher from The Creek, GEORGE HOLLAND, will be on that item today as he lives less than a mile away from Piping's Biarritz.
Another of George Holland's talents is that he is one of the best and most rapid action picture takers. With his digital camera he is capable of firing off about three thousand photos inside of a New York minute. I saw him at a very large party at The Creek talking to a group of people and he simultaneously was taking photographs. He was talking to this attractive lady and he had his arm raised with his digital camera and he was waving it around firing off photos. He was not even looking at whatever all he was photoing but he did get everyone and everything that was going on at that party at that particular time.
That short carry bunker on these old Biarritzes is an important concept and design element and should not be overlooked.
-
TEPaul,
I believe that the cross bunker you reference serves two purposes.
One, it's a symbolic gesture to the crevice or inlet that had to be carried on the original.
Two, like "Top Bunkers" it provided an impediment to a mis-hit shot ending up on the green.
-
Here is the picture from Emmet's article:
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e238/spdb1/PRC.jpg)
-
SPDB,
That's a great photo.
I wonder if the club will employ it in a tree removal program.
-
Bradley:
I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?
I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces - to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.
Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.
You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.
Maybe George knows?
Bradley, et. al.,
Would you therefore conclude that the existance of cinders is clear evidence that the area beneath which they lie, was clearly intended to be putting surface
-
Bradley:
I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?
I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces - to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.
Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.
You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.
Maybe George knows?
Bradley, et. al.,
Would you therefore conclude that the existance of cinders is clear evidence that the area beneath which they lie, was clearly intended to be putting surface
Patrick,
I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that everywhere the cinders are is precisely where the perimeter of the putting surface was originally. Because sometimes when you are building in layers you will drag a layer of material outside of its zone - this is most common when you have excess material on a site and its easier to loose it around the edges than it is to scoop it up and haul it away.
-
If Piping Rock originally had two greens, one in front of the other, I would think a number of golfers would end up chipping/pitching from one green to the other. The pin is in the back green, you're on the front green, what do you do?
This could create maintenance problems. Maybe that is one reason they stopped cutting the front green. Too many divots and chopped up sections there.
-
JimN:
I remember Piping's 9th hole as far back as the early 1950s and it did not have greenspace before the swale then and it has not had it since then. It also seems as of now that there is not a single documentable example in Macdonald/Raynor's original Biarritz inventory that ever had greenspace before the swale, including Yale.
Bradley:
As to cinders under greens from Macdonald/Raynor, the only examples I know of are those few greens at Shinnecock that were reused by Flynn when he did his version of Shinnecock that uses most of the same land from the previous Macdonald/Raynor Shinnecock.
-
Bradley:
I have an article around here somewhere that explains the first use of cinders under greens (which course---eg somewhere in New York state) and all the reasons for it. However, my recollection of that article was that it wasn't as early as one might suspect (but I could be wrong about that). My point is apparently Macdonald/Raynor's Shinnecock course (the second of three courses at Shinnecock G.C) did have cinders under those greens or some of them (some in the maintenance dept did do core samples). I think that course was built around 1915. Although cinders subsurface on greens were an interesting development at that time I don't know that even a Macdonald/Raynor would've done that everywhere. In other words, if no cinders turned up under the section before the swale on a Biarritz that does not prove that section never was green space but if cinders do turn up under some front section that probably would prove it was designed to be green space. Putting cinders under something that was only intended to be an open approach seems a bit excessive in that day and age, but who knows?
I believe that those cinder layers were only put under the putting surfaces - to keep the worms off of them. Worms were the number one pest hazard to putting greens in those days, and the layer of sharp edged cinders kept the worms out the putting surface.
Today the cinders are useful in helping to trace exactly where Raynor intended the putting surface to lie. So if you trace cinders to the edge of the swale and not out in to the first half of a Biarritz green, that could indicate that that particular Bairritz green was not intended to be putting surface.
You are right however in saying that this is not conclusive, but that is only if the cinder layers were not always included in every green built by MacDonald and Raynor. However, if they were always included in the construction, then we would know all of this for certain, by doing some probing.
Maybe George knows?
Bradley, et. al.,
Would you therefore conclude that the existance of cinders is clear evidence that the area beneath which they lie, was clearly intended to be putting surface
Patrick,
I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that everywhere the cinders are is precisely where the perimeter of the putting surface was originally. Because sometimes when you are building in layers you will drag a layer of material outside of its zone - this is most common when you have excess material on a site and its easier to loose it around the edges than it is to scoop it up and haul it away.
Bradley,
I think everyone understands +- margins or tolerance allowances.
I think you can be fairly certain that cinders wouldn't be placed in areas removed from the putting surface
-
If Piping Rock originally had two greens, one in front of the other, I would think a number of golfers would end up chipping/pitching from one green to the other. The pin is in the back green, you're on the front green, what do you do?
This could create maintenance problems. Maybe that is one reason they stopped cutting the front green. Too many divots and chopped up sections there.
Jim,
That may be the reason that CBM created his deflection spines.
George Bahto can expound on those features, but, they served to deflect less than perfect shots away from the front tier, eliminating or greatly reducing the situation you allude to.
-
"George Bahto can expound on those features,...."
I don't think so, Pat, but I'm sure it's comforting to believe! ;)
-
I agree with Patrick that those deflection spines strongly suggest that the area before the swale was not intended for putting but as a landing zone for running the ball through the swale.
The Biarritz is always the longest one shotter in the series - a "full drive hole". All of them had only one tee set at 190 - how many guys were flying the ball that far with hickories and balata balls back then? Not too many. Clearly that area in front of the swale was for accepting a low running shot to run through the green. The spines and the flanking bukers were there to keep a sloppy shot from getting it done.
(http://bccgreens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/8-SPINES.JPG)
I played Camargo this fall and we stood over the deflection spines on the 8th hole Biarritz. How nerdy is that? ;D They are barely visible but definitely there. I think over time these features were lost from the weight of tractor drawn mowers pushing down (1950's) and from core aeration removing soil.
-
Tom Paul: Have you ever seen any of these original deflection mounds in the area before the swales?
There are very , very few of them left. I think a lot of them were lost/lowered by mowers scalping them while cutting the “fairway” area.
They were usually set on a slight diagonal and I believe these were what Macdonald was referring to when he spoke of "hog-back" when describing Biarritz holes.
-
Bradley:
As to cinders under greens from Macdonald/Raynor, the only examples I know of are those few greens at Shinnecock that were reused by Flynn when he did his version of Shinnecock that uses most of the same land from the previous Macdonald/Raynor Shinnecock.
Tom,
I have gone out with the superintendent from a Raynor course that was built right at the end of his career and we found cinder layers in the putting surface. But none were found in the front half of the Biarritz hole.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag52g.pdf
The above link, from 1910, is the earliest reference I have found to the use of cinders in putting green construction.
-
What's really 'comforting' to know is that the only person who has ever posted a plan showing the deflection mounds is not a 'poser'.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/biarritzgrnportionof-whampton-Oneck.jpg)
-
Who drew that plan of the Westhampton Oneck biarritz?
-
I have nearly the entire set of blueprints for the greens for the Westhamton Oneck Course ......
let's see ................................ does that say Whigham????????????
No! it clearly says Chas. H. Banks
Golf Architect
what do you think? I made it up?
-
As mentioned, Devereux Emmet wrote this in 1913:
"The ninth (Piping Rock) 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 a 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 too hard---the difficulty is to get there."
....and in 1919 Oswald G. Kirkby wrote:
Perhaps the best hole is the ninth. I have never seen one like it. Roughly it must be over two hundred yards long.From the tee one looks away to find two greens, one beyond the other, with a hollow between them and bunkers looming on either side. It instantly impresses you as being a cleek shot. In fact, it is one of the few good cleek holes that I know. The roll of the land is slightly downhill, and that means an excellent cleek shot or a difficult drive by a second class player, as the gully which separates the two greens must be run through at the end of the shot. Beyond the green there is a slight upward slope, so that there may be no fear of hitting the ball hard; in fact, the difficulty is to get there. I consider it a splendid hole, because it calls for a perfect shot with the dreaded cleek
Both men called the front section a 'green', yet neither man even hints that the front section was used as a putting green. Their individual critiques are very similar, so much so that both men use the exact same wording to state "....the gulley which separates the two greens must be run through at the end of the shot", and they both note that "the difficulty is to get there", i.e, the back, where the putting green lay.
-
Jim, my guess is that Kirby lifted what Emmet wrote.
-
Jim,
I had the same impression, but even though Kirkby may have been a plagiarist he was also an accomplished player, and saw the 'play' of the hole in a similar light as Emmet.
In 1915 CBM wrote this about Lido’s version:
"The eighth hole, 220 yards, is a one-shot brassie or drive and will be known as the Biarritz hole, an improvement on the ninth at Piping Rock".
It seems to me that not one of these three guys contemplated anything less that a full shot to the back green in their day, not one of them mentions a yardage under 220.
-
This topic is familiar with Whigham’s account of PR’s version, here’s a snippet from it:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country........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.
Also, William Ellis in 1925, on Yale’s version:
"The green is behind a deep turf trench which is nearly as wide as the green itself………. the psychology of the play is to 'let out' on the tee shot…… The correct manner is to carry to the near edge of the trench and roll up and onto the green. The appearance and reappearance of the ball lends a fascination to the play."
I can't find an accounting of the hole that talks about using the front section as a putting surface, not even Emmet's.
-
Emmet's article sure does say the 9th at Piping Rock had one green beyond another. If they never pinned the front section the only reason I could see Emmet saying that is that the course had just opened when he wrote that article (1913) and maybe the front fairway section just looked like greenspace to him because it is flanked on either side by bunkers as is the actual greenspace beyond the swale.
All I can tell you is it never was greenspace from about 1950 on because I remember the fairway before the swale from about then.
GeorgieB:
On that blueprint drawing of the biarritz at Westhampton's Oneck course are there any elevations on those lines that appear to be contour lines? Also, who put that text on that blueprint-looking drawing?
-
TEPaul,
I cannot find any reference from the time period that mentions the front area as putting green. Emmet calls it a green, but even he (and in every other account I've seen) mentions only one way to attack the hole: play a Brassie or Driver through the swale to the putting green, which happens to be the one in back.
-
Jim:
Despite what Emmet said in that 1913 article on Piping Rock's 9th hole about two greens (one behind the other), I have also never seen a single reference of the section before the swale on any Macdonald/Raynor Biarritz ever being used originally as greenspace or for a hole location and I have never seen a single photograph of such a thing from back then. I have certainly seen it done but only in relatively recent times. I know when The Creek Club transitioned theirs and I know when Fox Chapel transitioned theirs, although I'm not clear when Yale did, and as I mentioned above for the last sixty years at least Piping Rock's has been fairway area. Personally, I might say the thought may've at least occured to Macdonald and Raynor but I've just never seen any indication that such a thing was actually done back then or originally by either of them.
-
Jim:
Despite what Emmet said in that 1913 article on Piping Rock's 9th hole about two greens (one behind the other), I have also never seen a single reference of the section before the swale on any Macdonald/Raynor Biarritz ever being used originally as greenspace or for a hole location and I have never seen a single photograph of such a thing from back then. I have certainly seen it done but only in relatively recent times. I know when The Creek Club transitioned theirs and I know when Fox Chapel transitioned theirs, although I'm not clear when Yale did, and as I mentioned above for the last sixty years at least Piping Rock's has been fairway area. Personally, I might say the thought may've at least occured to Macdonald and Raynor but I've just never seen any indication that such a thing was actually done back then or originally by either of them.
Tom,
All that would have to happen for Emmet's statement to be accurate is for that whole front area to be cut with a greensmower. He never said that there was a cup cut in the front, he just refers to the area in front of the swale as "green". And it probably was cut with a greensmower, although perhaps with not the same frequency as the back half.
-
"GeorgieB:
On that blueprint drawing of the biarritz at Westhampton's Oneck course are there any elevations on those lines that appear to be contour lines? Also, who put that text on that blueprint-looking drawing? "
the Banks Oneck (WHamp) blueprints do have elevations on them - the scale is 1" to 20'
they also show the elevation and positions of the green's associated bunkering - it was a great find (unfortunately there is no Redan blueprint) (booooooooooo) - I've never seen a set of these at any place else
I wrote the text on that particlular drawing when i posted about a year ago - there for clarification of text I had put into a thread
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4086/5175957145_eed6420776.jpg)
These look like they could be the same type of deflection spines that are shown in the blueprint that George posted.
-
"the Banks Oneck (WHamp) blueprints do have elevations on them - the scale is 1" to 20'"
Georgie:
So what kind of contour elevations are we talking about on the 'deflection spines' on that Banks biarritz on the Westhampton Oneck cours?.
Jim:
That's true, you can see them on that early photo and you can still see them on the ground. If you hit the ball wide of one of those things the ball will usually get in one of the side bunkers if it keeps on trucking through the swale but they are pretty far apart and pretty far left and right on a wide fairway area for a par 3 hole. They also aren't exactly elongated spines (like the lines on the Banks Oneck Biarritz), they are more like elongated mounds at the far end of the fairway area before the swale.
-
"So what kind of contour elevations are we talking about on the 'deflection spines' on that Banks biarritz on the Westhampton Oneck cours?."
TP: there are no elevations figures on the spines themselves - just on either side of them (they are the same elevation for the ground is fairly level to slightly tilted)
The mounds on the Knoll's 13th vary from about 8" to about less than a foot. They were never altered.