Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on March 11, 2010, 07:14:33 PM
-
Rae's Creek ?
Is there a better feature, a feature that's in such close proximity to the golfer for so many holes, at so many different approach angles ?
A feature that so dramatically influences play and the outcome of a round or tournament.
Taking a liberal view with respect to the extent that Rae's Creek affects play, holes # 16, 15, 13, 12 and # 11 are all dramatically impacted by its presence.
Analyze the variety of shots that have to interface with Rae's Creek, from all sorts of lies, angles and elevations.
It has to be one of the top 10 architectural features in the world.
And, you can't avoid it, you have to interface with it on every hole listed.
Is it the best of all architectural features ?
Is the routing and its use of Rae's Creek not brilliant ?
Is it possible to imagine a better use ?
What other feature comes close to having the same INTIMATE impact on so many holes ?
-
Patrick,
I don't think Rae's Creek is fundamentally different than any other creek. What makes Rae's Creek so special is the way Mac and Jones routed ANGC's holes around the creek to create the strategy we see today.
Other than the hilly nature of the land and the creek, what else could be considered defining features of the property? They most likely set out to use it as often as possible much like Raynor set out to use the ravines at Shoreacres to their greatest extent (as just one example).
-
Pat,
And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site...
-
Pat,
And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site...
From the pictures I've seen, I actually think the hole was just as strong and looked better with the rugged front and creek running though 16. Assuming the green contours are similar if not the same, how it damning up the creek to make a lake more in line with modern style isn't a 1000% improvement in my book. On a side note, when was the last time you saw someone hit their tee ball into the lake while in contention on Sunday?
-
"On a side note, when was the last time you saw someone hit their tee ball into the lake while in contention on Sunday?"
Corey Pavin in '86; Norman in '96.
-
"On a side note, when was the last time you saw someone hit their tee ball into the lake while in contention on Sunday?"
Corey Pavin in '86; Norman in '96.
Trevor Immelman in 2008, he went on to win after making a double bogey.
-
Rae's Creek ?
Is there a better feature, a feature that's in such close proximity to the golfer for so many holes, at so many different approach angles ?
A feature that so dramatically influences play and the outcome of a round or tournament.
Taking a liberal view with respect to the extent that Rae's Creek affects play, holes # 16, 15, 13, 12 and # 11 are all dramatically impacted by its presence.
Analyze the variety of shots that have to interface with Rae's Creek, from all sorts of lies, angles and elevations.
It has to be one of the top 10 architectural features in the world.
And, you can't avoid it, you have to interface with it on every hole listed.
Is it the best of all architectural features ?
Is the routing and its use of Rae's Creek not brilliant ?
Is it possible to imagine a better use ?
What other feature comes close to having the same INTIMATE impact on so many holes ?
The Pacific Ocean at Pebble Beach?
The immense sand dunes at Royal St George or Royal County Down?
It's probably not unexpected that the best golf courses make the best use of dramatic features.
-
Pat,
And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site...
The creek was dammed to create the pond on #11 as well.
I love the use of the creek and how it flows with the routing of the holes.
-
Pat,
And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site...
The creek was dammed to create the pond on #11 as well.
I love the use of the creek and how it flows with the routing of the holes.
Mark, I've never been there. :'( Where does the creek originate, what hole does it start at, and how does it flow through the routing? I guess #12 is the bottom of the course.
-
Bill McBride,
While the Pacific is terrific architectural feature, it's predominantly a flanking feature, without the variety in angles and play.
On the original routing at PBGC only # 8 has the potential to require a carry.
The diversity, in terms of interfacing with the feature, is much, much greater at ANGC.
Phil, the number of times a ball fails to clear Rae's Creek, or rolls back into Rae's Creek on # 12, 13, 15 and # 16, isn't as infrequently as you indicate
-
I would like to ask for permission to revise and extend my remarks as necessary. :)
Raes Creek flows into the property in front of the 12th green, which should be the low point as well as farthest point from the clubhouse, and then near the 11th green, then it leaves the property and crosses the 8th hole at neighboring Augusta Country Club. I believe the creek on 13, 15 and 16 are/were technically tributaries of Raes Creek.
Bill-
You need to come to Augusta soon!
-
Pat,
And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site...
The creek was dammed to create the pond on #11 as well.
I love the use of the creek and how it flows with the routing of the holes.
Mark, I've never been there. :'( Where does the creek originate, what hole does it start at, and how does it flow through the routing? I guess #12 is the bottom of the course.
Mark is correct,
it enters on #13 tee/12 green-our "summer entrance"
The creek used to flow through my neighborhood as a kid quite a ways upstream
the others are tributaries
-
So 3 people hit into the pond in front of 16 while in contention on Sunday in the Masters in the past 30 years or so...
Can someone explain to me how turning Rae's Creek into a pond in front of 16 made the hole better? Just curious.
-
So 3 people hit into the pond in front of 16 while in contention on Sunday in the Masters in the past 30 years or so...
Can someone explain to me how turning Rae's Creek into a pond in front of 16 made the hole better? Just curious.
I preferred the look of the old hole
While it could be argued that it was simialr in length to 12, I would say the current one plays similar to 6.
But the three shelves do provide good variety in length and angle
-
Bill McBride,
While the Pacific is terrific architectural feature, it's predominantly a flanking feature, without the variety in angles and play.
On the original routing at PBGC only # 8 has the potential to require a carry.
The diversity, in terms of interfacing with the feature, is much, much greater at ANGC.
Not surprising you'd say that!
One may not have to carry the ocean other than at #8, but it is distinctly in play on every hole along the ocean, either because of proximity (#4, #5, #6, #7, #17, #18) or because of the slope that can take a slightly loose shot to perdition (#9 and #10).
-
So 3 people hit into the pond in front of 16 while in contention on Sunday in the Masters in the past 30 years or so...
How about all the golfers who hit it into Rae's Creek in the earlier rounds ? Don't those scores count ?
Can someone explain to me how turning Rae's Creek into a pond in front of 16 made the hole better? Just curious.
I preferred the look of the old hole
While it could be argued that it was simialr in length to 12,
Agreed, that's a lock argument.
The original 16th played at 145 yards, the original 12th at 150 yards.
Why would anyone want two almost identical, short par 3 holes on the back nine, on a course that hosts a Major every year ?
I would say the current one plays similar to 6.
I don't believe that # 6 and # 16 play similarly.
With the water tight left, many a golfer, when going for a left pin, has found the bunker or the water, and with the hole coming that late in the round, finding the water usually has disastrous results.
But the three shelves do provide good variety in length and angle.
How about putting to those upper shelves ?
Or, being on the upper shelf and having to putt to the lower shelf
-
How about putting to those upper shelves ?
Or, being on the upper shelf and having to putt to the lower shelf[/b][/size][/color]
Or being behind the green and having to chip to a back right hole location.
-
The burn at Carnoustie possibly because it comes late in the round as opposed the Augusta. Nive topic Pat.
Anthony
-
Incredible that this run of great holes was originally the front nine ...
-
You guys may think this sounds stupid, but how about the tee box as the greatest architectural feature in golf?
Used to be you drop right next to the previous green (or on it for awhile) and hit away. But the tee box allowed the architect to determine the precise start of the next hole and align and organize all the hazards, angles, distances, etc.
So, as goofy as it sounds...I'm going with the tee box. In fact, it was such a great breakthrough almost everyone has copied it on every hole for years and years.
-
You guys may think this sounds stupid, but how about the tee box as the greatest architectural feature in golf?
Used to be you drop right next to the previous green (or on it for awhile) and hit away. But the tee box allowed the architect to determine the precise start of the next hole and align and organize all the hazards, angles, distances, etc.
So, as goofy as it sounds...I'm going with the tee box. In fact, it was such a great breakthrough almost everyone has copied it on every hole for years and years.
They are even better with a well placed ball washer. Give me something. Quirk me. Think outside of the box. A hole marker. Trash can with ants. Kool tee markers.
Anthony
-
I agree that a creek that runs through a golf course, properly routed, could be about the most fun and exciting feature to work with.
But, who can think of more courses that make use of a meandering creek for several holes, and in varied ways from lateral to cross hazards, angles and bite-offs, etc?
And, if you think of some other courses, I'll bet they are all older ones. Don't modern day environmental rules with set-back distance laws and such pretty much rule out some of the creative ways that the old dead guys might use such a nice meandering creek feature in by-gone era?
-
If not a meandering creek used along a great course routing as a great feature, I'd secondly have to go with interesting fingers of land reaching among baranca like we see in California at both Torrey and even places like Pasatiempo. Not to forget the massive fingers of land perched high above as seen at Cape Kidnappers.
Back east we might find an interesting land terrain with what we'd call gullies or glens separating corridors where we route fairways, but the western land terrain seems to have more interesting and dramaticly sculpted runs of scrapes and gullies for golf course routing challenges and rewards.
-
I think it would be a better feature if you could still have a chance of playing out of it at the 13th. The strategy for that hole is not as interesting as before.
-
Pat Mucci,
You have me confused with someone else. You commented, "Phil, the number of times a ball fails to clear Rae's Creek, or rolls back into Rae's Creek on # 12, 13, 15 and # 16, isn't as infrequently as you indicate..."
How do you get any of that out of what I wrote? "And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site..."
Pat Craig, I think you need to take another look at the different versions of the 16th as the holes are very different. Actually though, and I understand that your opinion is that the first iteration of the hole is at least equal to today's, my point is a simple one. How did Jones & Mackenzie miss this hole design? It seems so very natural to the spot (despite the changing of Rae's creek to manage it) and it certainly is a hole that has seen numerous defining moments happen on it in the history of major championship golf. In missing it they also missed how the creek could be put to maximum advantage and so Pat M's premise about Rae's creek being one of the greatest architectural features in golf must be questioned. NOT because it isn't today, but rather because it obviously wasn't when originally used in the design for, if it was, why was it changed?
So, for me the question should really be WHICH VERSION of the use of Rae's Creek is the better use as an architectural feature?
-
Pat Mucci,
You have me confused with someone else. You commented, "Phil, the number of times a ball fails to clear Rae's Creek, or rolls back into Rae's Creek on # 12, 13, 15 and # 16, isn't as infrequently as you indicate..."
How do you get any of that out of what I wrote? "And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site..."
Mr Young, your problem is that you're not the only person posting with the name "Phil".
Mr McDade has every right to be called "Phil", unless you've copywrited that moniker.
Apologies will be accepted. [/size]
Pat Craig, I think you need to take another look at the different versions of the 16th as the holes are very different. Actually though, and I understand that your opinion is that the first iteration of the hole is at least equal to today's, my point is a simple one. How did Jones & Mackenzie miss this hole design? It seems so very natural to the spot (despite the changing of Rae's creek to manage it) and it certainly is a hole that has seen numerous defining moments happen on it in the history of major championship golf. In missing it they also missed how the creek could be put to maximum advantage and so Pat M's premise about Rae's creek being one of the greatest architectural features in golf must be questioned. NOT because it isn't today, but rather because it obviously wasn't when originally used in the design for, if it was, why was it changed?
It's called "fine tuning" or "improvement"
The original 16 called for traversing the creek, so I don't think they missed anything.
In addition, pre 1934, the expense to move the creek would be hard to justify, especially coming off the Great Depression and the financial difficulties the club faced. Thirdly, early 20th century designers, other than CBM, weren't massive dirt movers and certainly not waterway movers.
So, for me the question should really be WHICH VERSION of the use of Rae's Creek is the better use as an architectural feature?
Irrespective of the version, it's still RAE'S CREEK, and as such, one of, if not the greatest architectural features in golf
Bill McBride,
The Pacfic Ocean at PBGC is really an "outside" feature, removed from the golf course.
Rae's Creek is within the golf course.
I think that's a substantive distinction.
-
There's a little muni here in Philly, where if it is ever restored to its original state, might also be talked about in terms of having a creek being a great architectural feature. It came into play, in different ways, on three consecutive holes on the front nine (3-5), then again on three consecutive holes early on the back nine (12-14).
-
Mr. Mucci,
Apologies gladly offerred to you and even more so to Mr. McDade for my insult to him!
Pat, as far as your comment that "It's called "fine tuning" or "improvement..." my point is that HOW can a feature be one of the GREATEST architectural features in golf if it can be "fine tuned" or, worse yet, "improved?"
Now I think it is far and away a fabulous feature for the course and a prime example of how to incorporate it into a golf course. I DON'T think the early iteration of the 16th hole and the use of Rae's creek was. In my opinion the current 16th is far superior... Therefor I can't agree that its original use qualifies it as "one of the greatest architectural achievements in golf."
-
Philip,
Perhaps it is the incorporation of the creek in the original routing on 16 that allowed for the elasticity for the club to adapt the hole to its present state, which shows it was a great architectural feature.
Mark
-
Pat Mucci,
You have me confused with someone else. You commented, "Phil, the number of times a ball fails to clear Rae's Creek, or rolls back into Rae's Creek on # 12, 13, 15 and # 16, isn't as infrequently as you indicate..."
How do you get any of that out of what I wrote? "And yet they it took other eyes and a number of years later for the 16th to be remade using this water feature, which was also remade allowing for a pond, to fully bring out the potential of the site..."
Mr Young, your problem is that you're not the only person posting with the name "Phil".
Mr McDade has every right to be called "Phil", unless you've copywrited that moniker.
Apologies will be accepted. [/size]
Pat Craig, I think you need to take another look at the different versions of the 16th as the holes are very different. Actually though, and I understand that your opinion is that the first iteration of the hole is at least equal to today's, my point is a simple one. How did Jones & Mackenzie miss this hole design? It seems so very natural to the spot (despite the changing of Rae's creek to manage it) and it certainly is a hole that has seen numerous defining moments happen on it in the history of major championship golf. In missing it they also missed how the creek could be put to maximum advantage and so Pat M's premise about Rae's creek being one of the greatest architectural features in golf must be questioned. NOT because it isn't today, but rather because it obviously wasn't when originally used in the design for, if it was, why was it changed?
It's called "fine tuning" or "improvement"
The original 16 called for traversing the creek, so I don't think they missed anything.
In addition, pre 1934, the expense to move the creek would be hard to justify, especially coming off the Great Depression and the financial difficulties the club faced. Thirdly, early 20th century designers, other than CBM, weren't massive dirt movers and certainly not waterway movers.
So, for me the question should really be WHICH VERSION of the use of Rae's Creek is the better use as an architectural feature?
Irrespective of the version, it's still RAE'S CREEK, and as such, one of, if not the greatest architectural features in golf
Bill McBride,
The Pacfic Ocean at PBGC is really an "outside" feature, removed from the golf course.
Rae's Creek is within the golf course.
I think that's a substantive distinction.
You've jumped the shark now, Pat. How can the Pacific Ocean be "removed from the golf course" if it's possible to hit your golf ball into the ocean on half the holes at Pebble Beach.
Have you played there?
-
Pat Craig, I think you need to take another look at the different versions of the 16th as the holes are very different. Actually though, and I understand that your opinion is that the first iteration of the hole is at least equal to today's, my point is a simple one. How did Jones & Mackenzie miss this hole design? It seems so very natural to the spot (despite the changing of Rae's creek to manage it) and it certainly is a hole that has seen numerous defining moments happen on it in the history of major championship golf. In missing it they also missed how the creek could be put to maximum advantage and so Pat M's premise about Rae's creek being one of the greatest architectural features in golf must be questioned. NOT because it isn't today, but rather because it obviously wasn't when originally used in the design for, if it was, why was it changed?
So, for me the question should really be WHICH VERSION of the use of Rae's Creek is the better use as an architectural feature?
PY,
Thanks for the response.
I agree with your point of which version of the use of Rae's Creek on 16 is the better use is the question we are all getting at. I obviously never played the original version, but in seeing pictures and reading about it in the past, I always thought it looked much more natural and in line with the rest of the course, but for some reason everyone I've mentioned this to has shrugged that idea off in favor of today's (in my opinion) more modern version. There is no doubt that today's version is a great hole, but no one has really explained to me how it was such a big improvement.
For your other question, "why was it changed," could it just be that in making revisions to the course the club wanted to implement a more in vogue style by creating ponds on 11 and 16 using the creek? I'm assuming the hole was made longer for the same reason mentioned earlier in the thread, they didn't want two par-3's so close in distance on the same nine.
And I agree that I have to go back and take another look at the pictures and descriptions I have of the old 16 vs. the new 16 to refresh my memory.
-
Nicklaus made similar use of water at Muirfield Village, although I don't know if all the water at MV comes from the same source. The 12th at MV is obviously a copy of ANGC. The short par 4 with the narrow green (I think it's 14) is an interesting hole.
-
It's a great natural feature that the architects wisely utilized well in building the holes that Pat mentioned. The same effect can be seen at any number of less heralded courses that have creeks, ravines, barrancas or other natural features that can impact a hole at different angles.
-
Nicklaus made similar use of water at Muirfield Village, although I don't know if all the water at MV comes from the same source.
Nicklaus or Muirhead?
-
Greenville Country Club-Chanticleer is a course that does a pretty nice job of incorporating creeks into its routing.
-
Somebody mentioned Pastiempo above. That back nine, my favorite in golf that I've played, has the gnarly barranca in play on #10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18. It's a masterful routing that has always been the back nine. ;D
-
One of the greatest architectural features in golf - what about The First Architectural fFeatures in Golf
The Swilken Bridge St Andrews
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/SwilkenBridgeStAndrews-2.jpg)
Can’t be any older outside GB&I and most love to be photographed on it, so it must be ‘The Swilken Bridge and Burn’
Melvyn
-
The burn at Carnoustie comes into play quite abit.
-
Phil
Sorry does not count as you have not posted a photo of it to prove your point ;D
Melvyn
-
MM,
I've seen it spelled Swilken and the more popular (also what the Links Tust uses) Swilcan.
I'd agree that it's one of the greatest architectural features at a course full of them.
On this side I'd say Rae's is right up there, especially due to its TV exposure. The recent PV thread makes me think that the DA bunker should be one of the top contenders.
UK has the most, and most colorful, names for features.
-
Jam
Whats in a name among friends ;)
Melvyn
-
MM,
Thought I'd ask you, thinking Swilken may have been an older spelling not used today.
-
Phil
Sorry does not count as you have not posted a photo of it to prove your point ;D
Melvyn
Melvyn,
Just out of curiousity, how common is it for somebody to drive over the fence on 18 at TOC?
Phil
-
Pat:
I don't remember the year, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but during one of his early runs at winning the Masters, I saw Tom Watson hit it in the water on 16 to drop out of contention.
I'm not sure what that proves.
Jim Lewis
-
The water at TPC Sawgrass I'd suggest is pretty influential