Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jon Cavalier on September 13, 2014, 10:35:15 PM
-
I had the opportunity to play Garden City Golf Club this past week. It's quite a wonderful place, from the clubhouse to the locker room to the patio to the pro shop. And the golf course is magnificent and unique.
But while the course at GCGC has many striking and unique attributes, the current iteration of the 12th green stands out as particularly interesting and perhaps controversial. It is the only green that I have ever seen to incorporate both inverted bunkers and large internal mounding. The mounding is entirely contained within the putting surface and is very pronounced. As the photos below show, it is one of a kind.
I don't know a great deal about the specific history of this hole, except to say that my understanding is that Travis designed the green in the same way that it currently sits. There is a an old arial photo hanging in the clubhouse (along with a museum-like quantity of other amazing relics) that clearly shows the mounding within the putting surface. RTJ Sr. then came along at some point and leveled the green out, got rid of the mounding, installed some new bunkering and lengthened the hole. Only recently was the hole restored to its present, and largely original, form.
I am very curious as to the thoughts of those on this board regarding this green. Garden City's remaining 17 greens are without exception excellent and challenging, but they tend to tilt predominantly from one side to the other and their internal contours (with the exception of the 4th) are largely subtle. There are no other greens on the course that even approach the kind of mounding that is present on the current 12th. Likewise, the only two inverted bunkers on the property that I saw were on 12.
I, for one, absolutely loved this hole. I thought the inverted bunkers were an interesting touch and, based on what the caddy told me, a very effective hazard for balls that are far enough offline to reach them. I thought the mounding presented great visuals from both the tee and the surrounds, and made for some really exciting opportunities. And I am very pleased that the club recreated Travis's green.
I was told, however, that some members absolutely despise the current version of 12. So, what do you guys think?
Here are the photos:
From the tee (note the inverted bumkers on both sides, the deep cross bunker fronting the green, and the mounding on both sides within the putting surface):
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3869/15044044969_0b7445256e_c.jpg)
Approaching the green:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5567/15227723621_760348ce20_c.jpg)
Inverted bunkers, cross bunker and mounding:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5553/15230819275_19c508b094_c.jpg)
Cross bunker and mounding:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5583/15044054549_47d338fc29_c.jpg)
From front left of green showing cross bunker and inverted bunkers:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3862/15044252107_3b0105526e_c.jpg)
From front right of green:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3896/15044257387_4a52033792_c.jpg)
From front right (inverted bunker and moundings):
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/15207803256_146a52a2c7_c.jpg)
Greenside right showing mounds:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3848/15230466022_b1a72bfd02_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3860/15044265347_a971a03de3_c.jpg)
Greenside left:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5582/15207815426_f93b83595a_c.jpg)
Back left view:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5561/15230841195_2f9698f154_c.jpg)
In my opinion, great course, great hole - what say you guys?
(Pics of other holes available - let me know if interested).
-
Every course needs a handful of edgy greens. If this is a restoration of the original green, I'm all for it. Who did the restoration? How many other greens did RTJ ruin?
-
Every course needs a handful of edgy greens. If this is a restoration of the original green, I'm all for it. Who did the restoration? How many other greens did RTJ ruin?
Again, I'm far from an expert on GCGC history, but I believe this is a restore of the Travis green and that it was done by Doak. And it's also my understanding the RTJ altered only the 12th green. But if someone here knows otherwise, I would love to be corrected.
-
Thanks for those great photos.
I know it's been discussed here, but those are shockingly cool pictures of the 12th hole.
Of course there are members that despise the restored green-they're called legacies(or Spalding)
-
Jon, thanks for the great photos of 12. I would love to see those you have of the rest of the course. There was another thread recently about Garden City but your photos look great & I never tire of remembering this wonderful course. The course, club (& # 12) are all unique and wonderful. I would love to play there more. Thanks again.
-
Always liked this picture...
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc430/SaltyLaw/GardenCity1from18_zpscf1b9170.jpg) (http://s1211.photobucket.com/user/SaltyLaw/media/GardenCity1from18_zpscf1b9170.jpg.html)
-
Are those bunkers hard to maintain?
-
Paging Pat Mucci
-
Every course needs a handful of edgy greens. If this is a restoration of the original green, I'm all for it. Who did the restoration? How many other greens did RTJ ruin?
Again, I'm far from an expert on GCGC history, but I believe this is a restore of the Travis green and that it was done by Doak. And it's also my understanding the RTJ altered only the 12th green. But if someone here knows otherwise, I would love to be corrected.
Before Pat chimes in, I'll add that it was Jim Urbina who did 99% of the work leading to it's present iteration. It does look and play significantly better that it's previous form and the inverted bunkers are not proving difficult to maintain.
-
Steve:
I might argue with you a bit about your assignment of credit. Jim built the green, with the help of a local contractor. I was only there a couple of days out of the two weeks it took to build, but it was up to me to tinker with it and ultimately sign off on it. That usually counts for something more than 1%.
Jon:
I've been consulting at Garden City for 24 years. From day one, the biggest question was always whether or not to restore this green, and if so, how. It was a polarizing green in the old days -- if you go back to articles about the course from the 1920's, discussion of the 12th dominates them -- and there was little doubt that it would receive mixed reviews if we put it back.
Mr. Jones actually redesigned three greens on the course ... the others were the 5th and the 14th. We restored those two 15 or 20 years ago, but the 12th was deemed too controversial at the time. The Jones green [like the Travis green] was nothing at all like the rest of the course, requiring a long, high shot with some degree of stop; it appealed only to a few low handicappers who thought it a good test.
There were a couple of threads here years ago about the possible restoration of that green ... I believe Pat Mucci and Tommy Naccarrato called me out for not having stood up for it. In fact, it had always been part of my master plan, but the superintendent at the time saw it as impossible to maintain, and the green chairman was unsure of the fallout. At one point they asked me to come up with an alternate plan to rebuild it and make it more like the other 17 greens, but I dragged my heels on actually building that, telling them I didn't want a Doak green in the middle of Travis' work.
The impetus to make the change came when the current superintendent, Dave Pughe, volunteered that he thought he could maintain the green, if we would tone it down enough that he could mow it. Jim Urbina worked with him to accomplish that -- I think the mounds in the green today are somewhere between 6 and 12 inches lower than the original, and less steep at the base -- and I am happy to see from your pictures that Dave seems to be having no trouble maintaining the turf properly.
-
Tom,
Always loved photos of that old green, and it reminded me of (if memory serves, there was some remodel going on at the time I played and maybe some temp re-routes) 17 at Lahainch, which had two much smaller ridges, one each side of the green. Missing just off the green required a putt up an over that you could barely stop near the pin, although the far ridge kept you on the green.
Glad to see 12 at GCGC restored, and probably the right amount of softening to make it practical, and similarly playable to the old days.
I am wondering if it's a topsoil green, or some kind of mix? If mix, did you add any amendments to hold water on the hills? Any pop up heads to give it extra water? Or just a QCV so he can hand water if required?
-
I have to say the inverted bunkers look out of place, almost a novelty feature. Do balls actually stay on (in) these? On the other hand, the cross bunker looks timeless and the green looks like it creates numerous outrageous and super fun shotmaking opportunities. This is clearly a massive improvement.
Was there any consideration of tweaking the original - i.e., not including the inverted bunkers? Curious to know the features of the hole that draw the most ire.
-
Thanks.
When I read the description, I thought I'd dislike it.
When I first saw the photo, I felt that I should dislike it -- being so clearly manufactured on this a famously flat site.
And then I looked at it for a while longer, and I realized that I liked it.
And after a bit more looking, I could see how interesting it would to play -- and then I really liked it.
And then I thought: ah, good craftsmanship can trump an design idea any time.
You learn something every day.
-
The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?
-
The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?
C&C has at least one at Streamsong.
-
A few early photos of the hole . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/GCGC12th.jpg?t=1338008480)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC12th-191310AG_zps32dae1ec.jpg)
This one is from 1949 . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-12th-194911_zps8531eaaa.jpg)
I've always wondered if perhaps if horseshoed mounds were the Travis version of the Macdonald horseshoe green most commonly associated with the Short Hole. (The green was built before the 1908 season, the same time Travis and Emmet were both working with CBM at NGLA) While the GCGC version is obviously longer, the strategic concept seems similar.
I wonder if there is any overseas green which might have served as a model for this? This was after all the age where it became quite popular to emulate features from abroad, so it is interesting at least that Travis, Emmet, CBM, and Barker were building par threes (of various lengths) with horseshoe shaped mounding within the greens.
I see above Jeff mentioned the 17th at Lahinch. Does that green have horseshoe mounds or parallel mounds? Any other candidates?
-
The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?
C&C has at least one at Streamsong.
Green side on Red #7
(http://imageshack.us/a/img825/9896/red7c.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img826/3814/red7d.jpg)
-
Given the inherent complexities of club politics, I would call this green restoration an unqualified success.
-
The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?
Tim,
Inverted bunkers can be found at NGLA as well, No. 9 & 17 come to mind. Personally, I don't like the look, although the picture from Streamsong looks more appealing and natural than the one reproduced at Garden City.
TK
-
The pictures look amazing. Anyone else aware of the use of "inverted" bunkers?
Tim,
Inverted bunkers can be found at NGLA as well, No. 9 & 17 come to mind. Personally, I don't like the look, although the picture from Streamsong looks more appealing and natural than the one reproduced at Garden City.
TK
The inverted bunker at Streamsong looks like a natural dune. From the picture of Garden City the inverted bunkers look anything but natural. Looks like a pitchers mound.
-
Judging only from the photos, the inverted bunkers at GC are visually jarring, and starkly unnatural.
Why would anybody want bunkers like that?
-
The convex bunker/s pictured are not isolated to the 12th hole at GCGC.
They're also present at a number of holes at NGLA.
I suspect that the newness/brightness of the sand provides the primary antagonism toward the feature.
What's interesting is that most only notice the convex bunker/s when they get to the 12th hole, completely missing them earlier in the round.
The bunkers are neither "jarring, and starkly unnatural" and fit in quite well with the elevated spines in the 12th green.
Should the "restoration" have been a "faithful" restoration or rather a hybrid restoration based upon the opinions of a few morons who have never stepped foot on the site ? ;D
-
David,
I've seen the photo below previously, along with others that are very similar.
Are you positive that this is the 12th green.
Early photos of # 1 and perhaps other holes reveal sleepers shoring up the banks of the green.
In looking at a number of early aerials of # 12, I'm not so sure that this picture is of that green.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC12th-191310AG_zps32dae1ec.jpg)
-
I'm not in agreement with the descriptions of how the 12th green came to be restored, but, at this point, all that matters is that the green has been functionally restored.
Now onto the 7th fairway/bunker and a restoration to 1936 ! ;D
-
I'm not in agreement with the descriptions of how the 12th green came to be restored, but, at this point, all that matters is that the green has been functionally restored.
Now onto the 7th fairway/bunker and a restoration to 1936 ! ;D
Pat, a fight worth fighting. That would be another fantastic change!
-
Patrick. Yes, I am pretty sure it is the 12th green. It was labeled the 12th green in the magazine. Also, scroll to the right and you can see the right mounds in the green.
_______________________________________________________
I like the look of the sand mound in the picture, but now that Steve Okula mentions it, I can see what he means . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/KershawGCGC.jpg)
-
David,
There are other greens with nearby mounds.
And, if you look closely, those mounds aren't maintained as putting surface, leading me to believe that it's not the 12th green.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC12th-191310AG_zps32dae1ec.jpg)
In addition, based on the flanking mounds, the photo is taken looking either east or west.
As you can see from the photo below, when looking east or west there are NO trees in the backround.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-12th-194911_zps8531eaaa.jpg)
And, I can't find any evidence, in any early photos, that the bunker immediately adjacent to the green, had sleepers shoring up the banks of the green.
Photos are often mislabeled.
There are other photos of the 1st green that resemble the sleepers in this green.
-
Patrick, The image is from the October 1913 American Golfer. Travis's magazine. The caption: "Mr. John G. Anderson (on the left) and Mr. Jerome D. Travers on the 12th green."
As for the sleepers, that aerial you reposted is from 1949.
Take a close look at the older aerial. There appear to have been sleepers.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/GCGC12th.jpg?t=1338008480)
-
Steve:
I might argue with you a bit about your assignment of credit. Jim built the green, with the help of a local contractor. I was only there a couple of days out of the two weeks it took to build, but it was up to me to tinker with it and ultimately sign off on it. That usually counts for something more than 1%.
Jon:
I've been consulting at Garden City for 24 years. From day one, the biggest question was always whether or not to restore this green, and if so, how. It was a polarizing green in the old days -- if you go back to articles about the course from the 1920's, discussion of the 12th dominates them -- and there was little doubt that it would receive mixed reviews if we put it back.
Mr. Jones actually redesigned three greens on the course ... the others were the 5th and the 14th. We restored those two 15 or 20 years ago, but the 12th was deemed too controversial at the time. The Jones green [like the Travis green] was nothing at all like the rest of the course, requiring a long, high shot with some degree of stop; it appealed only to a few low handicappers who thought it a good test.
There were a couple of threads here years ago about the possible restoration of that green ... I believe Pat Mucci and Tommy Naccarrato called me out for not having stood up for it. In fact, it had always been part of my master plan, but the superintendent at the time saw it as impossible to maintain, and the green chairman was unsure of the fallout. At one point they asked me to come up with an alternate plan to rebuild it and make it more like the other 17 greens, but I dragged my heels on actually building that, telling them I didn't want a Doak green in the middle of Travis' work.
The impetus to make the change came when the current superintendent, Dave Pughe, volunteered that he thought he could maintain the green, if we would tone it down enough that he could mow it. Jim Urbina worked with him to accomplish that -- I think the mounds in the green today are somewhere between 6 and 12 inches lower than the original, and less steep at the base -- and I am happy to see from your pictures that Dave seems to be having no trouble maintaining the turf properly.
Tom,
I meant no slight to you, and undoubtedly you do deserve a great deal of the credit for this gem. I was simply ascribing the lion's share of the physical (shaping) work to Jim. My bad :P if it was taken any other way.
-
Guys,
I'm glad you liked the photos - thanks for the comments. As requested, I'll post some of the others from that day.
Tom, Pat, David and others - thanks for the great discussion of this striking hole. I've enjoyed the education on this very interesting hole.
-
Patrick, The image is from the October 1913 American Golfer. Travis's magazine. The caption: "Mr. John G. Anderson (on the left) and Mr. Jerome D. Travers on the 12th green."
David,
As you and I know from prior experience, photos are often mislabeled.
As for the sleepers, that aerial you reposted is from 1949.
Take a close look at the older aerial. There appear to have been sleepers.
My eyes aren't as keen as others, but the photo below appears to show slopes between the sand and the putting surface, whereas the sleepers present a steep vertical wall absent any slope.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC12th-191310AG_zps32dae1ec.jpg)
In addition, there are NO trees to the left (east) and right (west) of the green below.
And, in the first photo, there's no "offset" between the bunker and the green.
In the earlier aerial, the "offset" is quite pronounced.
There are too many consistencies to conclude, absolutely, that the photo of the golfers on the green, was taken on the 12th green.
The photo you posted appears in the history of GCGC.
On the prior page, a photo of the 1st hole, with sleepers fronting the bunker also appears.
Look at both of them and notice how the green starts within a foot or so of the sleepers, with NO "offset".
I'd appreciate it if you could post that photo of the 1st hole showing the sleepers.
Also examine the geometric, absolutely straight line presented by both sets of sleepers.
Do you find those extended straight lines in any of your aerials ?
I don't see them, but, again, my eyes aren't the best.
What do you think ?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/GCGC12th.jpg?t=1338008480)
-
Patrick,
We just might have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't have much doubt that the photograph is of the 12th green, as labeled. For me the mounds are the giveaway. Their shapes and locations match the images in the aerials. Scroll right in the picture (to a part cut off in the GCGC book) and look at the mounds on the right, including the little pointed mound front right. They match the mounds in the aerials.
As for your other observations, I don't see it that way.
- The sleepers do not look "absolutely straight" to me. They look curved from front left to right.
- I don't think the green starts within a foot or so from the sleepers. I see a narrow swath of rough, then a wider swath of shortgrass, then green. It is a flat angle so it is tough to judge how much space there is, but it is looks to be much more than on the 1st green.
- I can't tell how far away those trees are, but they look significantly back to me.
As for the other photo of the sleepers adjacent to the 1st green, I know the photo you mean, but I don't have a digital version to post (and my scanner is not working.)
It is interesting that the mounds don't appear to be quite mowed at green height, but looking at them it shouldn't be too surprising. They look like they were cut pretty close, probably as close as could be expected given their steep nature.
-
Frankly, I like the look of 12 green at GCGC......why not use an inversted bunker? The internal green contouring is really interesting.
I assume it was done (originally nad again now) for a very specific reaso, not done "just to do it".
-
how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?
it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.
-
how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?
it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.
I was wondering the same thing. I saw the one at Streamsong Red, in fact a playing partner was in it, but that had the feel of a dune and was pretty compact with the associated vegetation. These look like a pile of sand. Is there mounded earth underneath?
-
how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?
it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.
I was wondering the same thing. I saw the one at Streamsong Red, in fact a playing partner was in it, but that had the feel of a dune and was pretty compact with the associated vegetation. These look like a pile of sand. Is there mounded earth underneath?
The inverted bunker(s) at Garden City are actually built mostly out of gravel, with a bit of sand covering the top, so they don't blow away quickly. This was Jim Urbina's idea and it seems to be holding up very well.
The mounds at Streamsong were leftovers from the quarry operation ... just piles of native sand. During construction they had a bunch of weedy grasses on them and I wondered how they would be treated in the end. It's difficult to maintain them that way, because golfer's footprints and wind erosion will take their toll ... I would guess that they'll have to be restored periodically. The ones at Garden City may not, as it's pretty hard for a ball to wind up lying on one of them. They seem more of an obstacle than a hazard, really, but I haven't had a chance to watch very many people play the hole to see if they work as we visualized they would.
-
I am wondering if it's a topsoil green, or some kind of mix? If mix, did you add any amendments to hold water on the hills? Any pop up heads to give it extra water? Or just a QCV so he can hand water if required?
Jeff:
Believe it or not, that's a USGA green -- gravel layer and twelve inches of mix. The most difficult to build I have ever seen.
I don't believe the soil was amended prior to seeding. I am sure Dave Pughe is treating them differently in order to manage the moisture, but don't know the details of his program ... I should find out. I'd guess that hand watering is a big part of the program.
-
Do members typically chip if they are outside the mounding on the green?
-
Do members typically chip if they are outside the mounding on the green?
Andrew,
So much depends upon hole location as it relates to the spines, and whether or not you're on the green, fringe or rough.
You can use anything from putter to all of your other clubs.
I typically use a 3-wood, unless I'm in the rough.
If the hole is cut behind the near spine, the best you can hope for is a 10-15 foot putt.
If the hole is cut in front of the far spine, your choices are many.
It's a terrific hole, one that makes you think if you're outside of the spines and one that should make you think, based upon hole location, as to where you want to miss the green.
Rarely have I seen shots go long, but, a few do.
It's fun to look at and more fun to play, although, it may be a little too long, either that or I'm getting too short.
-
Tom Doak,
In my limited play, I haven't seen anyone's ball come to rest on the convex bunker, nor have I heard of anyone's ball coming to rest on the convex bunker.
The configuration and construction seem to guarantee deflection rather than residence.
-
how firm is the sand in the inverted bunker? do you play it more like a regular chip with ball-first contact or is it soft enough that you'd still be looking to splash it out?
it's a fascinating hole to look at. thanks to everyone for providing so many great pics. i'm having a blast just sitting here imagining all the crazy scenarios one could find themselves in.
The sand is pretty firm - it won't collapse if you walk on it - but the top layer is soft and loose enough to hold a ball.
Our caddy told us that he sees shots end up "on" the bunker occasionally, and that those players that do have a hell of a time hitting a recovery shot.
To the earlier points about other inverted bunkers - the mounding at Streamsong looks, to me, like a natural sand protrusion. The ones at Garden City look exactly like man made bunkers that have been overfilled with sand. As Pat pointed out, Garden City does have other Streamsong-like sand protrusions, but nothing like what I call the inverted bunkers on 12. The difference is easily apparent in person.
-
Jon/Pat -
In your 6th and 7th pictures there are some grassy mounds in the background by another green. Did those start as inverted bunkers perhaps?
Very cool hole. It would certainly be one to remember. And that's saying a lot given the fairly flat land that it sits on.
-
Jon/Pat -
In your 6th and 7th pictures there are some grassy mounds in the background by another green. Did those start as inverted bunkers perhaps?
Morgan,
In what reply # do those pictures appear ?
Very cool hole. It would certainly be one to remember. And that's saying a lot given the fairly flat land that it sits on.
-
Jon/Pat -
In your 6th and 7th pictures there are some grassy mounds in the background by another green. Did those start as inverted bunkers perhaps?
Morgan,
In what reply # do those pictures appear ?
Very cool hole. It would certainly be one to remember. And that's saying a lot given the fairly flat land that it sits on.
Morgan:
I think you're referring to this one:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/15207803256_146a52a2c7_c.jpg)
Those mounds are next to the 6th green. Here are better photos of those mounds:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3901/15066440009_69f14c7c1a_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3900/15253212855_f3964a4dc9_c.jpg)
I think these sand piles are more like those used at Streamsong (discussed above) rather than "inverted bunkers."
-
Jon,
The shame is, that over time, grass has replaced sand in depressions and on mounds.
The photos from 1936 show far less grass and far more sand.
The angle of the photo depicting the sandy mounds in the backround is not one the golfer typically views.
And, those mounds are about 200 or so yards removed from the 12th green.
-
Patrick,
We just might have to agree to disagree on this one.
We do.
I don't have much doubt that the photograph is of the 12th green, as labeled.
For me the mounds are the giveaway. Their shapes and locations match the images in the aerials. Scroll right in the picture (to a part cut off in the GCGC book) and look at the mounds on the right, including the little pointed mound front right. They match the mounds in the aerials.
As for your other observations, I don't see it that way.
- The sleepers do not look "absolutely straight" to me. They look curved from front left to right.
But, in the aerial, they're definitely sloped whereas, in the ground level photo they're purely vertical.
How do you explain that ?
- I don't think the green starts within a foot or so from the sleepers.
Okay, I'll give you six feet or so, but, the aerial reveals that the green doesn't start for a good ten (10) yards
I see a narrow swath of rough, then a wider swath of shortgrass, then green.
The aerial shows a good ten yards or more of NON-Green between the slopre/sleepers and the putting surface.
You can gain some perspective by the size and juxtaposition of the golfers
It is a flat angle so it is tough to judge how much space there is, but it is looks to be much more than on the 1st green.
- I can't tell how far away those trees are, but they look significantly back to me.
David, there aren't trees behind that green for hundreds of yards.
Those trees look to be within 50 or so yards to me
As for the other photo of the sleepers adjacent to the 1st green, I know the photo you mean, but I don't have a digital version to post (and my scanner is not working.)
When your scanner is up and running it would be great if you could post it.
It is interesting that the mounds don't appear to be quite mowed at green height, but looking at them it shouldn't be too surprising.
They look like they were cut pretty close, probably as close as could be expected given their steep nature.
They certainly look to be consistent with the putting surface in the aerials, whereas they appear very shaggy in the ground level photo.
Do you have a date for that photo ?
-
Patrick, I am pretty sure there was only one green at GCGC with giant mounds on the putting surface like those shown in the photos.
To briefly address your other other points . . .
- Your eyes must be a lot better than mine, because I cannot tell whether or not the sleepers were sloped in the old aerial. Nor can I tell whether or not they were straight up and down in the American Golfer photo.
- Whether there are trees now is irrelevant.
- The ground level photo is from the 1913 U.S. Amateur. The mounds look a bit shaggy but this doesn't really surprise me. It is not like they could run a mower over them, and I don't think wire weed-whackers had been invented.
- Here is a photo of the photo you requested.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/photo-4.jpg)
-
Patrick, The image is from the October 1913 American Golfer. Travis's magazine. The caption: "Mr. John G. Anderson (on the left) and Mr. Jerome D. Travers on the 12th green."
David,
As you and I know from prior experience, photos are often mislabeled.
As for the sleepers, that aerial you reposted is from 1949.
Take a close look at the older aerial. There appear to have been sleepers.
My eyes aren't as keen as others, but the photo below appears to show slopes between the sand and the putting surface, whereas the sleepers present a steep vertical wall absent any slope.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC12th-191310AG_zps32dae1ec.jpg)
In addition, there are NO trees to the left (east) and right (west) of the green below.
And, in the first photo, there's no "offset" between the bunker and the green.
In the earlier aerial, the "offset" is quite pronounced.
There are too many consistencies to conclude, absolutely, that the photo of the golfers on the green, was taken on the 12th green.
The photo you posted appears in the history of GCGC.
On the prior page, a photo of the 1st hole, with sleepers fronting the bunker also appears.
Look at both of them and notice how the green starts within a foot or so of the sleepers, with NO "offset".
I'd appreciate it if you could post that photo of the 1st hole showing the sleepers.
Also examine the geometric, absolutely straight line presented by both sets of sleepers.
Do you find those extended straight lines in any of your aerials ?
I don't see them, but, again, my eyes aren't the best.
What do you think ?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/GCGC12th.jpg?t=1338008480)
Like Patrick, I do not think the top photo is the 12th. If you look at the aerial view and other photos of the 12th the mounding is in a horseshoe around both sides and the back of the green. On the bottom photo there is no rear mounding which leads me to believe it is not the 12th.
Jon
-
Jon I think the horseshoe had an opening in the back right, or at least the mounds were substantially smaller. This is more visible in the 1949 aerial.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-12th-194911_zps8531eaaa.jpg)
-
Here is Travis in 1908 recounting how he had a ball stop at the very apex of one of the mounds, and then holed the next shot. He also offers a good description of the hole.
(Jon, note he describes the mounds as on "either side of the green.")
Playing the twelfth hole at Garden City the other day, I put my tee shot in the bunker to the right—where it usually goes—and in playing out, lodged the ball on the very apex of a conical mound about three feet high, which had stymied my approach. How the ball managed to stay there is an absolute mystery. I suppose I could try it a million times again, from any distance, and with any club, without getting it to stay right on the very pinnacle. And wonders did not cease there! From the top of that mound I holed the ball with a mid-iron! The hole is one hundred and eighty-six yards from the middle of the tee to the middle of the green. The tee is some twenty-two yards in depth, the theory of the hole being that a full shot is demanded, involving a carry of at least one hundred and sixty yards, the tee-plates being moved backward or forward, according to the wind. It is a very difficult hole. On either side of the green are large mounds, beautifully turfed, some five feet at the highest point, tapering down to nothing. Over these mounds a ball may be putted or pitched. Immediately in front, about ten yards from the edge of the green, is a very deep bunker with big sand piles on either side and a sand bunker semi-circling the green about 20 yards equidistant from the edge of the green. During the last Amateur Championship, this hole came in for a great deal of criticism, both favorable and otherwise, and was variously dubbed, the Camel; the Dromedary; the Goat; the Sea Serpent; the Sacred Cow; the Hog's Back; the Razor Back; the Gate of Hell; the Humps; the Hummocks; the Hillocks; Travis's trap; and Travis's travesty. As somebody very truly observed, a hole which lends itself so easily to so many names must have undoubted merits. It is one of the hardest holes I know of, anywhere.
-
A very fine thread.
Nice to see one individual hole, particularly from a personal perspective a hole I'm not familiar with, analysed and discussed in this manner.
As to the inverted bunkers, is the sand firm or soft? It occurred to me, perhaps incorrectly, that even low flighted shots could 'plug' into the surface if the sand were softish.
atb
-
Jon I think the horseshoe had an opening in the back right, or at least the mounds were substantially smaller. This is more visible in the 1949 aerial.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-12th-194911_zps8531eaaa.jpg)
David,
the older photo definitely shows the mounding going in a horseshoe around the back of the green (as does the TD restoration) but clearly this is no longer the case in the 1949 version you have posted. I suppose it depends on when the photo of the players was taken but certainly on the evidence of your last photo it could be of the 1949 version.
Jon
-
Jon,
The ground level photo is from 1913. I don't remember the date of the older aerial but if I recall correctly it is very early, so I believe the ground level (1913) photo is much closer in time to the old aerial than the 1949 aerial.
I see why you would describe the mounds as a horseshoe and have used the same description myself. I also see why you think the older aerial shows a complete horseshoe, but I am inclined to disagree on this second point. It is hard to tell for sure, but it looks to me that there was an opening in the back right of the horseshoe.
Here is are two images of the green in the older aerial, blown up a bit. I've highlighted what I think were the locations of the mounds in this photo.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-mounds.jpg)
The next tee was to the right of the green. Leaving the back right open would have allowed golfers to pass to the next tee without scaling the mounds.
-
Another way to come at this problem is to ask this question: If the 1913 image is not the 12th green, then which green is it?
The 12th green was quite famous and oft discussed because of the huge mounds on the green. I've never read any discussion of any other hole at Garden City with similar mounds on the green.
Patrick says there were other greens with mounds nearby, but these mounds aren't nearby, they are right on the green or very closely flanking it, and think about how small the green would have to have been for these mounds to be flanking mounds! I am unaware of any other early green at GCGC which fit the description, and I believe that such an oddity would have been discussed. (Like the 12 green was discussed.)
Patrick suggests the green on the first hole, which a well known (and copied) hole. I've never read any description of such mounds at the 1st green. Also, look at the 1913 image of the bunker abutting the first green, on the previous page. No mounds are visible, yet if this was the same bunkern, we ought to at least see part of the small front right mound which is visible in the old aerial in the ground level image.
Also, notice the mowing lines up into the mounds, particularly the large right mound. The grass is visibly cut short right up into the mound, suggesting it was on the green or at least abutting the green.
I've cropped the 1913 image so it fits on the page, and highlighted where I see the borders of the mounds. To me they are a pretty good match of the old aerial.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-12-mounds-1913.jpg)
If this isn't the 12th green, then which green is it?
While I can see why you guys have doubts, the photo fits much better with the 12th green than anything else on the course (or anywhere else for that matter.)
-
David,
I have to run, but would ask you the following question.
If this is the 12th green, where's the spine/mound at the back of the green ?
-
David,
yes I can see what you are getting at and think it to be correct.
Jon
-
Another way to come at this problem is to ask this question: If the 1913 image is not the 12th green, then which green is it?
David, one of the impediments to answering that question is that we don't have aerial and ground level photos of all of the greens circa 1913.
However, I should be playing GCGC in the not too distant future and will look for some early photos.
There are a number of existing greens that were not there in 1913 and vice versa.
The 12th green was quite famous and oft discussed because of the huge mounds on the green. I've never read any discussion of any other hole at Garden City with similar mounds on the green.
There are other greens with mounds immediately adjacent to the green.
Patrick says there were other greens with mounds nearby, but these mounds aren't nearby, they are right on the green or very closely flanking it, and think about how small the green would have to have been for these mounds to be flanking mounds! I am unaware of any other early green at GCGC which fit the description, and I believe that such an oddity would have been discussed. (Like the 12 green was discussed.)
# 12 was the "signature" hole, and not just because of the mounds, hence, I don't think you can exclude any other green just because it received less print.
Patrick suggests the green on the first hole, which a well known (and copied) hole. I've never read any description of such mounds at the 1st green. Also, look at the 1913 image of the bunker abutting the first green, on the previous page. No mounds are visible, yet if this was the same bunkern, we ought to at least see part of the small front right mound which is visible in the old aerial in the ground level image.
Where's the photo of the 1st green that you're referring to ?
No mounds are visible because of the angle of the photo which is primarily focused on the bunker and sleepers, not the green
Also, notice the mowing lines up into the mounds, particularly the large right mound. The grass is visibly cut short right up into the mound, suggesting it was on the green or at least abutting the green.
You're deliberately avoiding the issue of the offset.
None appears in your ground level photo, yet we know, from the aerial, that the offset was a good ten yards or more.
And, the slope of the bunker in the aerial is pronounced, not vertical as it is in the photo with the sleepers.
I've cropped the 1913 image so it fits on the page, and highlighted where I see the borders of the mounds. To me they are a pretty good match of the old aerial.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-12-mounds-1913.jpg)
If this isn't the 12th green, then which green is it?
That's what we're trying to ascertain.
While I can see why you guys have doubts, the photo fits much better with the 12th green than anything else on the course (or anywhere else for that matter.)
You don't know that because you don't have aerial and ground level photos of every green circa 1913.
-
Patrick I think we are going around in circles.
From my perspective it looks like the 12th hole, and it was labeled the 12th hole in Travis's magazine, and I am not aware of any other hole like it at GCGC at the time that it could have been. So I think it is the 12th hole. If you come up with another fitting hole I'll reconsider, but until then there is no reason to keep going over the same points.
I addressed the issue of offset above, along with your other points. I don't see it the same as you.
Let me know if you find any photos of another hole at GCGC with giant mounds on the green in 1913.
-
Patrick I think we are going around in circles.
From my perspective it looks like the 12th hole, and it was labeled the 12th hole in Travis's magazine, and I am not aware of any other hole like it at GCGC at the time that it could have been. So I think it is the 12th hole. If you come up with another fitting hole I'll reconsider, but until then there is no reason to keep going over the same points.
I addressed the issue of offset above, along with your other points. I don't see it the same as you.
Let me know if you find any photos of another hole at GCGC with giant mounds on the green in 1913.
David,
OK, but, those giant mounds are not ON the green, they are off the green and not maintained as putting surface.
-
Judging only from the photos, the inverted bunkers at GC are visually jarring, and starkly unnatural.
Why would anybody want bunkers like that?
Because they're part of the architectural fabric of the course.
Convex bunkers are in evidence from the very first hole.
They appear again on the 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th holes.
I suspect the brightness/whiteness of the new sand is at the core of the objections.
If the sand was darker with some random grass interspersed in the bunker, I would think the objections would turn to praise.
Perhaps the criticism reinforces C.B. Macdonald''s admonition on page 295 in "Scotland's Gift"
-
Judging only from the photos, the inverted bunkers at GC are visually jarring, and starkly unnatural.
Why would anybody want bunkers like that?
Because they're part of the architectural fabric of the course.
Convex bunkers are in evidence from the very first hole.
They appear again on the 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th holes.
I suspect the brightness/whiteness of the new sand is at the core of the objections.
If the sand was darker with some random grass interspersed in the bunker, I would think the objections would turn to praise.
Perhaps the criticism reinforces C.B. Macdonald''s admonition on page 295 in "Scotland's Gift"
I would also note that the current version of the inverted (I like "inverted"better than "convex") bunkers used on 12 today appear quite similar to those in the photo below:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/GCGC-12th-194911_zps8531eaaa.jpg)
-
Jon,
When the directive was given to restore he hole, it wasn't a partial or incomplete directive.
To restore the hole and leave out significant features would be equivalent to altering an original hole.
-
When I first saw the inverted bunkers in the photos, I assumed that the renovation work was ongoing and that the mounds would be sodded or seeded. Apparently I was mistaken.
Maybe I'll get thrown off the DG for writing this, but I think they look ridiculous and they have now edged the "Ryebrows" of Rye into 2nd place on the "Daftest feature on a Great Golf Course" list. I can't help wondering that if these were seen on a resort course in Thailand or China, or even a cheap public/muni course, we'd be rolling about in laughter.
I accept that they were part of a full restoration, but it looks so contrived.
Small natural sand dunes with vegetation: :)
Inverted sand bunkers: ??? ::)
-
Donal,
How do they look as you're standing on the tee about to hit your tee shot ?
-
Donal,
How do they look as you're standing on the tee about to hit your tee shot ?
If that's a roundabout way of asking have I played the course; no I haven't. I'm still waiting for my invitation. ;D ;)
Depending on light conditions, I could imagine that a visitor could mistake them as flashed bunkers from a distance.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3869/15044044969_0b7445256e_c.jpg)
-
Donal,
The same type of bunkers exist on # 1 and # 3.
On # 3, they're more in play than on # 1 and present an optical illusion as to the general configuration and juxtaposition of ALL the bunkers, concave and convex.
Their location on # 12, at the corners of the fronting trench bunker presents a neat contrast.
Functionally, they tend to deflect 3/4 of the drives hitting them, away from the green.
When you assemble the component parts, the deep front trench bunker, the spines in the green, the general floor of the green and the convex bunkers, they make for an interesting visual presentation.
I'd guess that those viewing them in photos have a different perspective than those viewing them as they play the hole.
I find nothing objectionable about them.
Charles Blair Macdonald thought so much of them that he imported them at NGLA ;D
-
Patrick,
I've never seen convex (inverted) bunkers. Is sand layered over turfed swells? Surely, they're not composed entirely of sand? Agronomically fascinating and optically intriguing.
-
Patrick,
I've never seen convex (inverted) bunkers. Is sand layered over turfed swells? Surely, they're not composed entirely of sand? Agronomically fascinating and optically intriguing.
John.
On these particular bunkers, the sand is a rather thin layer at the surface.
They are neat looking and serve a function.
-
Pat,
It looks like the mounds inside the green do not "connect" or make their way around the back of the green. When the course opened, did the mounds form a complete horse shoe?
-
Thought this should probably be added here.
Golf Magazine May 1907 -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Garden%20City%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20May%201907_zpsrfi3dfbr.png)