[George_Bahto]

Mr Mucci said! ..............  (George)
"What can you tell us about the 13th, 14th and 15th holes at Westhampton ?

Westhampton is one of the most underrated golf courses in the country."

I agree, this is a very underrated golf course - espicially as first designed.

13 - originally 325 yards: a Leven hole (version of 17th NGLA)

14 - originally 439 yards, a par 5 then:  Dog leg left to a mild (now) double plateau green - actually has 3 plateaux; the green is pear-shaped with the "fat" side at the front, about a 1' plateau in the right front corner, about a 2' plateau in the left front corner, and about a 2' foot plateau, the whole rear section. The front right corner before the green was once marsh but is now part of a pond.

15 originally 403 yards: a really nice Punchbowl green with a deception feature 50 or so yards short of the green - a set of 5 bunkers were put in later but originally it was just a rise (remember where you are; this is flat land not much above the water table)

other great holes:

* a sunken Eden hole (#3) where you can only see the top of the flag from the teebox - very different ...... see, where is "template" for this one-of-a kind?

* a magnificent short hole facing the water - huge green, twice as wide as it is long with all sorts of features ..... if I remember correctly, that green is about 225 ft side to side. There are a couple building there now but when built, it would have looked as if you would go into the ocean if you went over the green!!

* 17 a one of a kind Biarritz with a horseshoe green, the round part of the shoe faces the tee and the two wings face the green. I haven't seen it since Mike/Gil/whoever reworked the hole

great green on the 1s hole

a really good Redan

* hole 8 as originally designed was a Bottle hole with an array of bunkers  over the first 250 yards - like, 12 of them, with three (more or less) down the centerline of the fairway that segmented the landing area. Two more bunkers short of the green and one beyond. I have to check, but I'm not sure all of it hit the ground.

* my favorite, the (originally) 457-yard, par5 - 9th .... I think it is a par-4 now!!  

"wadda" green! and it is was originally tuck in very close to the puchbowl green coming from the opposite direction. This hole was taken from an original hole at Lido ("Strategy" - one of the "other" contest winning design) (This was the first (completed) Raynor solo design and he was hyped, it appeared).

This fairway looked about 80 yards wide and offered two lines of play - taking the short line to the green had you coming in to a green that was coked the wrong way. The long approach to the right had the opening of the green towards "your" landing area.

I'll post a few of my hole drawings for this course over the next days.

Westhampton (CC of Westhampton Beach originally) is to be in the "infamous" next book of mine.

Too bad Mike R doesn't post anymore. They have the original plans and better, thru some (not-to-be named-source), I acquired copies of Banks green blueprints of for the "Oneck" course - fully detailed. I have never seen any others before or since.

[wsmorrison]

* a sunken Eden hole (#3) where you can only see the top of the flag from the teebox - very different ...... see, where is "template" for this one-of-a kind?

George,

It isn't really sunken, isn't it rather a berm all around the green?

[George_Bahto]

Yale:

I think the site selected for the course was the best on the donated property .........  Yale has to be viewed when the leaves are not on the trees so yopu can see the areas off-fairway. You can then envision what they did to the property!!

Also, usually forgotten is that there was another course drawn up at the same time.

Mike Sweeney??

Geoff Childs ??

others??

A nice writeup by Tony in Golfweek by the way

[George_Bahto]

Tommy P:  I don't know why the picture came out so small - I'll do it tomorrow or something (man, I guess I'm just gettin' older by the day!).... It is really worth a good looksee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Bahto,

The Biarritz, 17th is now entirely putting surface.

Was the water always there on # 12 or was it added.
If so, when, why and by whom ?

Westhampton is fun to play, and you're right, it's not the best site.

[T_MacWood]

“The architects used some natural features well. But according to you the real construction architecture is in the greens because they moved very little dirt in the  midbodies.  Well, from the little of what I've seen (and admittedly that ain't a lot) they don't resemble the natural settings very well.  They might play great and offer real challenges, but natural?  Come on.”

Wayne
I don’t understand your question…it doesn’t appear you followed what I was saying.

1. Raynor was blessed with a number excellent sites.

2. A successful routing takes full advantage of the sites outstanding natural features—ravines, streams, broken ground, coastline, etc. Raynor was able to place his manufactured greens near (sometimes in) the most interesting natural features of the site—the 12th green at Shoreacres as an example. In other words, he wasn’t constrained by a need to use only natural green sites.

3. Another reason his courses are natural IMO is due to the fact he moved very little dirt tee to green. The midbodies of his hole often have a lot of interest—the 18th of Yale and 15th at Shoreacres as severe examples. The 6th, 7th and 9th of The Creek are good examples as well, despite their manufactured green complexes those holes are exceedingly natural IMO.

I believe Seth Raynor was one of the better routers of his era.

I also believe the contrast of the manufactured greens with those outstanding natural features creates an interesting aesthetic, which is very appealing.

Pat
I don't know the answer to that question. Mike S.'s explanation makes sense to me.

[TEPaul]

"TE
One man's natural green site is another man's six foot berm.

Tom MacWood:

Remarks like that even with a smiley are the best reason why I wouldn't think anyone would really take what you say seriously. About a six foot high manufacturerd berm surrounding the sides and back of that great green site is so obviously not natural looking I'd think even you couldn't help but recognize it, but perhaps not. The photo from above and behind the green in the Fishers book shows all of the engineering that creates the punchbowl extremely clearly. Not to say that it's not a great green and green-end but to call that circular berm collaring both sides and the back natural looking is just laughable.

Is Fishers Island a good example of Arts and Crafts golf arhitecture? Did Seth Raynor have a photo of Rushkin on his office wall and his book on his bed-side table too?  

[SPDB]

While reluctant to wade into another WayneM/TEPaul donnybrook, I think it makes sense to note the distinction between greensite and the green itself. Greens and, to a certain extent, its surroundings are, by definition, manufactured. A six-foot berm surrounding a green, in my opinion, does not prevent a greensite from being "natural."

[Top100Guru]

Wayne;

About Your Comment:

"What are you talking about?  Do you speak for all membership committees of all Raynor/Macdonald clubs?  That was a completely pointless comment and as dumb as I've seen in a long time.  Just because a person disagrees that there is an abundance of naturalism on courses by an architect, you get so offended that you want to take your ball and go home?  And we can't play with it anymore.  Give me a break. "

Don't get so offended......It was a simple statement that simply meant, ANYONE THAT DOESNT LIKE CBM/RAYNOR Courses "need not apply" for membership.......those individuals arent forced to play on courses they do not like.....meaning mostly that the vast majority of CBM/Raynor courses are noot public and that those folks that dont like the architects style need not apply........so relax....and for the record, I dont "Take the ball and go home" EVER!!!!!!!!!....I am always available anytime for a beer and a lil discussion.......Like they use to say on The Price is Right.......COME ON DOWN!!!!!!!!

I'd love to chat w/ you........

[TEPaul]

If we say that plenty of elements of Raynor architecture looks engineered and manufactured and not natural looking that seems to evoke comments that we shouldn't apply for membership, play those courses etc. What's going on here? Is this a discussion group? I know a ton of Macdonald/Raynor courses, even grew up on one---Piping Rock. I love NGLA, and the others I've known and played for years---to me they play just great but if some on here actually think that elements of that engineered look of their courses looks anything like the natural land, area and lines that surrounds those engineered architectural elements I simply can't understand what's going on with some analysts' eyes. It shouldn't evoke defensiveness and hard feelings, I'm just talking about a look that's different than some of the truly "tied in" natural looking architectural elements of other architects.

[T_MacWood]

"Remarks like that even with a smiley are the best reason why I wouldn't think anyone would really take what you say seriously."

TE
If I had a dime for every time you have said that I'd be rich man.  

The green site is natural, the berm to create the bowl effect is not. It is a spectacular hole, not because of the berm, but because of the hole's natural attributes.

[TEPaul]

"The green site is natural, the berm to create the bowl effect is not. It is a spectacular hole, not because of the berm, but because of the hole's natural attributes."

Why thank you---we agree completely. That's exactly what I said and have been saying all along. The whole course has enormous natural attributes and spectacular settings for holes---but a good deal of Raynor's architectural elements are remarkably engineered and manufactured looking, not natural looking, certainly a number of his greens. That's all I've ever said about his architecture, and it's quite different that way from a number of the other "Golden Age" architects that practiced in his era. That's all I've ever said.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & George Bahto,

Do you feel that the green site at # 3 at Westhampton is natural ?

[George_Bahto]

"TEPaul & George Bahto,

Do you feel that the green site at # 3 at Westhampton is natural ? "

Wayne

the green is down - there a berm all around the green with this funky (and for my money, not original) berming around is as well. That is/was a p-bowl of sorts

On the berm there were originally 2 larger and two smaller bunkers and the OUTSIDE of the berm was surrounded with large expanse sand bunkers

I'll post a picture soon (?)

No, you can not see half the flag from the tee.

Certainly the green is not natural - no way but if you see the setting and study the original (ORIGINAL blueprint - I have a 1930) in an odd way, it fits the terrain pretty darn good.

The way it looks today it play good - but it looks crazy.

This is a very unique hole - but my main point is about its (non)template design!!!!!!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()