[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Joe Bausch]

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).

[Phil_the_Author]

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."

[Mark Pritchett]

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

[Bill_McBride]

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?

[PCCraig]

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.

[Phil Benedict]

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.

[Terry Lavin]

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.

[Jim Nugent]

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?

[Mark Pritchett]

Greenville Country Club-Chanticleer is a course that does a pretty nice job of incorporating creeks into its routing. 

[Bill_McBride]

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.   

[Melvyn Morrow]

One of the greatest architectural features in golf - what about The First Architectural fFeatures in Golf

The Swilken Bridge St Andrews


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

[Phil Benedict]

The burn at Carnoustie comes into play quite abit. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Phil

Sorry does not count as you have not posted a photo of it to prove your point
Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jam

Whats in a name among friends

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

MM,
Thought I'd ask you, thinking Swilken may have been an older spelling not used today.

[Phil Benedict]

Phil

Sorry does not count as you have not posted a photo of it to prove your point
Melvyn

Melvyn,

Just out of curiousity, how common is it for somebody to drive over the fence on 18 at TOC?

Phil

[jim_lewis]

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

[Kevin Pallier]

The water at TPC Sawgrass I'd suggest is pretty influential

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()