[T_MacWood]

Thanks for the advice on analyzing research, I'll keep that in mind the next time I decide to write something, perhaps I'll pass it by you prior to publishing it.

[TEPaul]

Sarcasm isn't that becoming of you or anyone else Tom. Many of us on here are just trying to get to the bottom of some things and asking questions and questioning material, opinions, assumptions and conclusions is all just part of that. If things like that can't happen and can't be done then no wonder a club like a GCGC is taking their glacial time of getting a restoration done! I don't see any reason to take any of this personally--if the material is there and its analyzed correctly what is just is and what's right for that club probably will just eventually be. This is the type of thing that goes on in committees and such and even amongst memberships that produce some of the best master plans for restorations of some good old architecture.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I believe I have answered most of the questions that have been asked. I have also corrected some incorrect conjecture and illogical conclusions and theories. I’m obviously interested in getting at the truth, that is why I have spent good amount of my own time researching and analyzing. But I’m not interested in a wild goose chase…which is what this thread has degenerated in to.

There is more information in the public record on GCGC and its evolution than any course I know….anyone who is interested is free to dig it up and draw their own conclusions. You might want to start by finding a picture of an aspargus hazard, since they appear to be of particular interest.

If you don’t like sarcasm, you might want to retrace some of your own comments on this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I agree with you regarding # 15, but strongly disagree with you regarding play to the left of the left side fairway bunkers.

Remember, the carry over the right side fairway bunkers was deemed heroic, carry over the left side fairway bunkers would be impossible.

Add to this, the slope of the fairway leading too, and trailing off to the left of the left side fairway bunkers and that narrow sliver of land becomes almost impossible to end up on.
In addition, if a herculian drive was to carry those bunkers, the likelyhood is that it would end up on the dirt road that bisects the fairway and rough, not an ideal lie when compared to the fairway.

You also have to consider the visual, the architecture presented to the golfer on the tee.  The area left of the left side fairway bunkers is semi-blind, which is another reason that I doubt that that was an intended or prefered line of play.

The accurate, straight shot that Tom MacWood references, is the drive that is able to thread the needle of the left side and right side fairway bunkers.  Shorter drivers have ample room left, and can then navigate their way to the right side on their second, leaving them an ideal approach on their third.
Heroic drives can carry the right side fairway bunkers and have an unobstructed VIEW and shot to the green.

Remember, that the center to left side of the drive zone leaves most golfers with a blind to semi-blind second shot to the green.

Width that is not seen or perceived is not width worth gambling on.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Thanks for all your answers and all that you've corrected about GCGC although I'm not certain what all that is exactly.

TommyN has pointed out something very interesting about the possible original width of GCGC's #16 fairway--something you confirmed on here. Maybe you told him about that--I wouldn't know.

That kind of thing leads to all kinds of interesting points about Travis and his philosophy on width, effective narrowness through bunkering inside fairway lines which leads almost directly to extremely interesting optional and strategic possibilities.

As far as Emmet, in that vein, one can't be very sure about that particularly when he advocates narrowness of fairway in a very relevant quote in the GCGC history book but in fairness to Emmet he did mention narrowness or possibly effective narrowness in a favorable reference to TOC so one probably needs to look into his take on that more closely as the logical assumption might be in an earlier era TOC was probably very wide of fairway with numerous bunkering schemes within that width possibly effectively making it's playability narrow (but of course multi-optional and hence highly strategic.

As to the fact of whether or not Travis (or someone else) actually moved #16 green left, again, that does very much interest me for obvious reasons of alteration and evolution on that hole and the reasons why. And again, if, and only if, that 1950 drawing of the placement of the course's original #16 green is accurate and in scale I really can't see any way that that green could not have been moved left when one measures its placement off all kinds of things that are visible in the drawing and on the aerials like the old #17 tee, the comparative proximity of the 16th green to the 3rd green (which has never moved) then and now, various roads, trees etc.

The point is things like those have been there from the beginning of the course--and can better serve as permanent references points. If that 1950 drawing of the old 16th green is accurate and in scale I guess I'm just saying I think you're wrong. But I sure would love to see that additional material to see what all that looks like in regard to all those things too.

I'm also sort of wondering how Travis doglegged #16 as the history book said he did if nothing moved on either end of that hole. Emmet's old #16 was pretty narrow on that drawing and it sure did appear dead straight on that drawing. Did Travis move the tee left to dogleg the hole or did he move the green left to do it, or did he do something in the middle of the hole to do it?

And I have no idea why you say you're not interested in a wild goose chase. I'm getting all this from GCGC material and aerials and as far as I can see we're still concentrating on the original subject of this thread which is the 16th hole of GCGC.

As to the original point of whether or not that pond goes and what replaces it I still can't quite understand why you're so attached to that bunker and why you're not willing to look into the subject of what Travis may have had to the left of #16 green. Are you only dismissing that possible option and feature because you think Darwin or Hutchinson may have had something to say about that type of thing once?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you remove the bunkers short of the green, you straighten out the hole.

Perhaps the insertion of those bunkers created the dogleg.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Maybe. And maybe Travis moved the tee left. Maybe he moved the green left or maybe he even moved the entire right half of the fairway right and closer to the boundary line on the right to dogleg the hole. I'm just trying to figure out how he did it. And I'm still trying to determine if that old 1898 #16 green in the 1950 drawing is drawn on there accurately and in scale because if it is it appears to be not much more than about 15-20 yards from the corner of the property line in that area. It sure doesn't look to me like the present green is remotely that close. And how in the world can the old green line right up basically in front of the 3rd green when when you look at it coming down #16 when it doesn't do that anymore?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

How far is it to hit a drive from the tips down to that old road as it crosses the right half of that fairway?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Do you think the club should consider the 1898 hole when weighing restoration options?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think the tee could have been moved left, as the area to the right was not GCGC property.

I'd guestimate about 300 yards in the middle of the fairway.

If I felt better, I'd go measure all of the features on the hole,
perhaps next spring.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood asked:

"TE
Do you think the club should consider the 1898 hole when weighing restoration options?"

Tom:

You already basically asked me that same question on post #244. I realize I write a lot--too much probably--but on post #249 I answered that question---here's how. (And no, I didn't ever say they should restore any Emmet but you have. But I'm not even sure what all Emmet did to the course after Travis died in 1927).

"Am I interested in restoring the 1898 course? Of course not but I am interested in how the golf course evolved in detail from the 1898 course. The 1898 course was Emmet/Hubbell. Travis definitely evolved the course from that 1898 course and exactly how he did it and in detail is interesting to know. It's also interesting to know what Emmet or anyone else may have done to the course after Travis died. It's interesting to know what anyone did to the course after Emmet died and on and on until the present. Basically that's nothing more than trying to track the architectural evolution of a golf course in detail from beginning to present. Once you've done all that you have the raw research material from which to make intelligent restoration decisions if restoration is something of interest. Apparently it is of interest to GCGC despite their glacial pace in doing it.

Why would it be important in the case of hole #16? It's simple. The club is trying to decide whether to remove a 1970s pond on that hole. Once they do that they’ll need to know what to replace it with. My recommendation would certainly be to try to decide what to replace it with before they decide to remove it but anyway they seem to want to do it the other way around. No problem, really, if they decide to remove it obviously they will replace it with something else. But what would that be?

And if and when they do decide to remove the pond and replace it with something else it would be interesting to know now where that something else came from, who did it, when and why. This to me is all just part of the raw research of intelligent restoration architecture.

Now, you seem to have said that if they remove the pond they should restore a bunker in its place that shows up on that 1930s something aerial and which you believe was put there by Devereaux Emmet. If that green was moved by Travis, and Travis redesigned the rest of the hole, as he apparently did, from what was originally Emmet don’t you think it would be interesting to know what Travis had to the left of #16 green? It appears the club and some of us may have some idea what Travis did have to the left of the 16th green (something once described as “asparagus bed” mounds or “nutmeg graters laid on their side”)."

Tom:

Again, sorry if that answer was too long for you but again if the green was moved by Travis don't you think it would be interesting to know what he designed on its left greenside? So I'll ask you again--why exactly is it that you think the club should restore an Emmet bunker there instead of what Travis did. I asked you if the reason you don't think they should restore what Travis did there is because you read somewhere that Darwin or Hutchenson didn't like it.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I don't think the tee could have been moved left, as the area to the right was not GCGC property."

Pat:

Huh? What do you mean the property to the right wasn't the club's property? I wasn't asking if the tee could be moved right, just left. If the tee was moved left to the same landing area that would basically only serve to create a bit of a dogleg left hole out of the old Emmet hole. Personally I don't think the tee has EVER changed positions on #16--I think Travis created a bit of a dogleg left hole (on the second half) from the old original 1898 tee by basically moving the green left. He also apparently made the hole one helluva lot wider than the hole Emmet had there which appears to be dead straight to another green to the right of the present green. That essentially made for the present very slight dogleg since the primary play on the hole now seems to be a bit more to the right of Travis's wider hole.

[T_MacWood]

TE
If you aren't interested in restoring the 1898 hole...why are you so transfixed on the location of the 1898 green?

As far as the aspargus patch hazard, it was described as effecting the 2nd shot...not greenside. There are still a series of mounds in that location well short of the green..although of a different character. Travis added new mounds to 16th in 1909.

The aspargus patch mounds were not something Travis repeated....at GCGC or else where. Why would you want to restore mounds he eliminated from his repertoire? And quite likely eliminated from GCGC...I've seen no evidence that any of three cabbage patches survived. Have you seen any old photos of these features? If you have why would you want them restored....especially in comparison to the Emmet's bunker?

[TEPaul]

Jeesus Tom, how many times are you going to ask me that question and how many times am I going to have to answer it? It's been about three times now. I guess you don't like my answer. OK, then, I'll change my answer. The only reason I'm transfixed by that old Emmet green and the fact that Travis moved the green is so I can prove you wrong!

Now, are you going to ask me why I'm so interested in that 1898 Emmet green again?

Who the hell cares if Travis never repeated those "asparagus bed" mounds he did at GCGC? Aren't you the guy who keeps saying something unique by a great architect should be restored and preserved at all costs?

In comparison to an Emmet bunker there you say? You better hie on over to the "Walter Travis..our kinda guy" thread and read my treatise on that wrist-waving little dandy "Dev" Emmet. I don't think anybody wants some homosexual Emmet bunker along the left side of GCGC's virile and manly #16 green! Hasn't anyone told the world's greatest expert on GCGC's architecture that GCGC is an "all (real) men's" club?

[T_MacWood]

From the sounds of it, before the night is over, you'll be advocating a vinyard type hazard adjacent to 16th green. You appear to be at your creative height....maybe I should fax you all my GCGC info to decifer....you'll have the course attributed to Crump and/or Travis a proud graduate of the Philadelphia School in no time? I take it you're not a fan of queer eye for the straight guy...I have visions of the fab five escorting Travis over the Hempstead plain. Smooth sailing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

This is the problem with your desire to uncover the sum total of human knowledge regarding a given feature, hole or golf course.

Let's say that you and Tom MacWood agreed that 1908, or 1918, or 1924 was the best possible year for the 16th hole.

Now go and restore that hole, absent photographic evidence on what it and every feature looked like.  You can't.
You have to interpolate or interpret design philosophy and feature configuration as it might have existed in those time frames.

That is why selecting, circa 1936 is the ideal solution, because so much aerial and ground level photographic evidence, and other documented evidence is available to provide sufficient detail that would enable a faithul restoration.

And it coincides with a historic event, the hosting of the USGA Amateur Championship.

I told you, much earlier, that your quest would only complicate matters, where such complication is unnecessary.

If one adopts circa 1936 as the target date for restoration, everything else simply falls into place.  It's non controversial, non-debatable, non-time wasting.

GCGC has had two very bad experiences with moving or rebuilding greens as evidenced by # 5 and # 14, so advocating the moving of the 16th green is an exercise in futility, and only further mires down any attempt at a chance to restore.

You continue to be hard headed about this issue, despite totally agreeing with me in an earlier post with regard to restoring GCGC sympathetically to 1936.

Any deviation from that goal just complicates the concept, the process and the likelyhood of it ever happening.

Please, see the light.  

 

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding that last post of yours--post #267--when did I ever say I was advocating moving Travis's #16 green---the present green at GCGC? You and Tom MacWood are no different--neither one of you read properly--no wonder you're always arguing with each other!  

Tom has asked me now about three times why I'm interested in Emmet's old green or old hole--and I answered him three times, all of which he missed. I never said anything like I thought anyone should restore anything at all that has a thing to do with Emmet--only that I think Travis very likely moved the 16th green to where it is now. I don't want to see that green moved at all.

What I do think GCGC should do, though, is restore that 16th hole, all of it, completely to Travis and do away with anything Emmet did there either before Travis got involved with the course or after Travis died. That would definitely include that effeminate bunker Emmet snuck in greenside left at some point on #16 after Walter Travis died from smoking too many stogies.

I already proved last night on a couple of threads relating to Travis and Emmet and GCGC that Travis's architecture was virile and manly. And I also proved beyond a boa feather of a doubt that everything that little gay will-'o-the-wisp "Dev" Emmet did at GCGC was homosexual architecture. Is that what you want, homosexual architecture, at GCGC in your non-researched rapid quest to restore to some year because there's a lot of photos of that year?

Restoring to a year just because you think there were more photos of that year is not a great idea in an architectural context. Restoring to what was best is, though. The last time I heard, photographers were capable of taking some pretty good photos in the 1920s too, so I wouldn't be all that concerned about just the photographic aspect of GCGC's restoration. Check out your GCGC tournament history. 1936 surely wasn't the only year GCGC held a major tournament. There were Met Ams, State Ams and even a Walker Cup in the 1920s.

Actually the 1936 US Amateur finals at GCGC was one of the worst displays of golf in US Am history. The weather and wind was so bad, things blew done all over the course and what happened on #16 green, tragically, was very likely responsible for the beginning of the end of your beloved stymie! Is that what you want to restore to? The wind was so strong it blew things down all over the course. If that light little "Dev" Emmet had still been around in 1936 he probably would've blown away too!

Matter of fact, the wind and rain was so bad in the 1936 US Am I'm quite certain that was the very time Emmet's effeminate little bunker greenside left on #16 filled up with water creating a wetness problem there for the rest of time leading to the creation of the pond there in the 1970s. Of course, seeing as the pace of getting things done at GCGC is so glacial the fact that it took the club about 35 years to replace Emmet's bunker with a pond is not surprising!

But the important thing is to get ALL the architecture out of that golf course that fag Emmet did and restore to the course ALL the architecture of a real man---Walter John Travis!

[T_MacWood]

I predict the number of views to this thread will explode....kind of like cars slowing down at the scene of a terrible accident.

I apologize to the folks at GCGC for contributing to the devolution of this topic.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You should apologize to GCGC. This is what happens when you blow research and blithely assume that the present 16th green at GCGC was Emmet's and that the real Travis green that's there now should have an Emmet bunker restored there in place of the present pond rather than the truly unique architectural feature that Travis had there!

None of the 'devolution of this topic', as you call it, is my fault!

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

What you need to see to determine if that green moved is the drawing of the 1898 golf course by Emmet. That drawing is in William Quirin's recent history book on GCGC.

The point here is IF that drawing of the 1898 course is accurate and in scale it shows the old 1898 #16 green almost lined up with the 3rd green (in other words the 3rd green is almost behind it)! The point here is the 3rd green has NEVER changed its position from the old nine hole course of 1897 to the 1898 18 hole course to the course today.

And when you compare that placement of #16 green in relation to #3 green in the 1898 drawing to the present #16 green's position in relation to the 3rd green it isn't even close!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

THINK 1936, and only 1936.

Focus, see the ball, be the ball.

Otherwise restoration is in the lumber yard...... with Danny.

[SPDB]

Anybody know when the Cliff's Notes® of this thread will be published?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Obviously you've never seen the outtakes.

Danny's ball did indeed go in the lumber yard,
where Danny went to retrieve it.

However, Judge Smails bellowed that he was trespassing and that it could jeopardize his chances at the scholarship, so Danny left, without ever having retrieved his ball.

I thought you knew all of this.
You can't be a serious fan of the movie and not know about the many outtakes.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
THINK 1936, and only 1936.
Focus, see the ball, be the ball.
Otherwise restoration is in the lumber yard...... with Danny."

Look Pat, no need to convince me of what needs to be done at GCGC---we're on the same page on that pal. The only difference you and me have on this GCGC restoration issue is how best to convince the club and membership to do it.

On that latter issue I guess one would have to say our methods are just very different. As you know I believe in comprehensive research first--that better serves in the decision making of what would be best to replace the pond with and then convince them in a friendly and educational manner.

Your method is to somehow get a decision to remove the pond first and then decide what's best to put in its place. This thread is immense and I don't know how many times I've said it to you but I think you fellas at GCGC who are trying to get this hole restored are going about it backwards with the membership!

But if you don't want to use the friendlier and more educational method with the membership I'm advocating go ahead and try your method that just might resemble that quote of yours at the beginning of this post.

That method looks to me like hypnosis followed by intimidation of any member you couldn't put into a deep sleep and control. And instead of the part where the restoration may go to the lumberyard just transpose that any member who resists goes to the lumberyard.

An alternative method is one to be used during a massive memberhip meeting when you're up there in front of them all. Just pack some heat in a shoulder holster and at some point in the meeting just remove your jacket!

I couldn't possibly use either of those methods on my membership because I'm from Philadelphia--the City of Brotherly Love but you guys up there are Nu Yawkas--you guys can use any method that gets the job done!

[T_MacWood]

Better yet. Why don't you take TE with you to the membership meeting. Print out all the posts from this thread and have him begin reading them...they will become so utterly confused and fatigued...that they'd let you reestablish the original nine-holer if you want.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()