[Dan Kelly]

I propose to limit this thread to one sort of post -- and hope you'll find it useful.

I invite you, gentlemen (and, of course, ladies), to post here, as the tournament progresses, specific *moments* when Shinnecock's architectural genius (apparently undisputed here, or anywhere) reveals itself and, in so doing, creates unusually interesting golf competition.

I'm not sure exactly what I mean, but I think what I'm looking for are the moments when the course shines brighter than any of the players on it.

Thanks in advance.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I have the first--and maybe one which will turn out the most popular--I have seen several clips of practice rounds where players can't hold #7 (REDAN) with their tee shots.  
I've read interviews with Sergio, Ernie, etc, where they talk about how tough the hole is.  I think this hole in particular will play a significant role in the tournament.
On another note, I also think this Open will open the public's eyes to classic golf architecture even more, and perhaps renew interest in the classic courses even more, or hopefully stimulate appreciation for the classic courses and golf course architecture even more.  

[rgkeller]

Shivas,

We may find out, because some rain is possible all four days with no severe winds forecast.

[Dan Kelly]

Oh, well, the best-laid plans of mice and men...

What do you think of David Roesch's game?

[TEPaul]

I predict if it does rain those players may do some damage score-wise vs if the course stays dry! (Of course we'll never know the differences since you can't have both throughout the tourney).

#7 will probably be the hole to get the media attention (controversy) but I'm impressed by the attitude of a number of the players about it. Some do understand it's just one of those holes that "damage control" comes first and foremost (some viewers may actually cling to the quaint belief that those tour pros are stupid and one dimensional about course management but I can promise you they're probably ten times more sophisticated about it than any of us or anyone on this website).

The really interesting architectural aspect of Shinnecock in 2004 as opposed to the previous Opens is the far more massive chipping areas. The pros like that and don't hesitate to universally say so. It gives them far more options to get creative and if any of us don't admit that's philosophically what we want to see, we should be fairly accused of being very hypocritical.

There was a nice comment today by Meeks which said neither he nor the USGA knows if the course had those massive chipping areas originally (probably not) or if Flynn would've ever intended them but that they are something that does work well today. (Meeks actually said he thinks if Flynn could come back and see them and how they work, he'd whole-heartedly agree with them!).

I couldn't agree more---this is all part and parcel of a thread I started months ago that said these old courses can actually play better and more interesting (and challenging) today than they ever did. The obvious way to do that is what we on here always say---just INCREASE the available OPTIONS!  

[Smokey_Pot_Bunker]

Birdie can be had at #7 Faldo curling one in the hole.

Floyd as a member coming up short on #10 and rolling back.

[A_Clay_Man]

I really like the way the course looks. It reminds me of those old ABC broadcasts, at 6 a.m, of the Open Championship.

The really interesting architectural aspect of Shinnecock in 2004 as opposed to the previous Opens is the far more massive chipping areas. The pros like that and don't hesitate to universally say so. It gives them far more options to get creative and if any of us don't admit that's philosophically what we want to see, we should be fairly accused of being very hypocritical.

The chipping area behind #10 is the first one I saw and that looked awesome.

Also, the patina on the turf is wonderful.

Do you think that these two maintenance aspects will ever trickle down? or, Will there still be those who insisit "it's not what the public wants"?

Bravo Mark.

p.s. If it does rain, I hope it's a blower too. Maybe it's Faldo's time? or some other UK guy? Maybe not? Since many UK courses have followed the failed model.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Maybe you said just one post per person and as the tournament goes along but I'd also like to add it'd be my great hope that in this tournament a situation or perhaps even a few of them may arise and become significant (in media coverage) where the winner actually decided to use a strategy of not trying to get up and down (say from around one of the greens such as #7) but consciously (and happily) played for not worse than one more stroke than getting up and down.

I think for the golfing public to see that and what that means would be a message of incalculable value to both golf and golf course architecture!!

[John_Cullum]

The lack of interest in this thread shows how television fails to serve any justice to the best of golf archhitecture. So far all I can tell is dont get above the hole. well, that's the case in any US Open.

About the only other architectural knowledge I've gleaned all day is that Kelly Tilghman's chest looks a little bigger these days.

[RJ_Daley]

Dan, I didn't see too much of the broadcast today, but I did see Corey Pavin with a second shot to 18 that was about 195 VS his 1995 shot that was 223.  As we all know, he hit a magic 4 wood then, and today a flat iron (3-4I?)  Darned if he didn't get todays shot on the same flight line, but even with the iron trajectory, he hit the green VS bouncing just short in the fringe cut in '95.  Todays shot almost stopped on the back of the green, but did just trickle behind.  He chipped to just about the same spot as his putt in 95 (which he missed then and made today).

Watching the shots at 11 with the perfect ones that held the green, landing in fringe high right, or just on with the right amount of spin and cut spin.  Others, looking good all the way to the pin trickling well left and off, and of course so many trickling off the back, through the swale and to the rough cut.  We saw that good players with the right placement and able to spin it correctly, could play the hole, with skill as well as luck.   I also love the saddle tee ball to blind lone small tree with the deep hill taking the ball way right and usually into intermediate cut, with a second shot to a perfect skyline green.  Once again, the architecture demanded finesse and skill, sometimes offered lucky bounces, and took its share of victims, yet not unfairly so. IMHO

PS:  I did see the superintendent Machuad do an Golf Channel interview and offered before and after pics of a couple of holes demonstrating the tree-scrubb brush romoval and re-establishment of desirable native grasses.  That was even better than Doak's too short interview.  I think people may have learned more from Machaud's presentation about restoration architecture and the rationale behind tree removal and rough native rehabilitation than anything else presented so far.  Kudos to Superintendent Machaud.

[A_Clay_Man]

John Cullum, It has been proven in the past that the number of responses doesn't dictate the quality of the thread.  

I did absorb alot from watching today's telecast. Some of the camera angles were level enough where seeing the undulations and movement of the golf holes was palpable. Hey, I even saw where Red Lawrence had some influences from his mentor. And that's having only golfed the UNM south course.

As Dick eluded to, there sure has been alot more stuff, on mainstream television, that us geeks have been spouting about for years.


Dan Kelly, This is a great thread and hopefully the heavy rains will miss so everyone will see how golf is changing, and for the better.

[Mike_Sweeney]

About the only other architectural knowledge I've gleaned all day is that Kelly Tilghman's chest looks a little bigger these days.

John,

You know the rules of this site. No commenting on Kelly Tilghman's bunkers unless you have played with them or made a site visit.  

[T_MacWood]

Unfortunately a US Open set up is not really condusive to the architecture shining through. Holes I would look to--
#6, if a tee shot finds the rough, the pond likely will come into play and the golfer will have a difficult choice to make.
#7, this hole's architecture will benefit from a little moisture, still firm and fast, but not so firm and fast that the hole's interesting aspects become a farce.
#10, for whatever reason I love this hole and I like the way the USGA has treated the back of the green. The approach will require great thought; the highlight may be the number of interesting recovery shots around the green.
#11, a very unusual par-3, the way the green sits above the tee, in the wind it is super intimindating, God help the man who misses the green right of the bunkers on the right...unfortunately I have personal experience...there is hell of a lot of architecture down there.
#14, a beautifully natural hole
#17, another great par-3, requiring great thought and controll.

Those three par-3's in particular stand out to me...they prove that length is not a requirement in creating an interesting and testing golf hole.

[James Edwards]

Shivas,

I would have agreed with you until straight after the rain delay last night, a player holes in one at the 7th to a relatively frontal pin position with one hop and skip, bit of spin and straight in...

James

[Brian Phillips]

James

Can you check out the Redan thread and let us know your opinion, you have played the course haven't you?

Have you played North Berwick?

Brian

[James Edwards]

Brian,

Will do and I'll edit this...

Yes I have played both my friend..

J

[BCrosby]

In the spirit of Dan's original purpose here, could someone who is at SH comment on 14?

From what I see on TV, the diagonal crypto cross bunker in the landing area not only looks terrific, but it seems to play very strategically. The green slopes away from the fairway (true?), thus heightening the payoff for long drives that get past that bunker. A fall-away green will  pay a higher than normal premium to short iron approaches.

In short, the bunker strikes me as a hazard that actually tempts big hitters. It calls for real choices. Again, because of the demands of the fall-away green. (It will be fun to see the 14th's TEP number at the end of the tournie.)

Or am I getting a distorted TV view of the hole?

Bob

[Mike_Sweeney]

In the spirit of Dan's original purpose here, could someone who is at SH comment on 14?

From what I see on TV, the diagonal crypto cross bunker in the landing area not only looks terrific, but it seems to play very strategically. The green slopes away from the fairway (true?), thus heightening the payoff for long drives that get past that bunker. A fall-away green will  pay a higher than normal premium to short iron approaches.

In short, the bunker strikes me as a hazard that actually tempts big hitters. It calls for real choices. Again, because of the demands of the fall-away green. (It will be fun to see the 14th's TEP number at the end of the tournie.)

Or am I getting a distorted TV view of the hole?

Bob

Bob,

I posted a bunch of 14 photos on the Shinnecock photos thread.  The bunker on the right corner seemed to be easy for them to clear ( see the 2nd photo, they are walking past it). The big far left will probably come into play for the bigger hitters, so a fade is the best shot. I think the angle of that fairway will be a bigger concern than the bunkers.

Mayday Malone was commenting on that "Flynn green" at 14, so maybe he will jump in for specifics.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

It's the big left-side bunker I had in mind. It looks to me like a great, great bunker at every level - aesthetics, placement, impact on tee shot, interplay with the green. The whole Magilla.

Would love to hear from Mayday. Or anyone else who has played it.

Bob

[Mike_Sweeney]

Bob,

I have only played it once, and now a long time ago pre technology and pre tree removal.

#10, for whatever reason I love this hole and I like the way the USGA has treated the back of the green. The approach will require great thought; the highlight may be the number of interesting recovery shots around the green.

Tom,

Did not quite get the run-off behind 10:



11 from left of tee:


11 from left side:

[Keith Durrant]

How did MA Jimenez take 9 shots on the par 3, number 11 yesterday?  

[Dan Kelly]

How did MA Jimenez take 9 shots on the par 3, number 11 yesterday?  

He miss, he miss, he miss, he miss, he miss, he miss, he miss, he miss,
he make.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist temptation.)

[ForkaB]

How did MA Jimenez take 9 shots on the par 3, number 11 yesterday?  

I don't know.  Ask Huckaby.

(Also couldn't resist the temptation.....)

[ForkaB]

I propose to limit this thread to one sort of post -- and hope you'll find it useful.

I invite you, gentlemen (and, of course, ladies), to post here, as the tournament progresses, specific *moments* when Shinnecock's architectural genius (apparently undisputed here, or anywhere) reveals itself and, in so doing, creates unusually interesting golf competition.

I'm not sure exactly what I mean, but I think what I'm looking for are the moments when the course shines brighter than any of the players on it.

Thanks in advance.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I've only had a chance to watch a few hours of coverage, but to me the score so far is Golfers 2, Course 0.

[Dan Kelly]

How did MA Jimenez take 9 shots on the par 3, number 11 yesterday?  

I don't know.  Ask Huckaby.

(Also couldn't resist the temptation.....)

I bet that mean old footprint was never raked over!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()