Rees Jones spying the Black!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Lance
I'll tell you why you are a liar because Maddog Mucci read that you mentioned Rees Jones - expect this thread to spiral out of control

Hopefully Mr. Nettune will pipe in, I wonder what he thinks of The Bridge!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The Nettune family are prominent members of Baltusrol, not The Bridge, another course that you are no doubt an expert on, despite never having played it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Maddog
How did I know you would be familiar with the Nettunes?  

[TEPaul]

I'm just loving this free-flowing discussion--but I need some clarification!

What's the difference between a prominent member of Baltusrol and just an everyday regular member of Baltusrol?

[Phil_the_Author]

Lance,

You wrote:

[HEY-why am I being called a liar? I SAW REES JONES FROM THREE FEET AWAY & HE HAD BLUE PRINT PLANS OF SOME KIND IN HIS HAND! Today's Newsday stories CONFIRM he was onsite and is considering tweaking the course to add additional length, although no specifics are mentions. Lance]

In his article contained in Newsday dated 10/11/02 titled "It's Bethpage Green for 2009 Open" by Bill Bleyer, he writes in paragraph #7 "While most of the USGA money for 2002 was for upgrading the course with new sand bunkers and improved irrigation, "that's probably not going to be necessary" again in 2009, Fay said. "There may be some tweaking of the course. We'll want to work out a structure where the course will be maintained in the type of condition that we like and that everybody would like."

Please note that it was DAVID FAY, NOT REES JONES who said that ther "MAY be some tweaking of the course."

Rees Jones was there at the invitation of the USGA for the press conference announcing the awarding of the Open.

[Phil_the_Author]

Brad,

You wrote:

[My bet, by the way, is that at Bethpage they will widen the driving area on no. 12 so that there's an alternate route around the fairway bunker; way over on the right side are some bunkers and old fairway waiting to be reclaimed.]

Actually, they put the fairway bunker on the right side back in for the Open itself. To quote Rees Jones, "On the right we reestablished the original Tillinghast bunker at the corner, which had been abandoned."

Another point, by expanding the fairway further into the right side would only mean that a "short hitter" would have as much or more of a carry to that spot than if he tried to carry it over the trap on the left side.

In his book "Bethpage Black Field Notes" Rees Jones mentions this exact problem, "One thing you don't want is for the short hitter to have no options. If the hole plays at 500 yards, into the wind, a lot of players would find it a major effort to carry the cross bunker, and playing safely to the right would require a cannon to get to the green on the second shot. Even from the front of the championship tee, clearing the bunker into the wind will be a challenge for some of the field. The ideal drive is a high draw that curves around the corner. With a helping wind, some of the longest hitters may end up with no more than a short iron into the green."

[Phil_the_Author]

Jamie,

You make some good suggestions. I would like to comment on one of your points as it states something that I believe is a near unanimously held belief that in my opinion is erroneous. Let me know what you think.

You wrote;

[As for 10 and 12 - blame it on the USGA setup.  10 was stripped of it's strategic intent at 492 yards.  At 470 yards, the hole is more interesting and the irony is maybe more difficult as some very good and gently moving fairway bunkering comes into play.  12 needs a short hitters route although it doesn't really play 499, due to the dogleg it can play shorter.]

For the Open there were more complaints about the carry distance necessary on #10 & 12 than anything else. It was deemed "too far" & "unfair".

When you carefully examine the statistics from the Open though, you may very well draw a decidedly different opinion. Consider that on #10 the carry distance set by the USGA on ALL 4 days to reach the fairway from the tee was 251 yards. Of those who played ALL 4 rounds (a total of 72 players) only ONE player had an average driving distance of LESS than 251 yards and that was Corey Pavin who averaged 239.8 yards per measured drive (drives were measured on 10 & 11). That means that on average, every player but one should have been able to reach the fairway.

Now let's look at realities. When you multiply the 72 players by the 4 drives they took on ten that gives you a total of 288 drives on the tenth hole. Of all those drives, how many were measured at LESS than 251 yards? A total of 28! Those 28 include 5 drives of 250-51 that might have actually reached the fairway but that I count as NOT having made it based simply on distance. That means that more than 90% of all drives were hit long enough to reach the fairway!

In actuality, the problem on 10 was that the players weren't hitting the drives STRAIGHT, rather than not being able to hit it far enough.

There was a similar statistical showing on #12 where over 3/4's of the field were able to carry the trap statistically, yet didn't "get it in the fairway off the tee".

I believe this justifies the USGA in setting the tees at the distances that they did, especially when you consider that many have made comments on numerous threads about the "great distances that the average player today drives the ball". Their problem isn't distance, it is one of accuracy.

[Jamie_Duffner]

Phil,

I would have to argue that there is a big difference between carry and driving distance.  A 251 yard carry probably translates into a 280-290 yard drive presuming reasonable roll.  I noticed Mickelson only carrying the 10th fairway by maybe 12 yards, that's not very much for a big hitter.

Fact is, from a strategic standpoint, the fairway bunkering is unreachable at 492.  I'd prefer to see the hole play around 475.  12 is fine by me, maybe a narrow left route is an option, nit sure that works.

Someone has to explain to me the new tee idea for the 18th.  There's no way a tee can be put back by the 5th tee of the red.  For one, the tee shot would have to sail over the 17th hole and presumably a lot spectator stands.  Also, there is a ridge of land starting at the 17h green that runs for a 1/2 mile up and beyond the 5th green of the red.  I think the only teeing options would be for a tee near the 1st green of the red, but then you get very close to the 4th green of the red.  I've also heard a radical plan to put a tee next to the 17th tee/1st green, but that would create a lot of congestion in that spot.

Again, I think they need to think more about green placement, than tee placement.  Move the green almost to the tee of the 1st of the red.  Move the tee for the 1st of the red to the left, closer to the 18th green of red.  I think that would create a 450ish, very challenging closing hole.  Intrestingly, you could then move the 1st tee of the black to the left, but that may be too much tinkering.

[Ken_Cotner]

Does most of the problem with fairway carries at BB get solved if they just START the fairway further toward the tee?  I wouldn't have a problem with that as rough between the tee and the fairway seems unnecessary.

Of course I haven't seen the Black in person, so this is an honest question.

KC

[Phil_the_Author]

Jamie,

You wrote:

[Phil,

I would have to argue that there is a big difference between carry and driving distance.  A 251 yard carry probably translates into a 280-290 yard drive presuming reasonable roll.  I noticed Mickelson only carrying the 10th fairway by maybe 12 yards, that's not very much for a big hitter.]

I think you missed my point of driving distance analysis for #10. I am in TOTAL agreement with you that a 251 yard carry translates into a much farther length drive. The facts show that the majority of players who did not hit their drives into the 10th fairway from the tee did so because they missed left or right, not short or long. Think about it for a second, how much "roll" do you think the balls that neded up in the rough had after landing? The answer is very little for some and almost none for most.

That is why the driving distance statistics are so important when considered along with driving accuracy. Those who are more accurate usually end up longer as well. The fact that less than 10% of all drives on #10 struck by those 72 players who played all four days did not reach the fairway based on distance, shows that accuracy rather than distance was the more important factor there.

You also wrote:

[Someone has to explain to me the new tee idea for the 18th.]

Rgardless of what plans Rees Jones may or may not have been carrying with him this past Thursday when he visited the site when the awarding of the Open was announced, I've not heard of any mention of a "new tee idea" other than what's been written on this venue. And you are correct in your view of the suggestion of putting the tee back by the fifth of the Red. The person who posted that probably meant the 4th on the red and said the 5th by mistake.

You also wrote:  

[I think the only teeing options would be for a tee near the 1st green of the red, but then you get very close to the 4th green of the red. I've also heard a radical plan to put a tee next to the 17th tee/1st green, but that would create a lot of congestion in that spot.]

Doing this would actually shorten the hole (based upon the Open tee) and therefor wouldn't work. Also, I will take full responsibility and claim that it was & is MY IDEA to put the 18th tee down between the existing 17th tee and green. By doing this a much longer hole could be made with it now playing totally uphill as a very loing dogleg par 4. I actually brought this up in my interview with Rees Jones back before the Open asking him if he had ever thought of it. He said it never occurred to him and that it was an interesting idea (as far as interesting goes, he may have been knidly humoring me). Anyway. with the 18th tee down there you would then have to build a new tee for #17 & I also suggested that this be placed between the 16th green and the fifth tee of the Red course. The hole could be as far as you wanted to make it then (the current distance is fixed due to Round Swamp Road being directly behind it. Now the green would be played as a long & narrow true two-tiered, rather than a wide and shallow two section green. All of the bunkers could remain as they are and would come into play in similar fashion. Anyway, that was my thinking for what it's worth.

Finally, you wrote:

[Again, I think they need to think more about green placement, than tee placement.  Move the green almost to the tee of the 1st of the red.  Move the tee for the 1st of the red to the left, closer to the 18th green of red.  I think that would create a 450ish, very challenging closing hole.  Intrestingly, you could then move the 1st tee of the black to the left, but that may be too much tinkering.]

It's an interesting thought with some merit. I don't think it would be considered because the average public slicer, I mean, player would create a lot of problems back and forth between the two courses.

In any event, I can't wait until 2009!

[Tim Weiman]

I agree with Pat Mucci that we need more information before jumping to any conclusions about Rees Jones and Bethpage Black for 2009.

If specific plans are announced, we can comment to our heart's content. But, until then it seems a bit premature.

Surely, there is an architectural review of every course well prior to any US Open. So, thus far we really don't have any news here.

[GPazin]

George Pazin then says he was seen with a chart, accepting Lance's anonymous conclusion.

Good lord, Patrick, read my post - for once I am agreeing with you that this Lance's Rees sighting is overly paranoid. You totally twisted it to sound like I was agreeing with him. I simply said that if the premise of his post is accepted - ie he saw Rees riding around with plans - that his conclusion is overly paranoid. How could you miss the point of my post? Did anyone else out there think I was agreeing with Lance. Come on, that is ridiculous.

I know understand how all this confusion occurs on a daily basis!!!!!

[john stiles]

Let's see .....you just hosted a US Open and now you will host another ....

So, now...  you must do something for the next US Open ...

So I assume the owners went to the USGA and said we want to host another US Open.  

Now, from previous post, .........  '  Please note that it was DAVID FAY, NOT REES JONES who said that ther "MAY be some tweaking of the course."  '

So now the USGA is speaking of tweaking the course and the owner is silent.  Very interesting that some have posted that only the membership and/or owners have anything to do with course changes at men's US Open venues.   It appears the USGA is involved in course changes again.  Say it ain't so.

May the USGA once and forever fix a rota so changes to classic courses for the very very few professionals can be minimized.   It is either that or you can just add a comma and another architect to the list of design credits for the courses hosting future opens.  

All because they would rather ride around with plans in their hands then do anything about the ball on the tee.  

Apparently,  the easy way out is not too bad.   A nice afternoon, talking with Rees, enjoying the beautiful New York fall weather, makes for a nice day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Stiles,

I believe the day in question was for publicity purposes, the annoucement of the 2009 USOPEN and a Photo shoot, with many of the directly and indirectly interested parties.

First an erroneous post alludes to radical changes at NGLA

Then, this post alludes to changes to BPB.

And people wonder how rumors start..

I'm sure the course will be fine tuned, but I don't think it needs much.

Jamie Duffner.

I also don't understand what people are talking about with respect to lengthening # 18.  I don't see how it's possible.

The suggestion to move the 18th green back and up seems ill conceived.  Keep in mind that golfers will be playing this hole for another two thousand four hundred and thirty three days before the next USOPEN is played.  Isn't the hole hard enough for them already ?

George Pazin,

I didn't gleen what you intended from your post.

TEPaul,

I would say that a prominent member is on the Board of Governors.  A regular member is much smarter than that  

Tom MacWood,

Is Bethpage Black another of your phantom courses ?

[Jamie_Duffner]

Pat,

Actually no, the hole is not that hard for the common player, in fact it may be the easiest par 4 on the course, save 2 or maybe 6.  Choose the correct tee!

Moving the green back 15-25 yards and to the right makes for a more interesting green complex.  It also creates a slight dogleg and more interest and strategy off the tee, contingent on reworking the left side fairway bunkers.  Also, the existing hole is dead straight and doesn't fit the angular nature of the course.  Only 10 is fairly straight, but even there, the green placement makes it a slight dogleg and the fairway bunkering also adds movement to the fairway, although not when playing 492 yards :-/

[corey miller]

The old Bethpage tale which I believe was disproven was that the original 18th green was up by the practice putting green.  The 18th used to have a giant bunker behind the green which I believe has been removed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jamie,

I think # 11 is dead straight as well.

Moving the 18th green back 25 yards, increases the elevation substantially.

With par 4's on the back playing:

492
444
499
478
479

why the need to increase the uphill 18th to the 445 range ?

Wouldn't some expansive bunkering to the rear of the current green be better ?

[Jeff Fortson]

If they do anything to #18 they should add slope to the fairway to redirect tee shots.  Plus side hill lies would make the approach much tougher.

Jeff F.

[Jamie_Duffner]

Pat - 11 is not straight away - it' actually a very awkward tee shot.  When standing on the tee, you can't see the fairway, and trying to pick a target is difficult.

Have you played Black?

15 plays closer to 460 and 16 is down hill quite a bit.

My idea for 18 is not necessarily to move it up the hill, just around it to the right about 15 - 25 yards, probably closer to 15 yards.  I also think changing the fairway bunkering along with the new green would make it a much more interesting hole.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

An undulating fairway would be a great idea.

It would create more challenge and  insert an element of luck.

Jamie,

# 11 is dead straight, and the fairway and green are perfectly visible from the USOPEN tee.  The white tees and non-OPEN tees are lower and probably impair visibility, but those guys aren't playing from the forward tees.

I don't think 15 yards is going to make a difference on # 18 to those guys.  I think Jeffs concept of an uneven, mounded or undulating fairway would affect play, but it is out of context with the rest of the golf course.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jamie,

I think you missed my earlier psot on this page about #18, take a look at it.

You wrote:

[Only 10 is fairly straight, but even there, the green placement makes it a slight dogleg and the fairway bunkering also adds movement to the fairway, although not when playing 492 yards]

What gives it the feeling of a slight dogleg is the alignment of the tee box. It actually points down the right hand side of the fairway. The old tee actually pointed along the line of the fairway edge. This is a strong design feature of the course. The tees are aimed along fairway edges and, insome cases, almost directly at the rough. This is one of the reasons that even good amatuers have such problems with it.

Another good example of this is #11. The tees point at the right edge of the rough and before they were realigned in the restoration, they actually were aimed at the mounds and bunker to the right of the fairway.

It is features like these with the tees that give the feeling of doflegs that are actually just an angled tee shot.

[Phil_the_Author]

Corey,

You wrote:

[The old Bethpage tale which I believe was disproven was that the original 18th green was up by the practice putting green.  The 18th used to have a giant bunker behind the green which I believe has been removed.]

You are correct. That is one of the myths of Bethpage that became believed over the years. It can be clearly seen on the oeverhaed photo of the property that is on the wall near the exit to the Red Course from the clubhouse.

In the original design there was no bunker behind the gree. This was added in the early 50's. As part of the restoration to the course before the Open, a concientious effort was made to remove bunkers that were added in over the years that were not there originally, and that was one of them.

[Phil_the_Author]

Patrick,

I would love for your comments on my idea (written earlier in this thread a few posts up on this page in an answer to Jaimie) as to how to lengthen #18 and turn it into a hole that would be keeping its design in the spirit of the rest of the course, and at the same time turn it into the equal of the other par 4's on the back nine.

I believe it is doable from a minimal construction standpoint and therefor money perspective, and would certainly create a host of choices of play on the hole.

[Matt_Ward]

Just a few clarifications ...

*There were two large bunkers behind the old 18th that were removed when Rees Jones did the work. Talk about huge sand pits!!!

*The new championship tee for the 15th (the one not used for the Open) has the hole playing to roughly 475 yards. The boys played the hole at about 460 yards but because of the placement of grandstands the "real" back tee was not used.

*The 16th plays about 490 from the tips.

*Without quibbling the 10th and 11th are fairly straight ahead type holes. The 10th green is tucked slightly left, but the manner in which you play the hole is fairly straight. The 11th does present an issue of "comfort" in getting aligned but it too is fairly straight.

*Regarding the 18th -- it's not the length that's the issue -- it's the strategic concerns. No player worth his standing as a world class professional is going to attempt to consistently drive the ball between the armada of bunkers that exist in the drive zone. The payoff is just not there. Most will do like Tiger did -- hit a 2-iron or 3-wood and lay-up before them and then go at the green with some sort of mid or short iron. Talk about a lame finale.

I would love to see some serious thought to what Jeff F. and Jamie D. menitoned -- fiddle with the green contours on the 18th which are for the most part pedestrian.

I don't see how moving the tee to the right is possible because of all the effort it would take and in a general sense the "new" tee would be available only for the event.

The Black doesn't need more length -- it needs some careful deliberation on the plainess of many of the greens -- i.e. the 2nd is just one of several that need some serious thought. I also don't mind that the 14th stays at the present length, but the green and the bunkers near it need some serious re-evaluation in my opinion.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Phil
Didn't the 1938 version of the golf course have the large bunker behind the 18th green?