[wsmorrison]

It seems to me that the evaluation of Flynn's designs in this thread and even the Survivor thread has been heavily weighted by the perceived lack of complexity in his greens, particularly the contours.  Many on GCA see this as a flaw in his design work.

If there is anything typical about Flynn courses it may very well be the greens in general (there are usually examples of some overt contours on a few greens on a typical Flynn course).  Flynn greens certainly lack the rolls found in typical Maxwell greens and often do not have pronounced internal contours.  Yet on hilly terrain, especially with uphill shots, Flynn greens must be played to extra carefully.  Balls above the hole are usually severely penalized due to the slope.  Balls that land short or spin back too aggressively often roll off the green and sometimes down some pretty severe slopes (8 at Rolling Green can roll back as much as 60 yards from the green).  This is often overlooked in the analysis of his green complexes.  Flynn defends par at the greens as well as anyone but with a much more natural appearance.  

Are more robust green contours in and of themselves more preferable to most golfers or most golf course architecture students?  Should Flynn's courses suffer by such simplistic comparisons?

I often see golfers not familiar with Flynn greens shake their heads after walking off a number of greens baffled by the subtle breaks in the putts.  The slopes are evident for the most part.  Nearly always there is not enough accounting for the breaks in the greens which results from the dynamics of slope and contours.  I, for one, find greens such as these harder to putt on--they're hard to read.  

With overt contours, you almost tell yourself that you won't make a long putt, you just want to get it close and get out of there with a two putt.  But the joy in making one of these seemingly difficult putts is all the greater however.  Yet a green with slope and with subtle internal contours look easy yet play more difficult.  There is a sense of discouragement;  people think to themselves "Man, I should have made that putt, these greens aren't so hard!"  Well, my feeling is they are harder, at least psychologically.  Whether this was Flynn's intention, I am not at all sure.  What I do think is the combination of subtle contours,slope, and complex green surrounds (that sometimes mess with your mind like 3 at Rolling Green--the general topography and green surrounds make you think the green slopes severely back to front, it does not and putts to the back of the green are usually way past the hole while putts to the front often come up short) are difficult to register and play, the breaks are just plain difficult to read.  The un-initiated can't always tell from the fairway which way the green breaks and which side to favor.  Robust undulations clearly indicate the optimum approach much more readily.

I am not weighing in on the particular discussion of Prairie Dunes (never been there) vs. Shinnecock Hills (seen and studied).  I just wanted to point out that Flynn's plain looking greens are not nearly so benign as they might appear and in fact are excellent challenges within the overall framework of the golf course.  The results are more pinnable locations on Flynn greens with hard to read breaks.  

Some people like a Pamela Anderson (unnatural and they look it), I'll take Julia Roberts (all natural) anyday.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Blowhard,

Dodge City appears to be further away from PD as New York City is from Pennsylvania, Boston is from outside of Hartford, so a lot can change in about 120 miles.  I think Dodge City may also enjoy a higher elevation than PD as well.

Does the US Climatic Weather Center provide readings for any geographic location, or just cities of a certain size ?

Would Bandon, Oregon be eligible for measurement or is it too small of a site ?  Same for Southhampton ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I'd say the intensity of the shot making at Prarie Dunes is equal to Cypress Point, especially if you consider a putt a shot, which most golfers do! In fact if intensity of shot making is the lone criteria, Winged Foot-West is superior to SH - again the greens! The reason Cypress Point is superior in my mind is because of the unreal site and MacKenzie's ability to milk that spectacular site. Cypress Point's quirkiness also adds to its charm. It is the epitome of Simpson's vitality.

[brad_miller]

Matt, to my knowledge Jack Nicklas has played 7-8  rounds in competition dating from the 1958 TransMiss and has never shot par or better at PD. CPC might be my favorite course in the world, but I find PD to be a tougher golf course

Shinnecock  74.8 140  6944yds  1995 open set up
Shinnecock  74.2  138  6821
Prairie Dunes  74  138-40?  6597

Pat, I suspect Perry Maxwell studied the wind as he did the course, but then again I don't know for sure.

[Craig Van Egmond]

About the wind:

Kansas is an Indian word meaning "south wind"

The mean wind speed is 13.9 miles per hour, which includes the nighttime hours when the wind dies down.

Normal gusts are 25 - 30 miles per hour, with frequent gusts of  40 - 50 mph.


Info from the book Perry Maxwell's Prairie Dunes by Mal Elliot.

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

I don't agree with you premise about the two-shotters at PD being better than SH. You mentioned the 8th at PD and that's the really only strong long par-4. At SH I can name no less then three other holes besides Tom' Elbow -- the 6th, 9th, 12th and 18th are among the long holes. And, when wind conditions are up there's no way all will play downwind.

In the mid-range category you have the 1st, 4th, 10th and 15th. In the short range you have the 8th and 13th -- granted PD would win the last category but in an overall sense -- the edge goes easily to SH.

I only hope the fairway widths at SH are not narrowed unreasonably for the upcoming Open in '04. SH should play as intended and not bastardized for the sake of a few egos. The course has a number of defenses that will deter the wayward play.

Be most interested in knowing what course you would favor a game at?


Brad:

As I said on my initial post if you were just to consider the holes Perry Maxwell created I have no issue with Prairie Dunes being a course of "heavyweight" status. However, the holes put forward by his son Press, although certainly wonderfully done, I believe, are just a notch lower than what the old man provided.

When you talk about Cypress Point and Prairie Dune and the degree of toughness that's a question that many will answer based on their own game's and how they've fared. I don't doubt that when the usual Kansas w-i-n-d is blowing you have your work cut out for you. But, let's not downplay Cypress as being an easy day at the park. I also don't see the middle stretch in the back nine at PD to be in the same league as the others you find there.

Also, when you list the course rating and slope -- I think it's high time the MGA went back out to Shinnecock and really looked at the back tees and what's out there NOW. The course is easily a full shot higher.

One last thought Brad -- ask many of the mid-handicappers where they would like to play and you get the names of Maidstone and National on the tips of their tongues. Plenty of fun can be had at both of them and there is less pressure on the tee shot. Sure, they do appreciate SH but they also know it will kick their butt big time if they aren't really prepared.

George Pazin:

Your question implies the old game of turning originally designed par-5 holes into par-4's. I imagine you are suggesting doing that for the 7th and 17th at PD. I reject that because it's a manufactured way to artifically inject "toughness" by then claiming how more demanding the golf course is. I have never really liked when the USGA does it for Open sites and I believe you measure the course by its diversity of holes. If you eliminate the par-5 in its entitety from PD then you don't have the diversity, I believe, is fundamental to the issue of well rounded holes leading to an overall course.

I think you are taking what I am saying about PD as some sort of lack of respect. Quite the contrary -- I believe the course is among the 25-30 best courses in the USA. I just believe the totality of what one faces at SH to be more intense and comprehensive in overall shotmaking requirements. I also agree with what wsmorrison said about the genius behind William Flynn's efforts. You don't get many easy rolls at SH -- okay, so they're not PD, but let's not think you get a fress pass on the putting surfaces on the course in Southampton.

Again, the differences are really very small but I have yet to hear anyone tell me through some form of persuasion that SH is not the best day-to-day layout we have in the USA.

Tom MacWood:

Your mentioning of WF as more intense from the standpoint of overall difficulty is a matter of debate. Clearly, WF / West is very demanding. However, I measure "greatness" beyond the category of sheer difficulty -- although you and others may find that hard to believe.

I have said many times in the past I can't think of a golf course that puts as much pressure on the second as Winged Foot / West. The course has very little breathing room and it doesn't need a hurricane to make the day interesting. No doubt -- major league intense. At the same time the diversity of true shotmaking -- working the ball from side to side, estimating how to play the bounce is part and parcel at Shinnecock and for my money rates a slight edge over the gem from Mamaroneck. Look, I don't doubt that Winged Foot is man-sized golf course, but a parksland course can only take you so far when you stack it up against the natural topography of SH and the manner by which the land brings the holes alive there.

You can't also underestimate the natural elements and the role they play. I can also give you situations with weather that would make you cringe at SH -- how many remember the 1st round weather during the '86 Open? Only one man, I believe it was Bob Tway, equalled par and if my memory serves, the Golden Bear actually lost his tee shot on the 10th that stormy day. Let's also not forget that 270 has been broken at Winged Foot / West by Davis Love III in the '97 PGA -- absolutely great stuff. No one has cracked the 275 barrier at SH yet. The lowest thus far at SH is 279 shot by Ray Floyd in winning the '86 Open. Pavin finished at level par in '95.

Tom, I can make a very strong case that the duo of SH and WF / West is as good as twosome as any other in the USA but if I had to choose where I'd rather play than anywhere else, no contest -- SH.

One last question -- if you had to choose where you'd play?

[GPazin]

Matt -

I was just teasin' a bit after reading the debate on the Easthampton thread...

The only Flynn course I've had the opportunity to play is Lehigh & I found the greens to be quite difficult. Certainly not terribly undulating, but the combination of slope & speed were more than enough for me. For fun I definitely prefer internal contour, the more the better, but I will say I struggled more around the green at Lehigh than pretty much anywhere else I've played. The only other course that comes to mind for me (woefully lacking on experience) is Mystic Rock, where the greens were probably more difficult if you were on the wrong side, but easier if you weren't.

[Hutch Resident]

To the person that made the "ass end of nowhere" comment, there are 40,000 people that think the "ass end of nowhere" might be located  on the top of someones shoulders.  

[Ran Morrissett]

Paul, In terms of playing favorites to shape shots, Shinnecock favors a power fade on numerous holes e.g. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15,and 16.

How about some comments on Shinnecock's routing?

Who likes Toomey/Flynn's stratagem of routing the long two shotters like 3 and 12  downwind and the shorter two shotters like 4 and 8 back into the prevailing wind?

We played the 3rd at 450 yards downwind, it was driver-7 iron. We turned back into the wind for the 4th, and this 375 yarder hole was also driver-7 iron. The object of both 7 irons was to keep them low and out of the wind. Given this is the prevailing wind, is this ideal?

The opposite design approach is to have the long holes into the prevailing wind (thus testing the long approach game of ace players) and the short holes down wind (which gives ace players fits as well).

In short, doesn't Shinnecock possess more variety when the 3rd hole is into the wind, playing driver/ 3 wood/chip and the 4th is driver/ticklish pitch (though alas this isn't the prevailing wind)?

Cheers,

[NAF]

Having played both of these courses in the last 4 months I can say they are very evenly matched in may respects.  While SH is my second favorite course in the world after Cypress Point, PD would be in my top 10. In fact the terrain at PD is probably better for golf than SH as Shinnecock's best   property is really on the back 9 where at PD it is spread throughout the course and the stretch from 8-10 is about as good as you'll find anywhere..

For the member, I think PD is a much higher test than SH on driving as the gunsch puts a superb premium on not only positioning in the fairway but not hitting 3 off the tee!

I would love to see how PD would do with room to stretch to 6900 yards for a men's open..Under Open conditions it would make Bethpage look like a walk in the park.  If Nicklaus couldnt break par after 7 or 8 rounds in those days where the length given the equipment was a fair test I wonder how today's guys would do..

Some great pix of Watson in the clubhouse hitting out of the gunsch too!

[NAF]

Bill,


PD is penal with the current gunsch setup. Even Brad Miller will concur with that but I guess you have to get adaptive there..I got my butt kicked.. My USGA index was useless there but I bet you this, just like the guys who grew up in West Texas a member there will learn to hit a low slinging draw and keep the ball in play.

If they burned some of the gunsch down and made it a bit wider it would be fine..The probem is the gunsch vs. say the native rough at Sand Hills is so different.. You can find your ball at Sand Hills and not at PD!

In essence, PD is the hardest driving course I've ever seen with its only brother something like Royal County Down..There is a plethora of gorse there but I did note on my visit there last year they werr burning lots of gorse and increasing the width there. Maybe PD will do the same..I still love the course dearly because it is a great design and such a challenge around the greens..It made me see more Maxwell than perhaps Dr. Mac in Crystal Downs in retrospect.

But the point I also made was SH is my 2nd fav course in the world and only by a whisker (i.e. 15-17 at Cypress Point) is it not my personal best..

[jayc]

RE: wind at PD
We got called off the course once at Prairie Dunes by their warning system.  When we came back outside, all three flags flying near the clubhouse were GONE.  The U.S., Kansas, and PD flags had been torn from the poles, nowhere to be found!

[Ran Morrissett]

Two additional points:

1. A year ago, I predicted that Shinnecock Hills might be the course that would one day knock Pine Valley of its #1 perch at GOLF Magazine. Because of its history, its hosting of the 2004 U.S. Open in which it will no doubt demonstrate that it stands up to the big boys, and its absence of an indifferent hole or any other reason not to love it (which will be highlighted during the US Open), it will attract some extra nods from panelists, I reasoned.

2. Given the greater variety of hazards at a course like Cypress Point (through the woods, in and out of dunes, along and over the top of the cliff shoreline), I find Shinnecock Hills a surprising choice for favorite course in the country/world.  Heck, Shinnecock runs fourth in its own neighborhood, behind NGLA, Friar's Head and Maidstone in regards to variety of  hazards. In order to say a course is your very favorite, I would have thought that the property (and then the routing) would need to capture a greater sample of the variety that is found within nature?

Cheers,

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Let me just say that I've only played WF and SH from the very tips. I was extremely impressed with WF's greens, they compare with best greens I've ever played. Both courses are extremely demanding, SH allows for a few more approach options. The terrain at SH is more interesting and the corridors of trees at WF can be repetative, at least that used to be the case. I understand SH's condition is much more manicured (green) than it used to be - which is unfortunate. I don't think I would want a steady diet of either course, although WF's difficulty is tempered by a couple of very sporty short par-5s - #9 and #16. I'd give SH the slight edge (over the WF and its specatcular greens) because of the uniqueness of the site and Flynn's interesting bunkering scheme. And I'd move up to the old tees.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

And let me add if I had to choose, I'd choose Cypress Point over either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JayC

We got called off the golf course at Shinnecock one time with a similar weather warning, and when we returned,
The clubhouse was gone.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

A steady diet of WFW or SH would be too much for me as well.
That doesn't mean that they can't be a surpreme test of competitive golf, just not my cup of tea on a daily basis.

I would prefer NGLA, Maidstone, Friar's Head or GCGC on a steady basis.

[jayc]

This guy from the #@&-end of nowhere has been to both and wouldn't even want to choose.  Both are complete steam.

Patrick,
Thanks for the heads-up on the breeze potential at SH.  I'll be sure and replace my spikes before my next visit to N.Y.

[Chris_Clouser]

NAF,

I found your comment about possibly seeing more Maxwell
than Mackenzie at Crystal Downs interesting.  Aside from a
few holes and maybe a couple of green designs I really think
Maxwell was much more of a driving force on that course than
many think.  I would enjoy discussing it more with you to see
what you see as similar between the two.  You can e-mail me
if you'd like.

Chris

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

Your comments about Shinnecock are well taken, however, the credentials of the course go beyond the Opens. Clearly, in the minds of some, having been a three-time Open site in such a compressed time period between 1986 and 2004 will clearly influence minds. I certainly don't think it hurts although as I have posted previously I would hate to see the course be turned into some narrow bowling type alley that takes away the original thrust of what makes the course so great. To paraphrase a comment once made about Ronald Reagan -- let Shinnecock be Shinnecock!

I believe much of the debate regarding Shinnecock ultimately comes down to the intensity of shotmaking you find there and whether that fits the "fun" factor for many who happen to thoroughly enjoy Madistone, NGLA, etc, etc.

Shinnecock doesn't give the mid-range handicap player plenty of short holes where the demands off the tee are less intense. I define intense as requiring the player to provide sufficient length and steady control. I'm not suggesting you can bunt the ball at the other gems on the east end, however, I think it's important to point out that Shinnecock doesn't suffer fools so easily as the others might in regards to the tee game. I can't comment about Friar's Head because I have not played there.

In regards to your forecasting of Shinnecock being ultimately the #1 course in the USA it will be interesting to see how things shake out in that regard. As I said previously I personally love the course and see it as the USA's best and would enjoy the challenge it presents on a day-to-day basis.

I'm curious as to your closing when you say, "I would have thought that the property (and then the routing) would need to capture a greater sample of the variety that is found within nature?" What's missing with nature at Shinnecock as opposed to its immediate neighbors?

The overall routing at Shinnecock is clearly first rate and the pacing of holes constantly ebbs and flows throughout the round. When you say Shinnecock comes out fourth in its neighborhood because of a lack of variety of hazards I have to ask what you mean by that? Are you speaking about the dimensions and placement? I see Shinnecock as being first rate in this regard but any perspective you can provide is most welcomed.


Tom MacWood:

I too, share your concerns of Shinnecock being overly manicured. Keeping the more native and natural look is mcuh preferred. This was one of the issues I had with the manner in which Bethpage Black was prepared for this year's Open.

In regards to your comments about Winged Foot there has been a real desire to remove a number of trees on the property to open up playing angles obscured for quite some time.

The thing about Winged Foot is the utter demands you get on placing tee shots because if you are not in the correct position the intensity of the second shot becomes extreme. Also, the recovery options around the greens are also quite severe.

I don't doubt the merits of Cypress Point but given the fact the course ends up in a lackluster manner is certainly an issue of contention.

Winged Foot gives little breathing room on your approaches. I would dare say that if you took a 5 handicapper from either Winged Foot or Shinnecock you would do very well when competing against a 5 handicapper from just about any other club in the USA.

It would be interesting to discuss the definition of "fun" because clearly people seem to be saying that Shinnecock and Winged Foot on a steady basis are not as "fun" as the other courses named. I don't agree with that because I believe the thoroughness of the examination is certainly present and that to me presents "fun" as well as intense challenge.

[THuckaby2]

Matt - these are all great thoughts.

Just do realize that "fun" is in the eye of the beholder.  You are a low handicapper who hits the ball a mile, thus you enjoy the "examination" found at Shinnecock.

The vast majority of golfers aren't of your caliber, and thus many of then don't look to golf for an "examination."  They want what MacKenzie called a "reasonable chance of success", and they find that much more at NGLA or Cypress than Shinnecock or Winged Foot... thus they call the former two more "fun."

That's all there is to it, really... Shinnecock is the most fun for you and/or the best course, because it examines you like no other, and "fairly" at that.  Cypress is the most fun and the best for many others, because they can have some success and it's beautiful to look at.

There are many ways to look at golf.

TH

[brad_miller]

When I have played SH, have found that the wind is mostly at ones back or in ones face, does this thought hold merit, while at PD regardless of wind direction (SW&NE) may holes pay more into a nasty cross wind, #8  and #9 are good examples.  Further didn't Ben Crenshaw list driving into a left to right "breeze" as first on his list of toughest shots in golf. (assume the opposite for the many lefties that participate here on GCA.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom H:

Touche'!

I don't doubt what you have said but consider this -- are players who might have higher handicaps being fair in their overall assessment of the "fun" factor relating to courses such as Shinnecock? Are they capable in giving the course it's due?

I say this with all respect because sometimes people lock themselves into definitions of what constitutes "fun" based solely on the issue of self interest and likely seem to gravitate to courses that fulfill this element. That's OK because clearly personal preference is part of any judgement, but can people look beyond this?

Tom, I really do enjoy the other courses mentioned (i.e. Cypress, etc.) but I can clearly realize one person's Sunday drive may be with the family on an easy going country road and the other may prefer a few hair pin turns switching between 1st and 5th gear!

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

It might be impossible for the high 'capper to fully appreciate Shinnecock and courses of that degree of difficulty, simply because the chance of success is just plain not there... so it's difficult for them to imagine... So yeah, you may be correct indeed that they are incabable of giving such courses their just due.  That's a very good thought.

I can't blame them though... and to me, that's more of a strike against the course than it is against them.  As you can tell, I am firmly in the MacKenzie camp re "greatest enjoyment for greatest number of people".

So don't get me wrong either - I sure as hell do appreciate Shinnecock and always include it in my personal top 5 or 10 or whatever... it just fails to rise to absolute #1 for this reason... it can't be fully appreciated by the vast majority of golfers.

Of course this is a generalization - from the up tees I'm sure a great time can be had by all at Shinnecock.  This is just the tiny thing separating it from absolute best, for me anyway.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()