USGA/Shinnecock quibbling over numbers...

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Does anyone think about anything other than the numbers?
Maybe it's the way the article is written...but doesn't this quibbling and tinkering sound a bit silly?

http://www.golfweb.com/u/ce/multi/0,1977,5788685,00.html

SOUTHAMPTON, N.Y. -- Shinnecock Hills is being extended to at least 7,000 yards for the 2004 U.S. Open to ensure it remains a severe test for power hitters like Tiger Woods.

The U.S. Golf Association, which runs the Open, and the host Shinnecock Hills Golf Club on eastern Long Island, haven't come to a final agreement on proposed yardage changes.

"Nearly 7,100 yards," USGA agronomist Tim Moraghan predicted during a news conference Wednesday at Shinnecock, one of America's grandest layouts.

"About 7,000 yards," past club president Elliott Rose told reporters, stressing that the club has the final say on any modifications proposed by the USGA.

Shinnecock played at 6,944 yards for the 1995 Open when Corey Pavin won with even-par 280 for the 72 holes, two shots better than Greg Norman.

At the 1986 Open, Raymond Floyd triumphed with a 1-under 279. Runners-up Chip Beck and Lanny Wadkins were 1 over when the course played at 6,912 yards.

With added yardage and some repositioned tees, Shinnecock's befuddling winds, 120 bunkers, penal rough and tight fairways should continue to challenge the likes of Woods and other big hitters. In 1995, Woods withdrew with an injured hand after a first-round 74.

For Shinnecock's fourth Open, there's no talk of surpassing the length of the 2002 Open at Bethpage Black, at 7,214 yards the longest-ever for the championship. Woods was the only player to break par, at 3-under 277. Runner-up Phil Mickelson shot even-par 280.

With the 2004 Open more than 18 months away, white guidelines have already been drawn for narrowing the verdant fairways and expanding adjacent rough.

Moraghan said No. 3 could be extended by about 40 yards and No. 4 by about 35 yards. Both are par 4s. The tee of No. 5, a par 5, might be moved back and realigned. Also, No. 8, a par 4, could be rerouted to add yardage, and the length of No. 17, a par 3, set at 177 yards. In 1995, the hole had split yardage.

USGA executive director David Fay said Thursday that decisions on Shinnecock's yardages would be made in the next couple of weeks.

But even if yardage is added, Fay told The Associated Press, the USGA would wait until the week of the Open to decide whether to use new tees. If the wind is blowing into the players' face that week, for example, the hole might be played at the same length it was in '95. Or if the fairways are super hard, the hole might be set up to play 40 yards longer.

"When you think about it, it's a matter of adding a club. They all look reasonable to me. They're good changes. We just want to hold off before finalizing any decisions," Fay said.

He indicated that the USGA wants to avoid controversies like those surrounding Nos. 10 and 12 at Bethpage, where many pros couldn't carry the fairways on their tee shots.

Shinnecock and Bethpage share Long Island locations on rolling, sandy terrain, but they're worlds apart in many ways. Shinnecock is among America's most exclusive clubs, with about 350 members drawn from old money families that summer in the Hamptons. Bethpage is a public course, the first to host the Open.

With few trees and only two miles from the ocean, Shinnecock is more exposed to gusty winds than the parkland-style Bethpage. It's one of the very few true U.S. linksland courses. The signature clubhouse, build in seaside resort style, dates from 1892, a year after the club was formed.

©The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

[JohnV]

Its basically trivial.  I know that we used tees for the USGA Mid-Am this year, that were in front of the ones the members would have liked us to use on a couple of holes.  In the end we still had a great champion and all the players who made it deep into the championship were really good.  The yardages don't make a lot of difference to me.

[john stiles]

No.  It must not be too silly from the USGA perspective at these older courses. They would not be silly for this many years in a row.  Par rules !!

Moving the tees back at older US Open venues will be never ending as technology and players abilities allow greater length and accuracy....   unless something is done with the golf ball to cut into the length.   This has been the subject (golf ball/technology) of many, many, many, many posts on this site.

It seems the lines of play and bunkering eventually get lost on the older classic courses with narrowed fairways and lengthening.  They will be dropped from the rota when the courses has been revised to the point where it is no longer usable for USGA men's events.  A few,  with wind and weather as a defense, may remain on the rota a bit longer.  Which of the older architects designed 6200 to 6600 yard courses anticipating expansion to 7400 yard courses.

You can chuckle about the silly yardages but adding length is the norm and has been the norm for many years now at classic venues.  The USGA formula has evidently been to add yardage and drop par (change short 5s to 4s) to maintain a score around even par.  Sometimes,  in the past,   members have decided to change bunkers or greens and then asked the USGA.  " You see what we did.  Do you think this could be a national venue for the men's US Open ? "

A recent post discussed USGA narrowing the fairways and effectively forcing only one line of play and approach.  This too will be never ending ..... unless something is done with the ball. A recent post also discussed how many USGA events have resulted in the membership deciding to change their a course or vice versa.

Hopefully,  only tees will be lengthened and fairways narrowed.  Hopefully, the days of members / committees / boards acting on the hope of landing a USGA event by changing greens and bunkers at classic venues is coming to an end.

As a USGA member who has never played Shinnecock,  I view the fairway and tee changes at Shinnecock as ..basically.. good news.   It is finally nice to hear that the membership/board/committee has only had to change fairway widths on possibly 14 holes and add a few tees.

While this is not good as a few have explained,   it is certainly better than the membership/board/committee deciding to move or redo bunkers and greens.  Hooray for the U S G A.

Now, after reading in the various golf magazines that the manufacturers have changed the construction of every line of golf ball and all lines of balls have been tweaked in some fashion for the umpth year in a row, the 2004 designer golf balls will certainly be improved and narrow fairways and length should be less of a problem than today.  You will just have to take the line of play chosen by the USGA and you might have a long carry to the fairway.  When the USGA finally realizes that the new Pro V, the new Noodle, the new Precept, the new Topflite, the new Strata, the new Hogan,  are being developed as we speak.... revising all aspects of the ball materials and its construction (number, size and configuration of dimples..the number of layers, materials used, etc.) ..... maybe they will realize that rolling the ball back is not such a big issue.

I'm extremely happy that only mowing and adding tees will have to be adjusted to satisy the USGA.  It might adversely affect tournament play / course strategy  (and setup for member's play for a year or so) but it can be easily corrected if desired.

Adding yardage or such to set a winning score is silly but much better than what has happened before.

If the USGA will not change the ball, maybe they could use my money, my dues to build their golf courses, a US Open trail if you will, across the country and leave the classic courses alone.

I apologize for the long rant ...  but all these posts come back to the same thing ......   the golf ball or the golf score. The USGA will always favor a golf score. So the course must be altered.... until the ball is changed that is.

[Corey Pavin]

John V.  maybe you don't care what tees they use in 2004, however I do.

[Matt_Ward]

john stiles:

Don't might some touching up of courses for major events but let's not get carried away with narrowing the courses to such a degree that we get all the excitement of top players teeing it up with irons because to hit anything else doesn't make any strategic sense. That's not golf -- that's boredom!

The USGA is really hung up on score. Letting the boys play on a slightly modified set-up is one thing, but to do a complete wholesale updating is not necessary. Shinnecock performed admirably in '86 and '95 and there's no reason why it won't do the same in '04. And, if some of the boys do go low more power to them.

I agree that by having a few holes lengthened will give the USGA more of an opportunity to modify the daily course set-up in the event winds become severe from any direction. I would urge the USGA to follow the lead of the PGA when they modified the 16th hole at Hazeltine in the third round to keep things in perspective while at the same time still providing for a competitive hole.

Just some food for thought.

[john stiles]

Matt,

Yep,  I agree and do not care what the winning score is.  Changing old classic courses for the sake of scores is not a good course of action.   Let 10 under win ......  who (other than USGA) cares ?

I think members who revise the courses and say to the USGA .....  all without any USGA input (where is that tongue in cheek smiley).....  "Now look at our course. Is it now US Open worthy ?" ....concerns me and has been going on for years.  So far, other USGA events have had minimal impact on course work but the time for USGA mid-am and US am is approaching although match play may stall this for some time yet.

Ramblin' begins in earnest........

The less the members decide to do for a single USGA tournament every 6 or 8 years .....the better off the old classics are.  You change one tee.... change a bunker.... flatten a green for 4 placements here and there and pretty soon.... you have a course designed by Flynn or Tillinghast or Ross and all the Open doctors present and in the future.

Besides on those greatest courses list .... you might have to add  ....  Ross/RT Jones/Rees Jones/golf committee '03/ USGA '08 / etc.   Those magazines will have to go to smaller type with their lists and I have trouble reading some lists today.

The options might be :
1)  lengthen a classic course, adding new tees, maybe change a few bunkers, maybe a green here and there.... eventually the course falls from favor for some reason anyway and is out of rotation....  a classic revised and discarded (yuk)
2)  accept low scores but at some point, 2 iron-wedge, 3 iron- wedge, 5 iron-wedge isn't much fun (yuk)
3)  play US Open at only modern courses greater than 7400 yards (yuk re: 'only' modern courses)
4)  roll the ball back
5)  build a USGA trail of US Open 'public' courses (this improves the economy, archies/construction companies make more money, members/USGA leave old classics alone, kids under 15 play for free at the USGA trail !)

For my USGA dues,  I like options 4 or even option 5 if C&C, Doak, etc. get a few courses.

Corey .... I was rooting for you recently.  Come back , Corey, come back.  I will see on the tube at Shinny in '04.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff, et.al,

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but.....

I've been saying for some time that the CLUB not the USGA has final say on the golf course for the US OPEN.

If you will reread paragraph six of Geoff's initial post,
I promise to REST MY CASE.

The CLUB not the USGA has the FINAL say on the golf course.

[A_Clay_Man]

I was really hoping this was about the important numbers, like the 40 mil the usga netted from the black. Isn't all about giving tigre the advantage anyway?

[Jeff Mingay]

Adding some length to older courses, here and there, can be a benefit... after careful study of the effect the added length will have on the holes in question and the inherent variety of holes on the golf course.

That said, it continues to amaze me that the subject of lengthening golf courses consistently revolves around the total scorecard yardage (ie. 7,000 yards plus).

Adding length is specific to individual holes.

Too many good courses with an excellent variety of short, medium length, and long holes in each par category have been ruined through arbitrary lengthening, whereever it was possible to "jam" a new back tee in.

It's sadly comical how much emphasis some people place on total scorecard yardage without realizing that the variety of holes on golf courses are being sacrificed, and the game is becoming less interesting because of arbitrary lenghtening.

Yesterday I visited one of Canada's "top" courses (which shall remain nameless), only to learn that the sitting Board is determined to get the total scorecard yardage over 7,000 yards. New back tees are being arbitrarily built wherever they can fit them in. And the result will be a tragic loss of variety.

By the time they're done with the new tees to this course, all five par 3 holes, for example, will play between 200-220 yards. When the course was originally laid-out during the late 1920s, these same holes possessed tremendous variety. In other words, there was a neat little pitch hole (155), three between 170-195 yards that call for a diversity in shotmaking requirements, and one good long par 3 (230 or so). Soon, they'll all just be LONG.

Maintaining variety is so much more important than increasing total scorecard yardage in the name of vanity. My gut feeling tells me that the USGA's constant tinkering with future US Open venues is setting a very poor example for other clubs throughout North American with classic courses that possess an excellent variety of holes, particularly as they apply to the club's membership.

Forget the PGA Tour pros.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think you bring up a good point and put the issue in a different light.

It would seem that the more that you continue to lengthen holes, the more that they begin to blend together, to become more similar, losing their distinctive qualities.  

That's a good point

[Geoff Shackelford]

Jeff,

Thanks, that was my point with this post. Again, it may be the way the article is written, but the notion of the two sides negotiating a total yardage number would be ridiculous, and mark a new low even for the architecturally challenged U$GA.

Geoff

[TEPaul]

Here's a good real example of the misperception of total card yardage among most people and also an example of an intelligent answer about total card yardage.

I once asked Nick Faldo after his one and only round at Merion what he thought of the total card yardage of the course (after he played it from the new tips of around 6700). Basically I asked him if he thought (like most have been claiming) that the course was too short.

He said no way, and that the course had some really good long par 4s. He also said the course had some really, really good very short par 4s! (And obviously that that was the reason the course appeared short in total card yardage)!

So let's say you added 75 yards each to those very short par 4s (#7, #8, #10, #11).

What would you get then? You'd get a par 70 of 7000yds and in the process you would have "disconnected" four really, really good very short par 4s, and probably ruined them!

In the process you would have destroyed some of the best overall variety on a course anywhere (Merion).

There was another cogent remark by Faldo in this vein after he said that and thought about it! After shooting a par 70, he said; "Just look at where I stumbled today!" (On the short stretch just mentioned!).

[Jeff Mingay]

Of course, Merion might be one of the best examples where adding length for the sake of padding the total scorecard yardage would ruin some the world's greatest "short" holes, namely the 7th, 8th, and 10th. (Thankfully, I don't think there's room to go back on any of those holes!)

Relative to this discussion, I think everyone should read Bill Coore's comments about the philosophy behind the design of East Hampton on Matt Ward's thread about his recent visit there. Forget the "ease versus difficulty" argument. Let's focus on building "interest" into our golf courses, in an attempt to test finesse and accuracy, rather than simply reward blatant length.

[brad_miller]

Jeff, your early points are spot on and one of many reasons why I would choose to play Merion over the other famous NJ Open site nine out of ten times. Merion is all about angles and the location required to attack certain pin positions, what a strategic treat, the diversity of it's  holes is stunning.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Geoff and others,
 
The yardages in '95 were:
Par 4's:
8-367
13-377
1-394
4-408  
10-409
13-415
14-444
9-447
18-450
3-453    
6-471
12-472

Par 3's:
2-226
7-188
11-158
17-169/186

Par 5's:
5-535
16-544

With #3 being long and straight and #4 a dogleg right do you think adding yds. to either of these holes hurts or that the USGA is looking for the real long 4par and bringing driver into the picture on the dogleg #4?
If yds. are added to #8 will players be more aggressive?

There appears to be an existing variety in yardage at present.
Does anyone think this will be hurt by the proposed set-up?  

[Robert_Walker]

I would like to see the setup in 2004 be identical to 1995. This would give us a chance to compare apples to apples regarding technology.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Robert,
That is a great idea!! A chance that should be taken advantage of.

[john stiles]

This is all great discussion about length, fairways, and angles of attack, etc. on the great courses.

However, I really feel that is all a moot point because the members of these great clubs will continue to tweak to add yardages, etc.

It is inevitable based desire for scores to be a certain level and the increased length due to abilities and equipment. It is just nice to see some of the older courses fall from favor for US Opens.  It is nice that Merion fell off the men's US Open screen.

Therefore,  members do not make changes and then ask the USGA ....  " Come.... Look at our course. Don't you think it is deserving of the men's US Open"

Tweaking isn't silly to some (it is to me) who seek a men's US Open  or  seek a certain score (which is silly to me).

Unfortunately,  no one who has any involvement or control in this process of changing the classics agrees.  So....
silly or not .........   it continues.  How long will this continue ?

Robert....

See changes at Augusta National. Minor tweaks and recent major tweaks .... maybe because of score... maybe because of short irons played to par4s and par5s... have been seen as necessary by those at the club.   While Shinnecock would have some chance to stand up to technology if winds were up,   Augusta National and many (most?) inland courses do not hold up to the fanastic ability of the very, very, very limited few at men's US Open.  This is all really a shame to go through even minor changes to Shinnecock for just a few for just one or two weeks of play.....  but the changes,  selected to date,  seem minor and easily fixed by mowing, etc.  Others have not been so fortunate.

Many, many other courses who will never host an event, but want to keep up with 'long drives',  have made many changes to classical courses to withstand the new driving standards of the young kids, college guys, members, etc.  This isn't affecting just the US Open courses ..........   many many courses are going through this same process of changing courses.   This (revising classics w/ new tees, moving bunkers, revising greens) is like the tree planting and narrowing and beautification of the 1950s and 1960s .....only now it cannot be as easily reversed at some courses.

I am sorry............but honestly, if USGA men's US Open was not returning to Shinnecock, would the members be changing their course as suggested by newspaper article ?

These changes,  that some think are acceptable tweaks and others think are silly ..........  are going on at many, many other courses. That's the problem.... brought on by the combination of new technologies and players strengths.

To those that liked the course in 2004.  Please, step aside, technology playing through.  

To Corey ....  best of luck.

[TEPaul]

John Stiles:

Often William Flynn was known to "design in" to his courses and routings what was known as "elasticity"!

Basically that was designing courses (probably those that were calling for "championship" courses), holes and certain parts of routings with the thought to going back behind the originally designed back tees if distance requirements called for that sometime in the future!

He wrote about that and talked about it in the context of the ball problem. He wrote about it specifically in USGA Green Section reports in 1927!!

If he happened to "design in" to Shinnecock a certain amount of "elasicity" that way (which he clearly did), would you be averse to the club using that "elasticity" now that the US Open is coming to town in 2004?

Flynn, however, was not at all an advocate of increased distances per se, it just appears that he was as ready for it as any other architect I've ever seen!

In that vein he said, also in a 1927 USGA Green Section report,

"A great deal of experimentation is now going on and it is to be hoped that before long a solution will be found to control the distance of the elusive pill."

It's probably not worthwhile to ask if by "before long" Flynn had in mind 75 years but nonetheless his ideas and planning at Shinnecock, in this way, could be considered both futuristic and also very elastic!

However, I could not agree with you more that attempting to "stretch" golf courses or alter them in some way to accomodate today's technology and the distances that some players hit the ball is generally not a good thing to consider!

Primarily, it's not a good idea because most clubs have never even heard of the architectural concept of "elasiticity" and most courses never had it "planned in" anyway!

But being able to use it if it's there is not objectionable to me, only lucky!

Perhaps, some of us, certainly architects, should simply begin to explain what "elasticity" is and that most golf courses simply do not have it!

If we don't do that, unfortunately, other courses (that don't have it) get into altering the bodies of the holes themselves, or even worse, the greens and green-ends and such and really corrupting architecture and other things! This is how good and validly designed holes and hole strategies start to "disconnect" somehow and become corrupted!

Flynn, clearly, may not have been the one who thought of the concept of "tee elasticity"; Alister MacKenzie may have been when his lectures on the thirteen essential features of an ideal golf course were published in 1920! Tee elasticity was his point #3!

What we've seen recently from Flynn's courses, though, his use of "elasticity" may have been the most comprehensive of an architect (when a championship course was the instruction of a particular club).

In my mind, this kind of thing not only makes Shinnecock a great example of a championship course for the ages but also makes Flynn one helluva futurist!

In my opinion, there is only so much that even futurists like MacKenzie and Flynn could do in the way of "elasticity" since their concept of it was always at the tee end of holes!

Most people today only notice and talk about the distances  these power players are hitting the ball off tees with drivers! But the unfortunate fact is these power players are hitting ALL their clubs commensurately as long or longer percentage-wise as their drivers!

Certainly driver length today with the use of good "elasticity" can take these players back to where the players of decades ago may have been but from there to the greens the use of the same clubs is not even close.

And we know that architects like Flynn also wrote about "testing" a good player's ability to hit all the clubs at his disposal! Clearly that did happen back then but not so much now, at least not in the same way and on the same holes!

The only way to "plan for" or be futuristic about the distances of particular clubs with approach shots would be to do something "elastic" at the other end of holes (the green-ends)! Clearly that isn't really possible--except maybe making greens generally super long or deep!

So designing in "tee elasticity" can be considered a "one way stretch" while what is really needed today (with thesse power players) is a "two way stretch" or "two way elasticity!

So, in this way Flynn was only totally right in 1927 in what he wrote--"....and it is to be hoped that before long a solution will be found to control the distance of the elusive pill!"

And again, 75 years is a long time to wait to make the very same recommendation!

[john stiles]

TEP

I agree.....good points.  Gotta love Flynn ......  he was right on both points with the pill and the course flexibility.  Many argued and wrote about this in the early 1900s but you do not see much in the news in the 1990s other than Titleist's ads.   I think it is to the point of  " Oh well, nevermind....hey, wait a minute here,  we did the COR thing "

There was also a very old post here at GCA, recounting Ron Prichards' letter or his roundtable discussions of mid 90s with the USGA about this matter, that was interesting to read.

Maybe Robert Kroeger's children will write a book .... the courses of old Tillie  or old Ross  ... like Kroeger wrote of Tom Morris' courses which are gone for the most part.  

It's not even close to being that bad obviously,  but things might be better if the new white pill was used to bring things back rather than using the old yellow iron to push things out. Oh well.