[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I understand that, and that's part of the problem -- the "average" often isn't what the club tells them it may be.  The rough at Shinnecock isn't usually like it is for the U.S. Open, either.  So the slope numbers have a lot of "if" about them.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

The key about yardage is where it falls on the card. Sebonack has four par-5 holes -- that tends to boost up the total yardage side of the equation.

I've only played Sebonack once and I admit not with full speed on the fairways and greens but I'd have to say given the times I have played Shinnecock I can't see how the CR and slope can be thaaaat much higher than what's at the US Open site.

But hey, I could be wrong.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom:

I understand that, and that's part of the problem -- the "average" often isn't what the club tells them it may be.  The rough at Shinnecock isn't usually like it is for the U.S. Open, either.  So the slope numbers have a lot of "if" about them.

Well... that can be true...   But the course raters are not usually rubes just falling off the turnip truck, either.  If they do the rating at Shinnecock based on US Open rough, they ought to turn in their badges right now.  Re Sebonack, as a new course few will have seen, they likely will have to go more by the word of the club.  But I'd be shocked if there wasn't some pretty darn good knowledge of Shinnecock by the rating team.  That happens at most courses also.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I understand what you are saying, and why the total yardage at Sebonack is higher.  But what if you think about the rating one hole at a time?  For example:

4.4 = 2nd at Sebonack or 14th at Shinnecock
3.6 = 1st at Sebonack, nothing at Shinnecock
3.3 = 4th at Sebonack, 2nd at Shinnecock

If you went through the courses like that, you could match up a lot of holes pretty evenly, probably more than half of them slightly biased toward Shinnecock being a tenth of a stroke higher.  Which I think you were referring to.

But when you get done, you're going to have to match up the two par fives you skipped at Sebonack (including the 15th, a 5.3 which Shinnecock doesn't have) vs. whatever two par-4's you skipped at Shinnecock, and not the two toughest.  I really can't see how Shinnecock is going to spot those two strokes and wind up with a higher course rating, but of course, I could be wrong.

By the way, halfway through construction, Mr. Pascucci told me that he thought Sebonack would have a higher course rating than Shinnecock.  I told him I hoped he was wrong, and I still hope so ... but I've played them both a few times, and it's going to be close.

[Mark Hissey]

Mark, when are you going to tell all of your Sebonack fans about the availability of that new book?

I've got to get someone to sort out all of the shipping for me! We just mailed a few hundred of them out to the people who were important to the project one way or another in the last five years. That was a herculean task in itself.

I'm trying to work out something with the author to get a piece of the action though...

[Mark Hissey]

Patrick. It was a real pleasure to finally meet you. What a surprise when Lowell did the introductions. I certainly hope we can get together in the near future and resume our discussion. Just wait until I get into the permitting process with you. Dry, but essential to our passion.

I told you that apple tart was delicious didn't I? Clearly, it was the best apple tart made in America in the last 20 years.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

You are correct when you mention the fact that CR and slope are at best secondary items to the overall qualities of the architecture.

No doubt -- Sebonack will rate high in both categories and I can only hope the MGA team will be aware of the impact of wind and the nature of how turf firmness -- fairways & greens -- can impact one's round there.

The issue squarely is on the design merits -- the other info is merely a secondary discussion point here.

P.S. Tom -- can you elaborate your thinking on the nature of the overall routing - it's quite compelling from all the different courses I've played this year -- the player must make constant adjustments and I see that as one of the real stregnths of Sebonack. Thanks ...

[Jim Nugent]

Tom Doak, I have a question about the routing too.  I read that you did the entire routing from topo maps.  True?  Was that before you saw the property?  If so, did you make changes after you saw and walked the land?  

[Adam_Messix]

The raters from the MGA were at Sebonack on Monday and the wind was howling off Peconic Bay at about 25-35 mph.  

I will try to comment further later.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

My first routing for Sebonack was done entirely off the topo maps without having walked the site or even been through the gate.  Even if I had been able to visit first, the site was so thick with brush that you couldn't get a sense for very many of the holes.  That initial routing was changed very little through construction -- Jack and I did move the sixth green during our first walk-through, but he actually moved it back to where I had it on the original plan.  

The only real changes in the routing were moving the first and eighteenth greens a bit (the client's preference for a par-5 finisher necessitated moving the first green site as well), and the recently built new green for a longer 16th hole.  It doesn't usually happen that way ... St. Andrews Beach is the only other course I've designed where I got that much of the routing in the first pass.  A lot of it has to do with the views; the views of the water were predictable and there weren't many others, so there was nothing that made us want to line up the holes differently to take advantage of a view I hadn't anticipated.  Sometimes, that will change the entire routing.

As to Matt's question, honestly, the constraints of the site really limited the number of routing possibilities.  I've used the maps to teach a couple of classes about routings, how one decision leads to another.  I started with how best to use the bluff, and worked inland from there.  Nicklaus' staff made different decisions along the bluff and where to put the range, and that led to the dominoes falling in a different direction.  I've never seen Fazio's routing (done for another client) but I would love to look at it because I think I could tell why he made different decisions, assuming he did.  On a site like Rock Creek or Ballyneal there are so many possibilities that similar solutions are unlikely, but at Sebonack, there just weren't many different ways to go.

[George Pazin]

On a site like Rock Creek or Ballyneal there are so many possibilities that similar solutions are unlikely, but at Sebonack, there just weren't many different ways to go.

Sorry to sidetrack, but which category would you put Stonewall in? Would your routing have been much different than Fazio's, if starting from scratch?

(I'll understand if you can't really answer the question.)

[Tom_Doak]

Just for the hell of it, here's my best stab at a course rating for Sebonack from the tips:

1-3.7, 2-4.4, 3-4.3, 4-3.3, 5-4.0, 6-4.0, 7-4.2, 8-3.1, 9-4.8
10-3.8, 11-4.3, 12-3.1, 13-5.1, 14-4.1, 15-5.3, 16(new)-4.3, 17-3.1, 18-5.0

That would add up to 1.9 strokes over par, or 73.9.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Was there ever any discussion / re: Sebonack to go with less than the traditional four par-5's, four par-3's alignment and the 72 total ? Clearly, having three par-5's on the back is different than the standard two on each side.

Thanks ...

[JWL]

TD

It was interesting to read your take on the hole by hole handicapping at Sebonack.
I am in agreement with every ranking.
The only input I would have is that I thought a couple might be a little more difficult that you listed, but not by much.

I would have just boosted the following holes a little bit:
#1 - 3.8
#6 - 4.1
#7 - 4.3
#9 - 4.9

I don't disagree at all on your rankings.

That would add up to 2.3 strokes over par or 74.3.   You obviously think it is a lot easier than I.    LOL!

Best Regards

[ForkaB]

Speaking of the Trinity, I got one of those interent round robins the other day about a bunch of kids burying a hamster, and intoning......

".....the father, and the son, in the hole he goes...."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak & JWL,

I think the final numbers will be a little higher than 73.9.

From all the way back, with those greens and that wind, 73.9 seems ............ polite ?

[John Kirk]

Tom Doak & JWL,

I think the final numbers will be a little higher than 73.9.

From all the way back, with those greens and that wind, 73.9 seems ............ polite ?

I agree.  Without any hole-by-hole analysis, instead basing my estimate on:

a)  7,300 yards
b)  A one hour tour of the property
c)  Tom saying it's very difficult

I'll guess 75.4/145

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick / John:

That's why it is so subjective.  You could easily add one-tenth of a stroke to every hole on the course for wind, and another one-tenth per hole if the greens are really fast, and get my 73.9 up to 76+.  From the scores I've heard, 73.9 is obviously too low, there are lots of very low handicap players who've had trouble breaking 80 there.

[JWL]

Mr. Mucci

I think you are certainly right about the wind, especially with the green speeds up.
After playing the course early on with Jack, we both had the same impression that it was very difficult to get the ball close to the hole on most approach shots, so birdies might be more rare than you would normally find a course of this status.   However, at the same time, while we didn't think that birdies would be flying at Sebonack, we did feel that pars would not be that difficult except on only a few holes, even in a strong wind condition.   Of course two putting can be a real task if one's iron game isn't pretty good, again, especially in the wind.   That was my impression after just two rounds.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL,

Remember, most golfers who play Sebonack don't come with either your playing credentials or Jack Nicklaus's playing credentials.

When I reflected upon the golf course I pictured a golfer walking off the 15th green in the midst of having a great round.

I will bet you that an inordinate number of golfers will state that they had a good round going until they stood up on the 16th tee.

When you try to protect par, on those last three holes, I can see disaster striking.

I can also see golfers wilting on the first 8 holes.

Playing 8 holes without a par 5 can wear on a golfer, especially with the wind and those greens.

So, in addition to viewing the individual holes, I've tried to explore the mindset of a golfer as he traverses the golf course.

I can see hole # 6 ruining a round.
The first 5 holes have wide fairways, and now, suddenly, the golfer is faced with a narrow shoot, with a fairway sloping left to right, with a left to right wind, to a green blocked by a stand of trees.  That hole has double and triple bogie written all over it.

I can see the same thing happening at # 11.
The golfer will have previously played two fairly benign holes and will then step up onto the tee at # 11.  With a crossing or head wind I can see big numbers in his future.

There are many other pitfalls, some obvious, some more subtle that I think will stifle or squash scoring.

From the Blue Tees I find the course "Sporty"
From the Black Tees I find the course "Difficult"

I think that golfers who are mentally tough, who can shake off adversity and focus on their game will fare best.  Others will sail along until disaster strikes, and I don't see them recovering from there.

But, that's just my opinion, and TEPaul is still wrong, although he seems AWOL lately.

[JWL]

Patrick

I don't think I said anything in my post that would be contrary to all that you said.
I have always thought that 6 would be a sleeper difficult hole.  
11 just requires two excellent shots.
I have also thought that 15 would be the number one handicap hole.   Not because it was the most difficult to par, but because of the length and usual headwind, the hole would play very long for the average player.   I haven't changed my mind.

All the greens require good putting.  Probably more so than most courses.  

[Peter Galea]

I will bet you that an inordinate number of golfers will state that they had a good round going until they stood up on the 16th tee.

When you try to protect par, on those last three holes, I can see disaster striking.

I can't remember where I heard this or who said it but I think it's appropriate.

"The closing holes should inspire the accomplished, strike fear in the heart of the timid, and cause indecision to those protecting position."

[Jim Nugent]

I'm interested to hear the reactions to Matt's title in this thread.  Is Sebonack on the same or similar plane as its two famous next-door neighbors, i.e. has it reached trinity status?  If not now, how about when it gets to its prime playing condition?  

I'm guessing NGLA and Shinnie are 10's on the Doak scale.  How would you rate Sebonack, either now or the way you think it will play in a few years?  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Trinity [Latin,=threefoldness], fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God is considered as existing in three persons. While the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament, early Christian communities testified to a perception that Jesus was God in the flesh; the idea of the Trinity has been inferred from the Gospel of St. John. The developed doctrine of the Trinity purports that God exists in three coequal and coeternal elements—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It sees these persons as constituted by their mutual relations, yet does not mean that God in his essence is Father, or a male deity.

Jim,

The concept of "Trinity" status to me implies something more than just what is in the ground. The neighbors have the benefit of Walker Cups, US Opens, many professionals, top amateurs and years of everyday member and guest play. Macdonald worked on National for 30 years.

I have not played, but can relate that the Doak scale reports that I have heard range from 6.5 to 8.5, all saying the standard "and it could get better. I wonder how much National has improved since opening day? When MIT opened next to Harvard, it was known as Boston Tech. Today is a different story.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL,

I think the back bunker on # 15 is fabulous, and a significant impediment to getting close to the hole with one's approach when the hole is located in the back of the green.

Shots into the wind must be hit with far more precision if' they're to be successful, and a hole location in the back of the green will certainly test the golfer's will, strategy and execution.

With respect to your statement that the greens require good putting, probably more than most courses, that also indicated to me that there's a premium on one's approach.
Being below the hole makes putting, golf and life so much easier.

Rich Goodale,

I don't think of NGLA and Shinnecock as equals.
They're inherently different, but great in their own right.
Sebonack doesn't resemble either one.
To its credit, it's unique.
As to whether it will achieve the lofty ranking of the others, time will tell.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()