[TEPaul]

"You can't use the consequences of missing perimeter hole locations at SH and ignore it at NGLA"

Patrick:

Just another worthless response. This is a thread about Shinnecock and not a thread about comparing the greens of Shinnecock's to NGLA. Furthermore since you mentioned NGLA I did mention the strategic consequences of some of the greens of NGLA compared to Shinnecock and how they are different in that vein from Shinnecock. I guess you forgot to read that too, huh?

[TEPaul]

"And, in terms of natural looking design, could you tell me what's natural looking about the 7th and 11th holes at SH"

Again, mentioning the 11th at SH as unnatural just reconfirms that you have no idea at all about what looks natural or even what is natural.

The green site of #11 is totally natural. It's the end of a natural ridge that just happens to be naturally duplicated about 175 yards out on the fairway of #12. But obviously you've never realized that or recognized it.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Obviously we disagree with respect to the 11th at SH.

But, you omitted mentioning anything about # 7 at SH and how unnatural that green and surrounds are.
Why was that ?

And, Wayne brought up, and/or continued the discussion on  golfer's preference for NGLA vs SH.

I've addressed Wayne's original question in depth.
I also addressed the subsequent issue related to playing preference in detail,  hence, I've stayed on topic.

Chris,

Both # 11 at SH and # 6 at NGLA are fabulous holes.

I give the nod to # 6 at NLGA because of its vast if not overwhelmng diversity in play, which I think has far greater appeal for the average golfer.  # 11 at SH may be a form of the ultimate in target golf, which is inherent in all par 3's.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Obviously we disagree with respect to the 11th at SH."

Patrick:

We disagree about a lot of things and you're always wrong. #11 green at Shinnecock is a completely natural landform.

"But, you omitted mentioning anything about # 7 at SH and how unnatural that green and surrounds are.
Why was that?"

Oh, probably because the green is likely a Macdonald/Raynor.  

[Mike Sweeney]

Do you think the lack of dynamic ground movement gets you to think that way?  I can appreciate if you do feel that way.  I just don't see it, and see it more as a different kind of challenge leading to more variety.

Yes, and maybe I have been hanging out with Mayday too much.

The same could be said of National's flatter section, the difference being that is gets disbursed roughly equally between front and back due to the out and back routing.

The only three "Top 10"  courses (that I have played) that in my Maydayish mind have perfect balance are National, Sand Hills and Pine Valley.

[wsmorrison]

Flynn built up the 7th high above grade.  My guess is that he did it to reduce the run-up option found on so many template Redans in order to create more of an aerial option.  He has done it elsewhere (Philadelphia Country Club 7th) so I think that is his variation.  I think the hole is perfectly fine.  It is well placed in the round after the difficult 6th and before the subtlety difficult 8th.  You are completely wrong in that moving the tee 7 yards to the left makes a huge difference.  Next time you're there, tee a ball on the obvious tee that is no longer obscured by trees.  You can hit a draw into that hole as it is maintained on a daily basis.  We did it several times.  It affords you great flexibility when combined with the Macdonald tee depending upon conditions.  Tom Paul proved to me that some holes can be greatly influenced by minor angle changes while others can have dramatically different angles and not change much at all.  Believe us, as we experimented on it, the 7 yards makes a world of difference.  Doubt if you will, but don't conclude until you try it.

[Ted Kramer]

Call me an architectural dunce, but I love #7 at Shinnecock.
What is so bad about having to hit a precise mid to long iron into a par 3?

During my round out there, I hit a lowish 3 iron into the wind on #7 that hit the closely mown "run-up?" area in front of the green. The ball bounced once or twice and released into the middle of the green . . .The next two putts were two of the most exciting that I've ever played. I'm honestly surprised to hear that a bunch of you guys don't like #7 at Shinnecock.

-Ted

[TEPaul]

"Moving that tee 6-8 yards ain't gonna fix it either."

Bill:

Before you say something like that perhaps you should go out there and hit a few balls to that green from 6-8 yards to the left of the present tees.


"I'm honestly surprised to hear that a bunch of you guys don't like #7 at Shinnecock."

Ted:

You should be surprised about that. It just proves those guys who said that on here don't really understand that hole or golf architecture.  

Admittedly the green isn't easy to hit (although it's easier to hit than #11 as long as it's not setup like the USGA set it up in the 2004 Open). And from the intended and original Flynn tee 6-8 yards to the left it's dramatically easlier to hit as that slight angle change really brings the bolster of the green into effect and function.

One of the truly brilliant architectural aspects of #7 is a fantastic diagonal fall-off ridge running along the high right of the green. That keeps the safe play honest really well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I NEVER said that I didn't like the 7th at SH.
I think it's terrific.

I just said that it was more unnatural than its sister hole, the 4th at NGLA, and evidence that CBM wasn't the only architect who constructed holes that might be deemed unnatural.

Wayne,

With the obvious benefit of going 6-8 yards left.
Why isn't there a permanent tee in that location ?

And, how much further left would you go if it was up to you and TE ?

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne,

With the obvious benefit of going 6-8 yards left.
Why isn't there a permanent tee in that location ?

And, how much further left would you go if it was up to you and TE ?"

Pat,

The club members have no idea why the Flynn tee wasn't maintained.  My guess is that for maintenance reasons somebody decided that there was no need for a second tee to the left of the Macdonald tee (it was never taken out of play) so why pay to keep up two tees.  They probably did not consider how the green would play at such high green speeds and the need for the correct angle wasn't as necessary as it is today.  With today's firmness and green speeds, there are times where it is necessary to play from the tee designed for that green.  We firmly believe that both tees should remain in use for both variety and historical value.  

At the risk of speaking for Tom, we think the Flynn tee would be fine to bring back exactly as it was...7 steps to the left of the Macdonald tee.  It is perfectly suited for the slope and speed of the green on a daily basis.  The problem of how the green was presented on Sunday of the 2004 Open wouldn't have been so dire had that tee been in use.  

The membership and governors of the club are keenly aware of all the historical materials available and are making informed decisions.  They are to be commended for their decision making process and willingness to restore the Flynn design as much as possible--because they have looked at the facts and have determined that it makes sense to do so for the good of the course and the membership.  Their stewardship should be a model for all clubs.

[TEPaul]

"And, how much further left would you go if it was up to you and TE?"

Pat:

Personally I wouldn't go a single yard or step further left on #7 for a number of reasons.

First, the old original Flynn tree is right there in shape and form--it was simply let grow and became overgrown over the years and apparently forgotten about. Up until about five years ago there was a medium sized tree right in the middle of it that was removed when the hedge to the right of the Macdonald/Raynor tee was removed recently.

Second, from that seemingly inconsequential shift left the shot into the green changes noticeably as the right to left bolster of the green cant really takes effect on holding the ball when it hits the green. A normal straight shot at the green does not appear to get anywhere near the riccochet or skidding result that casts the ball long and left that seems to happen from the Macdonald/Raynor tee just seven steps to the right, particularly when the green is very firm and fast. From the Flynn tee the shot once it hits the ground becomes more "redanish" in bounce and roll.

Third, it is actually possible to get a ball on the green by playing a very low running shot up the rather severe upslope of the approach fairway and if a tee was farther left the angle and runup ability on that shot probably wouldn't work well at all.

Fourth, there's an old original maintenance road immediately to the left of the Flynn tee (by about one step) and if a tee were build left of the Flynn tee that road would have to be moved left which would start to jumble it and the new tee up with the 4th tees, particularly with play from the new US Open tee on #4 that is app 40 yards behind the original 4th tip tee.

These things need to be considered from numerous perspectives. Your new thread about good and bad tee placements would very much come into play and rather quickly on a hole like this one.

It's a digression to mention but through the 2004 Open tee length addition and recently on hole #8, in my opinion, the club has done a really thoughtful and excellent job of positioning the height of tees as they should be particularly in this lowland front nine section. I'm sure there's always the tendency these days to raise tees off the ground too high to simply establish total visibility on what's in front of you and the club avoided this inclination really well.

If the club does decide to reestablish the original Flynn tee which is not a sure thing at this point, the next question would be if the Flynn tee should be melded into the original Macdonald/Raynor tee or reestablished as a separate tee immediately juxtaposed to it.

This question actually came up. One important opinion was that the Flynn tee should be reestablished as a separate tee immediately juxtaposed if for no other reason than that's the way it was done in 1929 and at this point restoring it that way again tells a fairly interesting story of the evolution of the golf course. In other words, it would be redone exactly the way it was undone---which in restoration can be a pretty cool way to go.  

[wsmorrison]

"Yes, and maybe I have been hanging out with Mayday too much."

Mike,

You know there is no known cure for that.  Once Geoff Childs conquers cancer and AIDS, he may tackle the dreaded Mike Malonitis.  Of course, Mike Malone himself is beyond all help...but perhaps next generations can benefit from Geoff's work.  There's a Nobel Prize in it for him if he can figure that brain shrinking disease out  

[TEPaul]

"Who built up the tee on #11?"

It was "this man" who did it. He had a bunch of truckfulls of fill with no place to put it. And that's the truth!  

But not to worry. If and when they remove that unnecessary tee height and that fill that creates that height they don't even need to take it away. A mid-sized "D" can just plow it all over to the right in less than an hour, and if the club decides to build an alternate tee over there---voila they will have a wonderful alternate tee shot angle and one of the most awesome skyline greens anyone has ever seen.  

[wsmorrison]

BillV,

What does it matter who built up the 11th tee?  We're not pointing fingers at anyone, nor should we.  It was done with good intentions.  The consequences of the raising of the tee are fully understood, so we'll see what happens.

Tom,

If the tee is lowered, all that extra fill has to be put somewhere.  Maybe a level pile to the right of the existing tee is a good place to start  

[TEPaul]

Who is "that" man?  

If you mean one of those people that are referred to as an architectural "Open" physician, that has not happened at Shinnecock in any of their Opens and I very much doubt it ever will for another Open or any other major tournament they may hold. The club seems to have an admirable ethos in the way they go about things with the course. They're quite deliberate about what they do, they're very historically grounded with the coures at his point and they pretty much do what they do in-house with little to no fanfare.

However, sometimes even these purist, perservationist people can really surprise you. We don't get involved at all in this part of Shinnecock but apparently there's a move afoot in the club to tear down their ultra historic Sanford White clubhouse and replace it with a 30,000 sf structure whose building architectural style is being referred to as "faux neo-teepee".

[JESII]

TEPaul,


I am going to take issue with your post #120...not with its accuracy, but with its lack of a comprehensive explanation. Because you never address the position the player is approaching the green from, you are implying that it does not matter. This could not be further from true...and I know you know it ( I am just disappointed you omitted that parcel from your analysis).

Your assesment of the challenge to the approach of each hole is spot on, but think through the course, and think through just where the ideal approach position is on each hole. It is amazing to me how these subtle little contours you describe so well become more and more prevalent the further the player strays from the ideal location off the tee.

Now, the kicker is that finding that ideal location off of each tee is an equal test of the three main characteristics that really should define the top caliber player...thoughtfullness (so they can identify the right spot), Distance control (not always long, but controlled) and accuracy.

The tee shots at Shinnecock are so awesome because they all give you a hint at what the best play is to make the next shot just a bit easier, but there is just enough misdirection to keep me guessing...and I've played 20 or 30 rounds out there...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne & TEPaul,

I know you're close to the situation, as as such, at a disadvantage when discussing certain issues related to SH.

I believe that the identity of those responsible for altering and elevating the 11th tee is important.

Not in the context of any one individual's identity, but, from the perspective of who authored the idea, who considered it, who gave it their blessing, who funded it and who ultimately authorized the change, because it provides insight with respect to the architectural mindset of the club.

Which, is a most critical factor.

SH's architectural mindset is the foundation of the effort to improve the golf course by returning to the ideals of those responsible for its design.

Deviating from those principles, vis a vis a formal process, wherein the golf course is altered contrary to those principles would seem to indicate that their architectural inertial guidance system is askew and needs to be corrected.

I found it interesting that you indicated that a good deal of debate is being entertained with respect to the restoration of the Flynn tee on # 7.

Yet, the 11th tee was altered, contrary to the original designers intent, almost overnight.

How can the club reconcile those two actions, one negative, which was implemented, apparently, without much debate, and one positive that is tied up in committee meetings, discussion and debate.

I'd prefer that neither of you address my post as I don't want you to compromise your relationship with the club.

But, I hope you can see the apparent conflict as it relates to issue of alterations to the 7th and the 11th tees, and, my questioning of SH's committment to improving their great golf course while adhering to and not deviating from the design principles and intent of the orginal architects.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

You are reading way too much into this looking for a systematic error where there is only an accidental error.  There is no correlation between 7 and 11 tees.  The 11th tee was raised (it was only raised, it is easily reversed) somewhat recently.  The 7th tee was obsoleted many decades ago.  I admire the deliberate process that makes sure to do things right and within budgetary constraints.  If the 7th tee hasn't been restored fast enough for some on this site and if the membership isn't complaining about the pace of restoration, why bother?  The only mindset to consider is that it is a careful and thoughtful one that has the record in hand and is dedicated to that record.  If this site concentrates on who did what rather than what was done and what is being done, what gets accomplished?  This club, much like Cascades, embraces the historical record and is using it to make informed decisions.  There are some very smart and talented members involved and their process is as good as it gets.  Why dwell on what happened before?  What is going on now is very exciting, historically supported and will result in restorations that improve the golf course.  Stop searching for architectural mindsets of a club and look at the results.  That is a more critical factor than a psychological profile you seem bent on coming up with.  Tom and I are thrilled with the process and progress.  I would hope you would be too if you've had a chance to see the work.

The men involved are determined to move forward and realize the potential of the initial design.  I would hope you, BillV and others won't get caught up in a blame game.  That isn't worthy of the site.  Yet you don't have to trust us because of some perceived disadvantage to being "close to the situation."   I for one believe that being close to a situation is the only way to understand the process.  We are historians and take that role very seriously.  We couldn't be happier at what is going on at SHGC.  If that doesn't comfort you, find out for yourselves or wait for the results.  In either case, we believe you will be pleased, extremely pleased by it all.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Good point on your post #144.

You should make a post describing what you think the ideal fairway locations are for ideal approach shots at Shinnecock.

You know, I was thinking about that kind of thing the other day and particularly after a poster on here who mentioned he was an 8 or 10 handicap said how much he liked Shinnecock and how he figured it required from him all kinds of fades and draws into greens.

People, and even architects talk about that kind of thing all the time when they describe courses but how much of a reality is that? Or to say it the other way around, how theoretical is that?

I mean I used to play a lot of golf and tournaments and frankly I don't remember ever really trying to hit fades and draws into greens or even to hit particular areas of fairways. I'm not sure I even see the tour pros try to do stuff like that all that much.

Frankly, all I've ever tried to do is just hit fairways and put the ball on the green.

At Shinnecock I'd be a very happy man if I managed to simply hit a bunch of fairways period and I'd be even happier if I could just put the ball in the middle of every green out there no matter where the pins were. If I could do that I'm pretty confident I'd have a good scoring day. The only shots I remember trying to "manufacturer" out there the other day was on #1 when I tried to play a low ground game run-up shot to #1. It worked. I also tried to hit a big draw on #17. It didn't work.

On the other hand, if I actually attempted to hit various parts of fairways and went pin hunting with attempted fades and draws I'm pretty confident I wouldn't have a very good scoring day, particularly on greens like Shinnecock's that can shed balls in numerous ways.  

This old adage----"Fairways and greens"----there's definitely something to it. This over-analysis of placing the ball strategically in various fairway locations and then hitting fades and draws at pins at Shinnecock---that's probably more the purview of the PC architeture analyst.  

But these things are for you to respond to, critique and analyze because one thing is certain---and that's you're a helluva lot better golfer than I ever was.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I'm not sure the 11th tee was raised recently as Wayne mentioned. It could've been done quite some time ago.

Whatever happened architecturally at Shinnecock in the past to the detriment of the course and it's architecture wasn't much different from any other club in America in those days except that at Shinnecock it appears to have happened a whole lot less.

On the other hand, the club these days and for quite some years now under its current administrators has been on a most impressive course to restore and preserve the course to Flynn and the original intent of the way it was designed.

You're pretty free with your critiques of courses and the responsibilities of memberships but I can assure you that you do not need to question and criticize the course Shinnecock is on now or those attempting to carry it out.

And #11 tee may go on the agenda to consider dropping the level of it back down to it's originally designed grade. Making the green more "skyline" has been considered for a while now (some trees can be seen behind it now that the club may not own) and dropping it back down to its original grade would go a long way to recreating that skyline effect on the green.

[TEPaul]

"The "new" proshop (1985?) is an eyesore, though."

Yes it is and that is being considered too. For starters I would not put any more hope in the survival of the top half of that pro shop than I would in an American who speaks English loudly in the center of Baghdad.

Did you know that the shed between the road and the 14th tee that preceded the Flynn course is now gone?

[JESII]

TEP,


The thing that makes the drive so important is that once it is properly placed, you no longer are required to hit one of those fancy hooks or slices to get to the pin...


I'll go through the holes at some point.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
The thing that makes the drive so important is that once it is properly placed, you no longer are required to hit one of those fancy hooks or slices to get to the pin..."

That's true and that's a very fine point.

However, one of the things that so struck Wayne and I about Shinnecock's greens is all the places around the peripheries of so many of those greens, particularly some sides and backs, that aren't just about direction or even carrying over somethng, they're about some really good distance control due to the fact they just aren't visible on approach shots from any angle.

And that is basically most of the reason strategically I would be more than content to just play the ball basically into the middle of those greens no matter where the pins were. I say this obviously thinking much more in a stroke play context.

You know this admonishment from commentators--"Don't miss it on the wrong side"? This is just huge at Shinnecock and it's going to get even huger or better.

In match play, depending on the situation, this kind of thing could really be a ball to consider and pretty nuancy.

The deal with so many of those green sides that can shed approach shots so easily is not just that it can happen easily approaching them but it can be so hard to recover back near those pins in those areas.

Later, I'll explain the 5th green and why it's so good that way and how we think it can be made even better with what they may be considering restoratively.

It may not be that popular with some but there is just a ton of nuancy visual deception at Shinnecock on and around those greens.

This fact alone could help explain why Goosen and Mickelson were basically the two left standing on Sunday in the 2004 Open. I don't think anyone could deny those two are about the most accomplished there are in chipping and putting recovery.

[JESII]

Another explanation...and probably a simpler one, is the fact that those greens are very small. You would know the sq./ft better than I, but it is certainly just a fraction of the size of a course like Pine Valley...and from what I have heard about National as well.

Size does matter in this type of conversation...I think...

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

On a windy site, small greens make for very difficult play.

While there are some larger greens, like # 2, hitting those greens in their usual or stronger winds is very difficult.

The wind is another reason Shinnecock should widen their fairways, especially when they're bordered by difficult rough.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()