How much has Shinnecock changed?

[Jim Franklin]

I found a yardage guide from the 1995 US Open and wanted to know how much has changed to the course since then. What holes were lengthened etc... thanks.

[wsmorrison]

I cannot seem to find my notes for the 1995 US Open, but I do not believe much changed between the 1986 and 1995 Opens.  Here is a comparison between 1986 and 2004.  There has been some lengthening of the 3rd,4th and 8th holes.  There is still some room to lengthen the 2nd,6th,10th,14th (now that the garages have been taken down) and 15th holes.  Of these, the 2nd and 15th holes would be my priorities.

    1986     2004
1   394       393
2   226       226
3   453       478
4   408       435
5   535       537
6   471       474
7   188       189
8   367       398
9   447       443

10 409       412
11 158       158
12 472       468
13 377       370
14 444       443
15 397       403
16 544       540
17 172       179
18 450       450
    6912      6996

Some fairway width has been regained such as 12 yards to the left of the 8th fairway.  There is an ongoing restoration of green space that is resulting in fascinating pin positions near fall-offs and bunkers that are being brought back into play.  To date, the 6th,12th,13th and 17th greens have been done exceedingly well.  A few greens will be done each year.  I believe the 5th green is among several under consideration for next year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

# 18 was lengthened in preparation for the 1986 Open as were other holes.  I think # 9 was another.

Let me peruse my memory banks and get back to you.

[JESII]

Must be one of the benefits of old age (along with meeting new people every day...), having all of your memories on a bank waiting for perusal...

[Jim Franklin]

Wayne -

Thanks, I knew you were the "go to guy" with this question. Are there any plans to modify the 7th green? I remember that as a very difficult green to hold during the Open. I know some of that may have been the USGA trying to kill the course, but that green seemed very severe.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Here are the opening day (July 1, 1931) yardages:

1   402
2   235
3   452
4   379
5   501
6   458
7   182
8   346
9   426

10 403
11 162
12 464
13 369
14 442
15 398
16 531
17 181
18 424

Jim,

As for the 7th green, it doesn't need any work at all.  The Flynn tee, 7 paces to the left of the currently used Macdonald tee is the intended tee.  The small difference in angle makes a huge difference in how the hole plays.  The player hits into the bolster on the right and it is far easier to hold the green with a variety of shots.  We recommend that the Macdonald tee remains as it is historic and also can be used under different conditions.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I love freeking Shinnecock!

[wsmorrison]

So little has changed at Shinnecock compared to nearly every other course from the classic era.  Some of that is due to the way the course was designed and the elasticity that was built in.  The one factor that has changed is the undulating sandy waste areas in the flatter regions of the course that have been turfed over (portions of 5,6 and 8 for instance) and the shrinking of the greens.  The greens are being restored over the next few years.  It remains to be seen what will be done with the sandy waste areas.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I don't know that the yardages circa 1931 are indicative of the yardages a few years prior to the 1986 Open.

It's not unusual for courses to abandon tees in a 55 year period, Shinnecock having done so at # 7.

I played Shinnecock prior to and after the 1986 US Open and some of the tees had been lengthened, # 18 sticks out as it made a material difference in the play of the hole.

Shinnecock is fortunate to have remained static for so long, a few other courses, like Mountain Ridge and Seminole seem to have also been lucky to have remained fairly static.

One would hope that Shinnecock doesn't make any alterations to accomodate the greatest players in the world as so many other clubs have done.

[Jim Nugent]

One would hope that Shinnecock doesn't make any alterations to accomodate the greatest players in the world as so many other clubs have done.

For the U.S. Open, does the club narrow the fairways, let the rough grow higher, make the course more F&F?  

[TEPaul]

Shinnecock has used up a lot of Flynn's "designed elasticity". They weren't that familiar with that term or concept until recently but in our opinion he designed that in and left it for them and they've used it pretty well over the last twenty years in US Open preps.

Other than that the golf course is remarkably "unredesigned" compared to most any other great American championship golf course, in my opinion.

Not just that but what they've done to the course "restoratively" after years of "evolutionary" change, partiucularly with tree removal and bunker restoration in the last few years, is impressive indeed. We expect more of that deliberate restoration in the years to come.

In my mind, Shinnecock has taken care of their course well architecturally over the years. They are not the kind of club that ever got into change for change's sake like a lot of other great American championship clubs and courses did.

When you get right down to it for two courses in close proximity to one another no two courses in America compare to NGLA and Shinnecock in what's been done restoratively in the last 10-15 years. Not even close.