[Patrick_Mucci]

One of the things that I marvel about at Shinnecock is the undulating fairways, fairways that flow in virtually every direction.

They flow from side to side, end to end, toward you and away from you.

The effect on the ball and the lies they create are unique.

I wondered, if the site was available today, would those marvelous fairways be softened ?

Would their unique character suffer at the hands of a bulldozer.

Certainly, the modern golfer would complain about the sidehill and/or downhill/uphill lies.

While I would imagine that their existance is largely predicated upon sandy soil or exceptional drainage, why aren't more courses allowed to have these flowing, ribbon like fairways ?

And, when you combine the movement in these fairways with dogleg holes, the result is truely remarkable.

But, would a duplicate of Shinnecock thrive as a public course in another location ?

Would  holes like # 7, # 9, # 10, # 11, # 14 and # 18 be well received by the golfing public ?

[John Kavanaugh]

I guess we will have to see how Erin Hills works out.  The pundits are already decrying the over abundance of minimalism.

For those who have seen both...how do the sites compare?

[Glenn Spencer]

Great question!! I know that I would play it. I think it would thrive, but not to the levels that it has as a private club. There are a lot of courses that might not do as well as publics. This is a great topic and not just for Shinnecock. What age do you consider the modern golfer?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I'm sure we can all think of a few courses with all the undulation and excitement that you describe for Shinnecock and others attribute lately to Erin Hills.  But, like you say, they sit on land that will drain appropriately due to the subsurface soil and gravel structures.  (Apparently the new term "glacial links" includes the recognition that the subsurface perks through the glacial till to the point that undulation can be accomodated)

But, how many sites can count on the high rate of perc to allow for the excitement of the lies you speak of?  And, would permitting and need to submitting drainage to off site impact to urban land planners nearly assure the over dozing and contouring to a fairtheewell, inorder to be granted the permits to construct in urban environments?  Anotherwords, could the permitting process be the single most softening agent of GCA?

[Joel_Stewart]

Nobody would build a hole like #10 and I doubt anyone would build a green like #11.  C&C are the closest to building greens on the edge, such as Friars Head and Bandon Trails, #5 and #14 to name a few.

[Jim Franklin]

I don't know Joel. I think Mr Doak builds some pretty wild greens (see Lost Dunes or Ballyneal to name a few).

Why wouldn't someone build #10 again? I thought it was a pretty cool hole until my ball spun 40 yards back down the fairway.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It depends on the architect, don't you think?

Can you see Tom Fazio or Rees leaving those things the way they obviously were naturally or would you imagine they'd sick a fleet of D-8s on them? Unfortunately just about every time the fleet of D-8s will win.

Before we work on our "cheater line" proposal do you think we should see if we can develop an "anti-D-8" tank or missle?

[David_Tepper]

I have not played Shinnecock. Is the "flow" in the fairways there materially different from what you can see in dozens of links courses in GB&I?    

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have not played Shinnecock. Is the "flow" in the fairways there materially different from what you can see in dozens of links courses in GB&I?    

David,

I can't speak for all of the courses in GB&I, but, nothing approaching the fairway terrain at SH was evident in the courses I played in Scotland.

Many courses in GB&I are links like and lack the dramatic elevation changes indiginous to SH

[wsmorrison]

Patrick,

One of the more interesting features of Shinnecock Hills is the different way Flynn designed holes on the very flat portion of the property versus the more topographic ground.

[George Pazin]

I guess we will have to see how Erin Hills works out.  The pundits are already decrying the over abundance of minimalism.

For those who have seen both...how do the sites compare?

Erin Hills' site is better, far better.

How could it be?

At some point, it just seems you can't get any better, at least not significantly.

Similar, slightly better, slightly preferrable, different - sure; how can it be far better than one that yields a course many feel is the best in the world?

[wsmorrison]

"Erin Hills' site is better, far better."

JKB,

In what way is it far better?  I know nothing about Erin Hills so please consider the question an innocent one.  Does the better site make for a better golf course?  We know that isn't always the case.

"Nobody would build a hole like #10 and I doubt anyone would build a green like #11."

Joel,

I agree with Jim.  Why wouldn't anyone build a hole like SHGC's 10th or 11th green?  What is so crazy about them?  Their overall difficulty?  I don't understand your position on this at all.

"Pat, I'm sure we can all think of a few courses with all the undulation and excitement that you describe for Shinnecock and others attribute lately to Erin Hills.  But, like you say, they sit on land that will drain appropriately due to the subsurface soil and gravel structures...

But, how many sites can count on the high rate of perc to allow for the excitement of the lies you speak of?  

I fail to see how the perc rate is a precondition for keeping the undulations in fairways.  I know of a number of undulating fairways on courses with clay or less than ideal soils.  Granted these are classic era courses.  Cascades, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley, Philadelphia Country, LuLu, Gulph Mills, Tavistock and Oakmont are among many examples I can cite.

[Michael Ryan]

Playing Shinnecock on Saturday for the first time, I'll be happy to add to this post next week.

Having walked the property numerous times in 1995 and 2004, the elevation changes are one of the great qualities that makes it so impressive.  

I know it went through some redesigns, I assume the most extensive was done when either Rt. 27 or the LIRR was brought through the existing course.  My question is, what land did Flynn have to work with at the time?  Was his hand forced to use the flatter sections near 3 through 8 or the hillier sections of 9 green through 12 tee?  Or did he have a wider expanse of land present and chose those holes at those specific points for a reason?

[wsmorrison]

Michael,

Lucien Tyng was looking at acquiring land to the NE of the present site, where a residential development now exists.  In fact, Flynn designed 3 nines in case he acquired the land.  In the end, it was deemed not as suitable for golf.  One of the mandates to Flynn was that 18 holes were to be in play at all times.  This meant that some of the old course was used while Flynn's complete redesign was being implemented.  

The last holes to be built included today's holes 1,2,3,7,8 and 9.  Holes 4,5,10-18 occupy ground not previously used for golf.  Only holes 1,2,3,7 and 9 occupy hole corridors as used by Macdonald.  Of these, all of today's greens, bunkers and tees (except for 7 tee) are Flynn and only the beginning of 1, end of 2, holes 3,7 and 9 occupy the same the same ground as the Macdonald holes.  Of these, 7 green was raised in position and 9 green was lowered.

[Michael Ryan]

Wayne,

Thanks for the thorough answer/history lesson.

You say 9 was lowered, if I have ever heard a criticism of Shinnecock (excluding the uproar caused by the USGA in 2004) was that the severe uphill nature of the second shot into 9 did not "fit" with the rest of the course.  Having not played (yet!) I can't agree or disagree with that.  However, you say it was lowered, was it in it's present position, with the green literally being lowered, or was it farther to the players right, where the clubhouse now stands.  I believe the clubhouse is one of the oldest in the country, not sure where the 9 green lowering fits on the timeline...

[wsmorrison]

I don't know how anyone with an understanding of golf architecture can say that the 9th green does not "fit" with the rest of the course.  You'll see for yourself when you play this Saturday.  I'm looking forward to your impressions of the course.  Please let me know on the site or in an IM.

Like the 9th, the 10th and 11th greens are also placed on top of a natural ridge.  That's three similarly placed greens in a row, all of them excellent, though difficult.  The 9th green used to be more difficult as the green came forward more and there was a fairway cut that draped over the ridge down toward the fairway.  An approach with too much spin or short would have bounded much farther down the hill than it can today.

Flynn lowered the Macdonald green, saddling it into the surrounding ground more naturally than a perched green.  He also reduced the left side of the Macdonald green, where some of the left greenside bunkers are located.

[Michael Ryan]

Wayne,

Thanks for another timely answer.

Patrick/Wayne

What is the best example of the elevation helping the player as well as hurting the player?  Is it a downhill hole helping and uphill hurting?  Or a fairway canting in one direction that sends most balls to an area with a bad angle of approach or better angle of approach?  Interested in your feedback...

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I agree, # 9 is a great hole that fits brilliantly and is in perfect harmony with the rest of the golf course.

Shinnecock has numerous ascending and descending holes, like # 1, # 9, # 13, # 14 and # 15.  Throw in # 10 if you'd like.

After descending from the 1st tee, how else would you return back up to the clubhouse ?

 

[TEPaul]

Michael:

The shots from high tees at Shinnecock are #1, #12, #13, #14 and #15. #2 tee shot is very gradually up and #11 a little more so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George/Wayne:

I also think Prairie Dunes is a better site than Shinnecock and happen to think PD is as good if not better than Shinney.  

Do you really think that the site that occupies the back nine at PD is that good ?

Better than SH ?  ?  ?

Surely you jest.[/color]

IMO, as much as I enjoy Shinney and think holes like 9, 10, 11, 14, 13, 15 and 18 are brilliant I find it has far too relatively average a stretch of land between 3-8 (although 5 is likely in my top 5 favorite holes on the course) and 16 and 17 for it's site to be considered as great as the course is as a collective whole.

What makes the stretch of land from # 10 through
# 18 at PD above average  ?

What you may be overlooking is the prevailing south wind at SH, which has a dramatic impact on the play of holes 3-8.[/color]

Shinnecock is the best example that I've seen of overcoming relatively huh hum land with great architecture.  

Huh hum land ?

Jason, If you said that the land movement at Maidstone or GCGC was Huh Hum, I might agree with you, but, SH has incredible movement in the land.

You don't think that you might have a newly found bias, do you ?  [/color]

The angles on 3, 4, 5 and 6 off the tee are brilliant.  

You just said that holes 3-8 were average or on average land.
Now you say they're brilliant.  You also said that the most of the holes from 9 thru 18 were brilliant, so that leaves holes 1 and 2.  # 1 is a nice opening hole and # 2 is a very good par 3.

So, where's the weak spot on SH that makes PD superior ?[/color]

The use of the pond on 6 is wonderfully strategic.  

I don't find the pond strategic.
It hardly comes into play.[/color]

7 comes at a perfect place in the routing and 8 leads nicely into the 9th.  

I do find 17 out of place in the routing and a bit of a let down after trying to go for 16 in two and anticipating the climb up 18 toward that clubhouse.

I don't understand how you find # 17 out of place.
As to going for # 16 in two, it's 540 yards directly into the teeth of a prevailing wind from the south[/color]  

17 goes the wrong way and seems to just be a means of getting you back to the 18 tee.

How can you say it goes the wrong way ?
# 2 plays north as does # 11.  # 7 plays south and # 17 plays west.  That's reasonable balance and it brings you to the 18th tee, another hole that you've already admitted
is brilliant.[/color]

Hope that explains my thoughts a bit.[size=8x]
?[/color][/size]    

Mike Ryan,

Buy the yardage book in the Pro Shop and say "hello" to Jack Druga for me.

The yardage book includes beautiful pictures of each hole, along with the schematic and yardage indicators.

As to the play of the golf course, you'll see for yourself on Saturday.

It's a treat, enjoy it.

[RJ_Daley]

Going back to Wayne's list of more clayey soils without the high perc of sand and gravel, I would agree that those soils are not a pre-condition to keeping in undulation, I suppose.  As long as the operative words are, drainage, drainage, and drainage.  I don't know any of famous courses you sited other than watching Oakmont.  But, it seems to me that the ditches aren't just there with gobs of high rough around them to frustrate golfers...  I think the older courses were very smartly planned to keep as much undulation as possible, by masters of the surface drainage game.  I think Doak reveres the old master's ability to find workable surface drainage schemes.  

Otherwise, how many of the courses you cite on clayey ground have had massive drainage from the begining and more added through the years?  

Without such, I think we would have a series of kettles and bowls, constantly wet, and unplayable in rain events for long periods thereafter.

I also think that those archies that practice minimalism in this modern era, still use the term "melting down" some of those undulations to a degree that most wouldn't recognise was melted down, and would think they are the original contours.

[wsmorrison]

JKB,

Pat covered my objections to your analysis very well.  I don't get a lot of what you said regarding Shinnecock Hills, a course I know very well.  I do not know Prairie Dunes at all (though I hope that changes sometime in the not too distant future) so I cannot comment on the comparisons/contrasts that you made.

RJD,

I think you correctly determined that surface and sub-surface drainage are necessary devices on undulating ground.  Some of the better classic era architects did some brilliant things with surface drainage, including tying it in very well to the surrounds.  It seems that many of the bunker restorations I see today do not show as much skill in hiding some of the surface drainage  Is it a design detail or construction ability that is not expressed as well today?  I'm not sure.  Something is missing.  My sense is that it is in the construction side since one team I am familiar with seems to make the same features despite the consulting architect and the original architect.

[JESII]

Pat and Wayne,

Pay close attention to what Jason said about those holes at Shinnecock...he was simply saying the land was less than great on holes 3 - 8, and that he didn't love #'s 16 and 17 as holes in total. While I disagree with his assesment of #16 and #17, he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and it's tough to argue that the land through the middle of the front nine is very compelling. Pat, what you highlighted as a contradiction was not at all...he seems to think those holes are wonderfully strategic despite the mundane land features.


Michael Ryan asked...

What is the best example of the elevation helping the player as well as hurting the player?  Is it a downhill hole helping and uphill hurting?  Or a fairway canting in one direction that sends most balls to an area with a bad angle of approach or better angle of approach?  Interested in your feedback...

#10 is off the charts in all respects of this question...I'll try to expand later, but Wayne certainly can in the meantime about the counter-intuitive nature of the hole via the difficulties presented by driving to the bottom of the hill as opposed to laying way back (100+ yards from the drive to the bottom) and trying to hit an iron onto the green...

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

It's far more than that.

He insisted that the land at PD was better than at SH and that the golf course, PD was better than SH, and I took exception to both issues, despite his entitlement to his opinion.

If all the holes are brilliant, how can he state that PD is better ?

And, let HIM address the issue of the land on the back nine at PD.

Thanks

[JESII]

no, no...thank you...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()