Seminole Routing + a few comments

[Ryan Farrow]

Just wondering how much of the original routing is in tact.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Near as I know, 100% perhaps save some tee extensions.

[BCrosby]

I too thought the routing is pretty much unchanged. The only exception might be that Wilson shifted the 18th green slightly.

TEP will know.

Bob

[Ryan Farrow]

So I finally got to see my first Donald Ross course today with the original plans in hand. Bob you are correct. The 18th green has been moved and the hole actually plays about 20 yards shorter than the plans have listed. The green and greenside bunkers are all different, as well as a set of cross-bunkers that are no longer there. From the plans it seems like the hole was located at the bottom of the hill instead of cut into the hillside like it currently is. It actually seems like there has been a lot of changes to the course particularly on number 7 green (which I was really looking forward to seeing, but was utterly disappointed) number 14, 16, and 18 are also vastly different as far as the bunkering goes. I must also express a little sadness in the swale at number 4 green, which is definitely not 1'3" deep!!!!! It seems that some of the green contours could use a little re-working, as they must have gotten softened quite a bit over the years but others seemed to be spot on. I must say that the routing is pretty awesome and I was not expecting some of the severity in the property over the large sand dune. I’d put Oakmont ahead of it and even Riviera right now but I could see that changing with some good restoration work.

[John Kirk]

All I know Ryan is that you are a lucky dog.  Seminole is very high on the list of places I would love to see.

Expect Mr. Mucci to chime in and challenge your notion that the greens are too soft in places.  It is my understanding that Seminole's greens are sometimes lightning fast, and being below the hole there is essential to scoring well.

[Ryan Farrow]

Sounds good John, I haven’t gotten into it with the man in quite some time. The greens certainly looked fast and from my observations they were all pretty much the same as far as a left to right or front to back tilt. It was more of the smaller, dramatic features that seem to be missing like the swale on 4, valleys and ridges on 7, and the hollow on number 6. My guess is the softening is just the result of years of topdressing, hopefully.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

John Kirk,

You rang ?

BCrosby,

I believe the 18th tee was to the right, not left of the 17th green, not far from the 16th tee.  It was originally a straight hole with the green where the current practice tee sits.
I believe it was shorter than the current version.

Ryan,

If you think that the field drawings of the greens on graph paper represent "as builts" you may be in the minority.

What many overlook, when looking at photos or the graphed schematics, is a critical factor ...... the wind.

Seminole sits ON the Atlantic Ocean and in some areas the course sits high above the Ocean which means that strong winds buffet the golf course almost daily.

With high stimp readings, introducing more contour would create havoc.

A green that may seem benign to you, can be ferocious if you think about the combination of contouring/slope, speed and wind.

# 10 is a perfect example.  It looks benign, rather mundane, until  the speed and winds are up, then, it becomes frightening.

I've seen well hit balls land at the mid-point and spin back into the water in a north wind.

The same for # 4.
Did you hit that green in regulation ?
Right now many greens in South Florida are fairly soft, with balls leaving deep pitch marks.  When # 4 green is fast and firm, just keeping your ball on the green with your approach or recovery is difficult, and putting, as you sit high up on the course and exposed to the wind, can be difficult at best.

What's different and/or wrong with the bunkering on # 14, 16 and # 18 ?

What changes were made to # 7 ?
Why were you disappointed ?
It's a great hole in most eyes.

And, what plans were you looking at ?

What restoration work are you referencing ?

Would you advocate returning # 18 to it's original configuration ?

[TEPaul]

As far as I've ever been able to tell the entire routing of Seminole is intact.

I believe the only change on the course is the tee of #18 is not in the original location and of course the green was moved left up into the dunes by Dick Wilson.

Pete Dye seems to think the original 3rd green was moved back some but I measured the scale and distance off Ross's routing drawing plan and I don't agree with Pete on that.

[Ryan Farrow]

Pat,


Just a few things before I answer any of your questions, I only walked the course, and am grateful I even had that opportunity. As far as the plans are concerned I know they were scanned from the Tufts archive. As I was going over them at the airport last night I was wondering myself how exactly they were used and you bring up a legitimate point of them possibly not being as builts, which I am sure they are not. I have no clue how Ross worked and how much he stuck to his construction documents or tweaked his design at Seminole along the way. My expectations were based off what I studied from the plan and some of things that I was looking forward to seeing based off of that. I really had no knowledge of the course before that, other than the large dune and Seminoles proximity to the Atlantic. And thanks for your response; I am just trying to learn as much as possible from this experience.


As far as the bunkering on 14,16,18

14. Had a cluster of bunkers about 20 yards past the “ditch” or water way (two on the left one of the right). It seems that these would be in the ideal landing area for a 2nd shot into this short par 5? Without these bunkers I could see myself just booming one over the ditch with no fear of getting wet or reaching the hazard in front of the green as the approach is very steep. With those bunkers I would have more of a choice on whether to lay-up in front of the ditch or try and thread one through the bunkers for a short uphill pitch instead of a 150-160 yard shot for my third. The monstrous bunker in front of the green also limits options and was not included in the original plans. Any information of this guy?

16. More of just a visual but the bunkering is nowhere near the original. The hole still favors a shot to the inside of the dogleg to gain the better angle. But we have a cross bunker at the beginning of the fairway gone, a long, flat, boring bunker running down the right, a cluster added to the far outside of the dogleg and so on. But like I said, it really doesn’t affect the way I would play the hole, more visual. But it would be interesting to understand why the changes were made.

18. I was really looking forward to that cross bunker and could see it posing as a nice hazard for the shorter, better player. Just one of those things that would provide a nice challenge for a finishing hole on whether to take a chance on possibly winning or loosing a match.  Not to mention that green looked like a blast on the plan, just kind of bland as it stands now.
What changes were made to # 7?

Of course you know how wide the fairway on number 7 is, the original plans have a green extension on the back right portion of the green and an extension in front of the front left bunker. Right now, I really don’t see that much of an importance in the placement of your tee shot, maybe if I hit a shot into this green I might see differently but I don’t think there is any denying that the original green would make this hole a lot better.



Would you advocate returning # 18 to it's original configuration ?

I am still not exactly sure where the tee was and where the original green was, its hard to pick and choose but if it was in fact a move by Dick Wilson, I would prefer the Ross configuration since I am a firm believer of preserving original designs for my own selfish reasons. Like not having to look through old plans to see what the architect had really envisioned!!!!!

[Dean Stokes]

 I'm not entirely sure whether the entire routing is original. I do know the 18th tee was moved to the east side of the 17th green. None the less I think it is a great course. It has to be one of the toughest 6600 yard golf courses in the world due to the slope and speed of the greens and the added winds off the Atlantic.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

Just a few things before I answer any of your questions, I only walked the course, and am grateful I even had that opportunity.


Ryan,

There's a neat aerial with an overlay of Claude Harmon's shot by shot course record.  I believe the photo is circa 1948.  If that's correct, that photo provides a good deal of insight into the configuration of the golf course and individual features not that long after its origin.

It would be interesting to Mylar that photo over a Google Earth image or vice versus.[/color]

As far as the bunkering on 14,16,18

14. Had a cluster of bunkers about 20 yards past the “ditch” or water way (two on the left one of the right).


There is no ditch or crossing waterway on # 14.

The fairway is pinched in on both sides by two small ponds about  50-100 yards short of the green, but, according to Google Earth there are NO bunkers near those ponds.  The ONLY bunkers are greenside bunkers and bunkers flanking the DZ.[/color]

It seems that these would be in the ideal landing area for a 2nd shot into this short par 5? Without these bunkers I could see myself just booming one over the ditch with no fear of getting wet or reaching the hazard in front of the green as the approach is very steep. With those bunkers I would have more of a choice on whether to lay-up in front of the ditch or try and thread one through the bunkers for a short uphill pitch instead of a 150-160 yard shot for my third. The monstrous bunker in front of the green also limits options and was not included in the original plans. Any information of this guy?


I would disagree with your assessment for a number of reasons.

I don't have a scorecard in front of me, but, I think the 14th is only 500 yards long, with prevailing winds out of the east and/or southeast, making the hole play even shorter.

From an elevated tee, downwind, a tee shot of 250 leaves you
250 downwind.   Why would you hit a 90-100 layup shot to leave yourself a 150-160 shot ?  Who plays golf that way ?

As to the fronting bunker's origin, the 1948 aerial could certainly help determine it's age.  Having first played Seminole in the early 60's I don't remember if it was there at the time, but, would bet that it was.  How on earth can that bunker limit options ?

It penalizes failed attempts to storm the fortress like green.
Those going for the green in two shouldn't be able to do so without impunity.[/color]

16. More of just a visual but the bunkering is nowhere near the original.

How do you know that ?
By what comparitive analysis do you draw that conclusion ?[/color]

The hole still favors a shot to the inside of the dogleg to gain the better angle. But we have a cross bunker at the beginning of the fairway gone, a long, flat, boring bunker running down the right, a cluster added to the far outside of the dogleg and so on.


Is the cross bunker relevant to play ?
Or do you just like the aerial visual ?

Did you notice the drainage ditch that runs along the outer elbow of the hole ?

I don't find the long right side bunker boring in any context.
How would you reconfigure it to make it NOT boring ?[/color]

But like I said, it really doesn’t affect the way I would play the hole, more visual. But it would be interesting to understand why the changes were made.

I think the only way you can determine if changes were made is to compare aerials of the course on opening day and today.
Drawn Plans don't necessarily reflect what was put in the ground.  The next time I visit, I'll study the aerial in the locker room, a locker room that took on added value to me in 2005.[/color]

18. I was really looking forward to that cross bunker and could see it posing as a nice hazard for the shorter, better player. Just one of those things that would provide a nice challenge for a finishing hole on whether to take a chance on possibly winning or loosing a match.  

Perhaps you missed it, but, # 18 has a wonderful set of cross bunkers that challenges the drive, especially since the hole plays into winds from the South, Southeast and East.  The bunkers closest to the green challenge the player when the winds are from the North, Northwest or West.[/color]

Not to mention that green looked like a blast on the plan, just kind of bland as it stands now.

You're either kidding or you got lost and stumbled onto Juno Beach Municipal golf course.

How was the green on the plan look like a "blast" ?

You think that the current green looks bland ?

From what vantage point did you make your observation ?

You couldn't have been standing on it.

That green is sensational in so many ways, especially as one plays the hole and as the wind presents itself, that I'm shocked to hear you describe it as you have.[/color]

What changes were made to # 7?

Of course you know how wide the fairway on number 7 is, the original plans have a green extension on the back right portion of the green and an extension in front of the front left bunker.

How was the green built ?
Does the 1948 aerial reflect the current configuration ?
I have a copy of the original field specs on graph paper in NJ.
I'll pull them out on Sunday and review them.[/color]

Right now, I really don’t see that much of an importance in the placement of your tee shot, maybe if I hit a shot into this green I might see differently but I don’t think there is any denying that the original green would make this hole a lot better.

When you say the "original" green, are you certain it was built as drawn ?

That hole plays to the East, into the teeth of prevailing winds from the East and Southeast.

I think the green configuration is the least important aspect of that hole, unless you can control your long irons into a target of 10 feet or so into strong winds.[/color]

Would you advocate returning # 18 to it's original configuration ?

I am still not exactly sure where the tee was and where the original green was, its hard to pick and choose but if it was in fact a move by Dick Wilson, I would prefer the Ross configuration since I am a firm believer of preserving original designs for my own selfish reasons.

It is a fact that Wilson redesigned the hole.

I'm certainly an advocate of preservation and/or restoration, but, you're probably the only person in the Universe, living or dead, that would restore the original hole.

What would happen to the practice tee and range if you had your way ?[/color]

Like not having to look through old plans to see what the architect had really envisioned!!!!!

How do you explain Donald Ross spending 26 years changing what he originally envisioned at Pinehurst # 2 ?

Was what Ross envisioned on opening day what should have been preserved for all eternity ?

Was Ross wrong in FAILING to PRESERVE the ORIGINAL design ?
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

As far as I've ever been able to tell the entire routing of Seminole is intact.
I believe the only change on the course is the tee of #18 is not in the original location and of course the green was moved left up into the dunes by Dick Wilson.
Pete Dye seems to think the original 3rd green was moved back some but I measured the scale and distance off Ross's routing drawing plan and I don't agree with Pete on that.  The morphed aerial shows it moving south, not back to the west into the slope of the 4th tee.
Also, I'm not sure that the markers on the aerials line up perfectly.

TE,
Ross's 1929 schematic and the 1930 aerial from the Palm Beach Historical Society don't bear that out.
In 1930 the green was benched close to the slope leading to the 4th tee.
There isn't 30 yards between the 3rd green and the 4th tee.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As for the 3rd green being moved----there is some new good material being produced recently on that by Mark Bourgeous, so I have to reconsider what I said about that green five years ago. I suppose I could just ask Pete Dye what he knows about it and why he said it was moved. I'm beginning to realize Pete's experience with Seminole might go back a lot longer than I've thought.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

They didn't move it back, they moved it left, to the south

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In moving the 3rd green do you think they extended the length of the hole without extending the length of the teeing area?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

Yes, I think the movement of the green to the South created a slighly longer shot at the green from the proper side of the DZ

For a while, some played # 3 down # 4 fairway until it was declared OB.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It is shocking for me to say it that I haven't played Seminole for about fifteen years. But I played it hundreds of times between the 1960s and 1990s. In all those years I do not remember a single "internal" Out of Bounds at Seminole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

There's a sign on the third tee informing the golfer.

[JC Jones]

TE,

There's a sign on the third tee informing the golfer.

Which is ridiculous, by the way.  It should say: "If there is a group ahead of you between the 3rd fairway and the 4th green, do not play up #4"

If your group is alone on the course or the group ahead has already reached #4 green, there is no safety issue.

[jonathan_becker]

TE,

There's a sign on the third tee informing the golfer.

I saw the sign this past tuesday and didn't think anything of it until I was getting ready to play my second shot.  #3 was playing into the wind and my drive hugged the far inside of the dogleg and was still in the fw.  Upon reaching the ball, I was blocked out by the palm trees and the seagrapes and was forced to lay up with a wedge from a mere 230 yards.  Then it dawned on me why people would play up #4 because it shortens the hole and from almost any spot it gives the player the opportunity to go for it in two shots unobstructed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

There's a sign on the third tee informing the golfer.

Which is ridiculous, by the way.  It should say: "If there is a group ahead of you between the 3rd fairway and the 4th green, do not play up #4"


I disagree since that leaves the matter up to interpretation, which can be skewed.
Better to make a finite declaration and end any foolishness.
Legal liability is a modern day issue that can't be dismissed.

If your group is alone on the course or the group ahead has already reached #4 green, there is no safety issue.

When's the last time that happened at Seminole ?  During Hurricane Wilma ?