[Ed Oden]

In my short time on this site, I’ve been a little surprised that there is not more discussion of Shinnecock.  NGLA seems to get much more attention.  While I certainly understand the deep feelings many have for NGLA, in my personal opinion, Shinnecock is the superior course.  I am not as learned as many on this site with respect to GCA matters.  Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain why I think Shinnecock is so great.

1. The routing flows naturally and effortlessly across the land.  There is nothing contrived or manufactured about it.  Each hole appears as a timeless part of the land it occupies.  I love the way the holes are close but not too close to each other.   You can see and connect with other holes without ever feeling they encroach on the hole you are playing.

2. There are no weak holes.  Moreover, there are no weak shots.  Each hole and each shot is strategic, beautiful and challenging, yet still playable.   It seems “shot values” is the buzz phase de jour.  I’m not sure what it means half the time.  But I do know that Shinnecock does not discriminate when it comes to options of attack available to the golfer.  Holes and shots can be approached in a variety of ways, each of which if executed well will be rewarded and if played poorly will be punished.  To me, that is the essence of a course with superior “shot values”.

3. Shinnecock has as good a collection of par 3s as I have encountered.  One long (2), one short (11) and two in between (7 and 17), none remotely like another.  The setting and green slant at the 7th is beyond any redan I have seen.  And you’d be hard pressed to find a more difficult short hole than 11.  I've heard that Lee Trevino called 11 the shortest par 5 in the world, but don’t know if that is true.

4. The 16th is my favorite par 5 of any I have played so far.  I love serpentine holes and this one weaves its way uphill toward the clubhouse.  The bunkering is both striking and strategic.  A birdie hole if played well but subject to a big number if you misstep.  

5. The setting is nothing short of spectacular.  Panoramic views abound.  But unlike other visually stunning courses, Shinnecock’s views are of the course itself and not dependent on surrounding natural formations such as mountains, oceans, lakes or cliffs.   The beauty comes from within.

I will end with some pictures:

The approach to the 1st

The 3rd

The approach to the 5th...

... and to the 6th

The redan 7th

The 8th green from behind

The 9th

The 10th

The short 11th

The 12th

The 13th

The 14th

The serpentine 16th

The 18th green bathed in sunlight…

...and shrouded in fog



Ed

[TEPaul]

Ed:

There's been a ton of discussion about Shinnecock on here particularly be Wayne Morrison and me. I wish I could help you with the GOLFCLUBATLAS search engine but I'm afraid I can't----I'm no good at it. But there's a ton of stuff and all kinds of analysis on the architecture and architectural history of Shinnecock in the back pages.

[Bart Bradley]

Ed:

Fantastic photos.  Your description and the pictures make me think "this is what golf is all about".  Excellent post...will see what the experts have to say about it.

Bart

[TEPaul]

Wonderful photos by the way. They show as well as any I've seen the essential overall "naturalism" of the big "twisting and turning" lines, top-lines and others of the architecture.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

You should have been here during the 2004 US Open.

I think Wayne Morrison will chip in on this thread sooner or later.He'll probably agree with your premise that Shinnecock "is clearly the superior course."



www.golfclubatlas.com/shinnecock1.html

[Greg Krueger]

Ed, thanks for the great pictures!! I have not played either so
it does'nt make sense for me to compare the two. My question
would be, when was the last major at NGLA? I would guess it
has more to do with length and logistics (parking, etc) or maybe the members are not interested. Tough to beat Shinnecock though!

[JMorgan]

[Ed Oden]

Thanks for all the compliments on the photos.  In the interest of full disclosure, most of them were taken by my playing partners.  But I won't let that small detail stand in the way of taking full credit.

Ed

[JMorgan]

[Philippe Binette]

I also believe that NGLA and Shinnecock are very different...

I felt like NGLA is about finding a way to get to the hole and is a strategically demanding course while at Shinnecock, the required shot is more visible, more clearly expressed by the design of the course. That said though, the required shots at Shinnecock are really demanding, the course is more demanding as far as execution.

They are definitely two great golf course... The difference between the two is not too desimilar as trying to compare The Old Course and Muirfield.

Shinnecock is more impressive than Muirfield, is it better? hell. I can't say it, it follows my rankings of courses, there are great courses... and than the rest.

[TEPaul]

Let me propose something about future discussion on NGLA and Shinnecock (two courses that are actually contiguous landwise but certainly not in era or style). I even think this proposal should be more considered and more used on here generally with a lot of our discussions on architecture over time.

The proposal is---instead of constantly trying to COMPARE a golf course like NGLA to a golf course like Shinnecock, learn to come up with various ways and methods of CONTRASTING them and their architecture, and discussing what those contrasts mean.

If we begin to learn to do this more and we do actually do it more I think in the end we might find how different they really are, how different they are because of when they were created in the history and evolution of architecture in America and what that means.

Both of them were great for their individual times (separated by over twenty years in the fast moving development in golf AND architecture in the first third of the 20th century in America).

If we do more intelligent and considered CONTRASTING instead of constantly COMPARING I think we will better find why these two courses should be considered some of the greatest and greatest architecture in the world still today!!!

End of rant.

 

[Greg Clark]

About 3 years ago it seemed like every other day there was a discussion of which of these 2 courses was superior.  Great pictures.

[Dean Stokes]

TE Paul,
What a marvellous little rant! I've only been a member of this website four months. My first post was to to question why golfers always try to compare certain courses to other courses and decide which is "best". I used Friars Head and Maidstone as my example. Both great golf courses but totally different. Built in different centuries almost! Almost impossible in my view to say which is "better". You hit the nail on the head - let's look at the contrasting architecture and admire both works. Hope you haven't 'opened a can of worms' as apparently I did!

[TEPaul]

Dean:

You know, when I was a kid in school in Boston (St Marks) we had a great old history teacher whose constant mantra was "compare and contrast", "COMPARE AND CONTRAST"!!!

Man, it used to just fry us when he kept harping on that day after day. But I think he couldn't have been more right about that, particularly with history.

If one doesn't do that, if they only compare (best, better, etc), as so many do on here it can lead to unintended results which I don't think any of us think are much good, particularly if we stepped back and looked at how and why we arrived at them.

There is a great example of this kind of thing I've used on here a lot of times before--some don't like me using it perhaps because of who it involved but I just don't think there is a better example on here of how it can lead to an area and result of unintended consequences and how easily that can distort the accuracy and probably the truth of history and what it can tell us if looked at correctly or just differently than we generally do on here.

[Bart Bradley]

Dean:


There is a great example of this kind of thing I've used on here a lot of times before--some don't like me using it perhaps because of who it involved but I just don't think there is a better example on here of how it can lead to an area and result of unintended consequences and how easily that can distort the accuracy and probably the truth of history and what it can tell us if looked at correctly or just differently than we generally do on here.

WHAT  

Bart

[Jeff Doerr]

Ed thanks for the thoughts and images. Here is an aerial from today and an overlay from 1938.

Today


Today with 1938 overlayed.

[Ed Oden]

The proposal is---instead of constantly trying to COMPARE a golf course like NGLA to a golf course like Shinnecock, learn to come up with various ways and methods of CONTRASTING them and their architecture, and discussing what those contrasts mean.

TE Paul:

I like your proposal.  But I am not sure I'm at a stage where I can provide any meaningful comparison/contrast.  Undoubtedly the group would benefit more from the experts taking on that task than me.

Just to be clear, my intent was to focus on why I think Shinnecock is so good rather than to impune NGLA.  The courses are so different, each exceptional in its own way.

Ed

[Mark_F]

how different they are because of when they were created in the history and evolution of architecture in America

Tom,

Is it time that differentiates the architecture at these two courses more so than the personalities behind them?

CBM was clearly a big, bluff sort of bloke who valued the element of chance that exists somewhat in blind shots, had a love of outrageous greens, and clearly thought outside of the square.  Flynn was more of a meticulous tactician.

Couldn't you in fact contrast Friars Head and Sebonac in exactly the same way?  One was developed by someone content to let his chosen architects do it their way in their time, the other was developed by someone who wanted a long and difficult course.

[TEPaul]

Ed Oden:

You are some photographer. It's not just that your shots are technically good, you have a real sense of position and perspective on a golf course. The only thing I wish you'd done is take two progressive shots of the 10th green from the top of the fairway and one from the bottom. A sense of that hole photographically needs that.

[Bart Bradley]

4. The 16th is my favorite par 5 of any I have played so far.  I love serpentine holes and this one weaves its way uphill toward the clubhouse.  The bunkering is both striking and strategic.  A birdie hole if played well but subject to a big number if you misstep.  


Ed

Ed:

The 16th hole certainly looks amazing.  I am not sure that I have played a "serpentine" par 5 where the curves were created entirely with rough and bunkering and not trees.  It is truly a spectacular hole.  I hadn't really thought about my favorite par 5 and I haven't been fortunate enough to play this one...but I can't name one I've played that is better.  Is there any chance a mortal player can reach in two (it looks to play uphill)?

Bart

[Joel_Stewart]

Great photos.  I don't agree with the premise that Shinny is superior.  Superior in what way?  

Shinnecock is harder, much harder.

From a design standpoint, I would say they are even in architectural interest.

Conditioning they are even.

NGLA is much more enjoyable, more fun, IMHO.

Either way, they are both top 10 courses and impossible to say which is best.

[Mike McGuire]

Shinnecock looks spectacular.

I love the savannah look on a few of the holes. A native tree here or there with native grass underneath and between.

The bunkering looks right to me. Just the right amount of grass face and not too much laciness or excessive capes.

[Bill Gayne]

Shinnecock is one of those few golf courses that always look great in pictures. I can't say I've ever seen a picture of Shinnecock that I didn't enjoy. Many golf courses look great in pictures but when you get to the course it becomes clear that the photographer and equipment is better than the course.

At Shinnecock the beauty of the actual course exceeds how great it looks in picture. From an aesthetic view it's about as perfect that I think a golf course can look.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why do I favor the 1938 configuration ?

Is it the extensive bunkering ?

There's another aerial, circa 1938, of NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton that reflects more extensive bunkering on all three courses, both in number and size.

Did the bunkering diminish due to WWII or other influences ?

Today with 1938 overlayed.



Today


Today with 1938 overlayed.

[JESII]

"Why do I favor the 1938 configuration ?

Is it the extensive bunkering ?"


Nope, It's because you were in your 20's and the world looked bright...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()