Shinnecock vs NGLA

[Frank Pasquale]

I have played each course one time.  I had much better success at Shinnecock.  I would describe the course as pure.  I got rewarded for my good shots, and punished for my poor shots, every time. 

At NGLA, I found myself getting frustrated with the quirks, blind shots, and relying on luck at times.  Don't get me wrong, it was a great experience.  But for someone who played each one time, I liked Shinnecock better.

If I had the opportunity to play both several times, I might feel differently.  I might appreciate NGLA's nuances a little more.

[Jeff Fortson]

If Shinnecock and NGLA played a 7-game series...

NGLA would win Game 7 in triple-overtime for me.


Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

Frank Pasquale:

I was thinking of responding to your post but I believe I'm going to go to bed now and consider what you said for a while. For some reason in the last few months in the first few minutes when I wake up the next morning some really powerful things come to me in the first few moments----God only knows why.

I have an odd feeling that post of yours is going to get me to really understand the differences in architecture between an NGLA and a Shinnecock and what the two do, or do differently to many golfers.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I haven't played ANGC.  But let me quote someone who has, about how the trees alter play:

Then you're basing your premise on hearsay, third party references.[/color]

"The rough hasn't been, in my limited experience, the change with the most impact.

It's the planting of trees that's really changed play.

That's what's really narrowed the golf course, especially on holes like # 11, where the entire right side was converted from fairway and rough to a mini forest.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some trees removed as they mature.

And, sure enough, that prediction, by that wise individual you quoted, came to pass.  He must have know that the tree planting was excessive, a knee jerk reaction.[/color]

The area between # 15 and # 17 is another area that's been affected.

With wide fairways, letting the rough grow a little wasn't a big deal.  It didn't impact play all that much.  Firstly, because with wide fairways you were rarely in the rough, and secondly, because when you were in the rough it wasn't that penal. 

But, the trees sure do affect play.  They've changed the flavor of the golf course.

They have on a select few holes.

However, as I mentioned, trees have subsequently been removed since the passage you quoted was posted.  And, the trees between # 14 & # 17 are far removed from the middle of the fairways and not in normal play.[/color]

It remains a great golf course, but, these changes, all a result of increased distances and straighter flight, have altered the personality and play of the golf course for the amateur."

While that's true on certain holes, it isn't pervasive as is the narrowed deep rough on Shinnecock which affects every driving hole.

There's a huge difference between the "narrowing" of those two golf courses.

And, you have to understand the nature of the winding, contoured, ribbon like fairways at Shinnecock versus the wide relatively flat but sloped fairways at ANGC.  Narrowing Shinnecock makes it exponentially more difficult.

If you base your position on incomplete hearsay your conclusions will be flawed.[/color]

That quote is what made me wonder if planting trees is a reason some people blast ANGC, but give Shinnecock a pass.

I don't think so.
ANGC was blasted long before the tree planting occured.
I think frequency of exposure is the culprit.
ANGC is an annual target.
Shinnecock is a once in a decade target.

So Shinnecock tends to be forgotten, whereas, just as you're about to forget about ANGC, it's tournament time again. [/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Did you realize the fairway widths at Shinnecock were put back to the way they were before the 2004 Open was scheduled? And #8 at least, has been widened even more than that. But the greens that have been expanded is what's really cool, in my book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I know I won't change Pat's mind regarding his beloved NGLA, but I would like to present a different point of view to consider.

While NGLA has much wider fairways (currently about double the fairway acreage of SHGC), which the average golfer appreciates immensely, the approach shots to a number of greens, especially the more manufactured ones) are very difficult for the average golfer due to the perched nature of the greens with abrupt falloffs, the hidden nature of the green sites, the steep slopes and significant internal contouring. 

Are you saying that the approaches into # 7, # 9, # 10 and # 11 aren't difficult ?
They're perched high, have abrupt falloffs and are hidden from the golfers view.[/color]

These features, especially given today's green speeds (perhaps double the intended speed) along with wind are the course's only defense with today's game. 

To ignore the random fairway bunkering schemes at NGLA is a failure to understand one of the golf course's defenses.[/color]

Much of the fairway bunkering is not in play for elite players due to width, positioning and modern balls and implements. 

That's absolutely untrue.

Look at the bunkering on # 3, # 5, # 8, # 9, # 10, # 11 (road), # 12, # 14, # 17 and # 18.

And, what you and others are fogetting is that Shinnecock lengthened their golf course specifically for tournament play.  I'd suspect that NGLA will do the same.[/color]

They are more in play for average golfers. 

The genius of NGLA is that a variety of bunkers are in play for a variety of golfers, and, they're not necessarily the same bunkers.[/color]

A golfer of Pat's considerable abilities might lose sight of these factors.

I had one of my greatest rounds at NGLA when I couldn't hit the ball 180 yards with my driver off the tee, in tournament conditions.  So, I feel amply qualified to speak for the golfer who possesses limited distance.

NGLA makes a golfer think.
If he doesn't think, he will suffer the intended consequences.[/color]

If a golfer plays to the middle of the greens at SHGC, he/she has a reasonable chance at 2-putting. 

How did the best players in the world, the PGA Tour Pro fare on # 7, # 10 and other greens ?

While I'd agree that hitting the middle of the greens at Shinnecock usually doesn't leave you with a long putt, the greens are small by comparison.
They are tiny targets.  Whereas some of NGLA's greens are very large.[/color]

This is not the case at NGLA due to the nature of its putting surfaces. 
The NGLA greens are a lot more overt contouring than at SHGC. 


# 2, # 7, # 8, # 14 at NGLA are flat as a pancake.
# 5, # 9, # 17 and # 18 are also pretty flat, and # 16 is a pure punchbowl green where it's hard to go wrong, so half the greens at NLGA don't have any substantive contour.[/color]

Where SHGC becomes difficult for the best players is when the pins are tucked behind bunkers and/or near gradual falloffs.   Slight misses to these peripheral pins can result in very difficult recoveries due to the short grass areas around the greens and the green designs themselves.  The current green expansion brings these lost pin positions back into play thus influencing decision making back to the tee.

I'd agree that missing the greens can make for a difficult recovery, especially since the greens are relatively small, and the falloffs make them even more difficult.[/color]

NGLA, to the credit of the membership and superintendent, have restored fairway width and green space to their original limits.  Well, one green is well beyond the original dimensions. 

Once the greens at SHGC have been restored to their original dimensions, the course will have its full potential restored. 

I think people who don't know the course very well may have some difficulty in grasping just how important this will be to how the course plays and how much strategies are returned.  The green expansion project is well under way and within a few years it will be complete. 

This is more important a restoration phase than fairway expansion would be. 

That's your opinion, which isn't shared by a great number of analysts.
In addition, it's an attempt to minimize or obscure the vast narrowing of the fairways that's taken place at Shinnecock over the years for the SOLE benefit of hosting the U.S. Open.[/color]

Given that NGLA has not held major tournaments in so many decades and SHGC has, it should not be surprising that fairway widths have been reduced at SHGC. 

Since 1985 to be exact.[/color]

I think they should be returned because combined with green expansions, the more off line the tee shot, the more difficult the approach will be.  Wider fairways will allow tee shots and second shots on par 5s to stray more off the ideal line, especially when the golf course is properly firm and fast. 

They should be returned because that was the intent of the fellow who designed the golf course.  Your paragraph above merely reflects the product of the design.[/color]

As for Pat determining what the club can and cannot afford to do, that is not his call nor does he have all the facts necessary to make such a statement. 

Wayno, that's one of the dumbest statements you could make.
Let's not go into denial with respect to a club's ability to fund routine maintainance practices. [/color]

NGLA has a lot more outings than SHGC and has a much bigger budget.  That is their choice.  That does not mean it must be SHGC's choice.


That's not the issue.
The issue isn't the choice, the issue is "the will".
We both know that they have the funds.[/color=green]

As far as width goes, I don't believe in width for width's sake, standardized width if you will. 

This is another absurd statement in the context of discussing NGLA and Shinnecock.
Do you think that MacDonald and Flynn designed NGLA and Shinnecock with "Width for Width's sake" ?  You have to be kidding or overdosed on the local Kool Aid.

Like Mike Cirba, you've become too invested, too close to projects/clubs and it's compromised your ability to be objective.  Don't take that remark personally, it's not an insult or dimwitted.  Your judgement simply gets clouded as you move closer to an object of your affection.[/color]

I like a case by case approach depending upon the hole design and topography of each. 

I think MacDonald and Flynn understood the nature of the topography and the design of each hole.

They incorporated vast width in both courses.
One of the courses has chosen to reduce the width by close to half, the other course has maintained and restored width.

You're defending the narrowing of fairways.
Flynn designed them WIDE.  Yet, you defend them NARROW.
Do you see the conflict ?[/color]

There is nothing at all wrong with a variety of width and even demanding, or testing the ability to deal with narrow fairways on some holes.  I agree with Pat that it shouldn't be the case on every hole.

Wayno, here's where you and I disagree.
I'm content with the width put in place by MacDonald and Flynn.
I think they knew what they were doing...... on windy sites.

# 14 at Shinnecock gets narrow.
# 14 and # 15 at NGLA gets narrow.

So, they weren't blatantly introducing width with no variety.
They knew what they were doing.

But, Today, tournament golf is in conflict with their theories.

I have no problem with the concept of narrowing a fairway for a Major event provided that the fairway is restored to its original configuration.
The problem is: THEY NEVER ARE.

My fear at NGLA is that the USGA will insist on narrowing fairways.
And, if they are narrowed, that they won't be restored when the tournament ends, which is whats happened at Merion, Shinnecock and other courses.

These courses host and event for about 4 days every 3,650 days.
The members play them 3,646 days out of 3,650 days.

I'm more in favor of presenting the golf course as MacDonald and Flynn envisioned, designed and built it than I am in presenting it as its configured for a tournament.

Don't defend the failure to restore the golf course to the way Flynn envisioned, designed and built it.[/color]

As for Shinnecock's rough, I find the presentation of it ideal on a daily basis. 

Pat's recollection of the rough at SHGC in the last Open is not accurate in my opinion. 

Perhaps I missed it, but where did I reference or recollect the rough at the LAST Open ?  Could you cite that passage for me ?

Is this the remark you were referencing ?


"Prior to the FIRST modern Open, Shinnecock's rough was the knee+ high rough that bordered wide fairways."
[/color]

It was perfect a bit more than a week preceding the 2004 Open.  However, it was cut shortly thereafter and did not achieve the level of difficulty the USGA wanted, so the greens (the USGA's last line of defense of par) were kept ultra firm and excessively fast.

Wayno, it was the north wind that was the culprit on the last day.
You can't make greens ultra firm and excessively fast in one day, and, I don't believe that was the USGA's goal.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Did you realize the fairway widths at Shinnecock were put back to the way they were before the 2004 Open was scheduled? And #8 at least, has been widened even more than that. But the greens that have been expanded is what's really cool, in my book.

TEPaul,

That's a misleading remark.

Shinnecock's fairways, like Merion's fairways are not at their pre-modern U.S. Open widths.

While these numbers aren't exact, they went from around 54 acres to about 27 acres to about 34 acres.

I'd appreciate it if you could post the exact numbers.

Thanks

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: Why aren't you out playing on this beautiful day - they have the 3 day member guest at my club and I can't get out until three.

     The question I have is whether the big hitter can just blow it past all the trouble at NGLA? Also, should we always be judging a course based upon the player hitting his best shot or the correct shot - I think we often overlook the question of the quality and type of recovery shots that are needed.  Trees and water don't allow for much in the way of recovery shots, for that matter when I played Shinnecock the natural grasses were so long and thick that an errant shot meant a wedge back to the fairway, anyway, how about the recovery shots or for that matter an approach shot from the wrong angle - to me, those are what make a course challenging and fun - not the perfect tee shot and the perfect approach shot. In this area, both of these courses offer a tremendous variety and make for an enjoyable and challenging experience.

[Jim Nugent]

And, sure enough, that prediction, by that wise individual you quoted, came to pass.  

Patrick, you know who that "wise individual" I quoted is, don't you?  

If you base your position on incomplete hearsay your conclusions will be flawed.

 

It wasn't a conclusion or even a position.  It was a speculation.  The tree planting got lots of (bad) publicity on this website.  I remembered well the quote I copied above, about how the trees impacted play.  Plus other people, whose knowledge on ANGC I respect, said the same thing.  Plus that squared well with what I could see on TV.  

You agreed with me in the end, anyway, when you said it was exposure.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat: Why aren't you out playing on this beautiful day - they have the 3 day member guest at my club and I can't get out until three.

I didn't get home from a  party until until 1:00 am last night, so,
I just  hit balls today, did a little bunker and lob wedge work from the rough and tried out a driver I just had reconfigured.[/color]

The question I have is whether the big hitter can just blow it past all the trouble at NGLA?

Jerry, Google Earth may provide the answer to your question.
Take a look at it and examine the random bunker pattern, the cross bunkers and the fairway alignments, many of which serve to thwart the long ball.[/color]

Also, should we always be judging a course based upon the player hitting his best shot or the correct shot - I think we often overlook the question of the quality and type of recovery shots that are needed. 

In match play, the correct shot is often subjective and frequently based upon your opponents position.  Wind and weather will play a big part in how the course plays.[/color] 

Trees and water don't allow for much in the way of recovery shots, for that matter when I played Shinnecock the natural grasses were so long and thick that an errant shot meant a wedge back to the fairway, anyway, how about the recovery shots or for that matter an approach shot from the wrong angle - to me, those are what make a course challenging and fun - not the perfect tee shot and the perfect approach shot. In this area, both of these courses offer a tremendous variety and make for an enjoyable and challenging experience.

As TEPaul, Chipoat and others can attest, simple things can dictate play and frustrate the golfer in his attempt to score.

IE, locating the hole on # 12 just beyond the ridge when the greens/course is fast and firm.

Go for the pin and you can make double or worse.
The configuration of that green makes for incredibly interesting and challenging shots, AND a vivid, creative imagination.

NGLA's rough and Shinnecock's rough can be equivalent.
But, NGLA's fairways are wider on most holes.

Driving the ball into the fairway is far more difficult on most holes at Shinnecock versus NGLA.

They wind, twist and turn, up and down, so aligning yourself, aiming properly and playing the appropriate flight is probably far more demanding if you're to avoid the bad rough.
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

And, sure enough, that prediction, by that wise individual you quoted, came to pass.  

Patrick, you know who that "wise individual" I quoted is, don't you?

Whom ever he is, he's very observant, astute and wise. [/color]  

If you base your position on incomplete hearsay your conclusions will be flawed.

 

It wasn't a conclusion or even a position.  It was a speculation.  The tree planting got lots of (bad) publicity on this website.  I remembered well the quote I copied above, about how the trees impacted play.  Plus other people, whose knowledge on ANGC I respect, said the same thing.  Plus that squared well with what I could see on TV.  

You agreed with me in the end, anyway, when you said it was exposure.  

I believe that's the primary factor for most, but, those very accomplished afficianados of GCA who frequent this site shouldn't need repetitive viewing to see the similarity.[/color] 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
That's a misleading remark."
Shinnecock's fairways, like Merion's fairways are not at their pre-modern U.S. Open widths."

Pat:

What are you talking about with this "Shinnecock's fairways, like Merions are not in their premodern US Open widths?!?"

What I said was they took the fairways back out to the widths they had before they narrowed them in for the 2004 US Open.


"While these numbers aren't exact, they went from around 54 acres to about 27 acres to about 34 acres.
I'd appreciate it if you could post the exact numbers.
Thanks"


You're right with the app 54 acres of fairway as Flynn originally designed the course. I have the acreage for the '04 Open and the acreage they were taken back out to but I'm not sure that's something I should post on here---sorry, but your numbers sound about right from what I recall.

[Jim Nugent]

Whom ever he is, he's very observant, astute and wise. 

I've rarely seen you so magnanimous here. 

See now, people can change!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Going from 54 acres to 27 acres for the Open and then back to 34 acres for membership play still leaves a vast gap between what Flynn intended and what's in play today.

Part of me accepts a degree of narrowing because I truely believe that the advent of high tech with I&B have narrowed shot patterns over the last two decades.

One of the beauties of Shinnecock's fairways is the way they meander over the terrain, ribbonlike in their appearance as the twist and turn over the undulating topography.

High rough and good breezes are elements/factors that demand wider fairways.

I think there's a unique dynamic in golf that doesn't exist in most other sports.

You, as an individual, can't go on a football field and duplicate a particular play or fete.  The same is true in basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball.
But, you can in golf.
You can place a ball on the spot where Corey Pavin hit his 4-wood.
You can place a ball where Watson chipped in on # 17 at PBGC.

For some reason, there's a desire to play a golf course as, or from where, it played in the Open, even though that play may be well beyond the ability of the individual golfer.

Everyone wants to play the "Open" course and I believe that that syndrome, golf's equivalent of the "jock sniffer" syndrome, is responsible for courses retaining a good deal of the U.S. Open set-up or configuration.

For whatever the reason, and it would take years of group analysis to determine the reason, members don't want golfers shooting low numbers on their golf course.  There's a defensive mentality when it comes to protecting par.

They can't have a course that just hosted a U.S. Open subject to subpar rounds by rank amateurs, thus, narrowed fairways tend to remain long after the tournament has departed.

On February 28, 2004, you, I and others were where the rubber met the road when we were told that the fairways at a course that hosts the Open were being permanently narrowed and that the bunkers would probably be moved in to match the new fairway widths.

We also witnessed this at Oakmont.

As I stated, while I'm generally opposed to it, I can tolerate a limited degree of narrowing to "equalize" the design intent in view of tighter shot patterns in modern golf as a result of high tech.

However, you and I have discussed and endorsed the value of horizontal elasticity when it comes to width.

While the more acreage you put under management comes at a cost, the incremental cost isn't that great, and at the clubs we're discussing, it's certainly affordable.  In fact, the cost for transitioning to and from narrow fairways should be a consideration when clubs negotiate their fee with the USGA.

[jkinney]

To put it in exactly 10 words:

"Shinney is the better course; National has the better ground."

Both, IMO, are among the top 5 in the world in their respective area of excellence.

[John Kirk]

Mr. Succinct strikes again!

Let's play the equivalent of Name That Tune.  I can describe those courses in 7 words.

"National is salty, but Shinnecock is sweet."

How's that?

[Sebonac]

Those of you calling NGLA easy should play it from the new tips.

[Jim Franklin]

If Shinnecock and NGLA played a 7-game series...

NGLA would win Game 7 in triple-overtime for me.


Jeff F.

+1. Both are in my top 5.