Thoughts on Shinnecock

[Ted Kramer]

I was lucky enough to be invited for round at Shinnecock on Saturday.
The weather was spectacular and the course was in incredible shape.
We played from the back tees, not the US Open Tees, but the back tee markers for the day. I haven't played more than 10 rounds of golf in 2008. And I've never been much better than a mid-high single digit handicap, and that was a few years ago when I was playing a ton . . .

With that said, I just can't figure out why so many on here think that Shinnecock is so penal, difficult, tough, etc.

I would describe it as perfectly fair, and very reasonable in terms of difficulty. While scores aren't usually considered very important on this website, I'll offer the following for full discloser and so that you all might have some perspective on what I'm saying: I shot an 81, hitting the ball reasonably well, putting no better than ok, and making 2 doubles and 2 birdies.

I can't think of many holes where there was an overly demanding forced carry even from the back tees. The fairway widths were plenty wide as I aimed down one side, hit a less than stellar tee shot and still ended up in the fairway on the other side on more than one occasion. And missing a handful of fairways, I didn't lose a single ball, except for #6 where I hit my tee shot about 150 yards right of where I, or anyone would ever be aiming.

Were the approaches tough? I don't know if I'd say that the greens were tough to hit. Now it wasn't easy to get the ball close to some of the flags, but should it be? The angles out there are genius. There are so many greens that sit at interesting angles to the fairways. And the bunkers are really well placed.

I raved about Ballyneal after a recent trip. And I don't take back one thing I said about that course, and I consider it to be as good as any I've ever played. but here is something that I thought about during my round on Saturday . . .

Ballyneal is remote. The fact that I felt very peaceful and relaxed and "away", doesn't really surprise me. Shinnecock is on Long Island, a hundred miles or so from NYC. The feeling of peacefulness out there is incredible. The wind blowing steadily, the sweeping views, the ever-impressive clubhouse . . . it all adds up to a feeling as fine as any I've ever experienced on a golf course, and it isn't remote. It isn't far away. The place is an oasis of golf perfection not far from the hub-bub of normal over-crowded life on LI and NYC.

Some details:

#2 was playing dead into the wind, and called for a driver. Great long par 3.
#7 is one of my favorite holes anywhere. I know it doesn't get a ton of love here sometimes and thats fine, I simply disagree with those who don't like it.
#9 offers one of the best walks of all the golf courses I've played. From tee to green, that hole is a joy.
#10 is a tough friggin hole. The wedge from the bottom valley just isn't easy. I hit a decent 60* wedge and ended up chipping from the short grass behind the hole.
#11 is quite simply an ALL WORLD PAR 3. I hung a 6 iron out right, friend egg down hill lie in the bunker on the right, made double, loved every second.
#12 - love the drive
#16 is a par 5 that I consider amongst the best I've ever seen/played; Up there with #4 BP Black, #1 Spyglass, and #18 Pebble.
#18, on a personal note, I kind of popped up my drive, had 200 in to the green, hit a hybrid kind of off the toe up the right side, had about 20 yards to the green and then maybe 25 feet to a relatively middle pin, and hit running hybrid into the hole for birdie

1 more thing . . .
* They make a drink in the little bar just behind the 10th tee that I think is called an "East Sider" - I'd call it a vodka / lemonade / mint mixture that was as good as the golf!!!

One more round left to play in my life . . .
Shinnecock.

-Ted

[Ed Oden]

Ted, I agree with everything you said, right down to the name of your topic (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33021.0.html)!  Shinnecock is the best course I have played so far.  It is near perfection in my book.  I similarly feel its reputation as an unplayable beast is not entirely warranted.  While I am sure it can be a brute under difficult conditions or if you are having a terrible day, what top course isn't? 

Ed 

[wsmorrison]

Ted,

I share many of your thoughts.  I never found the course so daunting and brutal as the popular viewpoint indicates.  It is a misconception.  Let them tell it to the 85 year old ladies out there enjoying the course with smiles on their faces and they will look at them in wonder.

Shinnecock Hills is my favorite golf course in all the world.  It will be improved upon by the ongoing restoration efforts to expand all the greens except #10--which is larger than the original green and fine the way it is.  As of now only 6,12,13 and 17 have been expanded.  The 5th will recover one of the greatest pin positions on the entire course.  That hole will go from really solid to one of the great holes in golf.  A few fairways may be altered and the 11th tee will be lowered to return the skyline effect.   What is already my favorite short par 3, will be even more intimidating and more so if the sand is flashed higher on the faces at some point down the road.   Some sandy waste areas may be recovered as well.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted, I agree with everything you said, right down to the name of your topic (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33021.0.html)!  Shinnecock is the best course I have played so far.  It is near perfection in my book.  I similarly feel its reputation as an unplayable beast is not entirely warranted.  While I am sure it can be a brute under difficult conditions or if you are having a terrible day, what top course isn't? 

Ed 

Ed, sorry about stealing your title  

Two other thoughts/points . . .
*The old tree behind the 7th green is gone, I think that is a shame.
*The Sebonac clubhouse does not enhance the view, feel, or ambience from the 1st tee at Shinnecock.

-Ted

[Deucie Bies]

Ted,

Did the course play firm and fast?  When I played it, it was quite wet and slow and I did not find it to be overly difficult.  I doubled both par 5s and still broke 80.  I think if the course firmed up a bit, some of my average shots would have rolled further and would have left me with very difficult shots.  Overall, I think it was one of the best experiences one can have in golf.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

Did the course play firm and fast?  When I played it, it was quite wet and slow and I did not find it to be overly difficult.  I doubled both par 5s and still broke 80.  I think if the course firmed up a bit, some of my average shots would have rolled further and would have left me with very difficult shots.  Overall, I think it was one of the best experiences one can have in golf.

The course played just about perfect for my liking.
Not as firm and fast as some I've played, but like anything, F&F can be overdone.
Here is an example . . .
I hit a 5 iron into #7.
I didn't hit it too poorly, it just wasn't flush.
It came off a bit low as I hit it a little thin.
It landed in the middle of the green and rolled off the back.
There was a small ball mark on the green.

The fairways could have been firmer and still quite playable.
But in the 2 club wind that we played in, the bounces and roll in the fairways seemed just right.

-Ted

[TEPaul]

Ted:

I share Wayne Morrison's feelings about Shinnecock but nevertheless it has always occured to me that Shinnecock has this reputation as a brute (certainly compared to NGLA next door) and it just seems hard to figure out why that is the case or the perception of it.

But I'm not saying it does not deserve that reputation or perception because I think it does particularly under some setups and conditions which I would definitely NOT call "over the top."

The question then becomes why is that so? What is it about the course or its design that makes that true?

Personally, I think it has a good deal to do with a number of the greens and their surrounds. I could go into a lot of detail about that and where it exists but to be general about it, I just think that golf course and particularly some of its greens require a golfer, even a really good one to "read" that course strategically like few others. The point is if even a very good golfer gets too agressive with certain pins and such his ability to recover for a par is just not likely to be good.

Personally, I think if even a really good golfer played that course conservatively by just firing into the middle of most of those greens he will always come away with a better score than if he gets aggressive with some of the pinnable sections of a number of those greens and misses in the wrong place.

I think this is the subtle theme of Shinnecock and it is just not easy to pick up on.  And this is why I think Shinnecock is one of the very best over-all designs in the world.

[Mike Sweeney]

I personally have Shinnecock #2 on Long Island after National and the back 9 is probably one of may favorites in golf.

Just to add interest to the discussion, I spoke to someone last week off line who had it #5 on Long Island on his list.

National
Friars Head
GCGC
Sebonack
Shinnecock
Maidstone

His reasoning was that the front is actually "weak" in comparison to the back and that everyone forgets this. The front also finishes with one of the best holes in golf, so some of the other holes get a free pass on the front.

Fire away !

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

The front nine of Shinnecock is not weak, in my opinion, it just doesn't look quite so interesting because of its lack of topography as the back nine.

[archie_struthers]

 


Perhaps the best thing about a great golf course like Shinnecock is that it appears fairly benign to most of us , yet like an old time Long Island troubadour immortalized ,

 "she's so good with the stiletto , you don't even see the blade "

that's Shinnecock ,  and except when the rough is grown for tournament conditions ...and the greens are really fast and firm....and the wind is blowing  it appears eminently playable ......butttttttttttt

try to shoot areally low score...see if you get it up and down when you short side one.....how about going 18 without a three putt ....hello Noonan !

I think TEP was going there, but he didn't elaborate  !

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

I share Wayne Morrison's feelings about Shinnecock but nevertheless it has always occured to me that Shinnecock has this reputation as a brute (certainly compared to NGLA next door) and it just seems hard to figure out why that is the case or the perception of it.

But I'm not saying it does not deserve that reputation or perception because I think it does particularly under some setups and conditions which I would definitely NOT call "over the top."

The question then becomes why is that so? What is it about the course or its design that makes that true?

Personally, I think it has a good deal to do with a number of the greens and their surrounds. I could go into a lot of detail about that and where it exists but to be general about it, I just think that golf course and particularly some of its greens require a golfer, even a really good one to "read" that course strategically like few others. The point is if even a very good golfer gets too agressive with certain pins and such his ability to recover for a par is just not likely to be good.

Personally, I think if even a really good golfer played that course conservatively by just firing into the middle of most of those greens he will always come away with a better score than if he gets aggressive with some of the pinnable sections of a number of those greens and misses in the wrong place.

I think this is the subtle theme of Shinnecock and it is just not easy to pick up on.  And this is why I think Shinnecock is one of the very best over-all designs in the world.

Tom,

I never got the sense that Shinnecock was described as overly tough because the good player could get into trouble shooting at tough flags. I thought people were claiming that Shinnecock beats up a 15+ handcapper more than it should. My comments were in defending Shinnecock as a place that a 15 handicap can have a great day and could certainly expect to shoot a reasonable score.

Making good players pay for overly aggressive lines combined with less than stellar shots is not my definition of an overly penal golf course.

-Ted

[archie_struthers]

 

Just re-read TEP's post ...maybe he did elaborate LOL!

ARCHIE

[TEPaul]

Ted:

Shinnecock probably isn't all that tough for the 15 handicapper unless or until he gets out in some of that high hay. When that happens he will have a problem though. On the other hand Shinnecock is not exactly narrow.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

Shinnecock probably isn't all that tough for the 15 handicapper unless or until he gets out in some of that high hay. When that happens he will have a problem though. On the other hand Shinnecock is not exactly narrow.

Yeah . . .
thats why I really don't understand the "overly difficult" tag.
Overly difficult to break par . . .?
OK maybe.
But I really wouldn't know as I've never shot even par in my life anywhere.
But again, that isn't really what I thought people were saying.


-Ted

[TEPaul]

Ted:

Personally, I wouldn't exactly call Shinnecock a "penal" golf course. It most certainly can be a pretty intense championship test though and I think some of the US Opens have borne that out. I wouldn't even include 2004 as an example of that since things did get pretty crazy in the last two days. As most of us feel, that wasn't exactly necessary to show the championship caliber of the course and its design.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm one who found Shinnecock to be a very very difficult golf course.

And the reasons for this are pretty much what Tom Paul said - it was all about the greens and surrounds.  I just found myself faced with shot after shot into very very difficult targets, with the misses being very painfully punished.

Still I also found it to be a fantastic golf course, in my personal top 10 without a doubt.  I just had so few birdie putts... and was struggling for double bogeys or worse so often after approach shots that were not that bad, well... it just wasn't my personal ultimate cup of tea, especially when contrasted with the course across the street.

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH:

The thing I find additionally interesting about NGLA and Shinnecock being right next to one another is that they sort of bracket or bookend the different looks and styles at basically the beginning and the end of the so-called Golden Age of golf course architecture! NGLA was the amazing and sort of gutsy experiment in what American architecture should be ideally (in the mind and vision of one man) and Shinnecock really shows how things evolved in various ways from there in the ensuing two decades as well as some of what was to come in the future in the beginning of the Modern Age of golf course architecture. This is why Wayne and I sometimes refer to Flynn as a really good example of a "transition" architect!

[Tom Huckaby]

TEP:

What each shows in terms of architectural development is surely way beyond me.  I will just say that even after my one time playing of each, I could certainly tell a difference in how each plays!  And vive that difference, I say.  They're both great.  But they certainly are different.

TH

[Deucie Bies]

I think Shinnecock, much like other great golf courses, get better and better the more you play them.  I have only played there once, but I know there is a lot of trouble that one can get into with a poor shot that I was lucky enough to avoid that day.  Plus, it was not very windy the day I played, which I imagine would add a few shots to most players score.

[Ed Oden]

Ed, sorry about stealing your title  

Two other thoughts/points . . .
*The old tree behind the 7th green is gone, I think that is a shame.
*The Sebonac clubhouse does not enhance the view, feel, or ambience from the 1st tee at Shinnecock.

-Ted

Ted, you didn't steal my title.  I just thought it was interesting that we both chose the same one.  Too bad about the tree on #7.  I thought it framed the hole perfectly.  Was it diseased?

Tom and Tom, I agree that Shinnecock is very difficult on and arround the greens.  But name me a top ten course that isn't?  I would argue that NGLA can be just as dicey.  Can a course attain such a lofty status without interesting/tricky greens and recovery shots around them?

Ed 

[Tom Huckaby]

I have to agree that Shinnecock would get better and better with repeated play.  I too just played it once.

But what got me remains this:  some shots that were not at all "poor" into greens got pretty horrifically punished.  Note I did play in a little wind (not much) but conditions were firm and fast, and rough was fairly high.

In time one would learn to play for the misses better, for sure.  But still, enough misses get punished so much (with or without planning) that again it just does seem very tough to me.  Too tough?  That depends on what jazzes one about a golf course.  As I say, I tend to prefer the course across the road.  But I have zero doubt 85 year old ladies can and do enjoy Shinnecock.  They never have birdie putts anyway.

 

Ed:  NGLA isn't all that tough around the greens.  Nor is Sand Hills... Cypress Point... need I go on?  INTERESTING is one thing.  IMPOSSIBLE up and downs, well.... that's what I call Shinnecock.  And it has as much to due with long shots into small targets than it the severity of the targets themselves... to me anyway.

TH

[Deucie Bies]

Tom,

If I played in the conditions you described, I would think that Shinnecock is much harder than what I experienced.  I could tell that if missed a shot just a few inches left or right or it was playing faster, I would have had some impossible ups and downs.  Eleven is a perfect example.  A few inches further and I would have been over the green (back left) and probably would have made double.  Instead my ball stayed on the green and I made birdie!  Regardless, it is a great golf experience.

Deucie 

[Tom Huckaby]

Deucie:

Methinks you hit the nail on the head.  Playing with three semi-regulars from this site, I missed the green on 11 to the left by seemingly a foot (as the ball landed, anyway) and was lucky to make 8.  It's a long story here others have heard too many times.  But 11's not the best example anyway... that's a 150 yard shot and it was my damn fault I missed in the wrong place.

A better example to me is 17.. man that played 210 or something and it was almost as do or die as 11.  Another par 4 on the back played the same - my recollection is failing me.

In any event, I absolutely agree the course is fantastic, and provides a great golf experience without a doubt.  I just do think it is quite difficult.  And how one reacts to that shows what one prefers in a golf course. 

TH

[Brad Swanson]

But what got me remains this:  some shots that were not at all "poor" into greens got pretty horrifically punished .  Note I did play in a little wind (not much) but conditions were firm and fast, and rough was fairly high.

Tom,
   Can you please give some examples of this "horrific punishment".  In my single play it was more like a death from a couple dozen small cuts vs. a number of dismembering blows that you seem to be alluding to.

Edit:  #11 certainly is one of the most penal holes on the course, but I found most other holes simply shrugged off the substandard shot to places that were difficult to get up and down.  I made my fair share of bogeys that day from shots that would've made the grade elsewhere, but I didn't make any big numbers due to them.

Brad

[Tom Huckaby]

Brad:

I played it several years ago, once.  My memory is not that good.  But see my previous reply to Deucie.  I'd also add 10, where coming up a foot short means one is lucky to make 5.  This is all just from memory.

In any case, it can certainly be death from many small cuts also.  One way or the other it's a lot of death... and that's my main point.  I prefer courses with more "life."