News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #50 on: October 08, 2008, 11:57:35 AM »
Tom,

I do want to be clear, I am not arguing against your preference for National over Shinnecock. I have not played National but have heard only wonderful reports about the course. I have also heard exactly what you are saying...that it is absolutely a more relaxed and enjoyable round than the test that is Shinnecock.

My argument is based on your comments about Shinnecock being overly penal to the point that shots just missing their target are unduly punished and result in impossible up and downs and hard work just to make bogeys...this I am expecting to get to explore in depth with Pat Mucci...

Tom Huckaby

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2008, 12:18:47 PM »
JES:  fully understood.

My last post was directed to Matt.

 ;)

jkinney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #52 on: October 08, 2008, 12:22:50 PM »
JKinney,

I beg to differ when a good player (Tom Huckaby) only slightly misses an approach...as has been the conversation on this thread...

Please name just a couple of places a ball is likely to end up on a mild mis-hit approach that results in an impossible up and down...#10 and #11 notwithstanding...I truly cannot think of one although I'm sure they are there...

JES - There are few impossible up & downs at Shinney, but there are plenty that require great touch. Just ask Els, whose approach on 1 Sunday in '04 just trickled over the back edge and rolled down the shaved hill into the collar of the first cut. He took 4 to get down. I can't tell you how many times that sort of disaster has befallen me (behind 4 green, left of 5 green just to name a few) !! Not that any of these lies are unfair in any way - they're clearly not. However, where one needs to realize that a shot has been lost is when one is in the fescue. By way of example, the only time I had a chance to break 80 from the back tees, I came to 18 needing only a 6 for 79 - and made 7 because I never got out of the fescue going down the left side of the hole ! All that I needed to do was to come out sideways with a sand wedge with my second shot, but the lie looked good enough to try and hack it out with a Ginty. NOT !!

I'm of the opinion that Shinney is the hardest FAIR test of golf anywhere from the back tees. In 3 Opens in the modern era, 3 guys have been under par.

Matt_Ward

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #53 on: October 08, 2008, 01:41:39 PM »
Huck:

One further point -- your assessment of both WF / W and SH is roughly the same. Brutally hard courses but the reality is that both layouts are standouts from all the time I have played them because they require such a high level of execution. If played from the appropriate length the elements of fun are certainly front and center.

If anything, WF / W is really more the brute -- except when weather conditions at SH become the dominant ingredient.

A one time visit can limit anyone's total understanding and no doubt you accept that even though you prefer NGLA. So be it.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #54 on: October 08, 2008, 01:45:05 PM »
JKinney,

Breaking 80 at Shinny with a "Ginty" just shouldn't be possible...the golf gods weighed in on that one I am afraid...


by the way, I agree with the rest, but the speed preparation of the course that weekend played a big role in the six Els made.

Tom Huckaby

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #55 on: October 08, 2008, 01:46:15 PM »
Huck:

One further point -- your assessment of both WF / W and SH is roughly the same. Brutally hard courses but the reality is that both layouts are standouts from all the time I have played them because they require such a high level of execution. If played from the appropriate length the elements of fun are certainly front and center.

If anything, WF / W is really more the brute -- except when weather conditions at SH become the dominant ingredient.

A one time visit can limit anyone's total understanding and no doubt you accept that even though you prefer NGLA. So be it.

Not sure where you got that about Winged Foot as I never said that.  I have never done anything but gush with praise for that course, which I really did love.  I believe I just said #10 was over-rated in terms of the world's greatest par threes... which is the only thing close to negative I've ever said about that wonderful golf course.  It is tough, for sure.  But I loved it.  If anything my assessment of WF/W was pretty darn different from that of Shinnecock.  I did very much enjoy each course; I liked Shinnecock MORE though.  So you have me way wrong.

I do believe that a one-time visit has its limations.  But I also stand by every word I've said.

And you still haven't admitted you were wrong about the definition of Doak 10.  I am gonna dog you about that until you do.

TH

Matt_Ward

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #56 on: October 08, 2008, 02:00:46 PM »
Huck:

We see the 10th at WF / W in much different light. Neither the first area of disagreement or the last. If you "gush(ed) with praise for the Mamaroneck layout then please tell me if you see Shinnecock as being "MORE (your emphasis) though" the better golf course then candily Shinnecock would be at least in your top five. Is that a fair assessment on my part?

One time visits to courses are somewhat limited because of daily weather conditions, how someone plays and what tees they play can make for vast differences of opinions.

Regarding the Doak admission angle you are barking about -- I answered that directly and succintly -- likely you need to get a pair of better glasses if you could not make the words I provided. If there's any mea culpa coming -- it's going to be sent via CA to NJ.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #57 on: October 08, 2008, 02:07:19 PM »
Have you already started drinking today?

Tom Huckaby

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2008, 02:07:57 PM »
Huck:

We see the 10th at WF / W in much different light. Neither the first area of disagreement or the last. If you "gush(ed) with praise for the Mamaroneck layout then please tell me if you see Shinnecock as being "MORE (your emphasis) though" the better golf course then candily Shinnecock would be at least in your top five. Is that a fair assessment on my part?

One time visits to courses are somewhat limited because of daily weather conditions, how someone plays and what tees they play can make for vast differences of opinions.

Regarding the Doak admission angle you are barking about -- I answered that directly and succintly -- likely you need to get a pair of better glasses if you could not make the words I provided. If there's any mea culpa coming -- it's going to be sent via CA to NJ.

Matt:

I give up re the Doak 10s.  You were clearly wrong, you danced around it in the last post you made, I replied correcting you for the 5th or 5th time about how and why you have it wrong, you gave up and never replied again.  You will get no mea culpas from me as I have nothing to be blamed for.  You were very simply wrong about how you characterized the definition of a Doak 10 and I very clearly pointed out how and why you were.  Your refusal to see this speaks volumes, especially since all it would take is "gee, I had it wrong, I didn't know Doak agreed to the better wording of what a Doak 10 really is."

As for Winged Foot, no clue what you want from me.

As for Shinnecock, I don't think it makes top 5, but likely top 10.

Anything else?

TH

Matt_Ward

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2008, 02:10:28 PM »
Huck:

What is your top five for what it's worth ?



Tom Huckaby

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2008, 02:16:48 PM »
Huck:

What is your top five for what it's worth ?




I don't keep such things.

I have a top three... and after that it gets murky.

1. Sand Hills
2. Cypress Point
3. NGLA

What's your top five?

Now are you gonna finally admit you had the definition of Doak 10 wrong?  And remember, all I mean is the definition itself - that's all I ever meant, and you wildly misconstrued things in that thread.

Just cut and past this into a reply post:

gee, I had it wrong, I didn't know Doak agreed to the better wording of what a Doak 10 really is."

Matt_Ward

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2008, 02:48:21 PM »
Huck:

Interesting. You say Shinnecock doesn't make your top five and when asked to provide your top five you tap dance with the lame reply, "I don't keep such things."

That makes perfect sense to me. ::)

My top five in the USA ...

Shinnecock Hills
Oakmont
Cypress Point
Pine Valley
I have a few others that can claim the 5th through 10th position -- one of them would be Ballyneal among the modern designed layouts.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2008, 02:57:03 PM »
Hmmm.....

« Last Edit: October 08, 2008, 03:01:41 PM by Kalen Braley »

Tom Huckaby

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2008, 02:58:15 PM »
Matt:

Sorry if my reply disappoints you; though I can't see how you answered with any more clarity than I did besides giving a number 4.  In any case, I simply don't keep a firm top five either in my head or on any list I have written down.  I do have a pretty firm mental top three, which I gave you.  As I said, after that it gets murky.   By that I mean I am unsure of where I would put courses.  But if I gave it a lot of thought, my guess is Shinnecock would find its way into the top 10, but not the top 5.

Your top four is neat.

I can't see a way Ballyneal makes my top 10.  But that's no knock.  I'd also say you really do need to get back to Sand Hills; as I really need to get to Oakmont and Pine Valley.

But what the hell, anyway.  When it comes to the very top, it does all come down to personal preferences.

In any case, fun exercise.  But I am still waiting for your acknowledgment of error.  We'll try again.  Just cut and paste this into a reply:

gee, I had it wrong, I didn't know Doak agreed to the better wording of what a Doak 10 really is.

TH


C. Squier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2008, 03:06:50 PM »
I have just a little to add, since I've played Shinnecock just once and firmly believe that to really *GET* a course, you should see it multiple times over multiple conditions.  I had a lot of preconceived notions going into the round, some held up, others didn't. 

Conditions of my round were fog on the front nine w/ a brisk wind picking up on the back. 

Fescue:  I didn't think the fescue was terribly penal.  By that, it was further away from lines of play than I would have expected.  It was thicker than I had thought too, which made it probably a half shot penalty if/when you got into it.  I didn't drive the ball great and the only time I was in it was on #2.  In contrast, Chicago GC's fescue is much closer to play, but is a lot thinner and much easier to play from.  I think both styles can be ideal, but a course w/ heavy and close OR light and far away is either too penal or a waste of time. 

Fairways:  Our host pointed out how narrow the fairways were cut for the '04 Open.  Holy narrow, Batman....I felt guilty for missing one after that.  I think that makes it wholy unfair to compare daily play to Open play for this thread.  They were also firm, but not overly.  36 holes on Winged Foot W/E gave me shin splints in comparison. 

Greens:  They were just aerified, so they weren't up to normal speeds, but I could see how short siding yourself would be a bad deal.  Subtle breaks, I can see a golfer missing a LOT of 10 footers that they would expect to make. 

Recovery shots:  I never felt like there wasn't a spot to miss it.  Again, short siding was a losing proposition, but if you long sided you had a chance to get up and down.  No huge rollercoaster pitches that had to be thrown up way high.  The ground game was in play around the greens, which made it a lot of fun.  I even made an up and down from the front bunker on #7, which made my day.

Routing:  This is what makes SH what it is.  No holes are completely over the top difficult, but there are no breaks during the round.  Each hole stands by itself and the sum of the components make it epic.  You're allowed to have FUN on every single hole, all the while having a larger goal of putting 18 holes together and circle a number at the end of the day.  Do other courses have better holes than found at SH?  Yes.  But I've never played another where they all had the feeling of beginning something completely new and fun the moment you stepped on the next tee box.  If you allow yourself to get down and beat yourself up after a bad hole, I can see the problems compounding.  If you're good at getting over a bad shot or hole, you can move on with great success at Shinnecock.  Moreso than any other course I've played. 

I shot 79 after hitting the purest 4 iron of my life on #18 from the back tees.  I didn't hit the ball great, but was proud of how I played each individual shot.  I don't think even it I had played it 50 times I'd ever be close to shooting even par, but it didn't strike me as something that would ever torture me over 18 holes.  Although I could see #11 putting even the most level headed golfer in the loony bin. 

Definitely one of the best experiences of my golfing life and I can only imagine playing it and NGLA on the same day.  What an incredible education that would be. 

jkinney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2008, 03:19:31 PM »
JKinney,

Breaking 80 at Shinny with a "Ginty" just shouldn't be possible...the golf gods weighed in on that one I am afraid...


by the way, I agree with the rest, but the speed preparation of the course that weekend played a big role in the six Els made.

JES - Actually, the Ginty 7 wood was a fabulous long utility club out of rough & bunkers both. But you're right because it did me in on 18. The golfing Gods said who does this guy think he is trying to knock the ball up close on 18 from the fescue ?......same thing they said about Phil M. on the 72nd hole at Winged Foot, I'm sure !

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #66 on: October 08, 2008, 08:42:52 PM »
Pat,

None of your examples eliminate the opportunity to save par. That was the suggestion by Tom Huckaby.

Perhaps not theoretically, but, practically they do.



JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #67 on: October 08, 2008, 08:53:27 PM »
Perhaps, but my defense against this notion of over-the-top difficulty is because there is not a single place around any of those greens that make it difficult to get on the green. Over #11 and #5 might be the closest thing to impossible, but only when the greens are pretty quick...it just doesn't deserve any sort of a penal tag.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2008, 09:00:05 PM »
JES II,

Have you ever played the golf course when the Fescue rough was tall and thick ?

And wet ?

It can be pretty penal under those conditions.

Just ask Jack Nicklaus how he fared on # 10. ;D

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock
« Reply #69 on: October 08, 2008, 09:09:26 PM »
I've actually never played there Pat, I'm just going off the review on this site for my opinions.

TEPaul

Re: Thoughts on Shinnecock New
« Reply #70 on: October 09, 2008, 09:16:40 AM »
Next year there should be a few more greens with greenspace expanded back to original or to increase optional playability. There should be an enhanced pin postion all the way back right on #5 that may be one of the most interesting and challenging third shot approaches I've ever seen for a whole bunch of reasons, not the least reason being it will be very hard to see the left to right fall-off on a direct line to the pin from some areas of the fairway. For risk and recovery it may act something like the back left of #11 except in this case it will be partially in front of the pin and not behind it.

There might even be some good expanded original greenspace front right on #7 to act as an enhanced "mini-kicker."
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 09:26:34 AM by TEPaul »