Are Seminole's green complexes and surrounds

[JESII]

Pat,

I don't know how to rank a set of greens, but they sure do dominate the play at Seminole more than just about anywhere else I know of.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

When they're "at pace" you have to be keenly aware of the hole location and make every effort to stay below the hole, while at the same time NOT risking bunkering or shorting your ball.  With the wind as a factor, this isn't an easy task.

Everyone has their own way of playing golf/a hole, but, I've found that taking more club, choking down and hitting punch shots eliminates a high ball that can get caught in the wind.  I feel more comfortable with that shot.

The problem is, if I haven't been playing much golf, I'll pull hook that shot and you know what happens after that.

One of the things I really like about Seminole's greens is their "shape" their configuration.  They tend to be non-symetrical, with bunkers cutting into them, strategically, at various locations.

It's really a course that can be enjoyed if you played it every day for the rest of your life.  It's got great playing variety

[Tim Liddy]

Pat,

You have discussed this before, please see link.

[Tim Liddy]

Pat here is the link:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,14059.35.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

Thanks, I've brought it back to current status.

[Peter Wagner]

might not get much discussion Patrick just because Seminole is so exclusive/so few people have been there!

and i dont recall many pictures of the course on GCA either, unfortunately

Paul,
I agree!  Reading this interesting thread causes me to want to see the pictures.  I respect the club's privacy but think how fun it would be to have an in depth photo discussion of these green complexes. 

Slightly off-topic:  If a course can have romance then it seems like Seminole has it in spades.  I've never been there but this one seems easy to fall head over heels for.

[JESII]

Is there a course in the world that does a better job of dictating play all the way back to the tee?

Every single hole can fall anywhere along the Strategic-Penal string depending upon how well thought out and executed ones opening shot is...

[Dean Stokes]

might not get much discussion Patrick just because Seminole is so exclusive/so few people have been there!

and i dont recall many pictures of the course on GCA either, unfortunately

Paul,
I agree!  Reading this interesting thread causes me to want to see the pictures.  I respect the club's privacy but think how fun it would be to have an in depth photo discussion of these green complexes. 

Slightly off-topic:  If a course can have romance then it seems like Seminole has it in spades.  I've never been there but this one seems easy to fall head over heels for.

Lads,
I have several photos that I took last year but I'll be damned if I can attach them on a thread on GCA. I would be willing to put them in an email to you if you instant message me your email address.

Pat,

Having caddied there more times than I can remember and having played the course plenty, I can say that I have never played a course anywhere else that I have so much trouble scoring around!

The green complexes are tremendous. As you noted earlier, the playing surfaces/landing area on the greens are effectively half the size due to the fall off nature of them. Combine that with mother nature and the firmness/speed of the them and you have one heck of a challenge.

At 6800ish, always running f/f on the fairways it is not uncommon to be hitting short irons into greens. It is still a devil to score around. Middle of the green IS always good and that does not always guarantee a two putt. This is definitely not a course I would ever get tired of playing.

It may have one of the best short par 4's, #12 and best par 3's, #17 anywhere in the world in my opinion. A must play for any GCAers that get an invite.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dean,

I think it's one of the greatest member/guest courses in the country.

It's sporty, challenging with a personality that changes daily.

The green complexes are amongst the best I've ever seen.

[Ryan Farrow]

Pat, I walked the course with green details in hand. Fact is, many of the greens just did not match up with the plans. That's not to say the greens were built exactly to his drawings but I did notice a lot less severity in the green contours and far, far fewer pin positions. There are many variables that could account for the discrepancies but IMO what I saw on paper was a lot better than what was in the ground.

Seminoles greens are way to small and way too fast to be considered great. Not to mention the steep, closely mown surrounds, drop offs into bunkers or down hills make the game to hard to handle for a mere mortal. If someone built those kinds of greens today, they would not last long because they are just wrong and totally unfair. Hard for hardness sake does not make for good architecture.

If you were to compare Oakmont and Seminole we can both agree that they are hard golf courses, and have slick greens. But at Oakmont, you can recover from a miss in 1 or 2 shots, Seminole may take 4 or 5. Now when a 10+ handicap is playing the course, how many greens do you think they will hit in a round? 3-4? How many times will a chip shot roll off a green, into a bunker or down a hill, and leave an even more difficult shot? At Oakmont you can miss greens and be "alright" as long as you know where you can miss. At Seminole there are very few safe recovery shots and too many bad places you can end up. It just makes the game too difficult and no fun. You can call it sporty all you want but I just don't think it is right.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #22, I'm not too sure what it is you're trying to say or looking to prove. As far as Pete Dye knowing Donald Ross that probably isn't that much of a stretch regarding what he's said and the fact that he was probably born around 1926. As far as the internal green contours of Seminole being changed he probably does know exactly what he's talking about. The man he mentioned to me who changed them was a pretty well known guy from Georgia.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Regarding your post #22, I'm not too sure what it is you're trying to say or looking to prove. As far as Pete Dye knowing Donald Ross that probably isn't that much of a stretch regarding what he's said and the fact that he was probably born around 1926. As far as the internal green contours of Seminole being changed he probably does know exactly what he's talking about.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that.
Why would Donald Ross in 1945-1948 engage a young man 19-22 years of age, in a discussion about Seminole's greens ?  Especially if their conversations took place in Pinehurst.
At 19-22 Pete was a good decade removed from active participation in architecture.
Why are you so quick to accept his word on Seminole's greens as "The Gospel", especially when Wilson was retained by Seminole after Ross's death ?

The man he mentioned to me who changed them was a pretty well known guy from Georgia.

Then you should be able to ascertain his name and the date of the alterations at Seminole.

I wonder if you're not confusing the fellow from Georgia with the work associated with the 1990 regrassing of the greens.  There was a fellow from George who guaranteed or warranteed that his work would be accurate to with a half an inch.  I suspect this might be the fellow referenced. 

Having played Seminole in the early 60's and as recently as last week, I'd be curious to know the date of the alleged altering of Seminole's greens.

Ryan,

I'll respond to your post when I have more time, over the weekend.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not so sure I'd agree with that.
Why would Donald Ross in 1945-1948 engage a young man 19-22 years of age, in a discussion about Seminole's greens ?  Especially if their conversations took place in Pinehurst.
At 19-22 Pete was a good decade removed from active participation in architecture.
Why are you so quick to accept his word on Seminole's greens as "The Gospel", especially when Wilson was retained by Seminole after Ross's death ?"


Pat:

I don't think anyone, including me, has ever said anything about Pete Dye talking to Donald Ross about Seminole's greens, so where have you gotten that idea? As far as I know, in the mid to late 1940s Pete and Alice may not have ever seen Seminole.

I only said that Pete (and Alice) told me Pete met Donald Ross at Pinehurst. Why did he meet him there? Apparently Pete (and Alice) were good friends of Richard Tufts which would make sense considering both of them, particularly Alice, were very good players and played on a national level. Richard Tufts was a long time power on the USGA, particularly with Rules and eventually become the president of the USGA.

I'd also assume you understand who Richard Tufts was regarding Pinehurst. 

Just because Pete and Alice had not become actively involved in golf architecture back then certainly doesn't mean they weren't interested in it back then, and interested enough to get to know Richard Tufts.

Perhaps you're not aware of it but Dick Wilson was a really good friend of Pete's parents and the fact that he lived in Southeast Florida is apparently one of the primary reasons they moved down there. Of course you can question something like that too but why should I or anyone else believe you on these things rather than Pete (and Alice) himself?

Pete's reasons for saying the greens of Seminole were changed may not necessarily have to do just with Dick Wilson anyway; he mentioned to me it was the result of a contractor from Georgia (a black guy). I probably have his name around here somewhere but he's a guy who was pretty well known back then. I recall Mike Young knows his name.

[Lester George]

Yes.

Lester

[TEPaul]

"I wonder if you're not confusing the fellow from Georgia with the work associated with the 1990 regrassing of the greens.  There was a fellow from George who guaranteed or warranteed that his work would be accurate to with a half an inch.  I suspect this might be the fellow referenced."


Patrick:

You may be confusing Seminole's greens (and the black contractor from Georgia) with the redoing of the Pinehurst #2 greens and the work of a man by the name of Ed Connor from Fort Benning Ga. Connor basically developed a computer modeling device known back then as a laser theodite. He claimed his device could grid a green remodel to within an inch or so (or exact contour detail). Connor worked on the redo of Pinehurst #2's greens with Jack Nicklaus in 1987. This was the project about which it is claimed that Pinehurst #2's greens became significantly crowned basically due to a general error in construction calculation.  

[Lester George]

Tom,

The Conner method was another highly overrated hoax.

Lester

[TEPaul]

Lester:

The Connor computer modeling thing may not have worked well but I wouldn't call it a hoax. After all he was involved in the redoing of the Pinehurst #2 greens in 1987 with Nicklaus.

[Tom_Doak]

Hoax?  That's pretty strong.  We've worked with Ed Connor at SFGC and The Valley Club ... and though I would never just leave a contractor alone to rebuild greens, he was a thorough and conscientious participant in the process.

Still, this goes back to a point I made on a different thread ... the contractor is only as accurate as everybody wants him to be.  The next-to-last time I was at Pinehurst #2 I noticed that there is actually a little pocket in the swale that drains out the right side of the 18th green, so I asked Ed Connor if he had reproduced that faithfully.  He said no, originally the drainage and golf balls shot out of there really fast, and the people at Pinehurst had asked him to soften it.

[Lester George]

Tom Paul,

...and your point is?

Tom D,

Maybe hoax is not appropriate.  I'll yield to your relationship and experience with him regarding the thoroughness and professionalism .  If your relationship and results were positive, so be it.

My comment is based on conversations with a couple of architects who have used him and had not good outcomes or felt they were forced to use him because of the "hype" that green committees read or learned from the USGA video.  I won't get into detail, but I had specific conversations which convinced me not try the method, not the man.  I agree that it all comes down to the architects and the amount of TIME he spends on site during construction. 

I wasn't trying to slam the man, just the method.

Lester

[TEPaul]

Lester:

My point?

If you mean Ed Connor, I simply said he was involved in the Pinehurst #2 regreen redo project in 1987 with the Nicklaus Co. that resulted in some significant crowning on those greens, and that Connor had a computer modeling device and method called Laser Theodite. It may not have worked very well but I don't know that I'd call it a hoax, perhaps just something that didn't work as well as he advertised it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I walked the course with green details in hand. Fact is, many of the greens just did not match up with the plans.

In configuration or contour or both ?
In July of 2005 someone was kind enough to send me the Ross drawings WITH his field notes.  I've been searching for them but to date, I just have to rely on another set of his drawings.

The greens have certainly shrunk over the years from their early square footage, and I"m sure that top dressing has muted some of the contouring.

In terms of orientation and configuration, they appear similar to the original drawings

That's not to say the greens were built exactly to his drawings but I did notice a lot less severity in the green contours and far, far fewer pin positions. There are many variables that could account for the discrepancies but IMO what I saw on paper was a lot better than what was in the ground.

Aronomink proved that the "as built" differed from the field drawings, so, it's hard to tell, other than from early photos, what the initial greens looked like.

But, the issue isn't that the "as builts" differed from the drawings, or that the greens have shrunk.  Or that weather, hurricanes or top dressing has altered them from their original or early form.

TEPaul's surrogate contention is that the greens were substantively altered in a single project by an individual whose firm is in Georgia.

We know that the regrassing project in 1990 probably resulted in inadvertant changes, but, the claim is that the greens were deliberately altered in a single undertaking for that specific purpose.

Some of the questions are: 
When did this take place and why ?
And, did an architect oversee the project ?

I can't imagine the members, or the Major Domo, taking it upon themselves to alter the greens, nor can I imagine them bringing in some contractor and asking him to have at it.  Knowing a little about Seminole's history, I can't imagine them giving some contractor carte blanche to tamper with their greens.  So, if the greens were systemically altered, an architect had to be involved.   The only situations that would seem to fit would be when Dick Wilson was brought in or when Brian Silva was brought in.  Unless, another consulting architect was brought in. 

TEPaul references an individual who used "laser theodolite" to alter greens.

The "laser theodolite" patent wasn't issued until May 18, 1999.
I can guarantee you that Seminole's greens weren't systemically altered between May 18, 1999 and today.

TEPaul indicated that Amos Jones was the individual who altered Seminole's greens.

Therefore, I repeat my question.
When did he do this, under whose supervision, and why ?

Seminoles greens are way to small and way too fast to be considered great.

That's not true.
They're far from small.
Some are relatively huge, like # 8.

As to being too fast to be considered great, how does a greens pace disqualify it from being great ?

WFW, Merion, ANGC and Oakmont all have greens that can be faster than Seminole's.  How are they NOT great greens.

I think you're off the mark on this one.

Not to mention the steep, closely mown surrounds, drop offs into bunkers or down hills make the game to hard to handle for a mere mortal.


The last time I played Seminole all of the members and all of the guests looked "mortal".

Everyone I met, and I met quite a few that day, thoroughly enjoyed the golf course, as did I.

What many on this site forget is that higher handicaps don't play like PGA Tour Pros.  They usually don't hit # 2, # 11, # 16 or # 18 in regulation, hence, they have a modest chip, pitch or short iron into those greens.
And, most understand their abilities and don't go pin seeking, especially to dicey locations.  If you peruse the handicaps of the members you'll find an incredible variety, from exception golfers to very high handicappers.

In addition, Seminole gets heavy play from women golfers.
Those that I know thoroughly enjoy the golf course.

So, I'll have to disqualify your mere mortal disclaimer

If someone built those kinds of greens today, they would not last long because they are just wrong and totally unfair. Hard for hardness sake does not make for good architecture.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Those greens and surrounds are spectacular.

The only problem I see is the quest for increased speeds.
When Harcourt Kemp, a seasoned and exceptional golfer six putts a green on his home course, you know that either the hole location was improper or the speeds to high, or a combination of both.

Any architect who could replicate those greens/surrounds today would be deemed an accomplished professional.

You're confusing the different "cultures" of golf with architecture.

At Seminole, "cry babies" need not apply.
Golfers who want to remove or soften the challenge, bringing it down the their level, and the developers and architects who accomodate them are hurting the game and sport of golf. 

Seminole is a wonderful "members" course.

Its specialty is not in its appeal to the skilled striker of the ball, its specialty is in its appeal to the skilled THINKER.

If you were to compare Oakmont and Seminole we can both agree that they are hard golf courses, and have slick greens.

But at Oakmont, you can recover from a miss in 1 or 2 shots, Seminole may take 4 or 5.

I disagree.

Now when a 10+ handicap is playing the course, how many greens do you think they will hit in a round? 3-4?   How many times will a chip shot roll off a green, into a bunker or down a hill, and leave an even more difficult shot?

It depends on their course management skills, reigning in their ego and common sense.

According to your standards, 10 + handicaps at Seminole are scratch golfers everywhere else, but, I know that's not the case.

At Oakmont you can miss greens and be "alright" as long as you know where you can miss.

Knowing where to miss and executing that shot are usually beyond the capabilities of 10+ handicappers.

With a back left pin on # 2 at Oakmont, a miss long, or left won't be followed by an up and down for par.  A double or worse would be the norm for a 10+ handicap.

At Seminole there are very few safe recovery shots and too many bad places you can end up.

I disagree with that and would offer over 40 years of playing experience with members and guests at Seminole to support my position.

It just makes the game too difficult and no fun.

Not to me, I love it.
And, every fellow guest I've ever played with at Seminole has loved it.
Your perspective is limited, because you've created demons vis a vis a non-playing experience.  Play it, then tell me your thoughts.

You can call it sporty all you want but I just don't think it is right.

Then why does the course enjoy almost universal appeal ?
The members love it.  And every guest I've ever spoken to has loved it.

I think you're out of touch on this one.

[JESII]

I think there is no better subject than Seminole's green complexes to discuss the effect maintenance can have on the quality of a course/feature...

There is a time and a place to discuss the historic evolutions, but this thread could get to the heart of an important issue.

[Ryan Farrow]

Pat, I have a PDF Document of the greens and holes as well as some typewritten notes from Ross. Leave me an e-mail and I'll be happy to pass them along.

I have gotten in enough battles with you to know your opinion wont budge, so I won't even try. All I can say is that I have seen better green complexes that the ones at Seminole.

The course in general was disappointing to me but there is a lot of great stuff going on. I think some changes need to happen for Seminole to earn a spot as a top tier of golf course. Based on my limited travel to top courses, Oakmont is far superior, and I would definitely place Riviera ahead of Seminole. And if Shivas was here, I would probably say Rock Creek is a better golf course than Seminole right now. I Know Seminole has the bones in place, I just think it could use a little freshening up aesthetically as well as some solid restoration work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I have a PDF Document of the greens and holes as well as some typewritten notes from Ross. Leave me an e-mail and I'll be happy to pass them along.

I'll IM it to you, thanks

I have gotten in enough battles with you to know your opinion wont budge, so I won't even try.

Both Tom MacWood and David Moriarty changed my opinion on issues, but,
they had a reasoned position supported by credible evidence.
If you can offer a similar presentation it might sway my opinion, but, on this topic, I doubt it.

All I can say is that I have seen better green complexes that the ones at Seminole.

Could you name them ?

The course in general was disappointing to me but there is a lot of great stuff going on. I think some changes need to happen for Seminole to earn a spot as a top tier of golf course.

What changes need to happen ?

Based on my limited travel to top courses, Oakmont is far superior, and I would definitely place Riviera ahead of Seminole.


Far superior in what way ?

While I like Oakmont, on a daily play basis I prefer Seminole, by a wide margin.  Oakmont really beats you up, it's a difficult challenge from any and all tees.  The fairways are narrow, the rough brutal, the fairway bunkering penal and the greens treacherous.  If that's your daily cup of tee ( ) you must be one hell of a golfer or a masochist.

And if Shivas was here, I would probably say Rock Creek is a better golf course than Seminole right now.

I'm not familiar with Rock Creek so I'm unqualified to comment.

I Know Seminole has the bones in place, I just think it could use a little freshening up aesthetically as well as some solid restoration work.

Could you point out where it needs aesthetic "freshing up" and where it needs "solid restoration work" ?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"Both Tom MacWood and David Moriarty changed my opinion on issues, but,
they had a reasoned position supported by credible evidence."


Patrick:

That's interesting. If Tom MacWood and David Moriarty changed your opinion on any issues to do with the architects and architecture of Merion East, I'm sorry to hear about that as that would pretty much have to mean your opinion on that course is wrong.

One thing MacWood and Moriarty seemed to do with Merion is ask some interesting questions but their deductions, assumptions, presumptions, conclusions and basically their answers to those questions on here were seriously wrong if one is interested facts and not just questions.

Again, with Seminole's greens you seem to keep asking questions about the laser theodite process which I believe involved Ed Connor (who originally came from Fort Benning, Georgia). I'm not aware that Connor had anything to do with Seminole's greens but he did work on the Pinehurst #2 greens with the Nicklaus company apparently in 1987.

As for the black contractor from Georgia Pete Dye referred to (I believe his name was Amos Jones) who Pete  believes significantly altered the internal characteristics of the Seminole greens, you should probably speak to Pete about that. Perhaps you've been familiar with Seminole for about 40 years, as I have, but you should remember Pete has also been a member of Seminole for a number of decades now, and Pete is also a golf course architect and because he is, one might rightly presume he knows some of these things a bit better than you and I do. 

So if you want to argue about what Pete said about the details of the evolution of Seminole's greens take it up with Pete and not with me. All I can tell you is what he told me a year or so ago.