[Ben Sims]

and I’m bored with it.

-Let’s be gone with with setup experts, short grass, the whining of the professional golfer, and worst—New York area golf crowds.

-Shinnecock, a truly beautiful place, looked like an angry oaf for four days. Six dollars says the staff at Shinny could’ve done better own their own.

-We’ve reached the graphical intersection of golfers’ skill and the ability to control score through toughening of the course. Without making things totally ridiculous, someone among these fellas will play well. The USGA needs to accept this reality or risk having this problem every year from now on. These guys are good and no amount of reasonable tinkering with the course can contain them.

-At some point we as golf architecture snobs will start to realize that rote acceptance of fads do not make for great architecture in every case. Raise your hand if you truly think the back of 10 green at Shinnecock is really supposed to play the way it did.

-Two old guard standard bearers among the professional ranks took a big step backward this week. Phil complained with his putter and surprisingly quick first step. Zach did with his petulant on-air whine about conditions. Patrick Reed—whom I loathe—said perhaps the smartest thing about Saturday afternoon’s conditions of anyone. Essentially, move 13, 15, and 18 pins two yards closer to the center of the green and no one would’ve muttered a thing.

All in all, I was entertained by the event. Mostly because of manufactured drama though.

[Kevin Lynch]

- With respect to the New York area fans, I wouldn't be so quick to attribute that behavior to the region.  I recall watching the Erin Hills broadcast last year and uttering "will you idiots please shut the $%!@ up!?" after every tee shot.  Morons wanting to be heard when there's an open mic seem universal.


- As for the short grass fad, I've been wondering if there's been any discussion about the potential "Pinehurst effect" with respect to Shinnecock's greens.


At Monday's Architectural Forum at Shinnecock, Charles Stevenson gave us a history of the course and the shrinking of the original Flynn greens, mostly due to irrigation system limitations from the 1950s.  They let these greens shrink for 30+ years, but I imagine they kept top-dressing the smaller greens.  When they reclaimed the edges of these greens in recent years, I suspected there would be some natural crowning from the years of top-dressing.  Even if they reclaimed the original Flynn sizes, did they really reclaim the original pinnable areas?  Were the edges of these greens supposed to fall off so severely, making the virtual size of the greens so small?


In the past, I've questioned whether the severely crowned greens at Pinehurst really reward angles as much as they simply demand precision in distance control (as a crowned green will repel balls from multiple angles).  Watching balls being repelled in the practice rounds at Shinnecock reminded me of Pinehurst (but to a lesser extent), and I wondered if Shinnecock's greens had unintended crowning that wasn't adjusted during the reclamation (as C&C left the crowned surfaces at Pinehurst).  This potential issue is only exacerbated when the run-off areas are as large as they were at Shinnecock. 


I was thinking about this all week and reminded of it when Phil snapped for his John Daly moment on Saturday.  Am I crazy in thinking this is the same phenomenon at both venues?

[Ben Sims]

Kevin,


Astute comparison with PH#2. I too watched balls go off in ways that reminded me of 2014. The immediate reaction for me was also to make the C&C resto/reno connection, though I hadn’t been as analytical as you are above. I was shocked how many players went after pins in this event—as if they couldn’t just hit in at the middle and hope for two putts.


All in all, some of that reclaimed area looks severe. I wonder if it was always so.

[Tom_Doak]

At Monday's Architectural Forum at Shinnecock, Charles Stevenson gave us a history of the course and the shrinking of the original Flynn greens, mostly due to irrigation system limitations from the 1950s.  They let these greens shrink for 30+ years, but I imagine they kept top-dressing the smaller greens.  When they reclaimed the edges of these greens in recent years, I suspected there would be some natural crowning from the years of top-dressing.  Even if they reclaimed the original Flynn sizes, did they really reclaim the original pinnable areas?  Were the edges of these greens supposed to fall off so severely, making the virtual size of the greens so small?

An astute observation.


At Crystal Downs we are rebuilding greens one at a time to address that they are 6-8 inches higher than they used to be, to correct the tie-ins all around them.  It is difficult, very exacting work.  There's no way I would take them on all at once.


Most clubs do not want to do it the hard way ... and if they don't, approaches and run-offs and recovery play can be dramatically different than what once was.  And of course, running greens at 12 just exacerbates all the problems.

[Joe Bausch]

I really hope this thread continues to inform me.  Please, those in the know weigh in.

[ward peyronnin]

Tom
When we played there in 2001 I was the beneficiary of the green committee wanting you, as I recall, to mainly assess what/where green surfaces were lost that  they could recover. Do you recall perceiving the issue of changed elevation then?
 I vividly remember the  ornamental grass clumps someone had planted behind 10 green that we all agreed had to go but I don't recall what the back of that green looked like then. Of course I had been rained on for 10 holes and then encouraged to play SHGC from the tips at that point. But didn't I also hear that Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul had input this time around. Two fairly scholarly golfists!

[Ben Sims]

Tom,


I’ve seen other older courses experience the “dam effect”. It seems this happens when years of top dressing is combined with years of core removal and a shrinking green surface.  Essentially, it created a hump around the mowed entrances to the greens or a “dam.” How does a course get the issues with sloped off green surrounds like at Shinny or Pinehurst vs the dam effect I’ve seen on other old courses?

[Kevin Lynch]

At Monday's Architectural Forum at Shinnecock, Charles Stevenson gave us a history of the course and the shrinking of the original Flynn greens, mostly due to irrigation system limitations from the 1950s.  They let these greens shrink for 30+ years, but I imagine they kept top-dressing the smaller greens.  When they reclaimed the edges of these greens in recent years, I suspected there would be some natural crowning from the years of top-dressing.  Even if they reclaimed the original Flynn sizes, did they really reclaim the original pinnable areas?  Were the edges of these greens supposed to fall off so severely, making the virtual size of the greens so small?

An astute observation.


At Crystal Downs we are rebuilding greens one at a time to address that they are 6-8 inches higher than they used to be, to correct the tie-ins all around them.  It is difficult, very exacting work.  There's no way I would take them on all at once.


Most clubs do not want to do it the hard way ... and if they don't, approaches and run-offs and recovery play can be dramatically different than what once was.  And of course, running greens at 12 just exacerbates all the problems.

If any course was going to handle this all at once, I think it would be one like Shinnecock, given the resources available from the USGA and the expectation of holding future US Open Championships. 


I've read multiple articles about the restoration but have only seen discussion about the expansion of the greens, with no mention addressing the cumulative top-dressing. 


Any readers in-the-know who can address this aspect at SHGC (a famous lurker or Flynn historian, perhaps)? 

[Kevin Lynch]

I apologize if this has been posted in other Shinnecock threads, but here's a link to the USGA's Architecture Forum held last Monday featuring Nick Price, Mike Davis, Wayne Morrison, and Charles Stevenson (Greens Chair at SHGC).


http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=140990



Several interesting tidbits from Mike regarding the restoration of pin areas:


"To me, I think the biggest thing of all were really the green expansions. That's probably going to get the least amount of discussion, but to go back from those ovals that, Charles, you referred to, to what they are now, it's just so much more strategic.

And it's not just because we can get hole locations where we couldn't. Folks, this week we have hole locations -- hole locations -- where there was rough before. It's not just it's a little closer to the edge. There are actually hole locations where 14 years ago there was rough.

I know we were walking up, for instance, on the 12th green today, and that green must have been, I don't know, 60 percent the size that it is right now, and those left hole locations will get that. That literally was in rough certainly in 1995 and maybe in '04. I'm trying to remember."


Charles also had some candid comments about how the course was lost in 2004 (search phrase "problem with rye grass"). 


There were also appearances in the questions from Tom Paul, Brad Klein and other notables.

[Greg Chambers]

Some really good stuff in that transcript, Kevin.  Thanks for posting.

[Sean_A]

Dunlop White may have some interesting thoughts on the subject of green renovation.  I am sure he said that many greens at Roaring Gap had to be lowered about a foot when expanded to properly connect with outside shaping and to reduce the #2 dome effect.  The effect on some holes is vicious run-offs, for the most part in the fronts of greens.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom
When we played there in 2001 I was the beneficiary of the green committee wanting you, as I recall, to mainly assess what/where green surfaces were lost that  they could recover. Do you recall perceiving the issue of changed elevation then?

Ward:  I wasn't as aware of the changed elevation as much back then as I am today; at the time, the greens had only been heavily top dressed for 15 years, now thirty so it's at least twice as much of a factor.  I've dealt with it on a few restorations and started noticing it at many US clubs.


I'd forgotten that a friend at Shinnecock did approach me around 2001 about consulting there before the previous Open.  I asked if they wanted to do anything besides build the few tees the USGA had deemed necessary and he said no, so I passed and they built the tees in house.  On Sunday of the '04 Open I was very glad I'd passed on the assignment, as everyone was looking for someone to blame for the mess with 7 green and I might have been an easy scapegoat.  😅

[Tom_Doak]

Too bad they didn't hold their Architecture Forum the Monday AFTER the event instead of the Monday before. There might have been some better questions!

[Jonathan Mallard]

At Monday's Architectural Forum at Shinnecock, Charles Stevenson gave us a history of the course and the shrinking of the original Flynn greens, mostly due to irrigation system limitations from the 1950s.  They let these greens shrink for 30+ years, but I imagine they kept top-dressing the smaller greens.  When they reclaimed the edges of these greens in recent years, I suspected there would be some natural crowning from the years of top-dressing.  Even if they reclaimed the original Flynn sizes, did they really reclaim the original pinnable areas?  Were the edges of these greens supposed to fall off so severely, making the virtual size of the greens so small?

An astute observation.


At Crystal Downs we are rebuilding greens one at a time to address that they are 6-8 inches higher than they used to be, to correct the tie-ins all around them.  It is difficult, very exacting work.  There's no way I would take them on all at once.

Tom,


How far back (on both sides?) do you typically have to go to get to the original tie-in?


Do extreme slopes on either side cause problems with getting the soils to 'meld' together?


For the higher slopes, how do you mitigate the potential erosion during rain events during grow in?

[jeffwarne]

Too bad they didn't hold their Architecture Forum the Monday AFTER the event instead of the Monday before. There might have been some better questions!

Yes, except it would have been a Setup Forum....
though from what I hear the setup guy is involved in architecture next door.
"Staying in his lane" I think Lou said....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()