18th at Bethpage Black - the vote is ....

[Carl Rogers]

Matt, you COMPLETELY misunderstood the nature of my question.

There are actually several REALISTIC means of addressing this "problem" although, let me stress this, I am personally fine with the hole as it is. I've spoken to building 2 new tees. The first one would be to the right of the 16th fairway. It would mean a reasonable walk to it and from here the 17th would be played. The green would then be one that is deep and narrow, rather than todays, shallow and wide. The second new tee would be put in front of the existing 17 tee box and slightly keft. Now the 18th would play as a long dogleg of 480+ yards with a far more difficult drive placement.

I like this idea because it alludes to a hole that IS Bethpage Black ... long and mean.
If a short par 4 is needed, then message one of the earlier holes on the back nine or change the setup each day so that the short par 4 for the day is varied.  Make the 72nd  hole require 2 very good long shots.

Golf today is no longer a game, it is a sport for athletes and the USGA Open is for the super heavyweights.

If finesse courses are desired for the rota, then that can be for other courses.

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

Just a quick question -- have you ever heard of overkill from a course standpoint?

I mean doesn't BB have ENOUGH long par-4's already ?

Let me point out again -- Congressional had a par-3 as a finishing hole in '97 -- you also have had courses such as Inverness, Olympic / Lake that have had short par-4's conclude the round. The existing 18th at BB is nothing more than a boring hole reconfigured in a politically correct way -- just add 50 yards to the hole -- subtract a portion of the green and add a monster array of bunkers which are more scenic than anything remotely tied to strategic. Wa-la -- instant finishing hole of zero character or imagination.

The essence of design is to constantly provide a solid array of different types of holes. The 15th and 16th are two very strong par-4's -- especially the former. The par-3 17th is a gem -- having the 18th play as a driveable par-4 hole with real risk involved could be done. My God, people are thinking such an insertion of such a hole would be a travesty to the memory of Tillinghast -- give me a freakin break. The issue is trying to provide a conclusion that will add to the range of holes at BB -- a quality short par-4 is no where to be found now -- and to provide an entertainment option that will keep people pinned to their seats as the contenders come down the stretch.

[Carl Rogers]

Mr. Ward,

I am an architect as in buildings and a life long golfer, index 5.0 which is kind of high for me. 

I do not have anywhere near the emotional, conceptual and life long study of the medium as many of you do.  Perhaps that explains some of my posts.  I do know that in my field that any one building can not be all things to all people.

I am not sure why some on the site are so enamoured with the 'historical intent' of the courses origins.  Most of the time, in my view that purity of intent has been irretrievably lost, not to be found.   As far as the 18th at BB, either Tillie & Burbeck or Burbeck & Tillie had a bad day on the their original intent.

I do agree that the present 18th hole at BB does not have an idea to it and does not really know what it is trying to be ... which is why I started this thread.

[PThomas]

a true risk /reward driveable par 4 would be quite cool, i think

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

I appreciate the info on your avocation and your handicap but what does that have to do with what you mentioned in having another long par-4 as a concluding hole at a course that already has a number of them?

You state the obvious no course can be all things to all people.

That's not the issue here ...

The issue is the nature of what #18 has been changed to be nothing more than a cut'n paste version of what was there previously and that version failed miserably -- ditto the one that's there now.

You also mention the fixation of certain people to the "historial intent" of a given layout. No doubt that's true for some -- but not for me and certainly not as it applies to the 18th at BB.

The real issue is providing something at BB that doesn't now already exist -- a supreme short par-4 that provides a "go to" option for the green in one single stroke. You started this thread asking questions -- but your embrace in having another long par-4 to conclude the layout along the lines that Phil Y suggested. BB is a fascinating course but it lack a clear dimension that goes beyond a steady drumbeat of muscle-oriented holes. Switching the 18th to something that goes against that grain of "muscle" while providing an outlet for either the drive-for-the-green or a more conventional layback which still allows for a birdie possibilty would be a much more fulfilling ending to both the course and our national championship in my mind.

[Carl Rogers]

I wanted to resurrect this thread as a compliment to the "354 Elevated ..." thread.

It seems there are a lot of non-positive comment about the 18th hole ... a few positive comments about today's setup.

Let me ask a few more questions.....

1.  Do you wish to change your vote?

2.  Would you like to change your vote, if you voted previously?

3.  How should the hole be revised?

Let me add some other thoughts....  today's set up nul and voided the mass of fairway bunkers (how much $$ did they cost to build and maintain over the years) and in the Open's concluding round an expensive frivilous non-factor!

The model of the third hole at ANGC, a shortish par 4 just beyond reach is an interesting idea, but not at BB no.18 without a signifcant topography re-arrangement, which might be problematic.

Will the USGA's snub of the hole design spur on further high dollar revisions?

Is the drainage problem there solvable?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some of you guys are absolutely crazy.

Now you want to disfigure one of Tillinghast's finest courses, starting with the 18th hole.

That's exactly how course after course after course was disfigured.

By rocket scientists who didn't like a particular aspect of the hole.

Then, once they disfigured one hole, the entire golf course, the remaining 17 holes became open season for more disfiguration.

Then, later, others not satisfied with the first set of disfigurations, decided to disfigure the disfigured holes to their liking.

Soon, no part of the golf course resembled what the original architect had crafted.

Courses became a hodgepodge of random architecture forced upon the original course, causing the original course to lose its continuity and distinctive character.

Leave the hole alone. 

It's a great hole for the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands or millions of golfers who have played it.

End of rant

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

The present 18th at BB is dullsville it may be "great" for Joe Sixpack and types like that but uit fails miserably to be a closing summary statement for the time spent at the Black. The USGA attempted to do what I originally suggested a good bit of time ago -- make the final hole driveable.

However ...

The existing 18th doesn't lend itself to that and would need to be changed to allow such a solid counter-hole to all the muscle holes you play at the Black. You just don't stick the tee forward and then call it a real driveable short par-4 in the mind of what the 17th at Oakmont was like for the '07 US Open.

Pat, the existing 18th has already been "disfigure(d)."

I have stated my position countless times that the final hole at the Black is really lacking in providing a counterpoint to all the muscle holes previously faced and that the course truly comes up short from a short par-4 hole with real sizzle.

Pat, I can understand your desire to maintain the Tillie flavor -- the 18th simply failed from the get go even when Tillie first brought the hole to life. It can and should be changed to give the course a closing hole that equals the previous holes you encounter when playing the Black.

Carl R:

Let me state what I said above to Pat -- my idea to have a driveable hole for the conclusion is something the USGA followed for the final round set-up. The problem is not the concept but that the existing hole in the manner by which it is designed now is not suitable for such a purpose.

I would not change my vote.

Clearly, some element of the original water inclusion should be considered to alleviate the collection of H20 which routinely happens there. A new hole should be designed that can make such a driveable option a realistic element for anyone thinking such an execution. The present hole with its massive rough in front of a steep slope doesn't go do that at all.

The mindless number of bunkers needs to be given the heeve ho. They are simply set decorations which have little real consequence now. They clearly are, as you correctly surmised, "an expensive frivilous non-factor."

No doubt there would be a real need to change to some degree the existing topography - but I don't see that as rising to the level of impossibility. Architects who understand the Tillie style can move ahead with a concluding short par-4 that fits his style, the scale of the BB landscape and the appropriate risk / reward element to bring the golfers home in grand style.

Candidly, I see the USGA thinking that such a "new" hole would actually add more to the overall championship should future Opens be played at the Black. It's also possible that the folks who run Bethpage will realize that the existing closing hole is a dull energy sapping concluding hole.

Clearly, there are $$ involved -- but the concluding hole, with the existing drainage issues and the inane bunker complex found there now cries out for a major switch that will benefit all in so many ways.

[Chris Ord]

the 18th is a fine hole, but not a great finishing hole.  in my mind, the best finishing holes have been true half-par holes.  the par 5 18th at torrey pines and the par 4 18th at winged foot both played like 4.5's.  that's where the drama came from.  johnny miller seemed happy that the 18th wasn't yielding a lot of birdies today, and that's fine, but it didn't seem like it was yielding a lot of bogeys either.  despite this, i don't think the hole should be changed.  the course is the course.  i found the today's ending to be anti-climactic, but it doesn't take away from the fact that lucas glover won the u.s. open fair & square.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

I take great exception to your view of what the USGA did with using the front tee on 18 today. They were NOT attempting to make it a drivable par-4. It isn't drivable from that tee by almost anyone and the proof is that NO ONE DID IT!

The SOLE reason for doing so was because of the immense drainage problem that a months worth of daily rain finally did to the fairway landing area. They were forcing players to drive it past the bunkers because that was the only fairway area left where it was in reasonably good shape.

To characterize this as a confirmation of your opinion of what the 18th hole needs to be is disingenuous. I say that not because I disagree with your view on this; most on here are quite aware of that. Rather, it is because I am well aware of why the decision was actually made, and having a drivable par-4 on 18 was never in the plans. Having someone drive it would have been wonderful and provide much excitement and cheers, but the reality is that no one was or would have been able to do it. The USGA does not set up a course to tempt players to try something that can't be done...

[Adam Clayman]

That's exactly how course after course after course was disfigured.

By rocket scientists who didn't like a particular aspect of the hole.

Then, once they disfigured one hole, the entire golf course, the remaining 17 holes became open season for more disfiguration.

Then, later, others not satisfied with the first set of disfigurations, decided to disfigure the disfigured holes to their liking.

Soon, no part of the golf course resembled what the original architect had crafted.

Courses became a hodgepodge of random architecture forced upon the original course, causing the original course to lose its continuity and distinctive character.

Did anyone else immediately think ANGC?

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

The big time problem -- with all due respect -- that you refuse to acknowledge as you continue to relish your "defender of the realm" position is that the existing 18th is dullsville to the max. It doesn't invite any risk -- everyone plays it the same boring way -- hit short of the silly bunker complex that is there more for show than anything else. Then follow with a mid-to-short iron to a fairly nondesript green. Forgive the yawns that follow ...

Phil, it's time to start over and redo the 18th and make it into a counterpoint hole to all the muscle length par-4's you encounter at BB. The existing 18th is nothing more than a mish/mash effort meant to add length (50 yards from the work of Rees) and it does nothing to provide a real fun and stellar summary statement to one's time at BB.

Phil, no one loves BB more than I. But the existing 18th needs to go ... there are some great designers out there who could use the existing topography and create such a hole in a manner that honors Tillinghast while preserving the spacing for galleries and all the other elements needed for a big time event. If a real solid driveable par-4 were available for yesterday's ending the final outcome could have been far different.

[Rob Rigg]

Can you change the hole by adding some water to help drainage and move the tees up so driving it is a possibility for most of the field?

One of the things about a "drivable" par 4 finishing hole that would kind of suck since BB is already a long driver advantage course, is that the bomber would be favored at the end over a shorter hitter which could eliminate some of the excitement.

If 18 was played earlier in the back nine as a drivable par 4 it would add a lot of interest, then a more challenging par 4 could step up as the finisher.

I played BB about seven years ago so I remember little about the course - hence my inability to suggest specific routing changes.

[Mike Sweeney]

I think Rees made it better than the old hole, but it is still missing something. Something about the symmetrical fairway bunkers on both sides. It did not make this list on either side: