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.


Phil_the_Author

These are MY thoughts and opinions for whatever they may be worth:

1- The decision to use easy hole locations for round one and two because of the forseeable whether and delay problems was both eminently fair and wise and the right thing to do.

2- The "flat greens" once again proved themselves as anything but. For those who recorded the Open take a careful look how many times comments were made on how putts broke far more than expected, including several "I didn't see that brake at all" by Mr. Miller.

3- How at 517 yards for a par-5 the 4th hole was the easiest hole this time yet was also the least hitable in two short par-5 as very, very few second shots stayed on the putting surface of those that reached it. In fact the majority of second shots ended up short and in the rough or front bunkers from which birdie was a rare commodity.

4- How the new tee and bunker on the 9th hole was universally praised by player and commentator alike and the expression "much better hole" was commonly heard.

5- How the new putting surface (recovered back section and new front tongue) on #14 performed. First, the back section being surprisingly benign as it held far more water than the existing green area, probably due to being compacted more than it should have in the building process. This allowed shots to hold well when hit back there; it was expected that a number of strong shots would hit and bounce over, and that didn't happen. The front tongue was exciting and a very welcome challenge and showed how a well-designed hole could play remarkably differently when the entire green and tee box is used.

Just some final observations...
 

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thinking back over U.S. Opens over the past 30+ years, it is great to see that the course set up now allows for wide swings in scoring   Before 2007 it seemed that 72 pars over 4 days would always win.  Today you need to make some birdies to win, and I credit set up changes to the new excitement brought on by wider scoring ranges.

Patrick_Mucci

Phil,

Despite Mother Nature raining on the course for almost two solid months, the course held up great.

It was a terrific Open and the USGA and Staff at BPB did a great job.

In terms of the telecast, I would have liked to have seen each televised player's standing to par in a corner of the screen, and perhaps more leaderboard graphics in a corner of the screen.

How many birdies were recored on # 18 in the last round and by the last 10 groups ?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Phil

I only watched about an hour or two, but I couldn't see how the greens were flat and boring.  There was a variety of movement and flatishness - I saw plenty of mis-reads.  BPB is that sort of course.  Its tough tee to green, but not so harsh once on the green.  

I don't think I have ever seen a course I would like to play less than BPB.  How many times did I see raised greens with bunker/rough which needed to be carried?  How many times did I see a fairway ridiculously narrowed to the point of being a strip in a rough filled corridor?  How many times did I see guys just trying to hit the ball as hard as they could?  I spose they call this entertainment.  

Ciao
« Last Edit: June 23, 2009, 11:03:48 AM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
I don't think I have ever seen a course I would like to play less than BPB. 

x2.

Rich Goodale

.......x3, but then I've never been a fan of Burbeck's work.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
To the last three posters, no loss to BPB or the rest of us.  It is a wonderful course which most people love even with all the obstacles placed by its owners and administrators.  Though I may prefer to play SFGC day to day, BPB is the better course, and probably the best one of Tillie's work that I've played (I fall in Philip's camp on the accredation issue).

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
To the last three posters, no loss to BPB or the rest of us.  It is a wonderful course which most people love even with all the obstacles placed by its owners and administrators.  Though I may prefer to play SFGC day to day, BPB is the better course, and probably the best one of Tillie's work that I've played (I fall in Philip's camp on the accredation issue).

Wow, Lou, that is a strong statement from a man who is not afraid to express his opinion!   :o

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
« Last Edit: June 23, 2009, 10:55:08 AM by Scott Warren »

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
To the last three posters, no loss to BPB or the rest of us.

What's the green fee for an overseas resident? I'd say that's the loss to BPB. Not that I (or I'm sure RG or SA) expect them to care. I'm certain there are people who have no inclination to play at my course, I wouldn't take it as a personal insult, it's just one man three men's opinion.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2009, 11:22:59 AM by Scott Warren »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
To the last three posters, no loss to BPB or the rest of us.  It is a wonderful course which most people love even with all the obstacles placed by its owners and administrators.  Though I may prefer to play SFGC day to day, BPB is the better course, and probably the best one of Tillie's work that I've played (I fall in Philip's camp on the accredation issue).

Lou

I don't know which course of all the US Open courses is the best (if that matters at all), but if that term is to be used, I would ask better for who?  

Ciao

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Dan_Callahan

  • Karma: +0/-0

5- How the new putting surface (recovered back section and new front tongue) on #14 performed. First, the back section being surprisingly benign as it held far more water than the existing green area, probably due to being compacted more than it should have in the building process. This allowed shots to hold well when hit back there; it was expected that a number of strong shots would hit and bounce over, and that didn't happen. The front tongue was exciting and a very welcome challenge and showed how a well-designed hole could play remarkably differently when the entire green and tee box is used.
 

You really liked that front tongue that was added? I thought it was really uninteresting from a competition standpoint. Duval hit a sand-wedge to it with no fear of trouble or danger. Very different from a great short par 3 like the Postage Stamp.

Aesthetically, that section of 14 looked like a silly appendage that was tacked on as an afterthought, completely incongruous in my opinion, like a dangling ball sack flapping in the breeze.

As for the rest of the course, I imagine that I would enjoy playing it. Some of the holes were very cool looking, and I liked the blindness that some of the bunkers and elevated greens created. To me, though, it just doesn't have the same appeal of a Shinnecock or Oakmont. As an event that is only played once a year, the selection of courses is critical. In my opinion (and I know many disagree), the Black simply isn't interesting enough to warrant two Opens in an 8-year stretch. I loved the sentiment of playing it there in ’02. The idea of playing the Open at a muni was brilliant. But I would have preferred to see a new course get a chance as host.

Rich Goodale

Lou

Just to get back on your good side (I want you for a partner at BUDA VII), let me slghtly qualify by admitting that the dreadful drainage which led to continuous"bomb and plop" driving and approach shots was what made the course so boring to me.  No significant run on the ball, anywhere, and greens that whilst occasionally somewhat tricky were never intriguing.  I'm sure it's a real tough challenge to play (particularly with all those 2nd shots to raised greens), regardless of conditions, but.......where is it's golfing soul?  "It's the 'People's Course' Baby!" just isn't enough for me.

Rich

Tom Huckaby

I am falling on Rich's side here... I don't get why this course is seen as so GREAT. I get that it's HARD - for sure.  But why is it GREAT?

As Rich says, where is the soul?  Putting it less elegantly, what makes it fun?

Someone please explain.  All I see is a brutally hard course.  That in and of itself can be great fun, in a masochistic way.  But given the vehemence of its supporters... there has to be more... right?

Note of course I have not played it, but seeing every hole on TV gives one at least some idea....

TH

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bill McBride,

Among the principal purposes of this site is frank discussion.  No doubt that I could get invited to play more hard-to-access golf courses if I was to toss some grass in the air and pose my arguments based on the way the wind was blowing.

Scott Warren,

I seldom take anything written on this site as a personal insult, and certainly not in this instance.  People are fully entitled to their opinions and preferences, as I am similarly within my rights to agree or disagree with them.

Sean states "I don't think I have ever seen a course I would like to play less than BPB."  Having played several hundred courses including BPB, I can think of several hundred courses I would like to play less than BPB.  As a result, I must conclude that Sean is either pulling our leg (trying to be provocative), impulsive in his comments, or that he possesses a palate for golf with which I am unfamiliar.  I think that Rich Goodale falls into the first category (trying to be witty), and I have no idea who you are.

Regardless, BPB operates at full capacity.  Whether three non-resident golfers pony up their $100 green fess is not going to make one iota of difference.  If Bethpage was out to maximize revenues, they would play with their fee structure, allow carts on the Black, and give preferential treatment to outside groups.

As to who "loves" the course, perhaps my use of the words "most people" is imprecise and unprovable.  I have no idea who you talk to, but I can't think of a single person that I know who has played the course that wouldn't go out again if the opportunity presented itself DESPITE the hassle it is to play at Bethpage.  Notwithstanding its lofty position in all the major rating services, the fact that the course is operating at capacity might suggest to you that it is highly regarded by "most people".  But as you said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (and I suspect that you have also heard about the similarity of opinions and a certain part of the anatomy).

As to my personal preferences in gca, I think that variety is the spice of life.  I find it totally unnecessary, actually very limiting, to pick one camp and defend it to the death.  If someone can reference the book, chapter, and verse that precludes enjoying both Rustic Canyon or Sand Hills and BPB, please provide it to me.  There is nothing garish in my view with BPB's architecture.  It appears to blend well with its surroundings, and though a bit muscular for most of us, I think it is proportional in most ways.

Sean,

I don't know what you mean by "I don't know which course of all the US Open courses is the best (if that matters at all), but if that term is to be used, I would ask better for who?"  Regardless, I am not one to judge which is the best of US Open courses as I've not played a number of them.  Of those that I have, BPB is certainly one of the best ones from my standpoint, and apparently as well, from that of the players.  I am assuming that the USGA was so quick in returning because the participants, the course, and the community welcomed it.

Tom Huckaby

Lou:

That was all well said.
It's just this... I know one need not prefer one style of course, nor defend any one course to the death.  One can and should find things to like in all types of courses.  And yes, Bethpage Black gets very high rankings, and is packed constantly.  So it is surely beloved by many.  I get that, understand that.

What I don't understand - again, seeing it only on television - is WHY this is. 

So I ask: 

Someone please explain.  All I see is a brutally hard course.  That in and of itself can be great fun, in a masochistic way.  But given the vehemence of its supporters... there has to be more... right?

I am fully prepared to accept whatever reasons people give.... these are questions from me, not statements in any way....

Please help.  I don't get Bethpage Black, and I surely want to.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bill McBride,

Among the principal purposes of this site is frank discussion.  No doubt that I could get invited to play more hard-to-access golf courses if I was to toss some grass in the air and pose my arguments based on the way the wind was blowing.



Actually, I was admiring your forthrightness.  Sorry to catch you on a thin-skinned day.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rich,

Though we view the world somewhat dissimilarly, you can never be on my bad side.  I am not an expert in drainage, but there are probably not many courses outside the sandbelt that could withstand long periods of highly elevated rainfalls and remain dry.  My only time on the Black was in July 2005 and the ball rolled out very nicely.  And for shots from the rough, a mere mortal like me could not get them to stop.  In my opinon, the USGA might have reconsidered its refusal to allow lift, clean, and place in the faiway so mudballs didn't have such an impact.  I am not one who's bothered by low scores.

Tom Huckaby,

As Matt Ward might say, hey partner, you have not carried the heavy load to have an informed opinion.  My recollection is that you played Winged Foot West.  I played BPB and WFW in similar weather and conditions in 2005; hit the ball about the same both places (not good with the driver).  I shot 85 (had my card and course guide out this weekend) at BPB from the back tees (a couple of holes were not back all the way) and 94 at WFW from the second set of tees (a little over 6900 yards).  Your description of BPB is not too far off what mine might be of WFW.  I felt that BPB was an ultimately fair, broad test of golf, and that I left a number of shots there.  I walked away from WF thinking that it tested every shot to the max- way beyond my capabilities even from the second set of tees- and not a course that I thought deserved its lofty status.  While I would welcome the opportunity to play it again and test my first impressions, I can't say it is a priority.

Tom Huckaby

Lou:  that helps.  Just remember I already admitted my opinion is far less than informed, and I am asking questions anyway.. not really giving any opinions.

I did play Winged Foot and greatly enjoyed it.  I found the West course to be brutally hard, but the greens were so great... and many shots around them so compelling... (which I'd also say about the East course)... that it's a club I would seek out again and again and again if I could.

I can understand that BP-B is "an ultimately fair, broad test of golf."  I can see that from TV.

But is that all there is to it?  You found it a more fair test than it's relative neighbor in proximity and brutality (WF-W)?

TH

Ross Waldorf

With the title of this thread, I think it's time for me to share some Very Personal Thoughts about the Black (with all due respect to Mr. Young, who clearly has the first crack at those . . .) It's interesting to see all the responses to this course when it shows up for its close-up. For those of you who don't quite "get" the Black, all I can say is that you should try to see it from the perspective of all of those regular New Yorkers who have been playing it for years, not to mention the crazy passion it takes to sit in your car for 26 hours to have a crack at it if you happen to be in the neighborhood.

I grew up playing munis in Baltimore, and never set foot on any of the grounds of the hallowed courses that get discussed all the time on this forum. The course I played most often, Mount Pleasant, was a muni built in Baltimore in the 30s where Arnold Palmer won (maybe for the first time) on tour back in the 50s. It's a cool course, with some great terrain and great golf holes, but it's a muni.

Anyway, when I lived In New York back in the late 80s and early 90s, I played golf with a couple of friends on a regular basis, usually at New York munis like Dyker Beach, which I actually heard mentioned this weekend because Tiger Woods's father apparently was introduced to the game there. Now THAT's a muni. So a few times a year, Dan and Don and I would get up at 2:30 am and Don would drive into Manhattan from Brooklyn and pick me up, and we'd head out to Bethpage. We usually tried to get out there at about 4 am, because if you arrived any later things would get pretty crazy. In those days there wasn't any kind of a phone reservation system -- they got that going closer to the end of my time in New York, but I'm not sure if you could even make reserved times on the Black, come to think of it . . .

So at 4 am, it was kind of a mass of humanity, although certainly not like it is now. I don't think anybody ever waited overnight back then, but it seems to me that we did run into an occasional character who'd get there around midnight or something. The Red course was harder to get on than the Black at the time, and sometimes we were disappointed because we really wanted to play the Red (it's REALLY a good golf course) but just couldn't get on it. You'd wait until they opened the clubhouse doors, everybody would jumble in, and you'd stand on line for twenty minutes or so and bite your nails hoping a time would still be available, and that we wouldn't wind up playing the Blue (which is still a pretty nice golf course). You got to the window, paid your $21 (at least that seems right in memory, and as I recall, that was a premium for the Black -- it was only $18 or something to play the other courses), and then had some breakfast and hit balls, because after arriving at 4 am, you probably got a time at like 10:50 or something.

Back in 1988, I didn't have a handicap, but probably played to something like an 18. That'd be considered a high-capper on this forum, probably, but I always thought of myself as more of an OK player -- I could hit some great shots, but also hit plenty of tops and squiffs that went in all kind of crazy directions. So when I walked past that sign (and I know there are lots of you who see all the overdone closeups and cazy edits and Tour pros reading the text, and just want to groan . . . But let me tell you, I LOVE that sign) to the first tee, I always had a knot in my stomach, because back then I used to hit a lot of banana balls to the right, and to the right of no.1 is the Green course and that means if it goes over there, your first shot is fricken O.B. Watching the pros have such a hard time hitting that fairway brings a nice smile to my face, because I can definitely relate!

So you hit your shot, you walk down the hill, you play out the first hole, and you walk across the street. And then you start to get a feel for  the place. Things are quieter, you listen to the birds. The fairway is surrounded by trees and makes that hole feel pretty intimate. But there was always lots of fescue waiting off the fairway -- I think it was a bit closer back then, although the fairways were wider as I recall. Conditioning was pretty nice, but not groomed like now. And the traps didn't have such carefully built shapes -- they'd been worn down over the years into somewhat less dramatic shapes, and there was beach sand in them, so being in the traps was pretty much sheer terror, if you played like I did.

If you're still with me, thanks for reading. I'll try to wrap it up pretty soon. But I just love the place and it's nice to write about it. You played 2, you played 3 (which wasn't as scary as the new, longer version), and then you turned around and saw 4 looming down the hill and out over the landscape. There is no view in golf that I have seen that quite compares to that view. Not until I played Pacific Dunes and walked up to the number 3 tee and got to see that whole panorama, did I ever see a view on a golf course that was more inspiring. Even in the 80s, before the renovation, it was breathtaking, and I had never seen anything like it during my 15 or so years of playing golf. In fact, in some ways, seeing the carefully designed new bunkering actually bums me out a little, because it can seem a little too nice and carefully crafted. Back then the Glacier bunker was more of a big wide open wall of sand with all kinds of gnarly crap all over the place and it was really grand and terrifying.

Anyway -- that was the best par 5 hole I ever saw, and it still is. A magnificent hole. So is 5. So is 6. So is 7. And it pretty much just keeps going like that for most of the rest of the way. The place just has a grandeur and scale that simply cannot be captured on television. The look of 17 from the tee is absolutely breathtaking, with all of the big bunkering jutting out here and there, pretty much hiding the putting surface and looking really intimidating. On TV this weekend, the hole looked cool, but you just didn't really get it. Go stand on that tee and you'll see what I mean. Up the hill on 15 was just a terror. The flatter terrain around 10, 11 and 12 is cool because it has its own particular feel, and the wide vistas there are a big change from what you've seen through the first 9. The scale makes some of the tee shots really ambiguous, because there's so much room you can't figure out what to aim at. In all, the Black is a true journey.

And even though I play Rustic Canyon now, and prefer a minimalist, llnks kind of style, Bethpage Black remains one of my two favorite courses, even though I haven't seen it in person in almost 20 years. It simply has a feel and a poetic grandeur that is like no other golf course I've seen. And I think the fact that perhaps a place like Pine Valley may be something of a fair comparison (if generally considered the better course), what makes Bethpage so special to so many people, is that we've been there, and we've played it a bunch of times, and we know what that shot from under a tree on the right side of number 5 feels like. We've been behind that tree. And we probably will never be behind any tree at Pine Valley, because not many people ever get to see it, much less play it. We can all play Bethpage Black.

Dan and Don and I used to walk around there on Sunday afternoons in 1989 hitting shots, some good and some bad. And we always used to look at each other somewhere around 6 or 7 and say, "you know -- they really should play a US Open on this course." Now they do. That's why we love it.

Thanks for the time, fellows. Talk to you soon.
R


Tom Huckaby

Ross:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

That was what I was seeking... I "get it" a lot better now. I am seeing a lot more greatness based on your descriptions.

Of course it must be seen in person to understand (as can be said about so many courses).  I just figure I never will, so was begging for something like your post.

So again, many thanks.

Tom H.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Come on Bill, me thin skinned on this beautiful Texas 100* day?  Not a chance.  BTW, have I ever told you what a great job Jerry Pate did at Pensecola CC (no, I have not played the course; just being a smart ass  :o  ).

Tom H,

I strongly suspect that the BPB that I played in 2005 was much different than what we saw over the weekend and more representative of how the course typically plays.  The rough was difficult and the natives were up, but we didn't lose that many balls.  The tee shots required that the ball be stroked solidly, but, for the most part, the fairways fit my eye (like at Sand Hills) and I was not afraid to take an aggressive swing.

As importantly, the greens though firm, were probably running in the 10'-11' range, and I sensed the opportunity to get the ball up and down.  Their size provide hope of getting on even with long clubs, and though I 3-putted a couple of times, I think I had 30 putts for the day (I did not hit my driver all that well, and actually shanked my 5-iron second on the first fairway as I was still shaken up from witnessing one of the guys who joined my group nearly get into a fist fight with the starter, one of the more unusual experiences in my relatively long golf history).

I guess that I see some of the redemptive qualities in BPB often associated with MacKenzie courses, hitting excellent recoveries to make a par or bogey here and there.  This is entirely different than my impressions of WFW, which though lacking water hazards, was punitive in nearly every way.   

Tom Huckaby

Lou:

Gotcha - great stuff, well said. I am getting it more and more.

TH

Ross Waldorf

Tom:

Well, thanks. Your post made me happy I wrote mine. Glad it helped.

Cheers,
R

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Helluva post, Ross, nicely done.

I think I would need to see BB in person to really answer any questions I might have. Hope I can someday.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04