[Noel Freeman]

I got this report from a friend who went out to the Black this past weekend.. While I was playing Deal and Littlestone he was not a happy camper.. I have not seen the Black in 3 years and this is his scathing thoughts.. Given this person has played the Black hundreds of times over 40 years, I will take his comments with respect..

Here are his thoughts--

PS- I played Bethpage Black for the first time in a couple of years on Saturday. I've been playing it since 1969 and as my home course for several years when I lived on LI. Rees totally ruined the 15th green. The whole back section is flattened and enlarged a bit with the slope to the bottom tier not nearly as severe. It's not even the most interesting green on BB any more.  Very sad.  A worker was watering and I told him to convey to the super that Rees is a hack who is ruining the golf course. With the horrible bunker on #9, left side fairway bunkers on 13, ugly green and greenside (left) bunker on 14 and other changes related to maintenance and fairway angles Bethpage Black is the newest Baltusrol. It has gone to a great favorite of mine and the place I got interested in architecture to a place I don't really care if I ever play again.

[Mark McKeever]

I agree with these notes.  I couldnt believe my eyes when I saw that bunkering on 9, 13, and 14.  The green on 14 just doesnt have the same appeal it used to.

Mark

[Jason Connor]

Serious question here:

Given that the USGA has the reputation for being stodgy traditionalists, why does the USGA continue to endorse/support Rees mutilating historic courses?

[Phil_the_Author]

For the record, Rees is ONLY responsible for the bunker left of 14. EVERYTHING else that has been mentioned, the bunker on 9 & 13 and the softening of the green on 15 were done and designed by others (NOT me).

[Anthony_Nysse]

 A worker was watering and I told him to convey to the super that Rees is a hack who is ruining the golf course.

Does your friend REALLY think that the employee is going to tell the Supt that? Does your friend know that the Supt wasn't the one on the bulldozer changing the hole?

[JC Jones]

 A worker was watering and I told him to convey to the super that Rees is a hack who is ruining the golf course.

Does your friend REALLY think that the employee is going to tell the Supt that? Does your friend know that the Supt wasn't the one on the bulldozer changing the hole?

Does it matter?

Phil,

What are your thoughts on the changes listed above (regardless of their attribution)?

[Mark Pritchett]

Does the USGA and/or the clubs/courses that Rees Jones remodels for the US Open give Rees carte blanche to do said work in his sole discretion?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have been posting examples of the Black's architectural slide for many years now.  The most recent destruction of the 15th green is the most painful damage.  There is no longer any question that the best course at Bethpage is the Red.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark,

You obviously didn't read my post. Blame Ress for poor work or great work if either is your opinion. Don't blame him for work done that you don't like that he wasn't responsible for.

JC, I think the bunker on the 9th is done well and is necessary. I think that the bunker on 13 was a poor decision and was not built well. I am in agreement that a bunker to the left of 14 was needed when the front left tongue was added which I was also in agreement with. I like the current version of the more than the one first built. I don't think either version is done as well as could be. It needs to be deeper and the hillside on the rough side of it sculpted down to match and allow for about a foot and a half more depth. The recovered putting surface in the back and back right are done very well.

And Anthony, some of the minor changes made to the Black, mentioned above or not, were DIRECTLY done by the superintendent on his own.

Robert, the Black course in its wild state pre-restoration was a far better course than the Red is today. The Black today dwarfs the pre-reconstruction course.

The Red needs a great deal of restorative work and if done, would definitely be far better than what is there today. Bun kers restored; not just rebuilt but a number that have been lost and should be brought back. Putting surfaces recovered. Tee boxes cleaned up and leveled, but NOT "realligned" as they were never alligned with the fairway centers.

What really is missing is the Blue course as it was. It was magnificent and better than the Red.

My opinions only, of course...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

N,

Did your friend mention his 6 hour round?

[Joe Bausch]

N,

Did your friend mention his 6 hour round?

He's actually still playing the course Steve.  That message came from his Blackberry after finishing the 15th and waiting again on the 16th tee.

 

[Noel Freeman]

I believe he had a 5.5h round.. A nice contrast to the 2h55m round I had at Deal and 3h 10m at Littlestone..

[Anthony_Nysse]

JC,
  It does matter. Why point a finger to someone who didn't do it? And to me, I think players sound like idiots when they blame the superintendent for things architecturally. Do think that he would have pointed the finger at the Supt if he saw Rees or one of Rees guys on the dozer? No, he wouldn't, so it does matter.
 
Noel-Yes, I am aware that SOME of the chages were done by the superintendent, the prios one actually. BUT, 97% of what has been don't a BB has ONLY been for the better and 97% of the golfers will noticable love playing BB, regardless of a change to #15 green. I always thought that 15 green was stupid, to0 little cupping area to be fair and certainly silly at speeds over 11.

[JC Jones]

JC,
  It does matter. Why point a finger to someone who didn't do it? And to me, I think players sound like idiots when they blame the superintendent for things architecturally. Do think that he would have pointed the finger at the Supt if he saw Rees or one of Rees guys on the dozer? No, he wouldn't, so it does matter.
 
Noel-Yes, I am aware that SOME of the chages were done by the superintendent, the prios one actually. BUT, 97% of what has been don't a BB has ONLY been for the better and 97% of the golfers will noticable love playing BB, regardless of a change to #15 green. I always thought that 15 green was stupid, to0 little cupping area to be fair and certainly silly at speeds over 11.

Anthony,

I understand that being a super you are probably hyper-sensitive to this.  However, the super, along with the rest of the staff are in the business of customer service and sometimes that means being the outlet for customer complaints.  Especially since the super/head pro are often more accessible than, say, Rees Jones.

Now, whether those comments are relayed to the party responsible or even the party who may be ultimately responsible for whatever is upsetting the customer, well, that is up to whomever received the comments.

[Phil_the_Author]

Anthony,

I have to challenge you on your judgement that 15 green was "stupid" due to "too little cupping area to be fair and certainly silly at speeds over 11."

The reason I do is because you are, in effect, stating that the green was poorly designed. The reason I think this is a wrong conclusion on your part is that until recently (after the restoration for 2002) the greens were NEVER anywhere near that speed, and in Tilly's day, if they got to 8/9 they would have been lightning fast. Also, there is a good deal of putting surface on 15 green that has never been recovered that would have allowed for more hole locations. I am hoping to see the course, and this new green, this fall and will certainly trust the observations of those on here until then...

[Noel Freeman]

JC,
  It does matter. Why point a finger to someone who didn't do it? And to me, I think players sound like idiots when they blame the superintendent for things architecturally. Do think that he would have pointed the finger at the Supt if he saw Rees or one of Rees guys on the dozer? No, he wouldn't, so it does matter.
 
Noel-Yes, I am aware that SOME of the chages were done by the superintendent, the prios one actually. BUT, 97% of what has been don't a BB has ONLY been for the better and 97% of the golfers will noticable love playing BB, regardless of a change to #15 green. I always thought that 15 green was stupid, to0 little cupping area to be fair and certainly silly at speeds over 11.

Anthony- Did you read my post?  I didnt do the critique, a friend not on GCA did.. I havent seen the black in 3y.. This person knows architecture and sent me that email which I asked him if I could post.. He thought Rees did it and made a flippant comment to a guy working on the course.. Lets drop it and focus on what seems like not good news on the course vis a vis its Tillinghast lineage.

[George Freeman]

For the record, Rees is ONLY responsible for the bunker left of 14. EVERYTHING else that has been mentioned, the bunker on 9 & 13 and the softening of the green on 15 were done and designed by others (NOT me).

Philip,

Who did those?  Was it someone in Rees's crew/team under his "supervision" or a separate architect on a separate project at a different time than the Rees renovation?

[Phil_the_Author]

George,

It wasn't until I saw your question that I realized that I typed my original post too quickly and that what I wrote didn't match my thoughts.

The bunker left of 14 was Rees' idea and design. I was there when the discussion occurred and completely agree with it. It was built in-house and not by the same crew that did the restoration. As a result, the first version was not done well and it had to be re-done. In my opinion the current version is still lacking in depth and the slope of the land in the rough on the opposite side.

The bunker on 9 was Mike Davis's idea. I also agree with this. Rees designed it and it was built in-house. This was done very well in my opinion.

The bunker on 13 has been greeted with derision since it was unveiled. Again, I think it is not well done and I was not there when it was discussed. All parties seem to believe that the other is responsible for it. I do know that it wasn't Rees or Mike Davis and am quite certain that I know who did it and will simply leave it at that.

The softening of the 15th green is a complex issue when it comes to repsonsibility. There is most certainly a space problem for finding hole locations at the higher green speeds that everyone wants. It simply evolved through various discussions and was among the last projects that Craig was involved with before he moved on.

[Keith OHalloran]

Philip,
Can you explain why there was a need for the bunker on the left of 14? Did the building of the front part of the green make it neccessary? if so, why?  Curious as the the thought pattern.
Thanks

[Phil_the_Author]

The addition of the front tongue meant that any miss left would have been into very heavy rough making any shot played out of that to a hole located into the tongue a near impossibility. Having the bunker allows for a fair hazard and punishment for the misplayed shot and an ability to hold the score to a bogey or possibly even a par with a very well-played shot.

My favorite is having the tee all the way forward on the right side and the hole cut into the front left tongue. The angles for getting a shot close make execution a matter of near perfection...

[Mike Cirba]

Noel,

Good to see your friend can still turn a pointed phrase.

I recall him here staunchly defending the work Rees did originally at BB against onslaughts contending against his purity of purpose and execution, so it is not without careful and due consideration that his comments originate, I'm sure.

Plus, he simply has a terrific eye for architecture, so hopefully his criticisms will resonate somewhere meaningful.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

The addition of the front tongue meant that any miss left would have been into very heavy rough making any shot played out of that to a hole located into the tongue a near impossibility. Having the bunker allows for a fair hazard and punishment for the misplayed shot and an ability to hold the score to a bogey or possibly even a par with a very well-played shot.

My favorite is having the tee all the way forward on the right side and the hole cut into the front left tongue. The angles for getting a shot close make execution a matter of near perfection...

Phil, it's been a few years since I've been to BB--last was w/Steve Shaffer in Fall '06.  I don't recall the 14th playing with much longer than a 7-iron.  (And, I'm an inconsistent 13 hcp.)  It's a short iron shot; is it unreasonable to ask the player to hit the green?  The "tongue" area is not too small, IMO. 

My question is, was the bunker really necessary?  Was expanding the green really necessary?  Again, IMO, I liked the idea of a shorter par 3 on the course, to counter-balance the longer 2nd, 8th, and long 17th. 

What do you think?

[Charlie Goerges]

Just for posterity I created a 3D model of the old 15th green from 1-inch contours. I'll post a couple of images. The first is a straight-on view with a parallel projection (no perspective). The male model is 6 feet tall, so you can see there is a full six feet of drop from the very back to the very front.




Another image just for the heck of it.

[Adam Clayman]

The addition of the front tongue meant that any miss left would have been into very heavy rough making any shot played out of that to a hole located into the tongue a near impossibility. Having the bunker allows for a fair hazard and punishment for the misplayed shot and an ability to hold the score to a bogey or possibly even a par with a very well-played shot.

My favorite is having the tee all the way forward on the right side and the hole cut into the front left tongue. The angles for getting a shot close make execution a matter of near perfection...

Phil, I've never been to BB, so OI'm not specifically talking about it, BUT, this justification of yours, reads like a great example of where golf has lost it's way.

Near impossibility? C'mon that's just too bad for the Best Players in the World!

A Fair hazard?  And, Punishment enough (parse) to hold to a score? (bogie)

These comments on concepts by you, may be born about because of how the game has evolved into them, but iMO, that fairness you speak of, is a runaway truck ramp on the wrong road GCA took post WWII . It is, imo, ultimately responsible for the lack of increasing participation, after 600 years of steady exponential growth.

Please, don't mistake this as a personal attack on you. i'm reacting to what I gathered from your comments in defense of what others have called questionable alterations.

[Phil_the_Author]

Adam,

The fairness of which I spoke is NOT for the pros at Opens but for the everyday GOOD player.

With that in mind, Doug, you asked two questions, "My question is, was the bunker really necessary?" Yes it was. for the fairness issue that I just mentioned.

"Was expanding the green really necessary?" It was NOT necessary to expand the green with the front tongue. Doing so makes it a better hole IMO and that is why I am all for it. It WAS necessary to expand the green in the back and back right behind bunker for two reasons. First, and I am certain this played a big part in helping the green to survive the heat this year, there was a need for more cupable space as the angle of the greens rise limits it. Secondly, and for me the more important reason, this is a return of the ORIGINAL putting surface as it was designed by Tilly.

Consider how many different ways this hole can now be played depending simply upon the combination of hole and tee location. From as little as 115 yards from front tee to front tongue to 190 yards from back tee to back of the green behind the right bunkers. It is a wonderful challenge teeing it up from the rear left and trying to fade one into the rear right corner...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()