[Phil_the_Author]

Ever since the green was softened I've seen numerous posts critical of it and many asking me what I thought of it. I was unable to comment on it as I hadn't seen it... until yesterday.

I think it was done VERY WELL!

The problem is one that is misunderstood by most and that is the true scarcity of hole locations especially for everyday play.

First of all, let me state emphatically that this was NOT recommended by the USGA & Mike Davis asked me on Monday himself if I had seen it and I told him exactly what I said above and what follows. The front was raise just enough to make it pinable while maintaing a rather dramatic short but quick downhill plunge from the large top area. The main green was sculpted down a MINIMUM... let me repeat, just a MINIMUM. This allows for many more hole locations while keeping the original contours in place just a little less drastic.

The problem with the green isn't the putting surface, but the new mound left of the green. This was created because of excess dirt brought up and a poor grading job to integrate the green into the hillside. That has to change and I've spoken to Andy (Craig;s replacement) about it.

So go ahead and tell me I'm crazy, but I was near convinced that it was botched and only stated that I would keep an open mind when in actuallity I wasn't... and was I very pleasantly surprised...

[Noel Freeman]

Phil-

Having formerly been a greens committee member at a Tillie Course where the membership wanted to flatten greens that could not be expanded much further (I was against any flattening), I have to ask you this question.

From my memory, the 15th at BPB never filled its original green pad, ie it could have been expanded.  Wouldnt that have been more in line with keeping the original intent of a Tillinghast green rather than changing or butchering (as others have put it) the contours of the green with the most character on the course.  Flattening any contour can sometimes work or sometimes it can bring us to a level of boredom.  I just dont understand why the green was not expanded and try that first.

[Phil_the_Author]

Neil,

There wasn't/isn't that much putting surface that was lost on this green. It actually is the exception to the rest of the holes because it always was a small green site. But, yes, there is some expansion that can take place and I showed that to Andy the other day and he'll be doing it. That being said, it would not have solved the problem. The green has been taking a beating for a number of years because of the paucity of hole locations. And again, there is still plenty of movement within the green and at Open speeds it will still be comparable to Augusta's which comparison was made by Davis LoveIII, Tom Lehman, and many others at past Opens.

[Matt_Ward]

Many Tillie courses are hurt by the desire to cut greens to the low heights you see today.

Tillie didn't envision the incredible speed many of these greens are now played at now.

Raise the mowing height just a tad and many of the existing contours and pitches would be just fine. When people want 12-13 or more overall speed simple gravity will not permit many pin locations -- the 15th at BB especially.

The other factor to keep in mind the hole has been lengthened excessively and the approach play is clearly impacted by the trajectory (lack thereof) that results from such a steep rise to the target.

Pushing the tee even further back -- the US Open back tee was not used because grandstands were situated in and around the aforementioned area.

[Richard Choi]

Philip, I respectfully disagree.

15th green used to be something to be feared. It was a green that was in your mind as soon as you stepped on to the first tee, and especially when you walk off the 14th and cross the road.

The current iteration has none of the fear factor. The back part of the green is quite flat. While that may be great for multiple pin location, it really changes the whole tenor of the hole. You say it is less drastic, but that is like saying Minnesota Vikings without Favre is just little less intimidating (at least last year).

I agree Matt that slowing down or even expanding the green would have been a better choice.

[Phil_the_Author]

Richard,

There isn't much relatively flat space to expand the green onto. Secondly it isn't a case of slowing it down. They keep the green about 9 for public play. I agree in that I would not have wanted to see it changed at all, but the fact remains that the green has been taking a TREMENDOUS beating because of the lack of useable hole locations.

Certainly you would be among the first to say cut down the damn trees in order to save the turf; this is exactly the same situation. It needed softening in order to save the turf.

This year Bethpage will have 20,000 fewer rounds played there over the 5 courses, yet there will actuallly be MORE rounds played on the Black. In addition, Bethpage has now seen a cut for its maintenance budget by 25% for this past year and is looking at another one for next year. They have lost 10 full-time workers, 6 of whom were assigned to the care of The Black course, that aren't going to be replaced.

The reality is that this will save the green for hopefully better days that may be coming.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard Choi,

Do you really believe that they'd slow this green down for a U.S. Open and PGA Championship ?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The changes to the 15th green are nothing less than boring generic leveling.  For this year's NY Open I had to alter my topographical map from the 2009 Players Book, and found very little variation in slope from back to front.  Left back side of the green from 7 feet from the fringe runs at 1.4 degrees in the back pinnable area,,  to 2.0 degrees in the middle pinnable area, to 2.6 dgrees in ther pinnable area just above the tier.  The right side of the green has a very consistent 1.8 degree slope.  The most unsettling part of the the green is how consistent the sloping works from back to front--this could easily have had the precision of a concrete contractor building a courtyard!  The change was a major point of discussion among contestants this year and I am not aware of anyone who thought that the new green was an improvement.  In this era of topographical mapping, a computer program could have come up with a formula for a softer back part of the green and still retained the exciting slopes.

[Matt_Ward]

RMD:

Great line -- "the precision of a concrete contractor building a courtyard!"

Well said on the importance in getting the slopes mapped prior to the work.

[Richard Choi]

Richard Choi,

Do you really believe that they'd slow this green down for a U.S. Open and PGA Championship ?

No, but I think the greens survived just fine as is (were) during those US Opens. You can slow it down for the everyday play so that more pinnable areas are available.

[Phil_the_Author]

Robert,

I didn't say that "the new green was an improvement" and regardless of what those who played during the New York State Open believe, they were putting on a green that was barely alive. After the change to the green combined with the intense heat of the year leading up to it, the green was barely there and the hole locations for the Open were all simple ones.

The green needs to grow in before critical analysis of it can be given based upon any tournament.

Yet the bottom line remains, there was a desperate need for more day-to-day hole locations especially with the amount of play it has been getting.

Would I prefer the old green be back. Most definitely yes! But what I find the height of irony in this is not a single person has mentioned that they want the ACTUAL ORIGINAL old green back, the green pre-Rees which had a more dramatic front and greater middle-left to left contours. These were softened for the 2002 Open.

Amazing with all of the bashing that goes on toward Rees that the "good old days" for this green is actually not that old and how much they want "Rees" back!  

Richard, again, it isn't anything at all to do with the Opens, but rather that the need for more hole locations could ONLY be solved by softening. The only way to "slow it down" enough to create realistic new hole locations would have been to cut it in the 8 range if not a bit slower... That, of course, was never an option.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()