Should the Greens at Bethpage be RENOVATED?

[GeoffreyC]

I have not totally made up my mind on this so lets discuss the issue and see if I can be convinced one way or the other.

Its clear to me that as many as half of the greens at Bethpage Black are not up to the standard that Tillinghast set in every other course he built and they are not in the same universe as Winged Foot, Quaker RIdge or especially Fenway.

We speak often with reverence to the classics of the golden age and generally to touch them or alter them from some state seen in an old aerial or other photos is akin to treason.  However, is Bethpage Black the exception to the rule?  Clearly the course COULD be improved with greens that have character.  Should it be attempted and what model system/course would be best to emulate?  Certainly, we would want to absolutely maintain and utilize the bunkers that are in place.

[Paul Richards]

GeoffreyC:

The greens at Bethpage are rather blah.

However, the rest of the course is pretty spectacular.

[Anthony_Nysse]

The greens at The Black are too flat. Rees took a lot of the contours out, with the thinking that they could run the speeds to 13-14 on the Stimp. Those greens are great running 10-11 for regular play, but the pros are way too good and will putt very well. The pros welcome speed when the greens are flat.

[Matt_Ward]

GeoffreyC:

Hard to answer but I'll take a stab. I think if you cut down the size of some of the putting surfaces at the Black and pushed the existing bunkers closer to the targets you would have a more exacting hole -- i.e. heck, the 2nd at the Black is so big you could have a doubles tennis match with room to spare. If you eliminated the right third of the 2nd hole and pushed the existing bunkers closer to the target you'd have a much improved hole -- for good measure you could also add some contour but not to any extreme. Putting in my mind should not be wind mills, hitting in the clown's mouth, loop to loop type stuff -- you get my drift.

Take Tillie's effort at Winged Foot -- arguably the toughest 2nd shot course in America as it pertains to the par-4 holes. You just NEVER luck out a poor iron at WF / West or East. Indifferent chipping and sand play is also a major no-no.

When the pins are placed in the corners the pins look like toothpicks swallowed up by the oversize bunkers that envelope the targets. Love Hogans' line about the 10th at WF / West -- like hitting a long iron into someone's kitchen (did I say that right?). The Black could do much of the same since many of the holes have elevated targets. You don't need sweeping monster contours like Oakland Hills / South or Oakmont, but replicating such greens as the 11th, 14th, 15th and 17th is the way to go in my mind.

Why the USGA and NY State opted against it is really something that amazes me because they would have elevated a superior course and made it among the very best in America.
A pity.

Rees did a bit of this type of thinking in reconfiguring the 18th green with the front right hand bunker that's been extended. He made the 18th a bit smaller (I think he could have went further) and the approach angles now present some additional thought. The hole is not a great one clearly, but it did make some sort of improvement in addition to the increased yardage. Too bad the 18th could not be situated behind the two large sand traps that protect the rear of the putting surface -- clearly the green would be too near the existing clubhouse. For years many people (myself included) actually thought the original green was back there but I was told by key players at the Black that never happened. I stil wonder why Tillie had two large bunkers put there because I can literally count on my one hand the times I have seen a person in those bunkers.

[Patrick Hitt]

Matt,
I've been in the back left bunker alot more than the old front right.
Anthony,
I don't know how many of the greens Rees actually changed.

I don't know why anyone would change these greens. When you can begin to justify changes to a course, the subjectivity becomes a slippery slope. I didn't save the old discussion from a year or three ago about whether or not Tillie had anything to do with the actual construction, but I would guess that part of the lack of character in the greens would be tied to this issue. Either way I say leave them alone and focus efforts on restoring the red to her former glory as well. People who skip the red are missing alot more Tillie features like the sahara like feature that splits the 13 (?).
I was very happy to see that one of my former home tracks was not treated like East Lake and I'd just assume to keep it that way.

[Matt_Ward]

Patrick:

Amen to your comments on the Red Course -- it's a honey of a layout and often gets little comments from everyone running to play the Black. It's time for an upgrade on that course because it is a strong course in its own way.

I just think that some of the greens at the Black (I said about six of them need updating) that's all. The rest are fine. I completely understand your concerns that sometimes when renovation / modernization / restoriation / whatever one wants to call it -- can and in some cases does get carried away.

P.S. I guess I can add you to my short list of people who actually made it to the back bunkers on #18.

[Richard Mandell]

Great question GeoffreyC.  I'm a recent visitor to GCA and first-time "poster" and its great to talk about Bethpage.  Bethpage has been my favorite golf course for years and I recently returned last October (first time since 1992) and enjoyed it immensely.

In answer to your question, Bethpage Black SHOULD NOT HAVE ITS GREENS RENOVATED.  If one made those greens like other Tillinghast courses such as Winged Foot, Baltusrol, of Five Farms, Bethpage would clearly be one of the three toughest golf courses in the country  (Tough does NOT mean great design).

Tillinghast intentionally minimized the green slopes at Bethpage being sensitive to the market he was designing for, PUBLIC GOLF.  His other courses were built for fame and difficulty ("Give us a man-sized course (Winged Foot)). The USGA should be applauded by not insisting Jones renovate the greens.  Here is a true example of the USGA displaying forward thinking in recognizing that Bethpage will be primarily public golf after June 2002 and lots of golfers will be very upset if those greens were toughened up.

Bethpage does not need 12-13 stimped greens, which by the way also does not constitute good golf course design.  The course, from tee to green is very challenging as it is. Who cares if the pros putt lights out, really?  If people could stop worrying about less than 1/2% of all golfers (pros) in discussing design, we would all have better and more affordable golf course designs at our disposal.

[JakaB]

Richard,

I respect your opinion but just have to ask...What did you think of the review of your course in Golfdigest.com that was just posted today.

[Richard Mandell]

Wow-  You guys move fast.  I'm found out already.  

In response to your question about the Golf Digest review, I thought it was very honest.  The fact with that particular project was that it was a terrible site when we started.  In addition to the fact that it was already started and people were already living on the course, I had to negotiate 60 acres of wetlands and a Corps of Engineers that was already mad because the previous developer filled wetlands without a permit.  We also had about $2.5 million to spend.  

Ron Whitten was very accurate in the criticisms of the golf course, sentiments I share because they are the truth.  I like to think that my design effort overcame the circumstances of the site and judged on architectural merit alone, the course rates around a seven, which Whitten pointed out.  I do wish that the influence of the residential component was better compartmentalized by Mr. Whitten.

I think he clearly pointed out my design goals and successes and hope that is apparent to those who read the review.  What did you think?  

[GeoffreyC]

Richard

 I also strongly feel that the Red is a wonderful course worthy of restoration and any money spent to spruce it up.


Very good answer.  Just to be devils advocate here, Bethpage has 4 other courses for everyone to enjoy.  Why not take the chance to put some character around the greens on #'s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10.  Playing at everyday speeds would it not add interest and not just difficulty to the course? I'd really like to know if Tillinghast intentionally built greens that way or if someone else was responsible for the greens.

I would usually never even think of changing one of the classic golf courses of the golden age and I am fighting like hell to properly restore my home course but might this be the ONE course around where change is warranted?

I couldn't care less what scores the pros shoot next year. My thinking here is absolutely NOT for the pros playing an Open every 10 years but to make it a better golf course.

Matt- I heard the story about the 18th hole being much longer back in the beginning days based on those bunkers behind the old green.  However, if you look at the 1935 aerial in the 2nd Tillinghast book (Bethpage chapter), the greensite is exactly were the one we played so many times was located.  That aerial also has some additional revelations like a beautiful fairway bunker on the inside of the dogleg on #1 rateher then the trees and a different looking and much smaller right fairway bunker on #5.

[Richard Madnell]

Geoffrey:

There are places on the Black Course where some character can be added to the greens with the intention of creating interest.  Specifically responding to your question, I can see #3 as a candidate before the others.  The other holes are challenging enough for public golf.  The big question is how are you defining everyday speeds, because everyday speeds nowadays are too quick for most of the greens being built today, and for that matter most greens built previously.  As long as the green speeds at Bethpage remain reasonable, I think some character can be added.  

My earlier comments on not changing Black were not from a restoration angle but a playability angle.  The whole restoration concept is a dicey though process as it is, especially in discussing who did what, when and where.  

[GeoffreyC]

Richard

I understand completely what you are saying. I was one who supported the work done by Rees since I had a lot of first hand experience about how BAD it was before.  The old Pine Valley look to the bunkers was nice and I would like it if that could be maintained but PV does not get the play that BB does.

When you say "The other holes are challenging enough for public golf" I have to cringe a bit.  Why doesn't the public deserve to play the best possible course that could be built on that property?  Remember the sign by the first tee.  Again, there are 4 other courses including the Red course that are all fine public golf courses. As long as the Rangers move play along then I see nothing wrong with the public playing what could be a top ten golf course.

[Richard Mandell]

Geoffrey:

Forgive me, I am still learning to be as clear as possible with my thoughts and don't want to be misunderstood.  I don't mean that the remaining golf holes are challenging enough for public golf.  I really mean they are challenging enough for ALL GOLFERS.  It does not matter if they are Public golfers or Private golfers.

I make my living designing much more public golf courses than private golf courses and continually strive to create the best golf course regardless of who is playing the course.  When I saw your response, I cringed myself.  Please understand my correct position.

Thanks for making me clarify my thoughts.  I'll do better next time!  

[Matt_Ward]

One of the virtues in having 90 holes of golf (5 individual courses at one facility) is the wherewithal to make the Black the kind of course it should be. For too long the powers that be failed to understand what a jewel they had -- a masterpiece that needed some fine tuning and TLC which is now happening through the excellent work of their new superintendent and staff.

GeoffreyC:

Right on target about the sign at the first tee ... "Warning the Black is extremely difficult golf course and is recommended only for highly skilled golfers." Those are not empty words or some PR fluff.

This sign means if you duff the ball -- play military golf (right / left / right) you have no business on the Black. You will simply become massively frustrated and so will those poor souls who happen to play behind you. The Black pays no heed to any golfer who fails to deliver quality shots time after time even with indifferent putting surfaces on a third of the holes in my opinion.

When you have a jewel of a piece of property that the Black exists on I think you have to max out the opportunity in making it the best golf course possible.

My frustration GeoffreyC is that pace of play at the Black is akin to the death march you often get at PB and a number of high profile public courses. I can remember the last time I got to the 2nd tee at the Black -- there were 3-4 groups waiting to play that hole. What did they eventually do? Half of them started to practice putt and chip at the nearby 17th hole on the Green Course! The facility is doing a better job with pace of play but more must be done -- especially after the Open finishes and more players than ever before will be chomping at the bit to play it.

I don't want the Black to be dumbed down. I want it to be the snarling non-negotiable beast that gives credence to its name ... B-L-A-C-K. Golfers should know, even fear, that mistakes will result in the lights going out real fast. When that happens you will know the meaning of how dark things can become on the course.

Richard:

With all due respect, when you say "playability" at the Black you can all but eliminate 2/3's of the people who simply cannot deliver the type of shotmaking the Black calls for -- and I mean this BEFORE all the renovations were made to the course. The terrain in itself is difficult to walk for a good portion of players who are used to an all-day picnic when they play. What should they do? How about going over to the other solid courses at the facility?

Think of skiing -- you have double diamond hills. You know what that means -- stay the hell off this slope unless you want to be in traction for the next few weeks.

A simple changing of about six greens would make the Black equal to any course among America's finest -- an opportunity was there and I'm afraid it was missed.

GeoffreyC:

Don't know if you are aware but the USGA will grow rough (about 1-2 inches in height) at the base of the 6th hole. Sorry to see this. Why eliminate the risk and reward feature and make this just an iron to the top of the hill hole?

As far as the 1st hole is concerned I think having an inside bunker would have been a better solution than the planting of ash trees -- unless the tee is placed to the far right you will have players easily angling over the corner with little fear. I do it now and have had as little as 100 yards into the green. A massive nunker at the corner would really make the decision to be bold a bit more demanding than it is now.

[Ran Morrissett]

Geoffrey,

A very interesting question, especially since Tillinghast didn't last for the whole project as I understand it.

The guiding key for me if I was on the "board" would be in the research. Perhaps Tillinghast had his own reasons for being restrained? Or perhaps the research will clearly show that he left the project well before the greens were done? Who knows but I would let that info guide the decision making process.

Personally, I don't see how Tillie would have been satisfied with the end 18 greens on the Black course. I say that a) based on the amazing character of the 7/8 other sets of Tillie greens that I've seen and b) based on the fact that he had Pine Valley (talk about greens!) rumbling around in his mind as he was laying out Bethpage.

I remember telling my brother when I first heard that they were going to work on the 18th hole, " If they create a short finisher with a killer green ala 18 at Olympic GC, less people will grumble about the Black's greens." My point at the time was that even just one killer green can make a big difference in how people perceive the entire set.

Perhaps juicing up JUST a couple of greens by taking more advantage of the back to front pitch of a green site (such as the 18th) may be all that is required to give the golfer a greater sense of short game interest. However, that is strictly a PERSONAL opinion and I would never be so dumb as to suggest that a personal view should supersede those of a master architect.

It would be very interesting indeed to find what info would/could be unturned through careful research on the subject of Tillie and his involvement with the greens at Bethpage Black.

Cheers,

[Richard Mandell]

Matt:

Regarding playability and the Black course, regardless of signs and past difficulties on the Black, 2/3 of the golfers playing the Black shouldn't be out there anyway, yet they still come.  The reason there is always a wait on 2 tee is because people are all over the place ahead of you.  That is why it take six hours to play for anyone.  That is true now and it was true ten years ago.

The fact remains that Bethpage Black is a public golf course and those greens shouldn't be so vastly altered that they are like Winged Foot or Baltusrol.  This is so not because public golfers deserve less (they do not), it is because the amount of play at a public course is typically more than a private course and pace of play is the name of the game in that respect.  Again, I don't think Tillinghast missed out on an opportunity, he matched his design for the market it was targeted for.  He should be rewarded for that, as many Architects (past and current) miss this boat a lot.  

[GeoffreyC]

Matt and Richard

I've only had a chance to play the Black twice since the work by Rees was finished.  Each time is was SHOCKED to see an empty tee at #2.  I think the 10 minute interval between tee times has helped a lot   .  Furthermore, one round was completed in 4 1/2 hours and the other in 4:40.  While hardly a sprint that is not too bad for a very difficult course over challenging terrain.  The staff should be commended for this achievement. I don't know your experiences lately but I've heard from others that it's much better now (no more 45 minute waits at #6 tee either   .

Ran- Thank you for bringing me back to earth a bit on the issue.  As one who is constantly criticisizing the Yale project because of what I think is their lack of research into the "restoration" I should know better.  Also, seeing the amazing things that my buddy George Bahto comes up with in his research I should know that's first way to go before touching any classic course.  Shame on me.

 :-/ However, suppose extensive research could not uncover any thoughts plus or minus about the greens as they were originally built.  Would you TRY to make the course more interesting around the greens?  I think we all agree that the course COULD actually be improved if something were done.

[Ran Morrissett]

Geoffrey, I can't hazard a guess to your question since I have only played the course once and that was in 1986.

Would wilder greens actually make it a more enjoyable course or are the greens a good fit given the rigorous (!) tee to green challenge? As at Royal County Down, wild greens might snuff the enjoyment simply because the difficulty level could/would go over the top.

I hope Rick Wolffe will see this thread and respond.

[Paul Richards]

Ran:

I would side with your statement:
>As at Royal County Down, wild greens might snuff the
>enjoyment simply because the difficulty level could/would go
>over the top.

The course presents enough of a challenge as it is now.  If
you were to make the greens much more difficult, it might
not be playable!  In fact, it would probably not be enjoyable
either.  

As in a past thread, I hardly think RCD's greens are "easy" or
lame, however, Bethpage's are quite flat.  Which, running at
13 or 14 on the Stimp as they will be at the US Open, is just
fine.

The real test will come this summer when the Big Boys try it out!

[Ran Morrissett]

Paul,

As to your last sentence, just how important is this upcoming week in June relative to the enjoyment and deep felt satisfaction that the course has provided for 65 plus years?  

Yes, it's the most high profile event imaginable but is that REALLY the test that should measure the worth of Bethpage Black?

I wonder.

Cheers,

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

You can have both. The issue we are discussing is not en either (impossible to putt greens) or (cotinuation with six greens that are "dead" flat and boring).

Pebble Beach is public and has some of the most unique putting surfaces around -- they are small and contoured appropriately. Why can't the Black have the same thing?

In my mind when you have multiple courses at one operation (Bethpage is clearly a grand place to play) you have different opportunities / challenges than with one course that stands alone. You can filter play to the other courses without upsetting regular patrons.

When I was younger I can remember being admonished by well meaning rangers that if you can't play well -- play fast. Today, the second part of the equation is not present. Bethpage has indeed improved its pace of play but it's still a haul on many days.

No one (least of all me) is saying the Black must have green like Oakmont / Winged Foot / Somerset Hills. The tee-to-green challenge is clearly there but the greens in question are utterly forgettable and how the USGA / NY State missed the boat is still perplexing to me.

Just remember -- I'm not saying it's got to be one way or the other. You can accomplish both so that the Open presents a unique and exciting event that special week of June and right after the event finishes you can still provide the kind of challenge for the paying public for the remainder of that year and beyond.

It can be done -- what's needed? A vision that upgrades what lacks in certain places. Nothing more and nothing less.