[Keith OHalloran]

According to New York Newsday page A53, Brittany Lincicome stated, "The greens were so hilly, there were a lot of tricks to that golf course" when asked about Sebonack. To be fair, there were two other pros interviewed who did not say this in the interview. I do wonder how they will do next year.

[Tom_Doak]

There are a lot of tricks to that golf course.

[jeffwarne]

There are a lot of tricks to that golf course.

How can they play a US Open there if it's not all out in front of you?
Looking forward to some good player/caddie discussions

[Brent Hutto]

Well coming from a touring professional that's mighty high praise indeed, by Treehouse (tm) standards. For my part it sounds like real fun. I love me some greens with tricks. Any tricks out there tee to green?

[Howard Riefs]

"The greens were so hilly, there were a lot of tricks to that golf course" when asked about Sebonack. 

If memory serves, Tom and his team designed the greens at Sebonack.  Did the Sebonack greens have a significant influence on Nicklaus' 'hilly' and severe designed greens at Harbor Shores and Dove Mountain, which opened a few years later? Or was Jack already moving in this direction?

[Matt MacIver]

There are a lot of tricks to that golf course.

Probably too early to start asking, but given the "tricks":

How will the course be maintained/presented? 

Assuming "normal" weather what will the winning score be? 

Will pace of play be even more a factor?  How many penalties will be doled out? 

[Adam Clayman]

My guess is they will have to play it very short. The high 70 rounds we saw this last weekend in Kohler will be great scores, if they try to play a long Sebonack.

[Tom_Doak]

"The greens were so hilly, there were a lot of tricks to that golf course" when asked about Sebonack. 

If memory serves, Tom and his team designed the greens at Sebonack.  Did the Sebonack greens have a significant influence on Nicklaus' 'hilly' and severe designed greens at Harbor Shores and Dove Mountain, which opened a few years later? Or was Jack already moving in this direction?

Howard:

My crew SHAPED all the greens at Sebonack, but we did not design them by ourselves.  Mr. Nicklaus approved every one of them [except perhaps the new 14th -- I don't know what happened there].

I did at one point try to go back and determine which person was most responsible for the final version of each individual green.  As I recall, I had Jack Nicklaus down for 5, Jim Urbina down for 5 [but one of those was the original 14th  ], myself down for 4, and my associates Brian Schneider and Brian Slawnik and Eric Iverson for the others ... or something close to that anyway.

[Howard Riefs]

Howard:

My crew SHAPED all the greens at Sebonack, but we did not design them by ourselves.  Mr. Nicklaus approved every one of them [except perhaps the new 14th -- I don't know what happened there].

I did at one point try to go back and determine which person was most responsible for the final version of each individual green.  As I recall, I had Jack Nicklaus down for 5, Jim Urbina down for 5 [but one of those was the original 14th   ], myself down for 4, and my associates Brian Schneider and Brian Slawnik and Eric Iverson for the others ... or something close to that anyway.

My error. Thanks for the correction.

The new #14 green certainly looks troublesome at 9 on a stimp let alone 13.  Photos from Brian Sheehy's tour (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50322.0.html)

[Mark Woodger]

imho there nothing wrong with hills/slopes/"tricks" on a green providing they are at the right speed where the contours do not create an impossible shot.

unfortunately i have experienced a situation where i am at the back of the green in regulation and the slope of the green means i have almost zero change of getting it within 5 feet and more than likely it will be on the fringe. Some might argue that i should hit it short to give myself an uphill putt but as a 11 handicapper i don't always execute what was intended and the punishment despite hitting the green is a near certain 3 putt. I hate this type of golf course where there is no consideration for the slopes on the green before determining the pace and which they should be maintained.

I would venture to suggest that many links courses in GB&I get this just about right and i think this is vital to giving the "average" golfer an enjoyable experience.

Unfortunately i have not had the pleasure of visiting Sebonak but looking at those pictures that green look like great fun. Of those who have played that green could you putt from the upper tier to the lower tier and keep it on the green?

[jonathan_becker]

Of those who have played that green could you putt from the upper tier to the lower tier and keep it on the green?

That's my ball on the upper tier left of the flag in the photos.  Keep it on the green? I was just trying to keep that ball on the same hole!  I lagged it to the edge of the ridge and then it was outta here.

That day though, Mike Davis and company were out playing and scoping the course.  The greens were at 13, and overall, I didn't have much success with those speeds.

[bstark]

"But out on Peconic Bay, it's windy every single day. So the setup is going to be based solely on wind," said Ben Kimball, the USGA's official in charge of the women's Open.

As Peter Griffin would say....Ya know what really grinds my gears?;  The USGA thinking they need to chronically tinker at their chosen venues. The level of micro management seems to become more and more year after year. As an example, the above statement is simply not true. I live on Peconic Bay and there are days with minimal or no wind. So what is the USGA to do if the wind doesn't blow everyday? How bout this novel approach...Stick the tees in ground, cut em and roll em, and let the scores fall where they may. But it won't happen because they try to 'defend par' like it's a nuclear facility. If it is a great track and they all play under the same conditions then doesn't that automatically 'identify' the best golfer over the four days? Why all the contrived tricks?

[Ben Sims]

It all depends on the distance they play it from.  Hearsay from a half dozen employees a month ago was that Mr. Pascucci wanted Sebonack in the record books.  Some said that meant the longest women's Open in history, some said that meant the highest winning score.  

There are definitely some holes the ladies will have trouble on based on their clubhead speeds with mid-irons down to wedges.  In true Nicklaus form, there are some brutally difficult approach shots out there.  I don't see how any of them will recover from anywhere off the green (except maybe short right) on #3.  #11 will be another tough approach for them.  I suspect that on the aforementioned #14, most caddies will be under-clubbing their player in hopes of not being above the hole.  

Watching the pro women play, they seem to be adept at "aggressive leaves", where they hit an aggressive shot to an open area when faced with a carry they can't make or a green they can't hold.  At Sebonack, that frequently leaves them with a very tough up and down to a green sloping away.  At 13ft on a stimpmeter, that's a tall order for any player.  

It was just one play, but I feel like I saw enough to make a judgment call on the difficulty of the golf course.  It is without question the most difficult course of Doak's that I've played.  I think the trouble with Sebonack as an Open venue--especially for the ladies--is trying to take the difficulty out of the golf course for what Mr. Davis prefers setup-wise.  It is going to be an interesting case study no doubt.  

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

Sebonack is certainly the hardest course I've ever been involved with ... per the client's wishes.

As hard as we all think it is, though, some of the nicest comments I've ever had about the course are from women who played it fairly often.  Julian Robertson's late wife, Josie, was the first women's club champion there, and though she was a very good golfer I don't think her clubhead speed was especially noteworthy.  For that matter, neither is Mr. Pascucci's, and I've seen him get it up and down from the front bunker on #3 that you are so concerned about.

The golf course is very playable, as long as you aren't playing from too far back for your ability, and the greens don't get too fast with the wind.  But that last factor is out of the USGA's control, so I hope they will hedge their bets a bit on the parts they do control. 

[Sean Leary]

What's funny to me is that there is a country full of great golf courses that are too short for a mens US Open yet the USGA goes to places like Sebonack that could handle the men.

[Mike Hendren]

"But out on Peconic Bay, it's windy every single day. So the setup is going to be based solely on wind," said Ben Kimball, the USGA's official in charge of the women's Open.

As Peter Griffin would say....Ya know what really grinds my gears?;  The USGA thinking they need to chronically tinker at their chosen venues. The level of micro management seems to become more and more year after year. As an example, the above statement is simply not true. I live on Peconic Bay and there are days with minimal or no wind. So what is the USGA to do if the wind doesn't blow everyday? How bout this novel approach...Stick the tees in ground, cut em and roll em, and let the scores fall where they may. But it won't happen because they try to 'defend par' like it's a nuclear facility. If it is a great track and they all play under the same conditions then doesn't that automatically 'identify' the best golfer over the four days? Why all the contrived tricks?

Well said.

+1.  Arguably, Mike Davis is the busiest architect in the business.  Oh wait, he's not one.

[Garland Bayley]

"But out on Peconic Bay, it's windy every single day. So the setup is going to be based solely on wind," said Ben Kimball, the USGA's official in charge of the women's Open.

As Peter Griffin would say....Ya know what really grinds my gears?;  The USGA thinking they need to chronically tinker at their chosen venues. The level of micro management seems to become more and more year after year. As an example, the above statement is simply not true. I live on Peconic Bay and there are days with minimal or no wind. So what is the USGA to do if the wind doesn't blow everyday? How bout this novel approach...Stick the tees in ground, cut em and roll em, and let the scores fall where they may. But it won't happen because they try to 'defend par' like it's a nuclear facility. If it is a great track and they all play under the same conditions then doesn't that automatically 'identify' the best golfer over the four days? Why all the contrived tricks?

Well said.

+1.  Arguably, Mike Davis is the busiest architect in the business.  Oh wait, he's not one.

He may not be an architect, but he is a roaming rogue Green Committee Chairman.

[Ben Sims]

Ben:

Sebonack is certainly the hardest course I've ever been involved with ... per the client's wishes.

As hard as we all think it is, though, some of the nicest comments I've ever had about the course are from women who played it fairly often.  Julian Robertson's late wife, Josie, was the first women's club champion there, and though she was a very good golfer I don't think her clubhead speed was especially noteworthy.  For that matter, neither is Mr. Pascucci's, and I've seen him get it up and down from the front bunker on #3 that you are so concerned about.

The golf course is very playable, as long as you aren't playing from too far back for your ability, and the greens don't get too fast with the wind.  But that last factor is out of the USGA's control, so I hope they will hedge their bets a bit on the parts they do control.  

Tom,

I agree that the golf course is far more playable than most "Open layouts."  However, it still does not change the fact that at 6700+yds--as I suspect that will be the common yardage for the tournament--some of those approach shots will be downright brutal for ladies.  What is the average driver distance for them?  250-260?  On holes like 3, 7, 11, and 14, where does that leave these ladies?

Look, I am not saying that it is a poor venue for a championship.  Not at all.  I was commenting on what the club said was a wish for extreme length and high scores.  Sebonack--with the spurs put to it--certainly has the requisite variables to create some huge playability dilemmas.  

I played golf with a newly hired assistant women's coach at the University of Georgia last week.  We played the tips at Beaver Creek, an older mountain layout in the Vail valley.  Probably played 6650yds.  I was routinely outdriving her by 60-70 yds.  We played straight up in a match. I am a 12.4, she is a +1.  She won 2&1 on the 17th green with a great par putt.  What does that tell you about length being a huge issue in terms of playability, even for the pros?

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

You shouldn't be comparing an assistant college coach to the pros.  You are not outdriving Laura Davies by 70-80 yards.  And she is 40th on the list on the LPGA tour this year, with an average drive is listed at 258 yards.  [Those stats are always mis-leading.  Not many players on the men's tour are listed over 300 yards, and we both know that the majority of them can drive it 300+.]

I've hit 7-iron into #3 from the tee they are likely to be playing.  [Surely they won't play from behind #2 green, or there would be no place for spectators at all there.]  You are right that #7 and #11 will both be very difficult if they are set up too long.  #14, I don't know anymore, but I'd guess it's very hard.

[Ben Sims]

Brian,

I am no monster hitter.  She was placing the ball around 240-250 on each hole.  And at 8000ft elevation, 300-320yds is no big deal off the tee. 

Tom,

You are more than correct, the comparison isn't perfectly appropriate.  But I wasn't comparing her to the pros, I was comparing how relatively difficult the course became for her at the distance we played it vs. a hack like me.  There is a point of diminishing returns with regard to lengthening and tinkering, yes?

When we got back to Denver and we watched Blackwolf for a few minutes.  They were playing the long one-shotter on the back nine (13 perhaps?) for most of the 15 minutes we watched.  She knew many of the players from tournaments in her college days and would comment on how difficult a par 3 at over 200yds was for all female pros.  Three groups came by, all used 3 iron or longer.  2 balls were GIRS out of 9 players.   

This illustrates for me why it will be foolish to focus on length for the women's open at Sebonack.  I hope they don't fiddle too much and try and get it to 6800+ or something preposterous.  Those holes are more than capable of taxing the pro ladies at a much shorter distance than was being thrown around by some of the staff when I was there.

For what it is worth, 14 is actually longer now. 

[Mark Pritchett]

Par 3s over 200 yards are difficult for everyone. 

[Tim Martin]

It all depends on the distance they play it from.  Hearsay from a half dozen employees a month ago was that Mr. Pascucci wanted Sebonack in the record books.  Some said that meant the longest women's Open in history, some said that meant the highest winning score.  

There are definitely some holes the ladies will have trouble on based on their clubhead speeds with mid-irons down to wedges.  In true Nicklaus form, there are some brutally difficult approach shots out there.  I don't see how any of them will recover from anywhere off the green (except maybe short right) on #3.  #11 will be another tough approach for them.  I suspect that on the aforementioned #14, most caddies will be under-clubbing their player in hopes of not being above the hole.  

Watching the pro women play, they seem to be adept at "aggressive leaves", where they hit an aggressive shot to an open area when faced with a carry they can't make or a green they can't hold.  At Sebonack, that frequently leaves them with a very tough up and down to a green sloping away.  At 13ft on a stimpmeter, that's a tall order for any player.  

It was just one play, but I feel like I saw enough to make a judgment call on the difficulty of the golf course.  It is without question the most difficult course of Doak's that I've played.  I think the trouble with Sebonack as an Open venue--especially for the ladies--is trying to take the difficulty out of the golf course for what Mr. Davis prefers setup-wise.  It is going to be an interesting case study no doubt.  

Although I don`t doubt that you heard what you mentioned I can`t see where any cache would be derived by having either the longest yardage or the highest scores from Mr. Pascucci`s perspective. Additionally I can`t imagine that Mr. Pascucci will have that much say in the setup. Mike Davis has a pretty good track record of getting it right.

[jeffwarne]

Ben:

Sebonack is certainly the hardest course I've ever been involved with ... per the client's wishes.

As hard as we all think it is, though, some of the nicest comments I've ever had about the course are from women who played it fairly often.  Julian Robertson's late wife, Josie, was the first women's club champion there, and though she was a very good golfer I don't think her clubhead speed was especially noteworthy.  For that matter, neither is Mr. Pascucci's, and I've seen him get it up and down from the front bunker on #3 that you are so concerned about.

The golf course is very playable, as long as you aren't playing from too far back for your ability, and the greens don't get too fast with the wind.  But that last factor is out of the USGA's control, so I hope they will hedge their bets a bit on the parts they do control.  

Tom,

I agree that the golf course is far more playable than most "Open layouts."  However, it still does not change the fact that at 6700+yds--as I suspect that will be the common yardage for the tournament--some of those approach shots will be downright brutal for ladies.  What is the average driver distance for them?  250-260?  On holes like 3, 7, 11, and 14, where does that leave these ladies?

Look, I am not saying that it is a poor venue for a championship.  Not at all.  I was commenting on what the club said was a wish for extreme length and high scores.  Sebonack--with the spurs put to it--certainly has the requisite variables to create some huge playability dilemmas.  

I played golf with a newly hired assistant women's coach at the University of Georgia last week.  We played the tips at Beaver Creek, an older mountain layout in the Vail valley.  Probably played 6650yds.  I was routinely outdriving her by 60-70 yds.  We played straight up in a match. I am a 12.4, she is a +1.  She won 2&1 on the 17th green with a great par putt.  What does that tell you about length being a huge issue in terms of playability, even for the pros?

That tells me what we already knew.
You get way too many shots.
and that she's either been working too hard   or has a vanity handicap

12.4's don't beat +1's ever, anywhere, from any tees

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Isn't a +1 women's handicap approximately equal to a 6 or 7 men's handicap?  They do have different formulas for the course ratings for men and women, and length is a huge part of the difference.

[Tom Yost]

Don't know if the math works out but Brandel Chamblee was saying that the Women's Open setup at Blackwolf at 6900 yards would be equivalent to 8000 yards for men.

Whoa.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()