[Patrick_Mucci]

competitive hole locations.

The USGA Women's Open is scheduled for Sebonack for June 24-30.
If the conditions were as they were today, 300 would run away with the tournament.

But, the USGA and TV would not seek to embarrass the field and Women's golf, hence, I sense a benign setup, to the extent that's possible.

This past weekend they held their 2-3 day member guest and the course was incredibly challenging.

In a previous thread I had indicated that I knew who the winner would be and perhap who the non-winners would be.

When you have to putt defensively on 10 foot birdie putts, hoping you don't run it 6 feet by, you know it's challenging.

In the playoff, one of the contestants hit it to 10 feet and looked like a sure winner as only two other teams hit the green and they were 40-50 feet away.

From 10 feet, his partner rolled it 8 feet past, into that wind.

On the first hole, yesterday, the hole was on the knob/ridge.
As Yogi said, "you can't get there from here"

While Sebonack is generous off the tee, with wind and firm, fast greens, scores would be incredibly high.

It may be one of the most difficult courses, greenwise, in the country.

Yes, harder than Pine Valley and harder than Oakmont.

Like many clubs that get their greens very firm and very fast, soft approaches are a problem..

Certain hole locations can't be reached aerially, as the ball will not hold the green, and shots hit short, often stay short.

I doubt that those conditions will exist in late June, but, if they did, if you think the uproar about Shinnecock was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Comments were made that those greens should never go above 10-11 on the Stimp, and I tend to agree with that.

13.5 is diabolical when they're firm and the wind is up.

But, it was fun.

[Tim Gavrich]

I shudder to think what pace of play must have been like if the course was so hard that +12 would have won a U.S. Women's Open there.

But I'll bet every time a member putted a ball 10 feet past the hole from 12 feet, he took solace in how impressed the guests must have been with those beautiful, fast greens!

[jeffwarne]

seems you'd lose a lot of great pins, if not all good pins on well designed greens like those like Sebonack.(although I guess at that speed even the most benign pin is challenging )

Glad you enjoyed it

Honestly I'm ok when greens get crazy fast, when it's for the occasional event.
It's the everyday expectation that drives me batty (which takes away from ever using some really good pins)

[Jud_T]

I'm not sure I understand the comment that those greens should never be above 10-11, yet at 13.5 they were somehow "fun".   It seems as if there's been a serious divide between what Tom & Jack originally designed and the owner's ongoing desire to protect par vs. the best players in the world.

[Mark Johnson]

you'd think there would be less wind in June.    However assuming it plays around 6600, unless the greens are watered or the pins are incredibly benign.   I could still see a +5 to +8 winning.  Without a doubt, the cut will be in double digits.

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
What distance did you play? And what do you think the ladies will play?
Also, on the scoreboard, they put the guest's club logo next to their name. There was a fish logo that I could not identify, what was it? A long fish, with no name or letters.
Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

I shudder to think what pace of play must have been like if the course was so hard that +12 would have won a U.S. Women's Open there.


Tim,

Surprisingly, pace of play was great, but the field was limited to less than one (1) foursome per hole.

But I'll bet every time a member putted a ball 10 feet past the hole from 12 feet, he took solace in how impressed the guests must have been with those beautiful, fast greens!

There wasn't any of that.
I think members and guests accepted the conditions and did their best to meet the challenge

[Patrick_Mucci]

you'd think there would be less wind in June.   


Mark, I play in a tournament at NGLA the last week in June and there's usually a good breeze, not 20-25 mph constant wind, but a very good breeze.

Asto June 2013, who knows what the winds will do, just think..... Open at Shinnecock


However assuming it plays around 6600, unless the greens are watered or the pins are incredibly benign.   
I could still see a +5 to +8 winning.  Without a doubt, the cut will be in double digits.

If Mother Nature doesn't rain on the parade, and the course isn't setup overly benign, I think you're right

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
What distance did you play? And what do you think the ladies will play?

I think it may depend upon weather conditions leading up to and during the week of the Open.
I can't see it playing more than 6,600, but that's just a guess

Also, on the scoreboard, they put the guest's club logo next to their name. There was a fish logo that I could not identify, what was it? A long fish, with no name or letters.
I didn't see it, but maybe it was Sailfish Point

I'lllook at the guest club roster tomorrow
Thanks

[Mark Chaplin]

I find it difficult to believe that on genuine 13.5 greens with slope and 25 mph winds the ball wasn't moving around on the green. There is a reason the R&A aim for 10.5 on day one of the Open Championship.

[Tom_Doak]

I find it difficult to believe that on genuine 13.5 greens with slope and 25 mph winds the ball wasn't moving around on the green. There is a reason the R&A aim for 10.5 on day one of the Open Championship.

I was wondering the same thing.  If those were really the conditions, they would probably call off a championship round, as they did at Hoylake for the Women's British Open on Friday.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I find it difficult to believe that on genuine 13.5 greens with slope and 25 mph winds the ball wasn't moving around on the green. There is a reason the R&A aim for 10.5 on day one of the Open Championship.

Mark,

Prior to teeing off they announced, that a ball on the putting green, that moved, could be replaced, without penalty.

I don't think I've played on faster/firmer greens and I've played Oakmont a number of times.
I've also experienced some rounds at NGLA, Mountain Ridge and Pine Valley where the greens were exceptionally fast with good slope, but never with winds like yesterday. 

[Mark Chaplin]

So the course was unplayable for proper golf. Either the USGA set it up properly for the ladies open or make a mockery of the game.

You cannot combine hard and very fast greens with slope and regular wind without the end result of micky mouse golf.

Patrick a man of your experience should be slating the club for their lack of understanding of course set up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So the course was unplayable for proper golf.

No, I just think they were erring on the cautious side.
With the combination of slope and speed, very few balls, if any, stopped on a slope from which the wind could move them.

Either the USGA set it up properly for the ladies open or make a mockery of the game.

Did the R&A cause the British Women's Open to be a mockery of the game or was that Mother Nature's doing ?
In the ultimate, Mother Nature is both unpredictable and in almost total control.
This time of year, courses can be made firmer and faster without much concern for losing the greens, versus late June.

You cannot combine hard and very fast greens with slope and regular wind without the end result of micky mouse golf.

It's certainly a delicate balance when trying to produce conditions to test the best women golfers.
But, my take, given the site, is that a number of greens need to be redone, starting with # 2.

Patrick a man of your experience should be slating the club for their lack of understanding of course set up.

Perhaps that's how you would conduct yourself, but I was a GUEST and I had an absolutely terrific time, having been reunited with the 1958 Captain of my high school golf team and another long time friend I met in 1960, at Notre Dame, in my freshman year.  I enjoyed the matches we played and the golfers and staff I met during and after the competition.  in addition I played pretty well despite some putting woes, so all in all, I had a great time and wasn't about to take anyone or anything to task.  I'll send a constructive email to the appropriate parity/ies sometime this week.  .

[Jud_T]

But, my take, given the site, is that a number of greens need to be redone, starting with # 2.

This reminds me of the time I convinced my old boss, who was just getting into wine collecting, that we needed some 1963 Vintage Port for our Christmas party that was absolutely perfect only for him to complain that it bothered his throat and he wanted something else.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

But, my take, given the site, is that a number of greens need to be redone, starting with # 2.

This reminds me of the time I convinced my old boss, who was just getting into wine collecting, that we needed some 1963 Vintage Port for our Christmas party that was absolutely perfect only for him to complain that it bothered his throat and he wanted something else.  

Jud,

I'm not alone in my assessment.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I'm not questioning your assessment.  I've never played the course so you may well be right about high stimps and the existing slopes.  It's just that it's puzzling that the owner would go to the effort and expense of bringing in Jack AND Tom only to end up making such significant changes in a quest to host serious tournament golf so soon after opening.  It also makes me much less inclined to pony up an exorbitant unaccompanied fee to check it out for myself.  Hopefully Tom has a section of his contract that says his name can be removed from the masthead when the course no longer bears even a faint resemblance to what he designed.

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat,
Since you may be the only one here that has played Sebonack in these conditions, can you give some specifics about pin placements, and putting on the greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm not questioning your assessment.  I've never played the course so you may well be right about high stimps and the existing slopes.  It's just that it's puzzling that the owner would go to the effort and expense of bringing in Jack AND Tom only to end up making such significant changes in a quest to host serious tournament golf so soon after opening.  

Jud,

While it may be puzzling to you, two greens have already been rebuilt and relocated.
#'s 14 and 16, and I suspect that # 14 will undergo more alterations.

It also makes me much less inclined to pony up an exorbitant unaccompanied fee to check it out for myself.  

That wouldbe your mistake.
It's well worth the money.

Hopefully Tom has a section of his contract that says his name can be removed from the masthead when the course no longer bears even a faint resemblance to what he designed.

Since it's Tom's routing, and it's a terrific, but hard, golf course, I doubt that Tom would want to have his name removed, but Tom can speak for himself.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I'm not questioning your assessment.  I've never played the course so you may well be right about high stimps and the existing slopes.  It's just that it's puzzling that the owner would go to the effort and expense of bringing in Jack AND Tom only to end up making such significant changes in a quest to host serious tournament golf so soon after opening.  

Jud,

While it may be puzzling to you, two greens have already been rebuilt and relocated.
#'s 14 and 16, and I suspect that # 14 will undergo more alterations.

Why does this make it less puzzling?  What was the rationale for these changes?  Were these greens that Tom originally designed?  Was he consulted about the changes?  If not, how come?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm not questioning your assessment.  I've never played the course so you may well be right about high stimps and the existing slopes.  It's just that it's puzzling that the owner would go to the effort and expense of bringing in Jack AND Tom only to end up making such significant changes in a quest to host serious tournament golf so soon after opening.  

Jud,

While it may be puzzling to you, two greens have already been rebuilt and relocated.
#'s 14 and 16, and I suspect that # 14 will undergo more alterations.

Why does this make it less puzzling?  

Because it removes all doubt with respect to implementing changes to the greens and renders irrelevant the issue of selecting Jack and Tom in the context that their work, once they were chosen, is inviolable, fixed in time forever, never to be fine tuned or altered.  And that the money they were paid and the money to design and then alter the course is irrelevant in this situation.

You are aware that Friars Head is different today than it was on opening day ?  ?  ?

What was the rationale for these changes?

To improve the golf course

Were these greens that Tom originally designed?  

I know that you're aware that this course was a collaborative effort, so why are you only referencing Tom ?

Was he consulted about the changes?

Possibly

 If not, how come?

Why are you ignoring Jack ?
Why are you ignoring his role in the design of the greens ?
Why are you solely focused on Tom's involvement ?

Anecdotally, I'm sure you're aware that Tom and Jack voted to make # 18 a par 4.
That's a 2 to 1 vote.
The hole is a par 5.
Does that answer your question ?

[Jud_T]

I'm not ignoring Jack.  Was he consulted about the changes?  From afar, it just seems a bit of hubris to have a guy like Tom on board, who is arguably one of the best designers of unique and interesting greens practicing today and is also intimately familiar with working on windy sites (ever play Old Mac or Ballyneal?) only to toss some of his normally well-thought out design ideas out the window a mere several years after opening in the chase for green speeds and tournaments.  If this isn't puzzling, then it's just seems sad.

[Mark Chaplin]

Pat - in the UK we tend to stump up a greenfee and not have to rely on a millionaire host to get us on the course.

The womens open was delayed because of a storm with gusts reaching 60mph, that's not a regular summertime experience. 25mph winds in coast areas are common and to be expected. If balls start moving around within the normal parameters of weather the greens are too quick and/or slopey.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not ignoring Jack.  Was he consulted about the changes?  From afar, it just seems a bit of hubris to have a guy like Tom on board, who is arguably one of the best designers of unique and interesting greens practicing today and is also intimately familiar with working on windy sites (ever play Old Mac or Ballyneal?) only to toss some of his normally well-thought out design ideas out the window a mere several years after opening in the chase for green speeds and tournaments.


First of all, how do you know that the greens at Sebonack were the sole product of Tom's " normally well-thought out design ideas" ?

Secondly, how do you know that the greens were altered for "the chase for green speeds" ?

Thirdly, how do you know hat the greens were altered for "the chase for tournaments?"

Are those the only two reasons that greens get altered ? ?  ? 

If this isn't puzzling, then it's just seems sad.

IF the alterations are an improvement, why would that be sad ?

If other greens need to be modified, why is that sad ?
Do you not want to improve the golf course?

Did it ever occur to you that when you compromise on artistic license that you just might diminish the product ?

Do you think "design by committe" even a committee of two, is the Prefered method for creating a golf course?

[K. Krahenbuhl]

Pat,

I'm sure you've played the course both before and after the changes that have been made.  How would you grade the work that has been done to date?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()