[Phil_the_Author]

George,

JM is correct, Matt was refering to WFWv vs. BB #18. Mat is of the very uninformed opinion, one which shows how very little he knows and understands about Tillinghast and golf course architecture, that the 18th at BB should be turned into a drivable par-4.

Forrest Gump was right... "Stupid is as Stupid Does."

Of course he certainly says the same (if not worse!) about me and my solution for it.

Unfortunately only one of us can be right and it isn't my stubborn friend Matt! 

[JMEvensky]

George,

JM is correct, Matt was refering to WFWv vs. BB #18. Mat is of the very uninformed opinion, one which shows how very little he knows and understands about Tillinghast and golf course architecture, that the 18th at BB should be turned into a drivable par-4.

Forrest Gump was right... "Stupid is as Stupid Does."

Of course he certainly says the same (if not worse!) about me and my solution for it.

Unfortunately only one of us can be right and it isn't my stubborn friend Matt! 

Phil,I was just giving George the short version.I had a feeling that you'd provide the subtext.

[George Pazin]

I think he means the 18th at WFW versus BPB.

Thanks, I was skimmin' and missed that.

[Tim Martin]

George,

JM is correct, Matt was refering to WFWv vs. BB #18. Mat is of the very uninformed opinion, one which shows how very little he knows and understands about Tillinghast and golf course architecture, that the 18th at BB should be turned into a drivable par-4.

Forrest Gump was right... "Stupid is as Stupid Does."

Of course he certainly says the same (if not worse!) about me and my solution for it.

Unfortunately only one of us can be right and it isn't my stubborn friend Matt! 

Phil-Regardless of the solution BPB`s 18th is a weak finisher for major championship play on an otherwise stellar layout. In Matt`s defense Mike Davis is quoted as saying he considered 18 as a driveable par 4. Rees Jones tries to defend his work on this hole without much success IMO.

[Phil McDade]

George,

JM is correct, Matt was refering to WFWv vs. BB #18. Mat is of the very uninformed opinion, one which shows how very little he knows and understands about Tillinghast and golf course architecture, that the 18th at BB should be turned into a drivable par-4.

Forrest Gump was right... "Stupid is as Stupid Does."

Of course he certainly says the same (if not worse!) about me and my solution for it.

Unfortunately only one of us can be right and it isn't my stubborn friend Matt!  

Philip:

The 18th at BB may not be conducive to being drivable, but it's undoubtedly the weakest finishing hole in the US Open rota courses going back several decades. When a recent US Open winner (Glover) can protect a lead by hitting 6-iron/9-iron at the concluding hole, it's surely a sign the hole lacks any sort of architectural merit worthy of a national championship.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tim,

Mike was misquoted as he defintitely doesn't believe that the hole should be played that way. He said that by using the front of the lower tee there was a possibility for it during the final round, something they had no choice but to do in 2009 because of the massive water problems caused by the rains throughout the month before and during the tournament.

Matt has been trumpeting the idea of turning it into a drivable par-4 for years now and we both enjoy tweaking each other about it. Although I am in the minority who believe the hole is fine as is since for some strange reason more than half the holes on the rest of the course played EASIER in relation to par than 18 during the 2002 & 2009 Opens, there are several ways to ensure that a brute of a finishing hole is used for the next Open or PGA championship there...

[Phil_the_Author]

Phil,

I'm not saying its a great finishing hole; I'm just saying that it isn't a bad one and better than what most people think.

If change must be made there are two simple things that can be done, one with minimal expenditure of money and the other with NONE.

The first, and my friend Matt thinks I am insane for suggesting this, is to build two new tees. The first is to the RIGHT of the 16th green and back so that 17 would now play from that direction. The hole almost becomes Redan-like in how it would run at a 45 degree angle to the tee and the false front that used to be an actual second level. The second tee would be placed just in front opf and left of the present 17th tee. You have now created a 475-490 yard uphill dogleg left finishing hole. The drive is far more difficult and NO ONE would play it down the first fairway because their second shot into the green would have to clear trees, scoreboard and stands. It would require a real risk/reward drive to even place your ball in the fairway short of where the bunkers are now. It would be a great finishing hole.

The second way, which is the most economical and simplest of all, is to make hole #2 the FIRST HOLE! This would allow for the finish to be played in the following order (current hole numbers used). 14 - 17 - 1 - 15 - 16. NO ONE could say that 15 & 16 wouldn't be among the most brutal two hole finishes out there, and when you consider that the 1st hole has been among the 5 most difficult holes in the past two Opens and was the 3rd most difficult fairway to hit in 2009, then it becomes a really brutal three-hole finishing test.

Just a few ideas...
 

[Tim Martin]

Phil,

I'm not saying its a great finishing hole; I'm just saying that it isn't a bad one and better than what most people think.

If change must be made there are two simple things that can be done, one with minimal expenditure of money and the other with NONE.

The first, and my friend Matt thinks I am insane for suggesting this, is to build two new tees. The first is to the RIGHT of the 16th green and back so that 17 would now play from that direction. The hole almost becomes Redan-like in how it would run at a 45 degree angle to the tee and the false front that used to be an actual second level. The second tee would be placed just in front opf and left of the present 17th tee. You have now created a 475-490 yard uphill dogleg left finishing hole. The drive is far more difficult and NO ONE would play it down the first fairway because their second shot into the green would have to clear trees, scoreboard and stands. It would require a real risk/reward drive to even place your ball in the fairway short of where the bunkers are now. It would be a great finishing hole.

The second way, which is the most economical and simplest of all, is to make hole #2 the FIRST HOLE! This would allow for the finish to be played in the following order (current hole numbers used). 14 - 17 - 1 - 15 - 16. NO ONE could say that 15 & 16 wouldn't be among the most brutal two hole finishes out there, and when you consider that the 1st hole has been among the 5 most difficult holes in the past two Opens and was the 3rd most difficult fairway to hit in 2009, then it becomes a really brutal three-hole finishing test.

Just a few ideas...
 

Phil-I think both scenarios are interesting. I have also heard that the USGA considered playing from 18 tee on the black to 18 green on the red creating a par 4 hole of roughly 500 yards. I wonder what your feeling is on that front? Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I keep on hearing the knocks on the 18th hole at BPB, especially people knocking Rees's work there.

In light of the property constraints, if, instead of Rees, you were brought in, what would you have done with Tillinghast's 18th hole ?

Please be specific and try to be accurate in terms of the topography and linear measurements.

For those who complain about a PGA Tour Pro hitting 6-iron/9-iron, what would he have hit with a drivable par 4, 6-iron/L-wedge ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tim,

Even though Golf Digest reported it as being a serious consideration, it NEVER was and would not have happened. First of all it would have meant that the luxury boxes that lined the first fairway of the red would have been lost so for that reason alone one should realize it.

I think that it would have been a very poor answer for a variety of reasons starting with the green complex on 18 Red is pedestrian at best in my opinion. Secondly, I am personally against the idea od a composite course for a U.S. Open, The Country Club course or not. Again, that is a personal preference. Thirdly, whereas The Country Club could have any number of member's days so that the "Open" course could be enjoyed by the membership, that is something that could NEVER happen at Bethpage by playing a composite hole made up by piecing three of them together.

There are several other answers to the "problem" one of which is recognizing that the hole isn't a problem whatsoever. The problem has been that in both Opens the winner was decided BEFORE stepping onto the 18th tee. I think the hole would be viewed quite differently if there were two players tied for the lead in that final pairing when they got to 18. If that one dopesn't work there really are other answers all of which would allow the public to play the US Open course which is a privilege that they richly deserve.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I have previously stated in both book and magazine print that I like what Rees did with the 18th hole. He was quite limted in what he could have done. In fact, the only other thing that he could have done, and before anyone says moving the 18th hole further back up the hill and closer to the clubhouse that is NOT and will never be an option for a variety of internal reasons, is what I have stated all along... a realignment of the 17th hole followed by a new long, uphill brute of a par-4 by adding the new tee box left of 17 tee. Go to Google earth and measure it and you'll see that depending upon exact location it would play from 475-490 yards and the fairway becomes MUCH more difficult yo hit and the bunkers are much more in play.

The best thing about the idea is that it can be done for next to nothing in cost and the course can still be played by the public as originally designed for the majority of times and occasionally as the "Open" course without any difficulty whatsoever.

[Dean DiBerardino]

The Open course setup on SH is 74.7/140 and is "only" 7041 yds.  The numbers above are for the 6700yd red markers.

Thanks John.  It has been edited.  I used the info found on GHIN.com and that set of tees was not on there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip,

I asked the question of all those who were so dissatisfied with Rees's work.

What would they have done ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I actually made that suggestion to Rees in October of 2001 and asked him during an interview if anyone had even considered doing something along the line of what i had suggested. He responded that it had never occurred to anyone and wished that someone had suggested it a few years earlier!

Still, I think what he did was done very well.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil Y:

For once I agree 100% w Phil McDade.

Get real please. The 18th at Bethpage Black is akin to a Michael Jackson face job -- endless efforts but no real concrete results. You just can't admit that the 18th at BB is a major league disappointment and all the tap dancing answers you have previously given have been the same over and over.

Whether or not a driveable finisher might be a major league improvement but what's there now is a sad concluding hole to a course that deserves far better. Phil, try to open your eyes on this one because your failure to do so indicates to me that you are too imbedded with the powers-that-be there.

The very LAST thing BB's 18th hole needs to be is ANOTHER long brutish par-4. Doak's comment on BB is spot on -- the course lacks a world class short hole -- the 18th could be that. It requires a bit more thinking power than what's been provided thus far.

By the way - one other thing WF/W is the more complete and more demanding of the two courses -- when held against the Black. I say that as a big time fan of the Black but the Farmingdale course doesn't have the green dimensions / contours to the same level as the West Course. The scores reflect that.

[Phil_the_Author]

My friend Matt,

It is you who has his ears and eyes closed on this.

How can I not be saying that 18 could be a far better hole when I am the person who is suggesting a complete redesign of it. Now just because there are no driveable par-4s might detract from ot for some, but Tom Doak is also not the be-all end-all arbiter of what makes a great design. Granted he knows more than most, but he isn't always right either.

Formulaic golf courses all end up the same and that is what you are demanding here. If you want a driveable par-4 on the Black that is fine, but where? 18 is definitely not the answer, especially when it is playing firm and fast because all thsoe long drives up the hill that don't make the green will come rolling on back down making the hole become a 9-iron/wedge for even simply good players. Besides, Tilly had plenty of opportunities to make a driveable par-4 on the Black and chose NOT to while he made driveable par-4s elsewhere at Bethpage.

You and I will never agree on this one... AS far as WF/W being more demanding, I'm not sure. I think its a wash. I believe that BB is much tougher tee to green and so the green complex advantage (which WF/W didn't have when the Black was originally designed as the greens were far bigger and with many more undulations but thats another story for the next Bethpage history book) is balanced out by that.

My point is that many players in both Opens satted that it was the toughest course they ever played, but that is heard at nearly all Opens now. How to measure TOUGHNESS which is what this thread is about? The ratings and slop were used early on and it is clear that the Black has the highest slope and second highest rating so a great case can be made for it.

In ant event, they all qualify as being what Tilly called the Black and Pine Valley... Mankillers!

[Phil McDade]

Philip:

Re. both of your suggestions -- the alternate tee, and making #2 the 1st hole. Both sound reasonable and worth exploring. I think there was a GCA thread examining vis pictures and aerials the former choice.

Patrick:

My beef with #18 as it played during the U.S. Open was that is lacked two ingredients -- any kind of risk/reward element, or any major demands on the player's game, for someone holding on to (effectively) a one-shot lead. Glover simply had to execute two relatively (for a Tour pro) easy shots. That strikes me as un-demanding, for the final hole of a U.S. Open.

It contrasts sharply, from what I've seen, to the 18th at WFoot West, which in US Open conditions put demands on the players throughout the hole -- drive, approach shot, and on and around the green. Note the one player who made par there at the last US Open -- Olgivy -- won the tournament. The 18th at Oakmont strikes me as similarly demanding.

And, to my tastes, the 18th at The Old Course has always been an exciting and fine finishing hole, because for the bold player, birdie and perhaps eagle is a real possibility, while the trickiness of the green and esp. the Valley of Sin demand that even those taking the safer route have to execute solid shotmaking throughout the hole.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil Y:

The Black has no really good short par-4. That, along with the fact that it has for the most part pedestrian greens, is what hold it back from the upper echelon.

The 18th hole could be that missing really superb short par-4 that offers a far different take than the predictable redunancy of the long boring par-4 closer.

Phil, it is because you want ANOTHER long slog par-4 -- it is you clamoring for the formulaic ending -- not I.

Let me point out that earthmoving would need to be done -- but the acreage is there -- the imagination certainly has not with the dreadful Rees Jones closer that we have now witnessesd for the '02 and '09 Opens. It is a yawn of epic proportions.

Phil - PV is no man-eater for the top tier players. It is for the bulk of those who play the game. WF/W has the scores to prove itself -- look it up and compare the stroke averages and anything else for that matter.

WF/W is beyond the Black. Years ago the MGA district had a superb guy named Jerry Mahoney and he understood my love for the Black but being totally familar with both courses he was able to take me to see why the West is just the more demanding of the two. I don't agree that tee-to-green the West takes a back seat. The first four holes on the West are tenacious to the max.

[archie_struthers]

 


If you are talking Winged Foot vs Oakmont exclusively NY trumps Pennsy.....Those infernal false fronts that  at Winged Foot makeit the tougher of the two.  This feature , even at smaller heights , is a great architectural feature in defense of par.

Greens are fabulous at Oakmont and the course is more interesting and fun to me , but Winged Foot at its beastly best doesn't give up many low scores.  Probablly not a photo finish but rather a widening neck on the difficulty factor to Winged Foot

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()