Bethpage Black is not a great course

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, I wonder how much golf you've played at the park?

About ten rounds (8 rounds 1-18, then parts of three rounds where I played anywhere from 9-13 holes). All when I've been a sub-4.0 index or a golf professional. I'm just talking about the Black course. I'm not talking about the other courses at all in this topic.

now the Black might not have the VARIETY that The Old Course, or Friars Head offers, but thats why there is the Green, Blue, Yellow, and Red course.

But the topic is just the Black, and there's certainly - as demonstrated by many other courses - more variety that can be had inside of 18 holes than is offered at the Black.

Bethpage Black dull? Maybe for a beater...

Drive or 3W to a narrow fairway, high long-iron often over bunkers to a generally oval-ish flattish green. I'm not going to deny of course that it has some elevation changes, some great, but the tediousness wears on you (or me at least) around the 11th or 12th.

Driver, PW
Driver, 3 iron, Wedge
Driver, Gap Wedge (smoked down wind)
Driver, 3 iron, 58 degree
Driver, 9 iron
Driver, 7 iron (tee all the way back)
Driver, 6 irons DAY 1
Driver, PW
Driver, 3 iron
Driver, 4 iron, 58 degree
Driver, 5 wood
Driver, GW, GW
Driver, 6 iron
Driver, 8 iron

All while traversing a wonderfully moving parkland routing with consistent change in direction....how you could say the Black is boring is beyond me.

And yet, here we are. 

The USGA tightened the corridors for 2002 US Open and the park kept them- so yes its tight in the Landing Area's....and the aesthetic is awful in places

20-25 yard landing areas create boring pitch-out golf for a lot of people. As others have said, I'm not discussing this relative to the majors the course has hosted. But in terms of generally good players, single digits or better, playing the course.

Would the Black be a better play with widening? Yes- for sure.

Then you're not as far away from understanding my position as you stated earlier.

But maybe if the current equipment didn't make driving the ball such a joke the course set ups wouldn't have to be so penal off the tee- because you can't fake it around the Black- and I see that as ok over the course of a calendar year that offer ANGC or the OLD COURSE.

How about the several other good penal courses?

Maybe the greatness of New York is too much for people to handle, the energy, and they feel compelled to bring some negative dialogue...like Geoff Shackelford did to start the week.

This isn't about "the greatness of New York."

Rees has done a fantastic job with that at Bethpage Black which is why its called a RESTORATION.

You might be the only person calling it a "restoration." Cuz this ain't a "restoration":

https://twitter.com/FarrowGolf/status/962040561103286273


And of course, as has been pointed out, even Rees considers it a "remodel." Not a restoration.

[Thomas Dai]

Another who refuses to read and accept the sign before the first tee. The course is not for all golfers, it can't be anymore clear. That is how I look at Bethpage, for the "highly skilled" golfers, as it has always been intended...

Plenty of courses could have a sign like that on the first tee - Oakmont and Pine Valley for example - while not being as boring or dull architecturally as the current iteration of BPB. While offering more options, more angles, more lines.
THAT is one of the main points everyone but you keeps making (and that you keep missing).

I recall discussion awhile back about Nick Faldo and Nick Price barely being able to reach the fairways from the tee during a previous Major at BPB? Oh well, I guess even with 9 Major Championship between them they shouldn’t really be considered “highly skilled golfers” and probably ought to have played one of the other BPSP courses instead!
Atb

[Mark Fedeli]

Can someone provide the quote where the architect(s) of Bethpage Black said that its intent was to be a stern challenge specifically for hosting professional tournaments and should be presented in that fashion to anyone who plays it forevermore? I'm not saying the quote doesn't exist. I have no idea. It's just been taken as being the truth in this thread and I would like to read it in context and learn more.


Not that I believe the architect's philosophical intent for who should play the course has any bearing on this discussion. Times change. Players change. Priorities change. Management changes. And anyway, the decision to get it major championship ready has nothing to do with what anyone said in 1936. This is why my focus is on the course as the architect laid it out on the ground and the shot values it offered at that time; the subtle challenges to all skill levels that were lost — and not on what type of player it was theoretically meant for, which has been an unfortunate distraction in a thread meant to compare two different presentations of the same course.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Not that I believe the architect's philosophical intent for who should play the course has any bearing on this discussion. Times change. Players change. Priorities change. Management changes. And anyway, the decision to get it major championship ready has nothing to do with what anyone said in 1936. This is why my focus is on the course as the architect laid it out on the ground and the shot values it offered at that time; the subtle challenges to all skill levels that were lost — and not on what type of player it was theoretically meant for, which has been an unfortunate distraction in a thread meant to compare two different presentations of the same course.

After 8 pages of going around in the same circle he still can't bring himself to admit equipment has changed and the options his modern equipment give him didn't exist a century ago.
What is it about the obvious change in modern equipment we can't grasp other than it goes against what we ultimately and selfishly want, an easier golf course than what was originally intended...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

After 8 pages of going around in the same circle he still can't bring himself to admit equipment has changed and the options his modern equipment give him didn't exist a century ago.

For the sake of everyone here, learn to read, man. Goodness… when you're not mis-quoting people, you're just going on with your own one or two thoughts, neither of which are even necessarily truthful.

This is your opportunity Nick… share with us where it is you found the "original intent" and how the massive "remodeling" (not "restoration") continues to preserve those values? It's your chance to demonstrate that ONE of the few things you've ever talked about that is original to you and not mis-quoted from someone else is accurate.

[Michael Dugger]

Indeed, tone it down, Nick.  These guys are all presenting reasonable opinions, nobody appreciates aggression.


Besides, there is never a right and wrong with this stuff.  I took the "point" of the original thread starter to really be a treatise on course set up for modern professional players.


Maybe you like golf of this nature.  Maybe you think it's "the best"


But not everyone does.  I don't.  At the end of the day this thread really boils down to the definition of "great" and I'm guessing in relation to "good". 


Great is a lofty standard.  Nobody ever said Bethpage Black was a dog track, but does it indeed constitute great is the point.   

[Jim Sherma]

Furthermore to Michael's point: If we netted out conditioning is Bethpage great?


Based on all of the chatter I get a sense that the consensus falls as follows:


The Routing and Land: Great or at least in the conversation of great


The Greens: General lack of internal interest and/or movement - not great in and of themselves although potentially justified as being a breather after the task of getting to them


Changes in the past 10-20 years: Necessary given the state of neglect that had befallen the course - Aesthetics of some of the bunkers questioned - 18th hole appears to be the largest question mark


Conditioning and Mowing Lines: Narrow fairways and penal rough makes the playing somewhat one dimensional - either execute the shot or be left in rough that has very limited options for recovery shots - narrow fairways in large corridors can be seen as reducing a players ability to choose their preferred line into a green - BPB's narrow fairways is not my cup of tee given the deep rough - if the rough is such that one can play shots out of to the greens with a half-shot average penalty given uncertainty then I would have less concern with it


Is it great? I have no idea - If one likes or defends narrow fairways and penal rough then I guess they would generally think so. If one would rather have wider fairways filling more of the corridor width this conditioning would certainly make for less than a great playing experience. But, it could still be great in terms of the routing and land forms. I would like to see more discussion on other obviously great courses that have greens as unimaginative and BPB's. If one make's the case that the course, net of conditioning decisions, is not great, the greens appear to be the dimension that you would have to hang your hat on.

[Michael Felton]

I don't think BPB is a great course. It probably wouldn't be in my top 500.

How many courses have you played? I think you said somewhere it was less than 500. Are you suggesting that BPB is the worst course you've ever played? I think most would consider that a little over the top no?

[Michael Felton]

Does anyone actually know why the greens are so flat? Someone once said something to me along the lines of the greens were supposed to be bigger and to incorporate some of the mounds around them, which would increase some of the interest in them, but I'm skeptical of that.

I often think of BPB and WFW being similar difficulty tee to green, but then at WFW you get those greens on the end and holy moly. It is interesting that they're not more bold. I'm especially thinking right now of the Lido thread and some of the pictures in there with the greens. I was thinking it's hard to imagine a course with greens like that could be anything other than great. BPB definitely lacks that aspect.

[Nick Ribeiro]

I don't think BPB is a great course. It probably wouldn't be in my top 500.

How many courses have you played? I think you said somewhere it was less than 500. Are you suggesting that BPB is the worst course you've ever played? I think most would consider that a little over the top no?

A few statements before this it didn't deserve to be in the top 1000, and no where near pure greatness Bedford Springs he'd play a half a dozen times before even considering Bethpage....

[Michael Felton]

I don't think BPB is a great course. It probably wouldn't be in my top 500.

How many courses have you played? I think you said somewhere it was less than 500. Are you suggesting that BPB is the worst course you've ever played? I think most would consider that a little over the top no?

A few statements before this it didn't deserve to be in the top 1000, and no where near pure greatness Bedford Springs he'd play a half a dozen times before even considering Bethpage....

In fairness, he said there were 1,000 courses he'd play before BPB. I can think of a number of reasons that might be the case and plenty of them don't have anything to do with whether BPB is top 1,000 or not. He did quite clearly say it wouldn't be in his top 500. He elsewhere stated that he's not sure he's played even 500 courses (note that 500 courses is a whole heck of a lot - I've played a lot and I'm in the low 300s). That's what I want to understand better. He'll likely ignore me and respond to your comment saying this, which doesn't advance us anywhere.

[Nick Ribeiro]

I don't think BPB is a great course. It probably wouldn't be in my top 500.

How many courses have you played? I think you said somewhere it was less than 500. Are you suggesting that BPB is the worst course you've ever played? I think most would consider that a little over the top no?

A few statements before this it didn't deserve to be in the top 1000, and no where near pure greatness Bedford Springs he'd play a half a dozen times before even considering Bethpage....

In fairness, he said there were 1,000 courses he'd play before BPB. I can think of a number of reasons that might be the case and plenty of them don't have anything to do with whether BPB is top 1,000 or not. He did quite clearly say it wouldn't be in his top 500. He elsewhere stated that he's not sure he's played even 500 courses (note that 500 courses is a whole heck of a lot - I've played a lot and I'm in the low 300s). That's what I want to understand better. He'll likely ignore me and respond to your comment saying this, which doesn't advance us anywhere.

He'd play a 1000 courses before he'd play Bethpage which to me means Bethpage is behind 1000 courses, but as you quoted he clearly stated its not deserving of top 500 so whatever. As if 1000 is really anymore ridiculous then 500 anyway.


In his defense, and in all seriousness, he does work at very nice looking driving range with virtual bays. Perhaps hes played 500 courses at work? Does that count? and I want to meet the software guy who turned Bedford Springs into a digital masterpiece!

[Brian Colbert]

I love this thread. There can be a lot of groupthink on this site on any number of topics, so I respect that there some solid arguments on both sides here. Put me in the group of folks who walked off BPB and said "huh?" I didn't get the point of salivating over it then and I sure don't now. Yes, BPB achieves many of the goals outlined ad nauseum here including presenting one of the most challenging venues for the best players in the world and traversing a relatively extreme piece of property. But how many questions does it really ask the golfer? I really see the only two as 1) can you hit the ball 300 yards and dead straight? and 2) can you hit high lofted mid-to-long irons into the greens?


Where is the strategy in banging 14 drivers? Ok, fine. 12 or 13 depending on what you hit on 2 & 18. You certainly do not have to shape the ball in any direction on any of those holes either unless you are as long as Dustin Johnson. What is the strategy on the approach shots? Well, if you miss the fairway, it's most likely to chip out to 100 yards. If you are in the fairway, the majority of the time you just have to fly it over the bunkers.


I find the comparison to Pine Valley interesting. I had never heard the black course was inspired by PV. If that is true (I have no reason to dispute it), that inspiration is not being lived out with the current maintenance of BPB. There is virtually no rough at PV, and yet you can find yourself absolutely dead off the tee if you hit the fairway. Further, nearly every shot around the golf course requires thought. I bet it is not entirely rare for the scratch golfer to reach the 6th tee having only hit his putter more than once.


BPB belongs solidly in the "good" category. It is in the upper tier of that category. What would I do to BPB to take it from "good" to great"? Nothing. I don't think you can get there without destroying the current course. Sure I think you could widen the fairways and firm them up to bring some of the fairway bunkers back into play (i.e. make them true "fairway" bunkers), but I don't think that will happen. But to Erik's point, there are definitely 500 courses I would play (between repeats and new plays) before I went back to BPB again. Heck there are probably 30-40 within an hour drive. I have a finite amount of time to play golf and I don't need to spend 5:30 of it going driver wedge wedge on 500 yard par 4s. Look forward to watching the pros though.

[Michael Felton]

I love this thread. There can be a lot of groupthink on this site on any number of topics, so I respect that there some solid arguments on both sides here. Put me in the group of folks who walked off BPB and said "huh?" I didn't get the point of salivating over it then and I sure don't now. Yes, BPB achieves many of the goals outlined ad nauseum here including presenting one of the most challenging venues for the best players in the world and traversing a relatively extreme piece of property. But how many questions does it really ask the golfer? I really see the only two as 1) can you hit the ball 300 yards and dead straight? and 2) can you hit high lofted mid-to-long irons into the greens?


Where is the strategy in banging 14 drivers? Ok, fine. 12 or 13 depending on what you hit on 2 & 18. You certainly do not have to shape the ball in any direction on any of those holes either unless you are as long as Dustin Johnson. What is the strategy on the approach shots? Well, if you miss the fairway, it's most likely to chip out to 100 yards. If you are in the fairway, the majority of the time you just have to fly it over the bunkers.


I find the comparison to Pine Valley interesting. I had never heard the black course was inspired by PV. If that is true (I have no reason to dispute it), that inspiration is not being lived out with the current maintenance of BPB. There is virtually no rough at PV, and yet you can find yourself absolutely dead off the tee if you hit the fairway. Further, nearly every shot around the golf course requires thought. I bet it is not entirely rare for the scratch golfer to reach the 6th tee having only hit his putter more than once.


BPB belongs solidly in the "good" category. It is in the upper tier of that category. What would I do to BPB to take it from "good" to great"? Nothing. I don't think you can get there without destroying the current course. Sure I think you could widen the fairways and firm them up to bring some of the fairway bunkers back into play (i.e. make them true "fairway" bunkers), but I don't think that will happen. But to Erik's point, there are definitely 500 courses I would play (between repeats and new plays) before I went back to BPB again. Heck there are probably 30-40 within an hour drive. I have a finite amount of time to play golf and I don't need to spend 5:30 of it going driver wedge wedge on 500 yard par 4s. Look forward to watching the pros though.

It's not particularly wise to hit driver on 6. All the par fives ask questions on second shots. 13 for example can be anything from 8 iron to 3 wood at times. It's worth noting that often you are better off in the bunkers than in the rough. On a hole like 10, you can make the green from the bunkers, but it's really not feasible from the rough unless you catch a great lie. Do I think the course would be better if the fairways were a bit wider? I do. Do I think it's not great because of their width? No I do not.

[Kyle Harris]

There are a number of times where I'd rather play X amount of courses over one of my favorites - especially if I had been playing the favorite frequently.

That's an economic statement (which is different from a financial one) and not a ranking. Many golfers make selections based on opportunity cost which includes such variables as cost and access.

Cory Lewis is up to 1600 golf courses. He states unequivocally that he would not play most of them again. I'd be curious as to how many he actually would. My guess is less than 10%.

[Nick Ribeiro]

I find the comparison to Pine Valley interesting. I had never heard the black course was inspired by PV. If that is true (I have no reason to dispute it), that inspiration is not being lived out with the current maintenance of BPB. There is virtually no rough at PV, and yet you can find yourself absolutely dead off the tee if you hit the fairway.

No rough at PV? Really!?

[Kyle Harris]

I find the comparison to Pine Valley interesting. I had never heard the black course was inspired by PV. If that is true (I have no reason to dispute it), that inspiration is not being lived out with the current maintenance of BPB. There is virtually no rough at PV, and yet you can find yourself absolutely dead off the tee if you hit the fairway.

No rough at PV? Really!?

The bold and italicized word in Brian's quote and your subsequent misquote is why you are pissing people off and few are taking you seriously.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A few statements before this it didn't deserve to be in the top 1000, and no where near pure greatness Bedford Springs he'd play a half a dozen times before even considering Bethpage....

You've never - not once - gotten that right. I never said it wouldn't be in the top 1000. This despite me pointing it out now about six or seven times.

But hey, don't let simple facts get in the way of your ongoing insults and misreadings. Everyone's caught on, Nick.

[Brian Colbert]

I find the comparison to Pine Valley interesting. I had never heard the black course was inspired by PV. If that is true (I have no reason to dispute it), that inspiration is not being lived out with the current maintenance of BPB. There is virtually no rough at PV, and yet you can find yourself absolutely dead off the tee if you hit the fairway.

No rough at PV? Really!?

Where did I say there was no rough? And yet, when you really think about your last round at PV, how many times were you most concerned about thick rough as the primary hazard? I'd imagine rough at PV assists the golfer nearly as much as it hurts him.


Contrast that to BPB. Michael just pointed out - the rough has gotten so out of control there you are almost better off being IN the hazards. Is that a good principle of design?

[Nick Ribeiro]

There are a number of times where I'd rather play X amount of courses over one of my favorites - especially if I had been playing the favorite frequently.

That's an economic statement (which is different from a financial one) and not a ranking. Many golfers make selections based on opportunity cost which includes such variables as cost and access.

Cory Lewis is up to 1600 golf courses. He states unequivocally that he would not play most of them again. I'd be curious as to how many he actually would. My guess is less than 10%.

Kyle,

I have been the one defending a top GREAT course in the country. Every major publication agrees with me along with the dozens of people who have privately reached out in total shock anyone would say things like "bethpage is terrible" and "bethpage is bastardized" .. I am not the one who has crossed the line.

I have been challenged that the course is NOT great and over rated by the golf world with:
I want wider fairways becase the course is too hard.
I want wider fairways because sometimes I hit errrant tee shots and thats not fair.
I want a half par hole because, well, its cool.
I want to remove all the rough because I don't like hitting out of rough, especially rough thats long and challenging.
I don't like narrow dog legs because it forces me to hit a variety of shots off the tee, I just want to grip it and rip it and be assured of fairway.
Bethpage is not a top 1000 course, well okay okay its not a top 500 course.
I dont understand why anyone would compare Bethpage to PV when PV has virtually no rough.

and you really believe I am the one not being taken seriously?

[Nick Ribeiro]

I find the comparison to Pine Valley interesting. I had never heard the black course was inspired by PV. If that is true (I have no reason to dispute it), that inspiration is not being lived out with the current maintenance of BPB. There is virtually no rough at PV, and yet you can find yourself absolutely dead off the tee if you hit the fairway.

No rough at PV? Really!?

Where did I say there was no rough? And yet, when you really think about your last round at PV, how many times were you most concerned about thick rough as the primary hazard? I'd imagine rough at PV assists the golfer nearly as much as it hurts him.


Contrast that to BPB. Michael just pointed out - the rough has gotten so out of control there you are almost better off being IN the hazards. Is that a good principle of design?

Brian - Since you are such an expert on the lack of rough at PV, how would you compare the rough at Bethpage this week to the rough at Oakmont on a normal day?

[Michael Felton]

Contrast that to BPB. Michael just pointed out - the rough has gotten so out of control there you are almost better off being IN the hazards. Is that a good principle of design?

I don't think the rough is that bad. It might be this week, but it's not normally like this. The hard part about the rough is being 200 yards away with bunkers to carry. That's doable if you get a good lie, but nigh on impossible to get the ball to stop once it gets there (doesn't stop me trying). If you're in the bunkers you have a chance. The shot is still far more challenging than from the fairway because if you catch any sand before the ball you're done. That's true virtually anywhere. A hole like 16 for example where there is room to run one in, the rough is far better option than if there were any bunkers there.

[Kyle Harris]

There are a number of times where I'd rather play X amount of courses over one of my favorites - especially if I had been playing the favorite frequently.

That's an economic statement (which is different from a financial one) and not a ranking. Many golfers make selections based on opportunity cost which includes such variables as cost and access.

Cory Lewis is up to 1600 golf courses. He states unequivocally that he would not play most of them again. I'd be curious as to how many he actually would. My guess is less than 10%.

Kyle,

I have been the one defending a top GREAT course in the country. Every major publication agrees with me along with the dozens of people who have privately reached out in total shock anyone would say things like "bethpage is terrible" and "bethpage is bastardized" .. I am not the one who has crossed the line.

I have been challenged that the course is NOT great and over rated by the golf world with:
I want wider fairways becase the course is too hard.
I want wider fairways because sometimes I hit errrant tee shots and thats not fair.
I want a half par hole because, well, its cool.
I want to remove all the rough because I don't like hitting out of rough, especially rough thats long and challenging.
I don't like narrow dog legs because it forces me to hit a variety of shots off the tee, I just want to grip it and rip it and be assured of fairway.
Bethpage is not a top 1000 course, well okay okay its not a top 500 course.
I dont understand why anyone would compare Bethpage to PV when PV has virtually no rough.

and you really believe I am the one not being taken seriously?

I'm not taking you seriously, for starters.

Re: Comparing Pine Valley, from Tillinghast himself: "It was his [Joe Burbeck's] ambition to have something which might compare with Pine Valley as a great test..." from "Man Killers" first published in Golf Illustrated in April 1934.

So clearly Joe Burbeck and A.W. Tillinghast were.

And it seems Burbeck wanted to invite the comparison. 

I am generally a defender of Bethpage. I cannot, however, begin to justify some of the hackneyed shaping and tie-in work to the modifications (the most egregious example being behind the 14th green since 2006) done by Rees Jones to "restore" a course which involved an architect that wrote extensively about mimicking nature in golf construction.

[Tom_Doak]

Nick:


Whether anyone thinks Bethpage Black is a “great” course is 100% a matter of subjective opinion.


After my travels of the past two weeks, I can say it would comfortably be the best course in Kenya or Zambia, but that’s not saying much.


Your inability to accept that others might not all agree with your own opinion has gone from laughable to tiresome to irksome over the course of eight pages.  What adjective are you gunning for?  I think you are only a page or two away from loathsome, and it will be very hard to come back from there.

[jeffwarne]

Thete are easily 1000 courses Id play before Bethpage Black
There are a lot of great courses out there.
Bethpage is one dimensional.
And so many cool courses-why spend time on one u dont enjoy-thats a hassle to play to boot.
To each his own....