[Erik J. Barzeski]

I wish we could give "likes" or thumbs up or something on this forum. Oh well.

Nick, just as there are people who disagree with you that the green speeds at Oakmont are "unfair," people are allowed to disagree with you about just how "great" (or boring, or one-dimensional, or a bunch of other descriptors) BPB is.

[Peter Pallotta]

For me the main/only interest in this thread are the references to the 'life cycle' of many a classic course -- from difficult (especially with the equipment & maintenance practices of the day) upon first opening, to less difficult as the years went by and technology changed & talent developed more widely, to renewed difficulty as (depending on who was in charge) tees were moved back and the courses were lengthened and trees/bunkers were added and greens got quicker, and then (if the course was hosting a US Open) to exceptionally difficult for everyone, including the pros, with fairways narrowed to ribbons and rough grown thickly and greens shaved down to within an inch of their lives.
And even in that 'life cycle' context, BB seems to me from the outside to be a minor example of a great course, a 2nd tier version of the truly exemplary classic courses that have proven over time/over their life cycles to have more 'elasticity' and to retain much more of their essential interest -- rooted, I assume, in the very bones of their original designs.
(PS - I think a big part of Tom D's great success with his own courses and the renaissance in design is that he recognized & picked the classic courses with the most resilient life cycles as the models for his style of gca.)

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'll say it for the millionth time -
To mimic the shot played from the tee 100 years ago with modern day equipment the hole must be longer and more narrow to compensate for modern day distance and accuracy.

Nick how much golf have you played with 100 year old equipment on a golf course conditioned as it would have been 100 years ago?


I think you'd be rather surprised how much accuracy a good player can achieve with those clubs and how much of a penalty broad expanses of non-irrigated short turf can be.

[corey miller]

Would it be repellent if  Erik or anyone else were to claim that they thought there were 1000 sets of greens across the United States that were better than the Black?  I suspect I have not played anywhere near 500 so I would not like to make a statement that Nick would not like but how important are the greens contours?


I consider the BPB greens the worst set of any I have played in the top 100 classic. Yes I guess I am missing that they are "subtle" but are there any set less compelling?

[Bill Brightly]

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?

You are being so soundly criticized at by the GCA.COM community for many reasons, Nick.


For starters, you began this thread with personal attacks, and you are lucky Ran didn't throw you off the site. He probably did not not because while your "argument" favoring penal rough surely made Ran throw up in his mouth, enough knowledgable posters made the case that penal rough is boring; a course without a multitude of strategic options throughout the round can never be great, a great course has a great set of greens, etc., etc. So I'm sure Ran is pleased that the community so effectively shot down your thesis.


We probably ALL agree that Bethpage is a great course for the USGA whose goal seems to be to defend par and determine the best golfer over a 4 day period. That does NOT make it a great golf course. I find it funny that you equate Pine Valley with BPB, because PV is such an excellent example of a truly great course that does not rely on penal rough to be a really tough test of golf. The fairways at PV are SO much wider than BPB, and it's all about angles, being on the proper side of the fairway, and avoiding the really bad shot.


You are pissing people off with your incredibly poor reading comprehension and/or your willful twisting of people's words. For example, I never once complain when I play BPB. I said in my post that I know what I'm signing up for when I pay my green fees. I actually relish the challenge of testing my game under conditions that are similar to what the pros experience in US Opens and I'm a good enough player to get around the course. Yet you twisted that statement and said I whined because my ball was 5 yards off the fairway. I never ONCE talked about fairness. I simply said hacking out of thick rough is boring. It forces a player to play safe and robs him of the opportunity to try and pull of a heroic shot. You've twisted about twenty other statements on this thread. That makes you either a liar or a fool.


Here's the thing you don't really grasp, Nick. The posters on this site really know their stuff. Their collective knowledge never ceases to amaze me. It is clear that most have studied many architects, played a wide variety of courses, and their thinking about what constitutes a truly great golf course has evolved over time. I recognize the opinions of an architecturally uneducated golfer like you because I was once one myself. Thankfully, I took the time to really study the subject before I made 50 posts defending a position that I would soon learn was completely wrong...


Having been on GCA.COM for about 15 years, I truly believe that the site has elevated the collective knowledge of the golfing community about what constitutes truly good golf course architecture.  Sure, we run into occasional neanderthal thinking thats says "you need penal rough to test good golfers because of equipment advances." But in that sense, Nick, you are providing a valuable service by being the guy who makes that argument. It is good practice when we hear that at our clubs.

[Bill Brightly]

This thread reminded me of Joe Sponcia's excellent article found in the In My Opinion section of this website: Deconstructing Width. It should be required reading:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-the-misunderstood-concept-width/

[Mark Fedeli]

This thread reminded me of Joe Sponcia's excellent article found in the In My Opinion section of this website: Deconstructing Width. It should be required reading:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-the-misunderstood-concept-width/

Thanks for digging that back up, Bill.


It brings to mind two things for me:


1.) Does width actually lead to less-accurate driving, and thus, potentially harder approaches? Does the appearance of having 'all the room in the world' to hit your drive actually lead to a lack of discipline mentally and physically and, in turn, put you in worse spots strategically than if you had to focus on a narrow fairway lined with trees?


2.) Let's say you have to hit an approach shot 180 yards, uphill, all carry over a deep bunker (like 15 on BPB). On average, would a single digit handicap score better attempting to pull off the shot in one go, or, laying up to a comfortable distance and wedging on? If, over time, the latter approach leads to the better average score, then it makes the argument again for allowing the player the width from which to hang himself with.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

2.) Let's say you have to hit an approach shot 180 yards, uphill, all carry over a deep bunker (like 15 on BPB). On average, would a single digit handicap score better attempting to pull off the shot in one go, or, laying up to a comfortable distance and wedging on? If, over time, the latter approach leads to the better average score, then it makes the argument again for allowing the player the width from which to hang himself with.

The answer there, absent an actual penalty stroke situation (penalty area, OB, lost/unplayable ball) is that hitting the 180-yard shot is going to result in better scores, and it really won't be all that close.

[Kyle Harris]

2.) Let's say you have to hit an approach shot 180 yards, uphill, all carry over a deep bunker (like 15 on BPB). On average, would a single digit handicap score better attempting to pull off the shot in one go, or, laying up to a comfortable distance and wedging on? If, over time, the latter approach leads to the better average score, then it makes the argument again for allowing the player the width from which to hang himself with.

The answer there, absent an actual penalty stroke situation (penalty area, OB, lost/unplayable ball) is that hitting the 180-yard shot is going to result in better scores, and it really won't be all that close.

True.


Strategy comes into play when you allow the player to make the wrong choice.

[Mark Fedeli]

2.) Let's say you have to hit an approach shot 180 yards, uphill, all carry over a deep bunker (like 15 on BPB). On average, would a single digit handicap score better attempting to pull off the shot in one go, or, laying up to a comfortable distance and wedging on? If, over time, the latter approach leads to the better average score, then it makes the argument again for allowing the player the width from which to hang himself with.

The answer there, absent an actual penalty stroke situation (penalty area, OB, lost/unplayable ball) is that hitting the 180-yard shot is going to result in better scores, and it really won't be all that close.

So is that essentially the same logic that leads to par 5 holes typically being the hardest rated hotels on the course? The understanding being that the more shots one must attempt, the more chance there is for error?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So is that essentially the same logic that leads to par 5 holes typically being the hardest rated hotels on the course? The understanding being that the more shots one must attempt, the more chance there is for error?

Remember that the holes with the higher "handicap rating" are simply the holes where the higher handicap player is most likely to need the stroke against the lower handicap player. Par fives tend to be the "easiest" holes for good players (more chances to recover), while being hardest for poor players (more chances to screw up). Par threes only give the good player one shot (generally speaking) to separate himself from the poor player.

Those holes SHOULD be determined by submitting several hundred cards to the USGA (or more likely your local golf association).

A good quote from the article cited that I feel applies to BPB (and uses the word "boring"):

“If you don’t have width, you don’t have options. Without options, there is no strategy. Without strategy, you have what amounts to a very one-dimensional game that is boring to the scratch player and not very fun for the bogey golfer." — Rob Collins, King-Collins Design.

[Bill Brightly]

1.) Does width actually lead to less-accurate driving, and thus, potentially harder approaches? Does the appearance of having 'all the room in the world' to hit your drive actually lead to a lack of discipline mentally and physically and, in turn, put you in worse spots strategically than if you had to focus on a narrow fairway lined with trees?


2.) Let's say you have to hit an approach shot 180 yards, uphill, all carry over a deep bunker (like 15 on BPB). On average, would a single digit handicap score better attempting to pull off the shot in one go, or, laying up to a comfortable distance and wedging on? If, over time, the latter approach leads to the better average score, then it makes the argument again for allowing the player the width from which to hang himself with.

1) I'd say width only leads to higher scoring when it entices you to take a bad line, or the ball rolls further into a worse line. But even if the player is on a bad line, being in the fairway (or playable rough) at least gives him the opportunity to try for the pin, or green. Of course, real width works best when you have fast and firm conditions AND segmented, challenging greens.


2) As Ed said below, players of all abilities will score better the closer they get to the green. (Unless they risk a penalty for water hazard, lost ball, etc.) On Hole 15, I can't remember how far below the green the right green side bunker sits. I seem to recall it being a long uphill shot. For me, after missing the fairway, I find the rough SO thick that risking a shot that gets close to the green is a bad play. I'll miss the fairway or green 9 times out of ten and probably not hit it much further than a nine iron, so laying up with a nine iron is my play. (unless I catch a great lie.)

[Mark Fedeli]

1.) Does width actually lead to less-accurate driving, and thus, potentially harder approaches? Does the appearance of having 'all the room in the world' to hit your drive actually lead to a lack of discipline mentally and physically and, in turn, put you in worse spots strategically than if you had to focus on a narrow fairway lined with trees?


2.) Let's say you have to hit an approach shot 180 yards, uphill, all carry over a deep bunker (like 15 on BPB). On average, would a single digit handicap score better attempting to pull off the shot in one go, or, laying up to a comfortable distance and wedging on? If, over time, the latter approach leads to the better average score, then it makes the argument again for allowing the player the width from which to hang himself with.

1) I'd say width only leads to higher scoring when it entices you to take a bad line, or the ball rolls further into a worse line. But even if the player is on a bad line, being in the fairway (or playable rough) at least gives him the opportunity to try for the pin, or green. Of course, real width works best when you have fast and firm conditions AND segmented, challenging greens.


2) As Ed said below, players of all abilities will score better the closer they get to the green. (Unless they risk a penalty for water hazard, lost ball, etc.) On Hole 15, I can't remember how far below the green the right green side bunker sits. I seem to recall it being a long uphill shot. For me, after missing the fairway, I find the rough SO thick that risking a shot that gets close to the green is a bad play. I'll miss the fairway or green 9 times out of ten and probably not hit it much further than a nine iron, so laying up with a nine iron is my play. (unless I catch a great lie.)

My experience with 15 is probably that I've technically scored better on average after missing the fairway and having to lay-up than having gone for it from the fairway. My distance is decent but I don't hit the ball very high with longer irons, so that green is tough for me unless I've blistered a drive downwind and have a short iron left.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

.

[Peter Flory]

They listed the irons that Dustin had into greens in the last practice round.  It was pretty surprising- lots of long irons.  There must be some traditionally good players in this field that have zero chance here. 

[Sean_A]

2.) Let's say you have to hit an approach shot 180 yards, uphill, all carry over a deep bunker (like 15 on BPB). On average, would a single digit handicap score better attempting to pull off the shot in one go, or, laying up to a comfortable distance and wedging on? If, over time, the latter approach leads to the better average score, then it makes the argument again for allowing the player the width from which to hang himself with.

The answer there, absent an actual penalty stroke situation (penalty area, OB, lost/unplayable ball) is that hitting the 180-yard shot is going to result in better scores, and it really won't be all that close.

True.


Strategy comes into play when you allow the player to make the wrong choice.

I would take the simplistic definition one step further. Strategy mainly occurs when a player is out of position, but still has a choice to attempt the bold (or stupid) shot.


There must be sufficient width to allow for the above. We can argue til the cows come home about the minimal width required to achieve the above, but I am confident 25 yards is not the answer.


That said, I have no issue with a penal design philosophy, of which I would certainly classify BB as a prime example. I have no idea if that was the designer's original intent, but let's face it, BB will remain a penal style of golf so long as it hosts tour players.


I have seen so many courses whose strategic design intent has been thwarted by trees and/or rough that it is seen as acceptable, desirable even, by the at large golfer. I think it is a great pity, but I also think the touring pros hit the ball so high and so far that classic strategic design often cannot get the job done so far as providing a challenge is concerned. There are the rare courses which still provide great entertainment while retaining some strategic principles, Augusta and TOC come immediately to mind. But these two courses have been heavily compromised in the name of championship golf. BB isn't nearly in their class of quality and stature, and this is a distinction worth remembering.


For my part, if there is little width, I struggle to understand the entertainment value. Entertainment is why I play and watch golf.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

They listed the irons that Dustin had into greens in the last practice round.  It was pretty surprising- lots of long irons.  There must be some traditionally good players in this field that have zero chance here.

The fairways must be wet.


Did he say how many times he hit driver?  If the rough is thick enough and wet enough, DJ would not be hitting driver as often, because he is one of the few who can lay back and still be in position to attack the greens.

[BCrosby]

Well said, Sean.


Yes, it is remarkable how easy it is to turn an interesting strategic course into a grinding penal one. The sanctioning bodies that host major tournaments have a special knack for it. Or is it better described as a simple lack of imagination?


Bob

[Michael Felton]

On Hole 15, I can't remember how far below the green the right green side bunker sits. I seem to recall it being a long uphill shot.

I'd guess you're about 20 feet below the green and if the flag is at the back, you're about 40-50 yards away too. It's a really bad spot to be. It's no picnic to just get it out of there and even if you do, you're likely on the front or over the back of the green facing a difficult shot. For reference, for PGA tour players, 40 yards away in sand is roughly equivalent to being 110 yards away in the fairway. I'd imagine that PGA tour players probably separate themselves more from amateurs on sand shots than on fairway pitch shots, so I'd imagine you'd be better off 100 yards away in the fairway than 40 yards away in the sand. That's a really tough sand shot too. If you lay up, there's a fair chance you'll miss the fairway with that one too, so it's not quite so simple, but given how uphill the approach shot is there and how much sand is on the face of that hill, if the fairways were substantially wider, I could believe that a scoring average for someone like Mark who hits his long irons low might well be higher going for it than laying up.

[Will Lozier]

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.

Allelujah!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'd guess you're about 20 feet below the green and if the flag is at the back, you're about 40-50 yards away too.

Google Earth says you're about 12 feet and you don't have to hit it 40 yards to the back of the green, you just have to get it on the green to 30 feet so you can two-putt.




Also if the pin's in the back and you're in the very front of that right bunker, you were WAY off on your approach shot yardage.

[TAG]

What are the other Bethpage courses like?
atb

The Red has fantastic bones. If they could come up with some cash to regain shrunken greens and fix up bunkers, the course would really shine.


Bethpage Red is a perfect case study of great green complexes which have become small circles with detached bunkers after years of municipal maintenance.

[Nick Ribeiro]

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.

Allelujah!

Will - What a thoughtful response while quoting someone else....
Tom - Now that we are a page away without my tiresome commentary and not much has been solved, Id like to hear your thoughts regarding Bethpage Black and where it belongs in your opinion. Does it have a place in your top 100? Closer to 500? Not in top 1000? Best course in Kenya doesn't tell us much. Is it a "great" course in your opinion? Or just a good course? or not even that?


I have another part to this question which is probably better suited in the new thread by Tim Martin. So I will go over there where hopefully the loathsome behavior displayed above doesn't follow.

[Mark Fedeli]

What are the other Bethpage courses like?
atb

The Red has fantastic bones. If they could come up with some cash to regain shrunken greens and fix up bunkers, the course would really shine.


Bethpage Red is a perfect case study of great green complexes which have become small circles with detached bunkers after years of municipal maintenance.

Exactly! While I like that the Red is a bit scruffy and isn't over-manicured, there is still a ton of potential. Would love to see them expand the greens (and enhance the bunkers) on #2, #3, #5, #11, #13, and #17 especially. But almost all of them could use some love. It would be great to expand #1 into more of a punchbowl; to raise the right of #4 to play more like a Redan; to bring the edges on #14 closer to the hazards; to bring the side slopes more into play on #15 and #18.


There's a lot more fun that could be had out there on those greens.


Red is also one of the few courses where trees are used ingeniously, and dictate your play in the best way possible. They come majorly into play on the inside of doglegs on #2, #3, #5, #6, #11, #15, and #16 — and on none of those holes would I consider them to be oppressive. They just send the message that if you're going to take the shortcut line, you'd better hit it well — like #7 on Black.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tom … Id like to hear your thoughts regarding Bethpage Black and where it belongs in your opinion.

His book gives it a 7/10 and hints at one of the reasons I'd play 1000 other courses (on equal terms) before I play BPB again: the six-hour rounds that are common there.

I believe that rating pre-dates Rees, though. Could be wrong on that part, though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()