Bethpage Black Setup

[Ben Hollerbach]

I will admit I was disappointed with the way Brooks just breezed right through the round today. He made it look beyond easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-OYp9AGdgE
He did miss a few greens and fairways but recovered with ease. Particularly on #1 I really thought he was in trouble after a terrible drive way off which should have been in the worst rough Bethpage had to offer. He recovered to a few feet which left me wondering if the rough is even penalizing? I didnt get to see full coverage, just the Brooks onslaught.


I will also say it was obvious the greens did not challenge him. When I was there I particularly liked the greens as they were fast and did break "subtly" but they are obviously not enough for tour pros.


Finally I find it interesting that Brooks noted an uneven lie in the rough is tough to control. Does Bethpage need to narrow the fairways even more at certain lengths to prevent players from shooting these scores?


I guess to be fair if you take Brooks & Lee off the board I would have said the course played as it should for a major. It's just ironic the conversation on here has been a back and forth about it being just hard or too hard and for Brooks it was set up awfully easy.


Four days to go, I hope the course has some teeth to show...

What were your thoughts as to how Pinehurst presented itself back in 2014?


Why does one mans play dictate the worth of the setup?


The average score was 72 today and there were about 30 guys who shot +6 or worse today, how do they factor into the equation of a good or bad setup?

[Peter Pallotta]

Very good post, Bill - thanks.
Yes, sadly I've concluded that, when it comes to the golden age courses/architects, Original Intent is like Original Sin -- both happened a very long time ago and involved people we couldn't possibly have met.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Has it been proven it is impossible to be faithful to the original intent? I seem to believe its a matter of math. I could be wrong but I don't understand why we can not replicate the same situation for the player today with modern equipment that the player had when the course originated? I would love to know who (besides you) deemed this impossible, case closed. Hey, maybe its something we can all work on together?

Ok, I’ll bite. What exactly is the original intent? What exact situations did the player face when the course originated that we need to replicate?


Be specific and cite all refrences used to construct your argument. Including, but not limited to, direct quotes from course designers and players from the era that specifically discuss the design intent and playing conditions of bethpage black in its original condition.

[Bill Brightly]

Nice thread, Tim. 


You've been around here long enough to know that discussing golf course architecture and the pro game is a fruitless exercise but I'll try to answer answer your question. (Do you make a habit of throwing a package of firecrackers in a movie theater, then exiting the building?)   
Why is discussing the pro game a fruitless exercise? You sure like to tell us how others here think, is this your way of telling us what we can and can't discuss? How about an open mind and some civility?


Given modern equipment and the athletes that are now playing at the highest level, it is impossible to be faithful to the original architect's intent, especially if the archy is an ODG. You know this.  The ODGs would be shocked and sadden by drivers that carry 300+ yards and 7 irons that carry 180-190. His design philosophy went out the window with the Pro V1 and the 460cc driver. You know this, too.
Has it been proven it is impossible to be faithful to the original intent? I seem to believe its a matter of math. I could be wrong but I don't understand why we can not replicate the same situation for the player today with modern equipment that the player had when the course originated? I would love to know who (besides you) deemed this impossible, case closed. Hey, maybe its something we can all work on together?


Assuming no space restrictions, we could add 1000 yards to the classic courses and play the pro tournaments from 8200-8500 yards. That might force the pros to hit approach shots as envision by the architect. (But the ODG could never envision the swing speed, height of shot, and backspin that today's pros can generate.) Since that is not an option, we are left with choking the fairways, adding penal rough, throwing the architect's intent out the window, and praying that these dreadful changes are removed as soon as the pros vacate the premises. But you already knew that, too.
Again, telling Tim what he does and does not know? If we can force the pros to hit approach shots as envisioned by the architect, why cant we replicate tee shots? An engineer once told me, we can do anything its just a matter of time, math, and money. Let's leave the bridge 2.0 thread behind us and move towards positive discussion, are we all allowed to do that?

OK, Nick, since I played Fishers Island today for the first time, I'm in a mellow mood tonight and will answer your questions in a patient manner. (For those gac.com members who know me as a devoted Macdonald-Raynor-Banks fan, you can imagine that I'm still in a daze. Given the proximity to the water, the superb Raynor routing, the spectacular use of templates, I now have FI in my top 5 in the world, but I need to calm down and process what I experienced today...)


1) The pros are playing a game that 0% of the posters on gca.com are playing. (I'd like to think that pros who are designing, or have aspirations of designing, are lurking GCA.COM, and paying attention...) I estimate that 99% of the golf courses that were built in the the last 150 years were not designed for the pro game. The pro game invaded these playing fields. So the question becomes: "Do we want to dramatically alter existing golf courses to "properly challenge" elite players for a week, or let them shoot -26 and leave the course alone?


2) Yes, it has been proven. Classic courses either accept the USGA changes or they do not get a US Open. So fairways get narrowed, penal rough grows in, fairways bunkers are left adrift in this sea of rough, the architect's intent is a laughable joke, and the pros arrive in town.


3) Tim is a smart guy and a gca.com friend. He is smiling at this thread. Don't worry about him.

[Nick Ribeiro]

What were your thoughts as to how Pinehurst presented itself back in 2014?
I was fortunate enough to be at Pinehurst (for the first time) in 1999 and watch Payne Stewart win it with a score of -1. I was a kid so I do not remember much but I do remember how hard everyone said it was and I remember walking around in the rain and brutally long rough. Not like the lack of rough I saw today out of Bethpage, this stuff was nasty. I was not at the 2014 Open but I did not like the result. Kaymer at -9. I think we should at least have our open as its always been, brutal. I don't even mind seeing a +1 or few higher score. Nine under par just doesn't bring in the rich tradition of challenge the US Open has always graced us with. I will say I have been to Pinehurst #2 twice in the last few years and I loved it. I would not change it back to 1999, however I would not want to see a US Open there.


Why does one mans play dictate the worth of the setup?
No. Unless its Brooks. Unfortunately the TV shows us the guy who is leading. I want to see players challenged, at least in majors. Today he was not, hopefully tomorrow will be different. Obviously you read through Bridge 2.0, everything discussed and debated didnt even exist today. Narrow fairways didn't seem narrow enough and rough was no where near what people on here were projecting. Brooks approach on #1 was a joke. Way off line drive which seemed to be in really bad shape and then nice easy wedge out to a few feet. It was brutal to watch. I didn't comment on the greens yesterday but I admit they are way too easy and not interesting. Brooks did not fear not one putt.


The average score was 72 today and there were about 30 guys who shot +6 or worse today, how do they factor into the equation of a good or bad setup?
They prob prove the set up was good. Like I said in an earlier post, remove Brooks and Lee and the leader board looks like it is right where it should be.

[Pat Burke]

Pat:


I don’t disagree with what you are saying, especially as to how high these players hit their iron shots.  (Brooks K might as well be dropping his ball out of a helicopter.)


But, your recommendations are precisely the type of greens Jack Nicklaus used to build, which were downright demoralizing for golfers with handicaps of 5 or higher.

Understood, and agreed.....which is why my last sentence is, in my mind, the most important.  For the people paying the freight, who are the game, challenging the tour pros is creating a nightmare often for the regular player

[Pat Burke]

IMO
The height the best players hit it now is staggering.  Trying to create angles is more difficult simply due to these players abilities to hit shots ridiculously high.

Pat,


I saw this post earlier and now I "get it". Rory and Jason Day just hit draws over the bunker on #16 with a right side pin GUARDED BY THE BUNKER. Obviously I have bunted, chipped, and other into that green, but there is NO CHANCE that I am hitting a draw over that bunker! And I can hit draws


Thanks for posting here, and if appropriate, I would love to hear your thoughts on Greg Norman's distance versus Brooks Koepka's distance in their respective eras.

Don’t want to derail the thread....good question.  Realistically similar...Greg was a great driver of the ball, and hit his irons incredibly high compared to most.
Brooks seems similar with less emotion and maybe more control in his decisions on course

[Nick Ribeiro]

Ok, I’ll bite. What exactly is the original intent? What exact situations did the player face when the course originated that we need to replicate?


Be specific and cite all refrences used to construct your argument. Including, but not limited to, direct quotes from course designers and players from the era that specifically discuss the design intent and playing conditions of bethpage black in its original condition.

I am talking in general here. I saw @farrowgolf post regarding the width of the fairways being narrowed 40 some percent. It reminded me of a recent article I read regarding the difference between the 250 yard shot in the 1930s and the 250 yard shot today. For some players its done with an iron and there was a study that said players are 40 some percent straighter at those driving distances. I merely suggested maybe Rees had some type of equation he used to narrow the fairways to mimic the same shot the player would have had a 100 years ago with wider fairways but much worse equipment since he does claim its restored.


We have already come a long way. In the this thread we have people admitting the game has changed to a non returnable degree today and the pros are just too good. I agree with everyone the pros are in a different galaxy, but the good amateurs and these young guys are not far behind from outgrowing these courses either. They've been raised with technology thats produced great swings that produce spectacular results tee to green. We can sit back and say well there is nothing we can do for the pros and they are such a small majority lets just forget about them, but where does that mentality end? In 10 years you wont be able to host a junior club championship with that mentality.


Something has to be done with the equipment but there does not seem to be an end in sight. We know pros and great amateurs did not post these scores 100 years ago. I think its worth a gander to see if you can replicate the intent of the original designer on every tee box all the way to the green using modern technology and what that would include. Thats all I am saying.

[Nick Ribeiro]

OK, Nick, since I played Fishers Island today for the first time, I'm in a mellow mood tonight and will answer your questions in a patient manner. (For those gac.com members who know me as a devoted Macdonald-Raynor-Banks fan, you can imagine that I'm still in a daze. Given the proximity to the water, the superb Raynor routing, the spectacular use of templates, I now have FI in my top 5 in the world, but I need to calm down and process what I experienced today...)


1) The pros are playing a game that 0% of the posters on gca.com are playing. (I'd like to think that pros who are designing, or have aspirations of designing, are lurking GCA.COM, and paying attention...) I estimate that 99% of the golf courses that were built in the the last 150 years were not designed for the pro game. The pro game invaded these playing fields. So the question becomes: "Do we want to dramatically alter existing golf courses to "properly challenge" elite players for a week, or let them shoot -26 and leave the course alone?
Do you dramatically alter golf courses to "properly challenge" elite players and average members that utilize modern equipment that bring them close to the pro game from tee to green, or let them shoot -26 under and leave the course alone?
This is exactly one of my main points! Amateurs are not shooting -26 under at their home course, but they are driving the ball very close to pro distance with modern technology. The tee game has been hurt the worst, and is the most boring. Tree removal and wide open fairways promote bombs away. If the hole is long enough perhaps an errant tee shot can go into an area of the fairway that isn't position A, but does it matter if you are 20/30/40 yards from the green all day long? We should look for ways to restore the game from the tee.


2) Yes, it has been proven. Classic courses either accept the USGA changes or they do not get a US Open. So fairways get narrowed, penal rough grows in, fairways bunkers are left adrift in this sea of rough, the architect's intent is a laughable joke, and the pros arrive in town.
Why does it have to be a laughable joke? If the player is presented with the same challenge off the tee as he was 100 years ago and the only change is the equipment in his hand I feel like that could be a major win. I heard Gil Hanse talk about utilizing new technology to resurface greens to exact specs they were as intended, why can't we come up with a way to replicate challenge and demand that existed 100 years ago?


3) Tim is a smart guy and a gca.com friend. He is smiling at this thread. Don't worry about him.

[Thomas Dai]

From what I saw on TV I thought the set-up was vile! Just saying.

As to original design intent what about a few add-ons from the same era - ie - original maintenance/tournament venue practices.


Whispy grass, flier lies, ruts, old divots, unraked bunkers, hardpan, spectators on the fairways, less spectators to help find wayward shots, no yardage/putting books, pins in the same position all four days, 2 rounds on the final day etc etc
Just a few things to ponder (not just at BPB though) and there are others too.

atb

[Tim Martin]

I have always been puzzled by the amount of angst that is created as it relates to this issue. The USGA is usually the piñata in the discussion for the setup of the U.S. Open. People lost their minds over the mowing lines at Merion as an example but at the end of the day it was a great tournament. When the event is over these courses can go back to the same maintenance meld that the course employs for its members. BPB enjoys the reputation of the toughest around and remains an outlier in this discussion as the powers that be keep it similar for everyday play as for a major tournament(think Oakmont on the private side). The flip side for the purists is that without some type of setup intervention that may run counter to ODG’s intent professional majors will not be held at many of these great old Golden Age courses. Maybe Erin Hills is the prototype going forward when it comes to building golf courses for testing the best in the world.

[Mark Fedeli]

I have always been puzzled by the amount of angst that is created as it relates to this issue. The USGA is usually the piñata in the discussion for the setup of the U.S. Open. People lost their minds over the mowing lines at Merion as an example but at the end of the day it was a great tournament. When the event is over these courses can go back to the same maintenance meld that the course employs for its members. The flip side for the purists is that without some type of setup intervention that may run counter to ODG’s intent professional majors will not be held at many of these great old Golden Age courses. Maybe Erin Hills is the prototype going forward when it comes to building golf courses for testing the best in the world.

What makes the Bethpage version of this so interesting is that: 1.) they don’t change the maintenance back after the tournament, and 2.) the course was a great golden age design, not purpose-built for modern major events, yet the modern pro experience is what many want to experience when they come play it.


It puts it in a unique position relative to most other courses. Which is a big reason I think this discussion has so many sides.

[Mark_Fine]

Wave the white flag if you are trying to “restore design intent” for your home course for the pros.  All you will do is ruin the course for most everyone else and take on/add huge expenses.  I told the membership this same thing 15 years ago when I worked on a Master Plan for Cherry Hills CC.  I am sure Tom Doak agrees with me here.  Unless you have room for 8500 - 9000 yards of golf course, the pros are going to tear up most anything you can throw at them.  Don’t waste your time and money on the pros as they are not the ones enjoying your course every day.  Better to focus on restoring that design intent for the other 99%.


We all have to learn to accept that the pro level game of golf has surpassed the intent of almost all the playing fields out there now.  It is reality. 



Bill,
I played Fishers on Tuesday this week!  I have always loved that golf course.  Another example of a course you wouldn’t want to mess with just for the pros.  Just hope the wind blows really hard when they show up 😊

[Ben Hollerbach]

What were your thoughts as to how Pinehurst presented itself back in 2014?
I was fortunate enough to be at Pinehurst (for the first time) in 1999 and watch Payne Stewart win it with a score of -1. I was a kid so I do not remember much but I do remember how hard everyone said it was and I remember walking around in the rain and brutally long rough. Not like the lack of rough I saw today out of Bethpage, this stuff was nasty. I was not at the 2014 Open but I did not like the result. Kaymer at -9. I think we should at least have our open as its always been, brutal. I don't even mind seeing a +1 or few higher score. Nine under par just doesn't bring in the rich tradition of challenge the US Open has always graced us with. I will say I have been to Pinehurst #2 twice in the last few years and I loved it. I would not change it back to 1999, however I would not want to see a US Open there.


Why does one mans play dictate the worth of the setup?
No. Unless its Brooks. Unfortunately the TV shows us the guy who is leading. I want to see players challenged, at least in majors. Today he was not, hopefully tomorrow will be different. Obviously you read through Bridge 2.0, everything discussed and debated didnt even exist today. Narrow fairways didn't seem narrow enough and rough was no where near what people on here were projecting. Brooks approach on #1 was a joke. Way off line drive which seemed to be in really bad shape and then nice easy wedge out to a few feet. It was brutal to watch. I didn't comment on the greens yesterday but I admit they are way too easy and not interesting. Brooks did not fear not one putt.


The average score was 72 today and there were about 30 guys who shot +6 or worse today, how do they factor into the equation of a good or bad setup?
They prob prove the set up was good. Like I said in an earlier post, remove Brooks and Lee and the leader board looks like it is right where it should be.

If you can remove Brooks and Lee from today and say it was a good setup, they why does Kaymer's fantastic performance back in 2014 destroy the tournament result? There have been majors in the past where one player was dramatically better than the field that may skew impressions of a course's setup, but you can't discount that when players are truly on they can play beyond the setup. You have to look at the full field's performance to grade a tournament course setup.


Like Koepka and Lee, lets remove Kaymer from the tournament for a second and see how they compare.


               1999:               2005:               2014:
Top 10              71.03               71.23               70.23
Top 25              71.98               71.83               70.74
CUT                  73.68               72.84               72.09
ALL                   74.55               74.17               73.12


All in all the restoration performed at Pinehurst, eliminating the rough entirely and widening the fairways significantly, between the 2005 and 2014 US Opens weakened the course for the field by 1 stroke per round. Am I to understand that in your eyes the restoration to Pinehurst was good but bastardized it as a future US Open venue as it is no longer able to appropriately test the best players in the world?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ok, I’ll bite. What exactly is the original intent? What exact situations did the player face when the course originated that we need to replicate?


Be specific and cite all refrences used to construct your argument. Including, but not limited to, direct quotes from course designers and players from the era that specifically discuss the design intent and playing conditions of bethpage black in its original condition.

I am talking in general here.

Nick, I asked you to please be specific

I saw @farrowgolf post regarding the width of the fairways being narrowed 40 some percent. It reminded me of a recent article I read regarding the difference between the 250 yard shot in the 1930s and the 250 yard shot today.

Please cite this article

For some players its done with an iron and there was a study that said players are 40 some percent straighter at those driving distances. I merely suggested maybe Rees had some type of equation he used to narrow the fairways to mimic the same shot the player would have had a 100 years ago with wider fairways but much worse equipment since he does claim its restored.

If you have references that would define Rees' potential equation, or if you or someone else has developed such an equation please cite it here.


The same can be said for the claim about much worse equipment, what data do you have to back up that claim? What criteria are you using to grade equipment performance?

We have already come a long way. In the this thread we have people admitting the game has changed to a non returnable degree today and the pros are just too good. I agree with everyone the pros are in a different galaxy, but the good amateurs and these young guys are not far behind from outgrowing these courses either. They've been raised with technology thats produced great swings that produce spectacular results tee to green. We can sit back and say well there is nothing we can do for the pros and they are such a small majority lets just forget about them, but where does that mentality end? In 10 years you wont be able to host a junior club championship with that mentality.


Something has to be done with the equipment but there does not seem to be an end in sight. We know pros and great amateurs did not post these scores 100 years ago.

By "these scores" what exactly are you referring to?

I think its worth a gander to see if you can replicate the intent of the original designer on every tee box all the way to the green using modern technology and what that would include. Thats all I am saying.

You must define "the intent of the original designer" without that, you have nothing. What documentation do you have that clearly describes the intent of the designer for each shot on every hole of a course like Bethpage?


Where does golf course agronomy come into play in this evaluation? How about style of play?

[Mark_Fine]

Ben,
Determining the “intent of the original design” is not that hard to do if you know the architect and have studied their courses, writings,..., and the evolution of the design in question. 

[Bill Brightly]

Wave the white flag if you are trying to “restore design intent” for your home course for the pros.  All you will do is ruin the course for most everyone else and take on/add huge expenses.  I told the membership this same thing 15 years ago when I worked on a Master Plan for Cherry Hills CC.  I am sure Tom Doak agrees with me here.  Unless you have room for 8500 - 9000 yards of golf course, the pros are going to tear up most anything you can throw at them.  Don’t waste your time and money on the pros as they are not the ones enjoying your course every day.  Better to focus on restoring that design intent for the other 99%.


We all have to learn to accept that the pro level game of golf has surpassed the intent of almost all the playing fields out there now.  It is reality. 

+1
Mark said it perfectly.
Tim, I don't really care what clubs to to their courses in preparation for a US Open, that is their business. (Although it does require the membership to go through a season of having to play golf in less than ideal circumstances. The rough is usually LONGER for the members until the cut it one last time before the event.) My bigger problem is when these changes are NOT temporary, and other courses feel pressure to emulate US Open setups. Beyond set up, thousands of courses have felt the pressure to add length, build tiger tees, maintain more turf (in pristine condition,) and dramatically increase their spending.

[archie_struthers]

 


Anyone who doesn't think the equipment has made the game easier just never played with the old stuff. It remains the primary reason the guys can hit it so far and high, and reasonably straight. It also widened the field that can win, as swinging fast has become more important as the sweet spot widened. To this day I will never forget the first time I hit the ping long irons at 22 or 23 years old. They felt like a trampoline  (I-2's ?)  Now it extends thru the whole bag.




By the end of the tournament I think the scoring is going to be around -10 -12  if its lower than that it would be surprise to me. Its really wet throughout the NE and conditions are soft. This makes driving the golf ball such a premium as the rough tends to lay over
and hitting fairways is so critical. Koepka by his own admission said he drove it great yesterday and its hard to do it four days in a row when you are hitting the ball this far.


Firm and fast is really the best defense and its just not going to happen this week given the weather. But still think the low scores aren't going to continue for all four days. It is a major with pressure that builds as you go!

[Ben Hollerbach]

1) The pros are playing a game that 0% of the posters on gca.com are playing. (I'd like to think that pros who are designing, or have aspirations of designing, are lurking GCA.COM, and paying attention...) I estimate that 99% of the golf courses that were built in the the last 150 years were not designed for the pro game. The pro game invaded these playing fields. So the question becomes: "Do we want to dramatically alter existing golf courses to "properly challenge" elite players for a week, or let them shoot -26 and leave the course alone?
Do you dramatically alter golf courses to "properly challenge" elite players and average members that utilize modern equipment that bring them close to the pro game from tee to green, or let them shoot -26 under and leave the course alone?
This is exactly one of my main points! Amateurs are not shooting -26 under at their home course, but they are driving the ball very close to pro distance with modern technology. The tee game has been hurt the worst, and is the most boring. Tree removal and wide open fairways promote bombs away. If the hole is long enough perhaps an errant tee shot can go into an area of the fairway that isn't position A, but does it matter if you are 20/30/40 yards from the green all day long? We should look for ways to restore the game from the tee.

That is statistically false. Studies have show that the gap between pro distance and amateur distance is actually growing rather than shrinking.


From 1996-2012 The R&A conducted a study where they examined driving distances of players. Below is an except from the study:


"Each season since 1996 we have been gathering driving distances from players with a range of handicaps and the average driving distance in 2012 for this cohort was 208 yards compared to 200 yards in 1996; an increase of 8 yards. The largest change over the 17 seasons has been the number of higher handicap golfers choosing to use drivers from the tee in our measurements. Back in the 1990s the percentage usage for the highest handicap group was 55% and this has risen to a figure in excess of 90% since around 2005, which is presumably associated with enhanced forgiveness. Using driver-only data the increase in driving distance from 1996 to 2012 is only 3 yards."R&A - The Truth About Driving Distance



Over the same period of time on the PGA tour the average driving distance grew from 266 yards to 289 yards.
USGA- 2018 A Review of Driving Distance


Arccos, using data collected from 10 million tee shots hit by their users specifically with a driver, have actually seen the average player loose driving distance over the past few years. From 2015 through mid 2018 the average driving distance fell from 220.6 to 217.5. They also calculated the average driving distance of the 0-5 handicap range to be only 239 yards.
New Data Shows We're Not Hitting It Farther
Are average golfers gaining distance? New study says not by a long shot



Who should golf courses be catering too? The average player is not playing the same game as the professional and that difference is growing day by day. Has tree removal and wide open fairways helped make the average player score better?


What ends are necessary to setup a course for play? With the grand majority of players showing little to no distance gains over the last 20+ years why is there a belief that courses need to be set up with the strategic needs of a few highly skilled players, when it comes at the detriment of the masses?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben,
Determining the “intent of the original design” is not that hard to do if you know the architect and have studied their courses, writings,..., and the evolution of the design in question.

I don't entirely disagree with that statement, but for many courses that is a very large ask to know all of those facets of information AND be able to correlate them to the evolution of course agronomy, equipment, playing style, etc...


In the case of a course like Bethpage, how specific of an "original intent" doctrine could be put together?

[Jim Nugent]

Nick,


He did say precise shots required off varied lies.  I think ANGC is a much better example over Trinity forest where the penalty of being out of position is far more severe...

But to remain competitive for the world's best, ANGC has had to change the original design intent, in the very ways most of us here abhor.  Expanded rough.  Vastly more trees.  Tighter playing corridors.  Regularly stretching the tips and making the greens run over twice as fast as they were designed for. 

i.e. precise shots off uneven lies have not carried the day at ANGC.  It faces the same dilemma as everywhere else:so long as pro's hit short irons or wedges on all or most of their approach shots, the course will have next to no defense.  Tiger did that to ANGC in 1997, even hitting wedges for his second shot onto some par 5s. 

I'm not sure there's a good answer to Tim's original question.  Maybe you can still test today's touring pro's, but by doing what something similar to what Merion did in the last US Open there: narrowing fairways to bowling lanes surrounded by thick, heavy rough.  But then that changes the original intent. 

Preserving original intent, seems to me, is nearly impossible so long as the players keep hitting the ball further. 

[Mark Fedeli]

Nick,


He did say precise shots required off varied lies.  I think ANGC is a much better example over Trinity forest where the penalty of being out of position is far more severe...

But to remain competitive for the world's best, ANGC has had to change the original design intent, in the very ways most of us here abhor.  Expanded rough.  Vastly more trees.  Tighter playing corridors.  Regularly stretching the tips and making the greens run over twice as fast as they were designed for. 

i.e. precise shots off uneven lies have not carried the day at ANGC.  It faces the same dilemma as everywhere else:so long as pro's hit short irons or wedges on all or most of their approach shots, the course will have next to no defense.  Tiger did that to ANGC in 1997, even hitting wedges for his second shot onto some par 5s. 

I'm not sure there's a good answer to Tim's original question.  Maybe you can still test today's touring pro's, but by doing what something similar to what Merion did in the last US Open there: narrowing fairways to bowling lanes surrounded by thick, heavy rough.  But then that changes the original intent. 

Preserving original intent, seems to me, is nearly impossible so long as the players keep hitting the ball further.

Jim, where we've been getting lost in these Bethpage threads is in the debate between "intent" as far as strategy, and "intent" as far as what sort of challenge is presented to the world's best. What's become more clear than ever is how hard it is to rectify both.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Ben,
Determining the “intent of the original design” is not that hard to do if you know the architect and have studied their courses, writings,..., and the evolution of the design in question.

I don't entirely disagree with that statement, but for many courses that is a very large ask to know all of those facets of information AND be able to correlate them to the evolution of course agronomy, equipment, playing style, etc...


In the case of a course like Bethpage, how specific of an "original intent" doctrine could be put together?

Thanks Mark, Ben gets it, just doesn't want to hear it from me.

[Craig Sweet]

Make the hole smaller...

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben,
Determining the “intent of the original design” is not that hard to do if you know the architect and have studied their courses, writings,..., and the evolution of the design in question.

I don't entirely disagree with that statement, but for many courses that is a very large ask to know all of those facets of information AND be able to correlate them to the evolution of course agronomy, equipment, playing style, etc...


In the case of a course like Bethpage, how specific of an "original intent" doctrine could be put together?

Thanks Mark, Ben gets it, just doesn't want to hear it from me.

But thats the thing Nick, I DO want to hear it from you.


What am I not understanding about Burbeck and Tillinhast's original intent? Provide me with their own words, drawings, etc... that demonstrate what they wanted to accomplish.