Shinnecock vs Bethpage

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I found another;



I think people are pretty familiar with the way the hole looks now though after serving as the home home for the US Open.  I'm certainly not trying to deceive anyone...the picture I posted I got from Rees Jones's website!  

I think its overdone and gawdy, you don't.  No biggie.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

Play the Black enough and you will come to realize the great angles so many tee shots present to the player.  #13 is one of those (unless you played the VERY forward tee   ). Others are 2, 5!!, 6!, 7!!, 9!!, 11!!!, 12, 13.

I'd add # 1 and # 4, but remove # 11

I referenced the DIRECTIONAL options.
But, # 18 is the only one, since you eliminated # 6, with the
DISTANCE option as well.

Matt Ward has referenced countless options on the tee at BPB, hence, # 18 with the added factor of the distance option, has to have as many if not more options then many of the other holes

It is one of the GREAT driving courses ever built.

I'm not so sure that I see the driving options on # 10,
# 11, # 15 and # 16, but I'd mostly agree with your statement.

Mike Cirba,

Why don't you post of picture of the hole, taken from the tee, before the changes, in order to give viewers a better perspective on what existed before, and what exists now ?

[SPDB]

Pat - The location of tees, as it does in so many other holes, more than adequately allows for the accomodation of the relative talents.

That it proved tough enough for the best players, as your numerous posts concede, is immaterial to the discussion. I'd like it to be more interesting (i have no evidence that PGA players found it interesting) A 600 yard long, 70 yard wide completely bunkerless hole might prove eminently challenging to the professional player, I would, in the abstract, however, probably advocate changing it.

I don't need to cite 10 other holes where this has been done, because I don't know of any off the top of my head. Golf, unlike the american jurisprudence, is not bound to follow prior examples.

I've cited my complaints, and offered my opinions why I'm not fond of the hole and how i would change it. I can do no more.

As for taking my word as gospel, that is up to you. If you want my advice, however, i'd be glad to supply you with it.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

The location of tees, as it does in so many other holes, more than adequately allows for the accomodation of the relative talents.

At 345 from down below, 394 and 411 from up top, you may not have that luxury, and certainly not the room you need in order to create the type of hazard you describe in the context of the overall scale of BPB

That it proved tough enough for the best players, as your numerous posts concede, is immaterial to the discussion. I'd like it to be more interesting (i have no evidence that PGA players found it interesting)

You also have no evidence that the didn't find it interesting

A 600 yard long, 70 yard wide completely bunkerless hole might prove eminently challenging to the professional player, I would, in the abstract, however, probably advocate changing it.

I don't need to cite 10 other holes where this has been done, because I don't know of any off the top of my head. Golf, unlike the american jurisprudence, is not bound to follow prior examples.

The fact that you can't site any, in light of the diversity and imagination of all the architects who have designed golf course for over a century, would lend credence to the reason why you can't, it may be an ill-conceived or bad idea, more rooted in fantasy then reality

I've cited my complaints, and offered my opinions why I'm not fond of the hole and how i would change it. I can do no more.

I understand, I think we all do this as armchair architects, because there's no fear of criticism.  It's like trying shots on the range, there's no consequence for failure.

But, having the balls to put our thoughts into the ground, as a permanent fixture, for everyone to test, review and criticize has a tendency to alter or soften our concepts.

You also have to remember that most architects don't work for themselves, they work for a client, whom they have to please.

As for taking my word as gospel, that is up to you. If you want my advice, however, i'd be glad to supply you with it.  

I welcome, and give careful consideration to everyone's advice, and then I make decisions based on the information at hand.

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

#11 might be the best one among the interesting angles you need to take off the tee at BB.  Play it more then once   and you  will quickly learn that the line your eyes tell you to take off that tee will result in your playing from the left rough at best and the bunkers often enough. Its semi-blind nature adds to the indecision.

I didn't reference 10, 15 and 16 in my list of holes with odd angled fairways.  Those holes are just long tough MF'ers with equally hard approach shots. 1 and 4 are pretty straightforward in their tee shot requirements.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

My experience at BPB is limited to ONLY playing the back tees.

Reaching the fairways on some holes, especially with a little breeze, sometimes takes precendence over tactical position.

I hit a good drive at # 10 and couldn't reach the fairway.
I hit a great drive at # 11 and was in the dead middle of the fairway, and quite happy with my drive.

Perhaps, the next time I play there, I'll come up from the back tees.

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

You must have pushed your drive a bit if you were in the middle of the fairway on #11 if someone didn't give you a line to play off the tee.  

Only about 1 in 5 of my rounds there are from the back.  6500+ is plenty fine for my enjoyment (especially from 1969 on with that equipment).  Move up a set if you want to reach the fairway or see the tactical values of the tee shots   Hope that new Mizuno driver works well.

[Matt_Ward]

Geoff:

I have a copy of the field notes Rees Jones did for Bethpage Black's #18 and here's what happened according to his actual work ...

*The actual green surface was reduced by 50%.

*The remaining green was aligned on a diagonal.

*New bunker was added to the left of the green.

*Existing bunkers behind the green were eliminated.

*Grassy slope & swale were created in the area immediately behind the right rear portion.

*Front right bunker was moved into the putting surface.

The actual green itself was not changed in any way. Hope this helps your understanding.

[GeoffreyC]

Mea culpa Matt?  So much for my eye.

However, who was it that said if you wanted an interesting green just hire the village idiot and ask him/her to build (or rebuild   ) a flat one?

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

You left out a small part from Rees "Field Notes" that is important. The last sentence of his paragraph dealing with the work done says, "The pitch of the green is deceptive in that it doesn't slant as much from back to front as it appears from the faieway, though it does pitch from right to left."

So what this means is that because the green now is angled to the fairway, and with the larger bunkers left, right and front, the pin positions today are more likely to cause the putts for the player who is on the green to be putting at greater angles to the natural slant to the green. That is why the putts break more today than in the past, when it was easier to place a second shot on the gren either below or above the hole.

Geoff, I believe that is why they appear to have more slope in them to you.

[GeoffreyC]

Phil

Thanks.  I hated having to give in to Matt    I'll put my glasses on now and get back to work.

[Phil_the_Author]

Geoff,

That's okay, it hurts me to  admit that Matt is right about anything when it comes to the 18th at the Black!

Only kidding Matt.

By the way, it is my understanding that the current plans for 2009, are to leave 18 untouched.

[SPDB]

Pat -
Whether or not the pros found it interesting or challenging is entirely irrelevant to whether I find it boring.

The 65-75 yard differential makes it easy to accomodate the everyday golfer with the professional, and the 20 yard differential also makes it easier to accomodate the higher skilled amateur player. from the back tees the bunker would effectively the bunker would start at ~ 230 on the right side, and move diagonally up to ~ 280 on the left, requiring a carry on the left side of roughly 250-255 on the right side, and correspondingly throughout. Subtract 65 and 20 yards from these numbers and I think you will find that it is reasonable for the everyday player, etc.

As for citing other holes, the strategy is not terribly dissimilar to #8 at another course (hint: it rhymes with National Golf Links of America), a hole which, until this today, I thought you loved.

I'm merely musing on changes I think would make the hole more interesting. It's fanciful, sort of like positing that CBM actually intended NGLA's current 18 hole arrangement, even when his own writings indicate otherwise. There's no harm in it, and I am certainly not advocating the changes or insisting that I am right.

Lighten up, you're wound up like yo-yo.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil / Geoff:

If there is movement on #18 green you both may need some serious glasses. You might want to check with 50 best putting lessons from Roberto Duran -- the consumate "hands of stone."

Nothing was changed with the green -- just a re-angling took place.

Phil -- sorry to hear about the decision to do nothing with the 18th hole / re: '09. #18 at BB simply fails to seal the deal. In many ways the 18th at BB is no less a disappointment than the 18th at CP. A true pity ...

[EAF]

I was a regular BB player for the past 15 years....  Sounds like the intro at a golfaholics anonymous meeting  

Anyway... The strategic angles and optional lines of play at BB were reduced the moment the fairways were narrowed for the US Open. With the narrow fairways and thick rough, the penalty for missing the correct side of a fairway was increased. Being in the "wrong part" of the fairway now is better than missing the best angle location.

I am a defender of the 18th at BB! RJ improved the old design significantly. Now the pros have the option of squeezing a drive into the narrow fairway if they must have a birdie. Yes most lay-back short of the bunkers and that is why the 18th is more difficult than it appears to be. I think many people do not like the 18th because it has ruined too many players' scorecards! They're the ones that blame the architect.

Eric

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Whether or not the pros found it interesting or challenging is entirely irrelevant to whether I find it boring.

The 65-75 yard differential makes it easy to accomodate the everyday golfer with the professional,
It's 66 yards, not 75 yards
 
and the 20 yard differential also makes it easier to accomodate the higher skilled amateur player.
I wouldn't call 17 yards a significant differential for the higher skilled amateur player

You also didn't indicate the length of your bunker configuration,  If it requires a carry of 230 yards on the right side, how long of a shot will it take to reach the front of the bunker at that point ?

And, if it takes a drive of 280 to carry the left side, how long of a shot does it take to reach just short of the bunker ?

Is your bunker 10 yards in length, 20 yards or 30 yards ?
This is an important consideration

from the back tees the bunker would effectively the bunker would start at ~ 230 on the right side, and move diagonally up to ~ 280 on the left, requiring a carry on the left side of roughly 250-255 on the right side, and correspondingly throughout. Subtract 65 and 20 yards from these numbers and I think you will find that it is reasonable for the everyday player, etc.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, perhaps I'm not reading the numbers correctly, or you forgot to insert some numbers in the right place. How can a bunker that goes up the left side 280 yards out, require a carry of 250-255 yards ?  Wouldn't it require a carry of 285-290 yards ?
I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify it for me.

I think that you've left out another critical factor on that hole.

The substantive elevation that the tees enjoy.
If the tees were at the same level as the fairway and the fairway bunkers, your concept might have some merit, but with that enormous elevation from the the fairway, those tees make your distances for bunker placement like the Maginot line.

A carry of 230 or 280 from a tee elevated 50 feet above the fairway is a lot easier to achieve then that same carry from ground level, hence, you'd have to move your bunkers closer to the green in order to achieve the same architectural and playability affect you're seeking at ground level, and if you do that, the option to hit up the left side, carrying the bunkers, begins to evaporate.

As for citing other holes, the strategy is not terribly dissimilar to #8 at another course (hint: it rhymes with National Golf Links of America), a hole which, until this today, I thought you loved.

Your concept for # 18 doesn't come close to mirroring the strategy provided off the tee at # 8 at NGLA.

And, the terrain is entirely different.
At NGLA you're hitting uphill, to a fairway sloped substantively from high left to low right, with bunkers lining both sides of the fairway, with a centerline bunker feature that doesn't require anywhere near a 280 yard carry.  A drive of 150 yards will leave you short of the first of the string of bunkers that make up the centerline feature, and a drive carrying 230 will clear them.

Would you say that the bunkering scheme at # 8 at NGLA would fit in with the style and grand scale of the bunkers at BPB ?

I'm merely musing on changes I think would make the hole more interesting. It's fanciful, sort of like positing that CBM actually intended NGLA's current 18 hole arrangement, even when his own writings indicate otherwise. There's no harm in it, and I am certainly not advocating the changes or insisting that I am right.

You did say that you tended to agree with Matt, and that alone casts your musings into an entirely different realm.

Lighten up, you're wound up like yo-yo.

I'm as calm and relaxed as can be, and just having fun

EAF,

Have the fairway widths been returned from the narrowness created in preparation for the US OPEN ?

[SPDB]

Pat this is what I wrote. If you look closely at the indications of "left" and "right" (amended to reflect a self-obvious error) and distinguish between placement and carry, a little arithmetic will answer all the questions you have regarding distance to, and carry of the bunkers.

from the back tees the bunker would effectively the bunker would start at ~ 230 on the right side, and move diagonally up to ~ 280 on the left, requiring a carry on the right side of roughly 250-255 on the right side, and correspondingly throughout. Subtract 65 and 20 yards from these numbers and I think you will find that it is reasonable for the everyday player, etc.

[EAF]

Patrick,

As of last season the fairway widths remained the same as the US Open widths. Unfortunately, I doubt that the fairways will be widened again. At least they lowered the rough to a more manageable height last season.

Eric

[Matt_Ward]

If you want one way to understand the distinction between the two courses simply do this -- switch ending holes at the two courses and what would you have -- clearly BB would go up dramatically and while Shinnecock would still have considerable support there would be a lessening because of the dead weight dullness that the existing 18th at BB displays now IMHO.

EAF:

The option of "squeezing" the driver into such a tight area and being forced to reckon with the sheer uncertainty that the flanking bunkers entails makes any such discussion of such an option a most unrealistic play.

One reason why the world's best are who they are is the art in assessing what situations present reasonable gambles -- the claustrophobic strangling of the existing land area simply precludes the option you outlined. Hence -- my tag line a "dull" hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

EAF,

That's unfortunate.

Merion and others have failed to restore their fairway lines to pre US OPEN widths, I hope Shinnecock doesn't succumb to the same oversight, intentional or inadvertant.

[EAF]

Matt,

For me a dull golf hole does not require a player to hit a difficult shot. The 18th at BB requires a very challenging shot from the fairway area that is short of the bunkers (about 160 yds. to the uphill green and usually into a cross-wind. I've seen many pros struggle to make par on 18 after laying it up. Most amatuers that play from the white tees can't reach the green from the fairway lay-up zone, so we routinely hit driver into the danger zone and most find a bunker instead of the fairway. The reward for driving to the 130-100 yd zone of the fairway is huge.

My point was that if someone needs a birdie to win the Open, they should go for it and try to drive it in the fairway near the green like the rest of us. That would not be dull!

Eric

[Matt_Ward]

EAF:

I never said anything hitting a difficult shot -- I spoke about the limited nature of real options that currently exists with the so-called new 18th hole.

When you say "many pros" struggle to make par -- I don't know who you are referring to. Are we talking about local area professionals? The PGA Tour?

Great holes, IMHO, attained their status because they maximize a range of interesting but certainly capable options. If a hole dangles a carrot and it's clear it can't be attained in 90%+ of the cases that's not an option. It's an illusion.

I observed very carefully the play of a good bulk of the field regarding the 18th and the likelihood of increasing their birdie opportunities came because THEY did opt to lay back away from the monsterous cluster of sand that envelopes the driving zone. You don't "go for it" when the sheer percentages are so weighed against the likelihood of success.

That's why, and others, have advocated the 18th be redesigned to bring into play a wider array of meaningful and practical options -- possibly a driveable par-4 that does add so much more than what is there now. That would add a good deal of spice and uncertainty to any event which is close between the players. The final four holes at the Black should be a closing quad that is inspiring. The 18th instead of adding more hot air to the balloon simply lets it all out. A pity.