Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Lance on October 10, 2002, 01:49:24 PM
-
I just came home from playing the Black Course at bethpage. While walking off #14 two golf carts come rolling by our group and Rees Jones is sitting in the passenger seat of one of them holding onto a set of plans! The carts then proceeded towards the first tee for the ceremonies to announce the Open is returning in 2009. Since Mr. Jones was carrying plans then I suppose he is considering some changes for 2009...what changes might you all suspect he'd have in mind? I took a close look at the area behind the 14th tee today and I swear that if they really wanted to build a new tee box back there that it would have to be about a 230 yard shot which I think would be too long a shot to be received by the 14th green. What else he'd have in mind escapes me! BTW, I shot 93 today on the airated greens. The course looks pretty stark with every last bit of fescue cut down now. Lance
-
Somebody has got to do something about Rees. Someone has to talk to the USGA about him. I mean this is ridiculous.
Jeff F.
THIS HAPPENS TO BE THE FAMOUS POST THAT STARTED ALL THE CONTROVERSY. YOU'RE WELCOME!
-
Jeff,
What is ridiculous ?
Are you positive that changes will be made ?
If so what changes ?
Are you positive that Rees is the author of any potential change ?
Shouldn't we find out the facts first, then react,
as opposed to reacting first and then ascertaining the facts ?
-
Easy Pat -- you're frothing again. :)
-
Tom MacWood,
I'm not frothing, Jeff is, I'm just trying to be the voice of reason, advocating the obtaining of the facts before drawing conclusions. Is that wrong ? Or, if Rees is involved does judgement without the facts get a pass ?
-
The stated facts are--Rees riding past #14 with a set of plans in his hands!
While it would be nice for some to know exactly what Rees and the course may or may not have in mind, there doesn't seem to be anything really wrong with mentioning he was seen out there with plans and then someone else saying they hope more isn't in store for the course!
It seems pretty clear to me that Rees wasn't riding around out there with plans in his hand just to fix a ball mark or something!
If those who are concerned about things like this wait until all the facts become known, whatever they were concerned about in the first place will probably already be done!
-
Jeff,
C,mon, Rees Jones is a human being with feelings, too. Let's insert your name into your post.
Rees Jones,
"Somebody has got to do something about Jeff. Someone has to talk to the USGA about him. I mean this is ridiculous".
Rees J.
-
Jeff- The only thing ridiculous is your reply to the fact that Rees was present at the Black course when it was made public that the Open would return in 2009.
Tom- Why don't you now go and complain about changes to the classic Harding Park coursde that will affect the public golfers in SF? I'm sure all those poor souls will yearn for the old conditions.
-
seriously, i mean how many times do you think unsuspecting golfers at some classicly designed course in the mid-atlantic/northeast region have looked up in time to see Tom Paul wizzing by in a golf cart carefully examining original plans for the course.
would you say: "somebody has got to do something about Tom Paul." ??? ;D
-
Guys,
Relax!
I am simply saying that it seems like everything the USGA does, Rees is there to the rescue. I didn't say that I hate the man. You act as if I burned his house down!
Jeff F.
-
Jeff
Fine- you didn't say that you you hate the man.
Please then tell us for FOR THE RECORD what exactly "should be done about Rees?" and what exactly would you talk to the USGA about regarding him?
-
I'm always one of the first to defend the Rees critics, but getting fired up because he was seen with a chart driving by the 14th seems a little paranoid even to me.
-
Hey it's a Rees Jones golf course ;) Shouldn't he be allowed to do as he pleases with it?
-
Lance,
How are you so sure that you saw Rees holding
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS OF BETHPAGE ?
He rides by in a cart, and from a distance, you can ascertain, without fear of contradiction that he was holding a set of plans ?
And, you're so positive about what you saw that you chose to report same, ANONYMOUSLY.
Would you be willing to wager on what you believe you observed and reported to this site ?
Jeff Fortson and others,
It amazes me.
An individual comes on to the site, ANONYMOUSLY, and posts something about REES, and you and others accept his word as GOSPEL, without one bit of reservation, without so much as a question with respect to his alleged observation.
Does that seem strange to you ?
Do you all go through life accepting the word of someone who has neither the courage nor the confidence to tell you who they are ?
Am I the only one who sees the genesis of a feeding frenzy started by an unsubstantiated rumor from an anonymous source ?
If someone pulled the same stunt about C&C the site would go ballistic. You'd all be incredulous and outraged.
Nah, there's no BIAS here.
-
Patrick,
"Lance" comes on and says he sees Rees with a set of plans.
Jeff Fortson chimes in eschewing the USGA to do something about Rees.
No post since has agreed with "Lance" or Jeff Fortson.
??? ??? ??? ??? To paraphrase the old woman in the Wendy's ads "Where's the bias" ;D
-
Jim,
The bias is in the acceptance of the words and conclusions of an anonymous poster, regarding Rees that:
1. Rees was carrying plans
2. They were for alterations to the golf course
Jeff then says, "somebody has to do something about Rees"
What does that imply ?
TEPaul then says, that Lance's comment is stated fact, without so much as questioning Lance. Blind acceptance.
George Pazin then says he was seen with a chart, accepting Lance's anonymous conclusion.
Mark Fine then says it's his course, let him do what he pleases.
Jim, it just seems to me, that before drawing conclusions, one should ascertain the facts, especially when an anonymous poster makes a pronoucement and draws a conclusion, that for some reason, every body accepts blindly.
Even reporters are supposed to get two sources and confirms.
-
Patrick,
It may be that "Lance" is being given the benefit of the doubt.
A call to the Parks and Rec Dept. could go a long way to finding out if the story has any merit.
I think you saw a couple of little lazy jabs, but no out and out punches.
-
Gee, this post reads like the transcript of a fight in a marriage gone sour. Come to think of it, too many of recent GCA posts have started to sound like this, too.
My bet, by the way, is that at Bethpage they will widen the driving area on no. 12 so that there's an alternate route around the fairway bunker; way over on the right side are some bunkers and old fairway waiting to be reclaimed.
-
Mark, the sad thing is, if my information is correct, is that RJ really does think it is his course, or at the bare minimum his and Mr. T's.
-
Jim,
I'm a little surprised at you.
Don't you think that I've already done my homework ?
Brad Klein,
I'm surprised that the conclusion from some, is that negative, not positive changes will be made to the golf course.
Many people, including the players raved about the golf course, why shouldn't there be an ongoing attempt to improve it ?
-
Somewhere in the initial post was a question about what changes could be made to the Black. I'd like to add my two cents to that question.
1. "Tillie-ize" about four or five greens, particularly 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. And I don't mean bury a dead elephant or something radical. Keep in the Tillie mold, add some tilt or tiering, not humps or troughs.
2. Make 2 and 6 world class short par 4's. I think 2 cries out for a green similar to 16 at ANGC, utilize the front left bunker more, extend the green around the back of that bunker, creating a similar hole location as the Sunday spot for 16 at ANGC. Elevate a back right portion, would make for a great hole location. BTW - 2 averaged 4.2 at the open and I stood in the fairway on Saturday when they had a front left hole and watched about ten players come through, four hit it into the front left bunker - I was amazed how poor these wedge shots were. 6 - needs a better green, because the layout is terrific.
3. Redo 18!!!! My idea is simple - move the green back and to the right so it sits more on the side of the hill. A diagonal left to right green would result. Now you have a gentle dogleg right hole, move the fariway bunkers on the left up the fariway and more diagonal left to right, thus framing a diagonal left to right fariway. Now it's a better tee shot, because a three iron off the tee leaves a 200 yard shot rather than 170ish and the movement of the fairway resembles the rest of the course.
As for 14, a new tee extending the hole over 200 yards is ridiculous. If they can do it, maybe a few yards so it's not a nine iron, but thats it. And who says a nine iron is all that bad! I also like the idea of an easy hole before the extremely difficult 15-16-17 stretch.
As for 10 and 12 - blame it on the USGA setup. 10 was stripped of it's strategic intent at 492 yards. At 470 yards, the hole is more interesting and the irony is maybe more difficult as some very good and gently moving fairway bunkering comes into play. 12 needs a short hitters route although it doesn't really play 499, due to the dogleg it can play shorter.
-
HEY-why am I being called a liar? I SAW REES JONES FROM THREE FEET AWAY & HE HAD BLUE PRINT PLANS OF SOME KIND IN HIS HAND! Today's Newsday stories CONFIRM he was onsite and is considering tweaking the course to add additional length, although no specifics are mentions. Lance
-
Lance,
Are you sure that those weren't as builts, plans of the course as it is ?????
-
BTW, I agree that the 18th is still the "weakest Link" of the Black's chain. I've heard from someone reliable that Mr. Jones originally toyed with the idea of the tee being moved WAY left, over and to the right of the Tee Box for the Par3 5th hole of the RED Course, which would turn the 18th into a dogleg right in the 475 yard range with the current right hand bunker complex of the 18th sitting as the elbow of the dogleg. The idea was abandoned for two reasons; 1) the stand of trees between the 18th of the Black and the First hole of the red would have to be cut down, and 2) this new Tee would be for U.S. Open play only because it would play across part of the Red course. The notion of having a tee not usable by the public at any other time was not acceptable. My personal feeling is that the 14th WILL be extended and that #7's rear tee will be moved back and the hole will be returned to a natural Par five of some 590 yards, bring the cross bunkers into play requiring a carry off the tee 250 yards to reach the fairway JMO. Lance
-
Patrick, I presume that the plans were indeed the present course, or the original Tilly palns and that Mr. Jones was using them as point of reference. Today's Newsday says "further Tweaking" before the next US Open will be left to Rees Jones. Lance
-
Lance
I'll tell you why you are a liar because Maddog Mucci read that you mentioned Rees Jones - expect this thread to spiral out of control :)
Hopefully Mr. Nettune will pipe in, I wonder what he thinks of The Bridge!
-
Tom MacWood,
The Nettune family are prominent members of Baltusrol, not The Bridge, another course that you are no doubt an expert on, despite never having played it.
-
Maddog
How did I know you would be familiar with the Nettunes? :)
-
I'm just loving this free-flowing discussion--but I need some clarification!
What's the difference between a prominent member of Baltusrol and just an everyday regular member of Baltusrol?
-
Lance,
You wrote:
[HEY-why am I being called a liar? I SAW REES JONES FROM THREE FEET AWAY & HE HAD BLUE PRINT PLANS OF SOME KIND IN HIS HAND! Today's Newsday stories CONFIRM he was onsite and is considering tweaking the course to add additional length, although no specifics are mentions. Lance]
In his article contained in Newsday dated 10/11/02 titled "It's Bethpage Green for 2009 Open" by Bill Bleyer, he writes in paragraph #7 "While most of the USGA money for 2002 was for upgrading the course with new sand bunkers and improved irrigation, "that's probably not going to be necessary" again in 2009, Fay said. "There may be some tweaking of the course. We'll want to work out a structure where the course will be maintained in the type of condition that we like and that everybody would like."
Please note that it was DAVID FAY, NOT REES JONES who said that ther "MAY be some tweaking of the course."
Rees Jones was there at the invitation of the USGA for the press conference announcing the awarding of the Open.
-
Brad,
You wrote:
[My bet, by the way, is that at Bethpage they will widen the driving area on no. 12 so that there's an alternate route around the fairway bunker; way over on the right side are some bunkers and old fairway waiting to be reclaimed.]
Actually, they put the fairway bunker on the right side back in for the Open itself. To quote Rees Jones, "On the right we reestablished the original Tillinghast bunker at the corner, which had been abandoned."
Another point, by expanding the fairway further into the right side would only mean that a "short hitter" would have as much or more of a carry to that spot than if he tried to carry it over the trap on the left side.
In his book "Bethpage Black Field Notes" Rees Jones mentions this exact problem, "One thing you don't want is for the short hitter to have no options. If the hole plays at 500 yards, into the wind, a lot of players would find it a major effort to carry the cross bunker, and playing safely to the right would require a cannon to get to the green on the second shot. Even from the front of the championship tee, clearing the bunker into the wind will be a challenge for some of the field. The ideal drive is a high draw that curves around the corner. With a helping wind, some of the longest hitters may end up with no more than a short iron into the green."
-
Jamie,
You make some good suggestions. I would like to comment on one of your points as it states something that I believe is a near unanimously held belief that in my opinion is erroneous. Let me know what you think.
You wrote;
[As for 10 and 12 - blame it on the USGA setup. 10 was stripped of it's strategic intent at 492 yards. At 470 yards, the hole is more interesting and the irony is maybe more difficult as some very good and gently moving fairway bunkering comes into play. 12 needs a short hitters route although it doesn't really play 499, due to the dogleg it can play shorter.]
For the Open there were more complaints about the carry distance necessary on #10 & 12 than anything else. It was deemed "too far" & "unfair".
When you carefully examine the statistics from the Open though, you may very well draw a decidedly different opinion. Consider that on #10 the carry distance set by the USGA on ALL 4 days to reach the fairway from the tee was 251 yards. Of those who played ALL 4 rounds (a total of 72 players) only ONE player had an average driving distance of LESS than 251 yards and that was Corey Pavin who averaged 239.8 yards per measured drive (drives were measured on 10 & 11). That means that on average, every player but one should have been able to reach the fairway.
Now let's look at realities. When you multiply the 72 players by the 4 drives they took on ten that gives you a total of 288 drives on the tenth hole. Of all those drives, how many were measured at LESS than 251 yards? A total of 28! Those 28 include 5 drives of 250-51 that might have actually reached the fairway but that I count as NOT having made it based simply on distance. That means that more than 90% of all drives were hit long enough to reach the fairway!
In actuality, the problem on 10 was that the players weren't hitting the drives STRAIGHT, rather than not being able to hit it far enough.
There was a similar statistical showing on #12 where over 3/4's of the field were able to carry the trap statistically, yet didn't "get it in the fairway off the tee".
I believe this justifies the USGA in setting the tees at the distances that they did, especially when you consider that many have made comments on numerous threads about the "great distances that the average player today drives the ball". Their problem isn't distance, it is one of accuracy.
-
Phil,
I would have to argue that there is a big difference between carry and driving distance. A 251 yard carry probably translates into a 280-290 yard drive presuming reasonable roll. I noticed Mickelson only carrying the 10th fairway by maybe 12 yards, that's not very much for a big hitter.
Fact is, from a strategic standpoint, the fairway bunkering is unreachable at 492. I'd prefer to see the hole play around 475. 12 is fine by me, maybe a narrow left route is an option, nit sure that works.
Someone has to explain to me the new tee idea for the 18th. There's no way a tee can be put back by the 5th tee of the red. For one, the tee shot would have to sail over the 17th hole and presumably a lot spectator stands. Also, there is a ridge of land starting at the 17h green that runs for a 1/2 mile up and beyond the 5th green of the red. I think the only teeing options would be for a tee near the 1st green of the red, but then you get very close to the 4th green of the red. I've also heard a radical plan to put a tee next to the 17th tee/1st green, but that would create a lot of congestion in that spot.
Again, I think they need to think more about green placement, than tee placement. Move the green almost to the tee of the 1st of the red. Move the tee for the 1st of the red to the left, closer to the 18th green of red. I think that would create a 450ish, very challenging closing hole. Intrestingly, you could then move the 1st tee of the black to the left, but that may be too much tinkering.
-
Does most of the problem with fairway carries at BB get solved if they just START the fairway further toward the tee? I wouldn't have a problem with that as rough between the tee and the fairway seems unnecessary.
Of course I haven't seen the Black in person, so this is an honest question.
KC
-
Jamie,
You wrote:
[Phil,
I would have to argue that there is a big difference between carry and driving distance. A 251 yard carry probably translates into a 280-290 yard drive presuming reasonable roll. I noticed Mickelson only carrying the 10th fairway by maybe 12 yards, that's not very much for a big hitter.]
I think you missed my point of driving distance analysis for #10. I am in TOTAL agreement with you that a 251 yard carry translates into a much farther length drive. The facts show that the majority of players who did not hit their drives into the 10th fairway from the tee did so because they missed left or right, not short or long. Think about it for a second, how much "roll" do you think the balls that neded up in the rough had after landing? The answer is very little for some and almost none for most.
That is why the driving distance statistics are so important when considered along with driving accuracy. Those who are more accurate usually end up longer as well. The fact that less than 10% of all drives on #10 struck by those 72 players who played all four days did not reach the fairway based on distance, shows that accuracy rather than distance was the more important factor there.
You also wrote:
[Someone has to explain to me the new tee idea for the 18th.]
Rgardless of what plans Rees Jones may or may not have been carrying with him this past Thursday when he visited the site when the awarding of the Open was announced, I've not heard of any mention of a "new tee idea" other than what's been written on this venue. And you are correct in your view of the suggestion of putting the tee back by the fifth of the Red. The person who posted that probably meant the 4th on the red and said the 5th by mistake.
You also wrote:
[I think the only teeing options would be for a tee near the 1st green of the red, but then you get very close to the 4th green of the red. I've also heard a radical plan to put a tee next to the 17th tee/1st green, but that would create a lot of congestion in that spot.]
Doing this would actually shorten the hole (based upon the Open tee) and therefor wouldn't work. Also, I will take full responsibility and claim that it was & is MY IDEA to put the 18th tee down between the existing 17th tee and green. By doing this a much longer hole could be made with it now playing totally uphill as a very loing dogleg par 4. I actually brought this up in my interview with Rees Jones back before the Open asking him if he had ever thought of it. He said it never occurred to him and that it was an interesting idea (as far as interesting goes, he may have been knidly humoring me). Anyway. with the 18th tee down there you would then have to build a new tee for #17 & I also suggested that this be placed between the 16th green and the fifth tee of the Red course. The hole could be as far as you wanted to make it then (the current distance is fixed due to Round Swamp Road being directly behind it. Now the green would be played as a long & narrow true two-tiered, rather than a wide and shallow two section green. All of the bunkers could remain as they are and would come into play in similar fashion. Anyway, that was my thinking for what it's worth.
Finally, you wrote:
[Again, I think they need to think more about green placement, than tee placement. Move the green almost to the tee of the 1st of the red. Move the tee for the 1st of the red to the left, closer to the 18th green of red. I think that would create a 450ish, very challenging closing hole. Intrestingly, you could then move the 1st tee of the black to the left, but that may be too much tinkering.]
It's an interesting thought with some merit. I don't think it would be considered because the average public slicer, I mean, player would create a lot of problems back and forth between the two courses.
In any event, I can't wait until 2009!
-
I agree with Pat Mucci that we need more information before jumping to any conclusions about Rees Jones and Bethpage Black for 2009.
If specific plans are announced, we can comment to our heart's content. But, until then it seems a bit premature.
Surely, there is an architectural review of every course well prior to any US Open. So, thus far we really don't have any news here.
-
George Pazin then says he was seen with a chart, accepting Lance's anonymous conclusion.
Good lord, Patrick, read my post - for once I am agreeing with you that this Lance's Rees sighting is overly paranoid. You totally twisted it to sound like I was agreeing with him. I simply said that if the premise of his post is accepted - ie he saw Rees riding around with plans - that his conclusion is overly paranoid. How could you miss the point of my post? Did anyone else out there think I was agreeing with Lance. Come on, that is ridiculous.
I know understand how all this confusion occurs on a daily basis!!!!!
-
Let's see .....you just hosted a US Open and now you will host another ....
So, now... you must do something for the next US Open ...
So I assume the owners went to the USGA and said we want to host another US Open.
Now, from previous post, ......... ' Please note that it was DAVID FAY, NOT REES JONES who said that ther "MAY be some tweaking of the course." '
So now the USGA is speaking of tweaking the course and the owner is silent. Very interesting that some have posted that only the membership and/or owners have anything to do with course changes at men's US Open venues. It appears the USGA is involved in course changes again. Say it ain't so.
May the USGA once and forever fix a rota so changes to classic courses for the very very few professionals can be minimized. It is either that or you can just add a comma and another architect to the list of design credits for the courses hosting future opens.
All because they would rather ride around with plans in their hands then do anything about the ball on the tee.
Apparently, the easy way out is not too bad. A nice afternoon, talking with Rees, enjoying the beautiful New York fall weather, makes for a nice day.
-
John Stiles,
I believe the day in question was for publicity purposes, the annoucement of the 2009 USOPEN and a Photo shoot, with many of the directly and indirectly interested parties.
First an erroneous post alludes to radical changes at NGLA
Then, this post alludes to changes to BPB.
And people wonder how rumors start..
I'm sure the course will be fine tuned, but I don't think it needs much.
Jamie Duffner.
I also don't understand what people are talking about with respect to lengthening # 18. I don't see how it's possible.
The suggestion to move the 18th green back and up seems ill conceived. Keep in mind that golfers will be playing this hole for another two thousand four hundred and thirty three days before the next USOPEN is played. Isn't the hole hard enough for them already ?
George Pazin,
I didn't gleen what you intended from your post.
TEPaul,
I would say that a prominent member is on the Board of Governors. A regular member is much smarter than that ;D
Tom MacWood,
Is Bethpage Black another of your phantom courses ?
-
Pat,
Actually no, the hole is not that hard for the common player, in fact it may be the easiest par 4 on the course, save 2 or maybe 6. Choose the correct tee!
Moving the green back 15-25 yards and to the right makes for a more interesting green complex. It also creates a slight dogleg and more interest and strategy off the tee, contingent on reworking the left side fairway bunkers. Also, the existing hole is dead straight and doesn't fit the angular nature of the course. Only 10 is fairly straight, but even there, the green placement makes it a slight dogleg and the fairway bunkering also adds movement to the fairway, although not when playing 492 yards :-/
-
The old Bethpage tale which I believe was disproven was that the original 18th green was up by the practice putting green. The 18th used to have a giant bunker behind the green which I believe has been removed.
-
Jamie,
I think # 11 is dead straight as well.
Moving the 18th green back 25 yards, increases the elevation substantially.
With par 4's on the back playing:
492
444
499
478
479
why the need to increase the uphill 18th to the 445 range ?
Wouldn't some expansive bunkering to the rear of the current green be better ?
-
If they do anything to #18 they should add slope to the fairway to redirect tee shots. Plus side hill lies would make the approach much tougher.
Jeff F.
-
Pat - 11 is not straight away - it' actually a very awkward tee shot. When standing on the tee, you can't see the fairway, and trying to pick a target is difficult.
Have you played Black?
15 plays closer to 460 and 16 is down hill quite a bit.
My idea for 18 is not necessarily to move it up the hill, just around it to the right about 15 - 25 yards, probably closer to 15 yards. I also think changing the fairway bunkering along with the new green would make it a much more interesting hole.
-
Jeff,
An undulating fairway would be a great idea.
It would create more challenge and insert an element of luck.
Jamie,
# 11 is dead straight, and the fairway and green are perfectly visible from the USOPEN tee. The white tees and non-OPEN tees are lower and probably impair visibility, but those guys aren't playing from the forward tees.
I don't think 15 yards is going to make a difference on # 18 to those guys. I think Jeffs concept of an uneven, mounded or undulating fairway would affect play, but it is out of context with the rest of the golf course.
-
Jamie,
I think you missed my earlier psot on this page about #18, take a look at it.
You wrote:
[Only 10 is fairly straight, but even there, the green placement makes it a slight dogleg and the fairway bunkering also adds movement to the fairway, although not when playing 492 yards]
What gives it the feeling of a slight dogleg is the alignment of the tee box. It actually points down the right hand side of the fairway. The old tee actually pointed along the line of the fairway edge. This is a strong design feature of the course. The tees are aimed along fairway edges and, insome cases, almost directly at the rough. This is one of the reasons that even good amatuers have such problems with it.
Another good example of this is #11. The tees point at the right edge of the rough and before they were realigned in the restoration, they actually were aimed at the mounds and bunker to the right of the fairway.
It is features like these with the tees that give the feeling of doflegs that are actually just an angled tee shot.
-
Corey,
You wrote:
[The old Bethpage tale which I believe was disproven was that the original 18th green was up by the practice putting green. The 18th used to have a giant bunker behind the green which I believe has been removed.]
You are correct. That is one of the myths of Bethpage that became believed over the years. It can be clearly seen on the oeverhaed photo of the property that is on the wall near the exit to the Red Course from the clubhouse.
In the original design there was no bunker behind the gree. This was added in the early 50's. As part of the restoration to the course before the Open, a concientious effort was made to remove bunkers that were added in over the years that were not there originally, and that was one of them.
-
Patrick,
I would love for your comments on my idea (written earlier in this thread a few posts up on this page in an answer to Jaimie) as to how to lengthen #18 and turn it into a hole that would be keeping its design in the spirit of the rest of the course, and at the same time turn it into the equal of the other par 4's on the back nine.
I believe it is doable from a minimal construction standpoint and therefor money perspective, and would certainly create a host of choices of play on the hole.
-
Just a few clarifications ...
*There were two large bunkers behind the old 18th that were removed when Rees Jones did the work. Talk about huge sand pits!!!
*The new championship tee for the 15th (the one not used for the Open) has the hole playing to roughly 475 yards. The boys played the hole at about 460 yards but because of the placement of grandstands the "real" back tee was not used.
*The 16th plays about 490 from the tips.
*Without quibbling the 10th and 11th are fairly straight ahead type holes. The 10th green is tucked slightly left, but the manner in which you play the hole is fairly straight. The 11th does present an issue of "comfort" in getting aligned but it too is fairly straight.
*Regarding the 18th -- it's not the length that's the issue -- it's the strategic concerns. No player worth his standing as a world class professional is going to attempt to consistently drive the ball between the armada of bunkers that exist in the drive zone. The payoff is just not there. Most will do like Tiger did -- hit a 2-iron or 3-wood and lay-up before them and then go at the green with some sort of mid or short iron. Talk about a lame finale.
I would love to see some serious thought to what Jeff F. and Jamie D. menitoned -- fiddle with the green contours on the 18th which are for the most part pedestrian.
I don't see how moving the tee to the right is possible because of all the effort it would take and in a general sense the "new" tee would be available only for the event.
The Black doesn't need more length -- it needs some careful deliberation on the plainess of many of the greens -- i.e. the 2nd is just one of several that need some serious thought. I also don't mind that the 14th stays at the present length, but the green and the bunkers near it need some serious re-evaluation in my opinion.
-
Phil
Didn't the 1938 version of the golf course have the large bunker behind the 18th green?
-
Phil the Author,
With respect to Jamie Duffner's comments, I would take issue with tampering with the greens.
While it sounds great on paper, you may change the playing and putting characteristics of those greens if you recontoured and rebuilt them, and that may cause unacceptable inconsistency yo those surfaces for either a major or daily play.
I did like the concept of extending the 2nd green around behind the bunker, but would have to look at the land again.
I believe there is significant fall off that would have to be filled, and that might affect the look of the left greenside bunker, which fits into the slope of that green pretty nicely.
Isn't the challenge of that hole the lie in the fairway, and the golfers ability to drive the ball around the dogleg, hugging the more dangerous left side ? A side hill, uphill lie does present its challenges early in the round.
From a playability point of view, three of the par 3's all play at about 207. While one is level, one downhill and the other uphill, I found that disturbing. The idea of someone making
# 14 into a 200 yard par 3, I find disturbing as well.
I did like the falloff of the rear portion of the green at # 3, and perhaps that feature at # 14, coupled with a deep rear bunker would make that hole a little more demanding.
While the offset trees are majestic at BPB, I might be tempted to clear the trees around the 14th hole in order bring the wind, more into play.
On # 10 I hit a good drive and was about 6-8 yards short of the fairway. But, I played on a day after it had rained, with no roll. The pros are 30-50+ yards longer than me so it seemed reachable under all but the worst conditions. On the other hand, the comment that the bunkers were out of play seems accurate, If the tee were moved up, I'd be curious to see if these guys would hit three wood off the tee to keep them out of play.
I don't think that the course needs much in the way of changes, perhaps a fairway bunker or two at # 1.
From the back tee, what is the carry over the fairway bunker at # 12, left, right and center ? That may answer the question. If the pros do carry it over the left side, they'll be in the rough. I like the idea of widening the right side of the fairway, it also makes the next shot longer, if you take the safer route.
I still don't understand how # 18 can be lengthened.
Lastly, everybody is complaining about # 18, who designed it that way in the first place ? What's so bad about it, as is ?
Holes # 13, 15 and 16 have no fairway bunkering off the tee, so perhaps extending the fairway bunkering back toward the tee might place errant irons in jeopardy, causing the players to have more to think about.
I like the hole, but these guys are good.
-
The greens at Bethpage are not very inspiring but it seems to me that if the "open doctor" had suggested changing them we might have an outcry on this board about destroying "tillie-burbeck"
Maybe Pat is correct I know I would feel more comfortable if certain people suggested this work rather than others.
-
I'm glad this thread has finally gotten into the architectural issues involved and I'm enjoying reading those posts.
However, I have to comment on the non-architectural issues of this and the NGLA thread.
First, of COURSE there's bias on this site - it's supported by a bunch of opinionated arm chair architects that have done various amounts of research into the subject and have a passion for it. Frankly, the bias is what creates the fun around here, IMO.
Second, human nature is to default to gossip, innuendo and rumor - it's more fun and the gratification is immediate. Checking facts before speaking is both tedious and time consuming. Also, if you do that, you might discover something that contradicts one of your most dearly held preconceived notions.
The Venturi thread was inappropriate because it dealt with personal integrity instead of professional competence. On those kinds of issues, no eyewitness facts = no comment.
I say, "bring on the bias"!! Make assumptions!! State opinions and let them be challenged!! Opine on courses one has never even seen (just make sure to say so) and let the brickbats fly!!
People that always know what they're talking about have no amusement value, whatsoever.
Maybe the solution is for everyone to start their posts, "if it happens to be true that................., then I think............."
Kind of cumbersome if you're already late for a meeting, though.
Finally, to Jeff Fortson:
I'm sincerely interested in your explaining why 1) something about Rees Jones in a cart at BPB is "ridiculous" and 2) why the USGA needs to respond to that.
I'm not challenging you - I'm interested in your opinion based on what you surmise was going on. Whether any facts that could come out about RJ's presence there might render your comments moot isn't the point (to me, at least).
What is it that bothers you about that situation as you interpret it?
-
Chipoat and all others curious about my personal opinions on Rees Jones architectural style,
I am officially silencing myself on Rees Jones topics after this. Let's just say that I have not played one Rees Jones golf course that I like yet and feel that there are MUCH better candidates for restoring classic courses. I want to like his courses, believe me. With all the "Rees-tores" he's doing to classic courses for US Opens I would love to like the man's work. What Rees did to BPB for the US Open in 2002 wasn't too bad but I just think there are many other architects that could do better than "not bad" or "OK", especially when it comes to classic courses.
I'm sure Rees Jones is a nice person and tries his best to do the right thing but everytime a course gets a US Open the next thing you hear is how Rees Jones is going to do some updating or restoring. Can't the USGA try other architects out? Or better yet, can't the memberships of some of these clubs go against the grain for once and let an up and coming talent like a Doak, Hanse, Coore, etc. give it a try. Maybe the guys I just mentioned wouldn't take these restoration jobs but I think you get my point.
I guess it just makes me sick when I read that the USGA is going to come back to BPB and the nest thing I read is about how Rees Jones is going to get it championship ready.
Anyway, I guess I am just opinioned due to my experience with Rees Jones designs. I find little creativity, originality or strategy in the ones I have played. That doesn't mean he can't design a great golf course. Maybe his best designs are yet to come!
Oh well, sorry everyone can't stand the fact that I am not a Rees Jones fan.
Jeff F.
-
Jeff: have you played Monterey Peninsula CC Dunes course? Ran did a writeup and its on this site... Rees took a good course there and made it GREAT. I've been lucky enough to play it many times, both pre and post renovation, and I feel very safe in saying this.
I also have nothing against Lake Merced G&CC, but then again I don't remember the course pre-"Reestoration."
This anti-Rees sentiment always fascinates me, given my experience. Just curious if you have played MPCC....
TH
-
Jeff Fortson:
I don't begrudge you your opinion on Rees Jones' work at all. Also, I appreciate your clarification of what it was about the BP situation that annoyed you.
Why not start a thread titled "Why I don't like Rees Jones golf courses" (unless it's already been done) and use specific examples given how many you've played? That sure sounds like a valid golf architecture topic to me.
Believe it or not, there are those who think neither MacDonald nor Rayner were especially good architects because they copied certain kinds of holes - multiple times in many cases. I don't happen to agree with that assessment for a couple of reasons but THAT would certainly be a thread that would get people going.
What's wrong with bias? Since when is opinion bipartisan?
-
Jeff,
I think the club picks the architect, not the USGA.
Southern Hills picked someone other than Rees.
I don't think Coore & Crenshaw would get involved in a restoration. I think they tried that once and the results to them, were less than satisfactory.
I've seen the work at Baltusrol, The Country Club, Bethpage and Congressional, and don't find it objectionable, but that's just my opinion.
The players also raved about Bethpage, as they did about Shinnecock, so I don't see the knock on those four courses.
-
Jeff:
You mentioned ...
"Anyway, I guess I am just biased due to my experience with Rees Jones designs. I find little creativity, originality or strategy in the ones I have played."
You said you have not "played one Rees Jones course yet" that you liked. Which Rees Jones courses are you referring to? What do you think is missing from his work? Do you agree or disagree that his design effort has evolved with more recent layouts?
Thanks.
-
I have just got done editing many of my posts on Rees Jones to deamplify my heretical remarks. I am trying to use a bit more of decorum in my statements here.
SO I, FROM HERE ON OUT, WILL JOIN THE REES JONES BANDWAGON!!!
REES JONES FOR PRESIDENT!
HIP HIP HOORAY!
THIS IS THE LAST TRANSMISSION THAT WILL BE MADE UNDER MY REAL NAME. FROM HERE ON OUT I WILL GO BY....
"FORTSONATOR"
This is to let all of you know who I am but also be able to protect myself from incrimination in my business. I hope you all understand. Thank you.
Jeff F.
-
Boy, that Jeff Fortson guy is a real nut-job!
FORTSONATOR