News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Please note, each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us and we will be in contact.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Punchbowl

Sebonack
« on: July 21, 2005, 09:54:02 AM »
I recently toured Sebonack....the grass is coming in on many holes so you can get a good sense of the place.  It looks like it is going to be a few courses in one....linksy near the bay....and, not exactly parkland....but trees definitely part of the layout as you head in-land.  It will also be entirely different than NGLA or Shinnecock...which is amazing as they all abut each other.

The thing that intrigued me the most was that there appear to be many small greens.  I was surprised given the nature of the site.
Logged

McCloskey

Re:Sebonack
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2005, 12:36:52 PM »
I am curious about your last statement.
How small were the small greens and how is having small greens contrary to the nature of the site?    I have heard that the site is not really very large and it would seem appropriate to have smallish greens.   Did you see it differently?
Logged

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2005, 12:44:00 PM »
Maybe he means because of the windy conditions by the water or the sandy/firm (hopefully) and windy conditions that warrant the ground game.

Pebble has tiny greens and is in a windy spot.
Logged

Punchbowl

Re:Sebonack
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2005, 01:12:37 PM »
I just happen to be a fan of large greens for the most part, and I figured with that a links style would dominate the design of this course.  I usually associate links courses with large greens to accomodate the wind.
Logged

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2005, 06:14:12 PM »
Jack Nicklaus likes to build small greens where the lack of traffic allows him to do so ... Pebble Beach is his favorite course, and he knows exactly how small their greens are.  (The biggest is 4600 sf.)

I like to do all sizes of greens, small medium and large, depending on the project.

Michael Pascucci tends to prefer big greens.

So, my view was the middle ground in the debate, and that's what we have ... a variety.  A couple of the greens are VERY small, but you will probably have a wedge in your hand for those, and/or there is some short grass around the green to miss on one side.  A few of them are 7000 or 8000 sf, too.

The site never felt small to me, although there is not much extra room where we could have considered lengthening holes or putting different holes.  It's certainly not as open as National, the town would not allow that.
Logged

TEPaul

Re:Sebonack
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2005, 09:05:15 PM »
Am I safe in saying "Punchbowl" is Gil Hanse? Or maybe Jim Wagner?   :)
Logged

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2005, 09:26:58 PM »
Was recently out at Sebonack and thought the greens, like the rest of the course, were a true collaboration. Tom's contours are still a bit more than Nicklaus is used to, the greens are a little smaller than I expected, but they vary from 4,000 sq. ft (5th) to 8,300 sq. ft. (3rd hole). There's nothing small about the site, by the way, though there are some wonderful, intimate green settings (1st, 2nd, 5th, 12th, 17th).
Logged

A_Clay_Man

Re:Sebonack
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2005, 10:05:30 AM »
Brad- Intimate? as in set apart? Or, within close proximity to each other?
Logged

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2005, 10:45:13 AM »
Nestled in dunes, or forward of them, or just nestled in cozily without fanfare and without steep plateau settings. Greens are not really proximate, except for 1 & bye and 11 & 12. The site is big - 300+ acres.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2005, 10:46:26 AM by Brad Klein »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Sebonack
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2005, 11:49:36 AM »
TEPaul,

I don't think it's the same punchbowl.
Logged

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2005, 12:12:34 PM »
What happened to the protocol of having everyone post under their real name?
Logged

A_Clay_Man

Re:Sebonack
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2005, 02:45:48 PM »
My guess is it's Fazio.
Logged

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2005, 06:03:35 PM »
that's not Gil's style of writing
Logged
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Steve_Roths

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2005, 04:38:30 PM »
How close to being done is Sebonack at this point?  The pictures from this morning looks like it is fairly far along in the grassing stages.  Anyone hitting balls out there at this point?
Logged

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Sebonack
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2005, 04:45:09 PM »
Steve:

Seventeen holes are planted.  Probably twelve of them are playable at this point, although certainly rough around the edges, and the greens are slow.  Unfortunately, we didn't build them in any logical sequence ... the third hole was just recently planted, and the thirteenth won't be grassed for another 2-3 weeks ... so while you can play many of the holes, you can't really play either the front or back nine yet.

I played six holes night before last with Jim Urbina and George Waters ... the second, 11th, 12th, 16th, 17th and 18th.  Not as difficult as I had anticipated, but it was pretty calm and we were playing the up tees.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back