[TEPaul]

Pat:

I got your phone message. If you stood on the current tee at about 180-185 yards and walked directly left about 7-8 steps (yards) you'd be about in the middle of the original Flynn tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I got your phone message. If you stood on the current tee at about 180-185 yards and walked directly left about 7-8 steps (yards) you'd be about in the middle of the original Flynn tee.

TEPaul,

I did that, but I didn't see any remnants of a footpad.

In viewing the hole, it would seem to make more sense for the tee to be closer to the 4th tee, between the road and the 4th tee.

What are your thoughts on that angle of attack ?

Wayne, what are your thoughts on that angle of attack ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I did that, but I didn't see any remnants of a footpad.
In viewing the hole, it would seem to make more sense for the tee to be closer to the 4th tee, between the road and the 4th tee.
What are your thoughts on that angle of attack ?
Wayne, what are your thoughts on that angle of attack ?"

Patrick:

My thoughts are that on some holes if you move the tee and angle of attack a lot it doesn't make too much difference, while on other holes if you move the tee and the angle of attach just a little it makes a big difference.

Shinnecock's #7 is definitely an example of the latter. From 7-8 steps to the left the angle on that green creates much more of a bolster and the proper filter. Flynn knew what he was doing or he wouldn't have put the tee there.

The only real trouble with a tee farther left is it starts to jumble up with play on the 4th tee and particularly with the new tip 4th tee which is so much farther back. It would be a lot different if the 4th hole sequenced just before or just after the 7th somehow so there wouldn't be players on the 4th and 7th tees at the same time but that's not the way the course and its routing is. I guess one could sort of look at play at the same time as something like a melded tee on two holes but the fact is that the 4th and 7th tees are too far apart anyway to be treated that way in play, not to mention that that hole doesn't need a tee that far to the left to create a good angle on that green. What it needs is for Flynn's designed tee to be restored and put back in play.

As far as Flynn's old tee being there, it's definitely there and pretty obvious to see for anyone who doesn't need a seeing eye dog.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

The Flynn tee is easily seen...it is several yards to the left of the Macdonald tee, nearly perfectly flat and has a visible drop-off at the front.

The 7 yards or so to the left makes the perfect angle to approach the green.  Given how the course is set up on a daily basis, you can hit a high draw and still hold the green.  We think with variable winds and ground firmness the Flynn tee should be restored and the Macdonald tee should be retained.

I agree with Tom, Flynn got it right.  There is no need to move the tee any further to the left towards the 4th hole, which would require taking down some trees and would be too close to the 4th tee.  Frankly, that would make the green overly receptive as you'd be hitting much more directly into the cant of the green.  The Flynn tee would be perfect should it be returned.  I'm hoping it is over the next couple of years.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Here are the images which Pat posted, from both tees. The first two from the so-called MacDonald tees and the second two from the so-named Flynn tees.

[SPDB]

I would like to see and analyze this in person.
I've never looked for the Flynn tee when at Shinnecock,
but from the pictures the difference looks infinitesimal.

Tommy,
I assume you mean the first two are the Flynn Tees
and the second two are the Macdonald Tees?

[Patrick_Mucci]

My thoughts are that on some holes if you move the tee and angle of attack a lot it doesn't make too much difference, while on other holes if you move the tee and the angle of attach just a little it makes a big difference.

Shinnecock's #7 is definitely an example of the latter. From 7-8 steps to the left the angle on that green creates much more of a bolster and the proper filter. Flynn knew what he was doing or he wouldn't have put the tee there.

I don't know that I agree with that, but, before making judgement, when you say 7-8 yards to the left of the existing tee, do you mean that that's the begining of the footpad for the Flynn tee ?

And, how wide was the Flynn tee ?[/color]

The only real trouble with a tee farther left is it starts to jumble up with play on the 4th tee and particularly with the new tip 4th tee which is so much farther back.

There appears to be plenty of room between the road and the 4th tee.

And, if an alternate tee was located further left, you wouldn't use it when the back tee on # 4 was in play.[/color]

It would be a lot different if the 4th hole sequenced just before or just after the 7th somehow so there wouldn't be players on the 4th and 7th tees at the same time but that's not the way the course and its routing is. I guess one could sort of look at play at the same time as something like a melded tee on two holes but the fact is that the 4th and 7th tees are too far apart anyway to be treated that way in play, not to mention that that hole doesn't need a tee that far to the left to create a good angle on that green. What it needs is for Flynn's designed tee to be restored and put back in play.


I'll look at it again, soon, but, it seemed to me that the hole benefited from an alternate tee left, and that the further left you went, the more that angle created additional options of play.[/color]

As far as Flynn's old tee being there, it's definitely there and pretty obvious to see for anyone who doesn't need a seeing eye dog.

It didn't appear that there was a raised footpad evidencing a former tee.
Perhaps you were aware of its presence by looking at old drawing or aerial.

And, you know that my seeing eye dog wasn't available because he's been on loan to you for the last 5 years.[/color]

Wayne,

It would be helpful if you could provide the dimensions of the Flynn tee.

Thanks.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean,
That would be correct. Sorry for the error, I'll correct it. Call it a tired from work error!

For me, I felt that there was a difference, a small one, but it looked as if from that angle it would accept a running shot better then where it's located now.

Also, there is some belief that the tee went further into the path. Wayne might dispute this, and while I'm not sure myself, it seems the further left the tee goes--the angle, it becomes a somewhat better shot.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your reply #57, there is simply no reason to talk to you anymore or explain anything more about that hole to you.

Your over-arching and incessant argumentation and meddling is a danger to Shinnecock and classic golf course architecture generally.

Just stick with "Our Man Flynn"! He knew what he was doing at Shinnecock a whole lot better than you do.

I am not yet sure which course you are more dangerous to, Shinnecock or NGLA.

What you need to learn better is the adage of my mentors---Coore and Crenshaw, which is if a classic club is going to ask for our advice it will generally be to just leave things alone!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Where a classic course has been untouched, I'd tend to agree with that.

But, when alterations have been involved, I"d question that.

Could you and Wayne address the issue of the SIZE of the Flynn tee ?

It would help to better understand the play of the hole.

P.S.  Lengthening # 8 to retain the centerline bunker complex
       as a viable feature, reclaiming the back of # 11 and
       expanding # 13 green to the right, up to the flanking
       bunker have all been good ideas, you just regret not
       thinking of them first  

P.S.S.  What about mowing the right side spine 60-80 yards
           short of the green on # 5 to fairway height ?  

P.S.S.S   Today the spine, tomorrow the gates      

[wsmorrison]

Here is the preliminary design, which Flynn drew in orange pencil over the existing Macdonald hole.  As you can see, the Macdonald bunkering is unusual for a Redan.  The preliminary plan is remarkably similar to the final plan and how it was built.  I used this one because it shows the Flynn tee in relation to the existing Macdonald tee.  My guess is it was maintained along with the Macdonald tee for a time and then abandoned sometime in the mid 1930s, perhaps as a cost saving.

Why are you so interested in the dimensions of the Flynn tee?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Thanks for supplying the drawing.

Are there any aerials that would show if the Flynn tee was built as drawn ?

I don't recall seeing any footpad for this tee.

I'm hoping to be on site again in the not too distant future and will examine the surrounding area again.

My curiosity is also peeked in the sense that it would have seemed logical for Flynn to either have merely expanded the existing MacDonald tee rather than create a new seperate tee that bordered the CBM tee, or create a new seperate tee well removed from the existing tee, if he wanted to enhance the angle, view and play of the hole.

There's something about creating a new tee with a common border to the old tee that doesn't make sense.

Ask yourself, would you build a new tee with a common border with the old tee, or would you merely extend the old, existing tee to the left ?

In addition, what's the difference in terms of the play of the hole and the angle of attack into the green if you play the approach from the far left of the CBM tee or the far right of the Flynn tee ?

I maintain that there is NO substantive difference, and therefore question if the tee was built as drawn, or, if the tee was built further to the left.

This gets back to the issue of the dimensions of the Flynn tee.  If it was long and narrow, I would question the reasons for its existance, especially in the location shown in your diagram.

If it was a wide tee, that would make more sense.
If it was not a wide tee, then, I could see it being seperated and further left and not adjacent to the existing tee, otherwise its impact would be de minimis, and therefore its purpose/existance, as drawn ..... questionable.

Think of the dual tee issue in the context of relevance, in terms of the view, angle of attack and play of the hole.
 
That's another reason why the acquisition of an aerial showing the Flynn tee would be very helpful.

The reason that I'm interested in the dimensions of the tee has to do with the angles of attack created by the tee.
Are they substantive or minimal ?

Ascertaining width would help with that determination.

[wsmorrison]

"I maintain that there is NO substantive difference, and therefore question if the tee was built as drawn, or, if the tee was built further to the left.

This gets back to the issue of the dimensions of the Flynn tee.  If it was long and narrow, I would question the reasons for its existance, especially in the location shown in your diagram.

If it was a wide tee, that would make more sense.
If it was not a wide tee, then, I could see it being seperated and further left and not adjacent to the existing tee, otherwise its impact would be de minimis, and therefore its purpose/existance, as drawn ..... questionable."

Pat,

Tee the ball up 7 yards to the left of the Macdonald tee and hit a variety of shots into the green.  Now go over and hit a variety of shots from the Macdonald tee.  Tell me what you think of the slight difference in angle.  I assure you that it is significant and easily determined.  Your questions will be answered.  Perhaps you don't agree that a small difference in angle of approach makes a huge difference in how a green can play.  Tom Paul predicted this would be the case and I was unsure of his assertion.  We tested it and he was right!  Some greens can be approached from a wide range of angles and it doesn't make a big difference.  This is not one of those greens.  That green was new, completely redesigned by Flynn (maybe you are unsure of that as well) to be integrated with a new tee.   The Macdonald green was below his tee.  Is the current green below the tee?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

My take is that the CBM tee presents more of a straight shot with the left fronting bunker becoming more in play as  you move left on the tee.

My question to both of you was:

What's the difference in teeing off from the left side of the CBM tee versus the right side of the Flynn tee ?

I maintain that there isn't a difference, let alone a substantive difference, which would call the location into question.  That's why I asked if there was an aerial of the Flynn tee.

I don't think there's any doubt that the hole plays better from the left.

The question remains, where is the IDEAL location to the left ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

The ideal location would probably be about 10 steps to the left of the Macdonald tee. If you went much further left than that the right side of the green, particularly the right front (the kicker),  would probably become more of a back bolster than the sort of right to left filtering "kicker" that would make that "redan" shot perform ideally once it hit the green. From the Macdonald tee a shot hitting the right side, particularly the front right side is too much of a glancing shot when that green is firm and fast. A shot from the Macdonald tee to that green when it's firm and fast basically glances off that right side kicker and shoots over behind the green surface too easily. One wants more of a bolster and filter left and down to the left of that green and below a pin.

[TEPaul]

The "redan" shot on Flynn's redans (Shinnecock's #7, HVGC's #3, Philly CC's #7 et al) as well as Tillinghast's #2 Somerset Hills needs to hit the green surface kicker to function correctly. This is different from NGLA's and Piping Rock's redans where the ideal "redan" shot in firm and fast conditions pretty much needs to hit the "kicker" that is fairway cut to the right of the green surface.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the elevation change, coupled with the ideal axis of the approach angle to the high right, raised shoulder of the green are probably the critical factors in determining the ideal tee location.

As you stated, going to far left makes that feature a backstop.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You got that right.

The elevation change coupled with that ideal axis of approach angle makes for some seriously excellent player/architecture INTERFACING that William Flynn was a damn genius at.

I've suggested to Wayne that the book be named "William Flynn, The Nature Faker" because according to his daughter that's how he sometimes referred to himself but perhaps we should consider calling the book "William Flynn, the Golden Age of Golf Architecture's INTERFACER."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()