[mark chalfant]

The ensemble of par fours at Sebonack has charm, challenge and variety. Sebonack's options filled ninth (549) compares favorably with Shinnecocks long 5th. Could the green complexes at Sebonack  be considered more sophisitcated yet fun to play than Flynns at Shinnecock ? Which front nine do you prefer on these  exemplary works of art and why ??  thanks

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Sebonack has been open for a year.  Flynn's version of Shinnecock Hills for more than 75 years.  There has/had been a great deal of green shrinkage at SHGC over the years, as at most courses of that era.  There is a fascinating green recovery program going on at SHGC; Tom Paul and I (and Craig Disher) are assisting the club with historical documentation of what was and what is different today.  To be fair, I would have you consider the Flynn greens as designed and originally built and not what they are today.  I would also advise that it is often the case with Flynn greens that they are not easy to discern in just a few visits.  The subtle interplays of slope are hard to read and take time to learn.  It is a far different style than found at Sebonack.  One isn't better than the other, but they are different and appeal to individuals in different ways.  

Flynn's green designs, especially when fully restored are extremely sophisticated in the way they tie in to the surrounds, have fall-offs (hidden and overt) and the way they are integrated with the bunkers.  The pin positions that are being restored have an impact on shots back to the tee.  As one example, consider the restoration of the left rear corner of the 1st green.  That green used to wrap around the left greenside bunker.  A pin position in the left rear corner is proximate to the rear fall-off and the bunker.  The tee shot needs to be played down the right side of the fairway thus bringing the fairway bunkers into play and making sure the right line and distance is played on your first shot of the day to the offset fairway.  Safe shots out to the left are penalized by an approach shot over the bunker with the rear fall-off in play.  The safe shot from the left is to play to the middle of the green and try and 2-putt for your par.

I hope you'll take a good look at the green pads and imagine the intended pin positions and how they affect play.  When all the greens have been restored (so far 6,12,13 and 17), the course can easily be a couple of shots harder for low handicap players and more so for bogey players as recovery shots around the greens are very demanding throughout the golf course especially with the many recovered pin positions along the margins of the greens.  

Sebonack is a very fine course with small and boldly contoured greens, especially given the wind.  I would counsel that you reconsider the sophistication of Flynn's greens.  They are subtle but very sophisticated though maybe not at first glance versus bold iternal contouring.  I am sure some will accuse me of being biased, I'd rather think of it as being informed  

[Alex_Wyatt]

Stop the madness.  

Sebonack's greens are too small. The absolute fatal flaw of the golf course.

It's on a beautiful piece of land. So what.

It's expensive to join. So what.

PLEASE. Can't anybody see through this hype?

Sebonack no more deserves to be mentioned along with Shinnecock than does the Bridge  (which I hear is actually getting better).

[Geoffrey Childs]

Alex

I have not yet had the pleasure of playing Sebonack.  Could you please expand and explain what you mean by "fatal flaw of the golf course"?  That seems a very harsh term to use for a golf course and certainly for one with such a pedigree.

Would Pebble Beach and its tiny greens in a similarly WINDY environment be fatally flawed as well?

Are Sebonack's greens as small as Pebble Beach's?

Thanks for your reply.

[mark chalfant]

Wayne, congrats on the valuable work  you, Tom and Craig are doing at Shinnecock. Please compare the Front Nine on these two courses regarding existing design

Short par 4s
Par fives
approach shots
green surrounds
variety
routing  

[wsmorrison]

Sorry, Mark.  I have only toured Sebonack one time for a couple of hours after construction was completed but before the whole course was grassed.  I was very fortunate to tour the course with Tom Doak, who introduced me to  Mike Pascucci.  So a comparison between the two courses would not be fair, as I am not nearly familiar enough with Sebonack.  However, I do know Shinnecock very well.  

Do you consider a lack of land movement on much of the front 9 at Shinnecock Hills an issue?

[Jason Blasberg]

Do you consider a lack of land movement on much of the front 9 at Shinnecock Hills an issue?

At least I didn't say it . . .    

[wsmorrison]

I don't feel that way and Mark has not indicated that he does.  I'm just curious as to how he feels.  Either way, my mind won't be changed; I am just interested in his perspective.

[Steve Lapper]

Wayne, congrats on the valuable work  you, Tom and Craig are doing at Shinnecock. Please compare the Front Nine on these two courses regarding existing design

Short par 4s
Par fives
approach shots
green surrounds
variety
routing  

Mark,

  Having played both (Shinny more frequently), a cursory examination would yield a few interesting thoughts.

Short Fours: Sebonack's front contains the best, 1 & 5, on the course. #1 and 8 at Shinny are certainly very good holes, but hardly have the width of options found closer to the Bay. Neither at Shinny are drivable and their green movement, while challenging, is shy of the complexity found over at Sebonack,, That said the use of subtle doglegs to effect sensitivity to driving areas are approximately equal.

Long Fours: Absent the wonderful #2 at Sebonack, Shinnecocks' #3,6 & 9 are vastly superior.

Par Fives:  A slight nod to Shinny #5. It is a better design than Sebonack #9 with more visual deceit off the tee and greater demand on the approach and green strategy.

Par 3's: No question, Shinny hands down. Not even close.

Approach shots: More aerial orientation at Shinny, especially on its front side. Great diversity of ground options at Sebonack. After that, its impossible to quantatively differentiate further. Both have tough greens that demand precise shot making.

Variety: Maybe a nod to Sebonack, but only because the front loop of 1-3 is so entertaining and fresh. Wind plays a greater role on those three as well. Shinny is no slouch though and while the back nine has a much greater variety than the front, its still damn fine.

Routing: After that 1-3 loop, routing is taken inland and falls just a wee bit short on 7-9. Shinny is marvelous as it takes you down, back, and across the prevailing wind. It should be noted, though, that Sebonack faced far many more constraints on it and its resulting routing than Shinny had to face and Tom should be congratulated for finding that much fun within such boundaries.


Just my humble opinion!

[mark chalfant]

Wayne, Geoffrey,and Steve thanks for your replies.




Alex: some really like the uphill approach and green surface on Sebonack's #3, the very strategic 5th,and the bold uphill twisting 9th. how about you.....
Were you under the influence while out at bayberry or earlier today

by the way, whats your handicap... I'm a plus two

[Jeff Evagues]

I would take Sebonack #7 over SH #3 or 4.

[mike_malone]

 Mark,

   I begged you to get help!

[Alex_Wyatt]

Too small relative to the amount of undulation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()