The PGA in May - No. 4: Bethpage, For Better or Worse

[V. Kmetz]

...rolling on some areas from the previous thread(s) and because of its post-Renovation signatures in the GCA imagination, I wonder if it can be said WHICH holes have been bastardized from one of the finest municipal courses and WHICH were "elevated"(?) to highlight their hidden virtues:


For my money:


1, 2, 5, 9 - 13, 15 & 18 have been morphed like Barry Bonds was...much more graceful and dynamic a profile before the steroids turned him into a large-headed, body-armour plated unnatural walk/HR monster... still potent? Yes, but not a warm human or beautiful thing anymore.


On 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, & 17... I would argue the reno/storations enhanced or brightened the frame for the hole. I think #4 is the finest and funnest, the most audacious and most amusing, savory hole of its general length in this deep region, and the renovations brought that into better relief.  No. 6 is not a great hole to watch elite competition, but it's a much better hole for the balance of mortals...7 is the most underrated hole on the course and though the rough is certainly too near and too penal for what is called for, the bunker arrangement and tee angles are better for me now than before. (Taken together and played from 460 to 480, 4, 7 and 12 are perhaps the most thorough assortment of half-par holes anywhere). As it is hard to screw up par 3s, it might be little wonder why I think their (mostly visual) modern treatment is a value-add (though 14's green complex has been worked into something much pleasing than what was there pre-1998).


Though the penal rough-bowling alley treatment has unneccesarily toughned up 16 for us mortals, I think of it as essentially the same meadow vista hole it always was... And there's somethign about 3 that I have never liked or made me appreciate it.


cheers   vk

[Mark Fedeli]

I actually think 6 is one of the greater travesties. I don’t think the hole is bad or that it doesn’t have thrills, but it is lacking one of its best features from the original.


The fairway used to extend much further on the right, providing a safe layup off the tee for the unadventurous. However, if you played safe over to the right, short of the bunker, you cannot see the green at all for your second. A really cool trade-off.


That is an example of the exact kind of interesting options that were lost.


The other egregious example for me is 13. In the landing zone for the drive, the fairway used to extend left where the new-ish bunker is. That provided a safe way to avoid the tree overhanging on the right, but it also made your second shot much more difficult, needing to clear the next bunker on the left and/or avoid the depression in the fairway there.


Again, another legitimate, interesting option removed. Shame.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm with Mark on #6 with another reason tacked on. It may be the most egregious example of the malpractice of the first wave of Rees renovations - the incorrect theory that the bunkers moved away from the green surface as opposed to the green surface shrinking. Older photos show #6 with some interesting falls and scallops around the edges of the green that were sacrificed to bring the bunkers closer.

Strongly disagree with you on #14. That hole is now terrible. It was much more elegant in the 1998-2007 version. The bunker wedged into the hill on the left looks amateurish and the re-worked back part of the green looks like a poorly built sand castle.