Shinnecock tomorrow - a lesson learned

[wsmorrison]

"The course looked brown and un-manicured in some areas -- especially around the bunkers. In fact, it doesn't look like it's in very good shape at all.

And this is supposed to be one of America's greatest courses? I don't think so..."

Are you serious, David?  The course was conceived as a natural golf course and it is presented as that fitting harmoniously in the environment.  What do you think the south coast of Long Island looks like, Augusta National?  

There are all sorts of grasses on the golf course and they add up to a wonderful look.  The fescues and native grasses in and around the hazards look fabulous to me, I think these are some of the best bunkers I've ever seen.  Interestingly, many vary greatly from the original design as the areas were intended to be undulating sandy waste areas with mounds and bunkers blending into the mounds.  Over the years the maintenance practice has rendered some of the sandy waste areas into discreet bunkers.

What is wrong with the un-manicured look as you call it?  In what way does it not fit in the surroundings?  How can you tell it is not in great shape?  From these photographs?  Have you ever been there?  The look and playability are excellent.  To me it is not one of America's greatest courses, it is the world's greatest course.

[Ted Kramer]

"The course looked brown and un-manicured in some areas -- especially around the bunkers. In fact, it doesn't look like it's in very good shape at all.

And this is supposed to be one of America's greatest courses? I don't think so..."

Are you serious, David?  The course was conceived as a natural golf course and it is presented as that fitting harmoniously in the environment.  What do you think the south coast of Long Island looks like, Augusta National?  

There are all sorts of grasses on the golf course and they add up to a wonderful look.  The fescues and native grasses in and around the hazards look fabulous to me, I think these are some of the best bunkers I've ever seen.  Interestingly, many vary greatly from the original design as the areas were intended to be undulating sandy waste areas with mounds and bunkers blending into the mounds.  Over the years the maintenance practice has rendered some of the sandy waste areas into discreet bunkers.

What is wrong with the un-manicured look as you call it?  In what way does it not fit in the surroundings?  How can you tell it is not in great shape?  From these photographs?  Have you ever been there?  The look and playability are excellent.  To me it is not one of America's greatest courses, it is the world's greatest course.

go back read his whole post Wayne  . . .
make sure you scroll down to the bottom

-Ted

[Mike_Sweeney]

go back read his whole post Wayne  . . .
make sure you scroll down to the bottom

-Ted

Wayne,

It appears in your battles with Matt Ward, you have now become Matt Ward!

[Ted Kramer]

A little love from our very own Neil Regan,
a touched up look at #7 . . .



Thanks Neil!!!!!
-Ted

[wsmorrison]

Oops.  I fell into David's trap.  Unlike Matt Ward I do know when to admit I'm wrong.  Sorry, boys.  I was too quick on the trigger.

Mike, If I turned into Matt Ward I would immediately lose 100 IQ points, become beligerent with anyone who has not played as many or more courses than me, swing out of my shoes only to see a handsome fat old guy writing a book on William Flynn out drive me, and I'd have a unquenchable desire to spend too much time determining which is the 22nd and which is the 23rd best course in North Dakota.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Wayne,

Based on my recent trip there, you are correct, it is in beautiful shape. Maybe they could still pull out a few more trees over on the holes near National, but that is strictly aesthetics, not playability.

Here are my three hair splits for the Flynners to ponder:

1. The back 9 at Shinnecock is probably my favorite in golf, thus for me there is an inequality in the 9's. The course really starts for me on 7, which I think is a Macdonald hole.   Please be clear, that I am not making some sort of Pebble Beach argument (which I disagree with that PB argument of weak holes). There are no weak holes at SHGC.

2. The greens are great championship greens - tough on approaches, lots of wonderful slope, just no extreme/fun stuff like at National. I just happen to like the greens a little more at its Neighbor due to their wildness.

3. Bunkering - They (SHGC and National) are distinct styles and I have no real preference one over the other.

Unlike Ted, we played from the member tees and based on the time of year and the wind, that was perfect for our group.

PS. Just for fun, one in our group had a 2 on 10 and a 2 on 11 to start the back 9.  

[Ted Kramer]

Mike,

I'm surprised that you wouldn't consider the course to start on #1. You don't like that hole?

What is your opinion of #5?
I'm guessing you're not a big fan based on earlier comments.
What don't you like? What do you think is missing?

And I did play member tees.
There were back tee boxes (I'm guessing that they are tournament tees) that weren't open when I was there.
We just played from the last set of member tees.

-Ted

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike,

I'm surprised that you wouldn't consider the course to start on #1. You don't like that hole?

Ted, the first time I played Shinnecock was the week of my wedding. My buddy who I was playing with called his Dad in Minnesota from the clubhouse and said"Dad, Sweens and I are about to tee off on the 1st at Shinnecock! "Swede", who played for the University of Minnesota and is still a very good club player at 75+ years old said to his son, "I got goosebumps out here in MInnesota!" How can you not like the first tee at Shinnecock! This is splitting the atom, but I do like the first at National better.

What is your opinion of #5?
I'm guessing you're not a big fan based on earlier comments.
What don't you like? What do you think is missing?

More atom splitting, I like both, but I do like #5 at National better which is Hog's Back. It is on some wild terrain, some blind stuff, great green. Still an easier hole than Shinnecock's, both are 5's.

And I did play member tees.
There were back tee boxes (I'm guessing that they are tournament tees) that weren't open when I was there.
We just played from the last set of member tees.

We played one up

Ted,

This was meant to tweak Wayne, not you!  

[Ted Kramer]

Sorry, I didn't mean to get in the way of yoyur tweaking

-Ted

[Geoffrey Childs]

The Shinnecock Hills I played at the end of last year (after the US Open) and the course I played earlier in the year (pre-tournament) were two different animals entirely.  

With the punishing rough removed and fairway lines extended out to where the ball could actually bounce into a fairway bunker the course played beautifully and was fun.  With the US Open setup it was just too punishing and the angles of intended play were frequently in deep rough.  Mark Marchund should be applauded for putting the course back to where members and guests can enjoy the greatness of the architecture.

Bethpage Black certainly needs to be reminded of this lesson as they continue to maintain 25 yard fairway widths

[wsmorrison]

Mike Sweeney,

I see we're going to have to play or walk Shinnecock and National together and discuss the finer points of golf architecture.  I'd really enjoy that.  As for Shinnecock starting on 7, you did tweak me on that one.  Now, I know your regard for the course and know you're half kidding but for the other half, let's start from six and work our way backwards....

Six is an awesome hole.  It has departed from the original Flynn plan in some ways...notably the treeline on the right hides too much of the end of the hole and the undulating sandy waste areas are either gone or formalized.  But the alternate fairways are great and there's a bit of mystery on the tee if you don't know the hole so that its hard to confidently trust your line.  It is a strong par 4 where par under any circumstance is a very good score.  The green has been expanded a bit but there's more to go.  This green is an example of something people rarely talk about at Shinnecock and that is the subtle yet highly challenging fall-offs around a lot of greens.

Five as you say is an excellent par 5.  In some ways better than it used to be because of technology in that a good drive can leave you with a realistic and tempting chance to go for it in two.  The Dick Wilson bunker short and left of the green is quite good.  It too has an alternate fairway but it should be brought back to its former length so as to offer the right risk/reward balance.

Four would benefit a bit more with a return to original width but it is an excellent slight dogleg with a risk/reward tee shot to carry diagonal bunkers.  It is not as strong as other par 3s on the course but fits into the routing progression rather well in between the difficult third and fifth.

Three is an outstanding hole from tee to green.  It is the hole with the closest resemblance to the Macdonald-Raynor design.  Flynn redid the bunkers and the green on the original site of the M-R green.  In fact, you can even see the squared off edges of the former green.  Flynn's green had a lobe at the right front that extended beyond the M-R green and would be a nice return.

Two is the longest par 3 and uphill at that but it may, as Sully said, be the easiest of the outstanding par grouping.  There's a nice fall-off in the back and the bunkering is outstanding.  This is on the site of a former M-R green but one that was completely remodeled.  It is an in-between yardage for me and I now know it is way better to be short than long.

One is situated in a magnificent setting.  Much of the course is laid out before you and it really gets the blood pumping.  As good a first hole as there is in golf from an aesthetic and playability perspective.  What angles on the tee shot--great offset fairway and a green that is just right...not too hard and not too easy.  

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
    You can't walk and play both of those courses with Sweeney and leave me behind. I can straigthen out both of you guys.














 Just trying to wheedle my way onto Shinnecock !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

Doesn't the direction and velocity of the wind determine where the golf course begins ?  

[TEPaul]

I've seen a number of first timers at Shinnecock actually wonder out loud what all the fuss and fanfare is about the course while they're on much of the front nine for the first time. But then the drama begins to build as you approach the end of the front nine. I think the only real reason first timers say that about Shinnecock is because once you come off the first tee you are out there in the flatland part of the course most of the front nine. But once you get to know those front nine holes better I think anyone comes to appreciate them more.

One thing I'm very sorry to see and hear that Shinnecock may not recognize about some of those front nine holes, particularly #5, #6 and #8, is what they looked like when they were designed and for a few decades afterwards.

The massive stretches of visible sand and waste areas on those holes gave them a look that must have been five times more intimidating than those holes look now.

Shinnecock at some point may've thought those massive sand areas were just natural waste areas that made no real difference not realizing that Flynn actually constructed them. We know that because the instructions are very clearly on his hole plans.

They tell me that restoring and returning those huge sand waste areas to the size and look they once were and were designed to be is way too maintenance intensive. I understand their point but I just wish they could see more clearly what the visual value of restoring that intimidating look to those holes is all about. Shinnecock should refer again to Hugh Alison's interesting analysis of the Flynn plan for the new course before it was built. He distinctly mentions Flynn technique of enhancing the look and feeling of those flatland holes with the use of massive sand waste areas. I believe he mentions that massive bunkering of this type is basically the supplement that those flatland holes need to get the golfers attention better. He also mentions that when Flynn gets up into the real topography of the site he goes much lighter on bunkering simply because it's not needed with the drama of that topography. To me Shinnnecock was a classic example of when to use bunkering prevalently and when not to.

I think it's a shame if they don't restore those huge sand areas on those three hole because if they did restore them I have a feeling a whole lot of people would have quite a different impression of many of those flatland front nine holes. There's little question that was precisely what Flynn was trying to do out there on those flat holes with those massive intimidating sand waste areas.

Interestingly, the exact same thing can be said for Indian Creek, another Flynn course with numerous flatland holes and what he tried to do with massive areas of sand.

[Ted Kramer]

Tom,

Please don't interpret this as me thinking that I know better than Flynn. But for whatever it is worth, here is my opinion after only 1 round . . .

I thought that there was a real simple beauty to some of the "flatland holes" on the front nine. While I don't doubt that some huge sandy waste areas would make those holes more intimidating, I'm not so sure that that would be a good thing.

The cross bunker on #5 sticks out my mind as one of the finest features on any par 5 that I have ever seen. In my opinion, that feature makes the hole. I wouldn't want or need a bunch of sandy waste to obscure the genius of that bunker.  

I'm not sure how much more intimidating anyone would want #6 to be. After a quick bit of advice from my host and a pretty thorough look through the yardage book, I stood on that tee without a friggin clue as to how that fairway was sitting. That is one blind scary tee shot. The idea of more sandy waste ont that hole seems like overkill.

While I really liked #8, I can imagine a big waste area adding to the hole . . .

-Ted

[JESII]

With the exception of #9, I remember the holes in the more dramatic topography being heavily bunkered as well, #11-#17 all have loads of sand throughout. No?

[Ted Kramer]

With the exception of #9, I remember the holes in the more dramatic topography being heavily bunkered as well, #11-#17 all have loads of sand throughout. No?

I would agree with that.

-Ted

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How many cubic yards of fill would be requred to restore it as you would like ?

Why would the maintainance costs, once the fill was in place, be much different than today's maintainance costs ?

Wouldn't the habitat remain similar ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
How many cubic yards of fill would be requred to restore it as you would like?"

Pat:

It'd take 29,453 cubic yards to restore it as I'd like!

No, seriously, I think all they'd have to do is simply strip away the vegetation that grew up in those massive sand waste areas and it would be back pretty much to what it was. The question for the club, I suppose, is how stable are those sandy areas and how much more work it would take to keep them that way. Now they're just vegetated over. Look in GeoffShac's "Golden Age of Golf Design" on page 109 if you want to see what it looked like on holes #5, #6 and #8 from the air and on page #108 to see what #5 used to look like on the ground. #8 originally had a nest of fifteen bunkers to drive over off the tee but today they're only six in that area.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've always wondered why so many bunkers on so many golf courses were filled in.

Was it rising labor costs ?
Was it the trend toward fairness,
Was it the cost of sand
Was it the difficulty in keeping the sand where it was wanted

Hurricane Wilma, which swept through South Florida at a good clip, blew the sand out of many, if not most bunkers.
The clean up and replenishment costs are high.

I wonder, on windy sites such as Shinnecock, NGLA, Seminole, Maidstone and others if bunker construction and bunker configuration was partially dedicated to retaining sand.

The aerial on Page 109 reminds me so much of the aerial of Hollywood, and I lament the loss of a large number of bunkers and the extensive bunker areas.

Did your research at Shinnecock reveal any of the reasons why these bunkers may have been lost ?