What about Shinnecock Hills makes it more demanding than it looks?

[TEPaul]

Hmmmm, I say, I never thought of Shinnecock's greens as being generally very small.

Two years ago #12 and #13 were expanded to near original greenspace. #12 is now much bigger on the left. Late last fall #6 and #17 were expanded back to original and some others will follow.

[JESII]

TEP,


Do you have any square footage numbers? How would they compare to some other courses?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hmmmm, I say, I never thought of Shinnecock's greens as being generally very small.

Two years ago #12 and #13 were expanded to near original greenspace. #12 is now much bigger on the left.

Late last fall #6 and #17 were expanded back to original and some others will follow.

TEPaul,

I think your above comment confirms JES II's comment.

Only recently have they made these smaller greens, LARGER.

I don't know that I'd call # 16, # 11 or even # 10 large,
especially when you consider how much of a factor the wind is at SH.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

In fact 10 is larger in area than it was built by Flynn.  The average green size at SHGC is 5700 square feet which is probably a bit less than the average green size on tour.  With the green expansions that have taken place and are expected to take place, the figure is probably going to be more than 6500 square feet on average.  There is a fairly large range of green sizes so I don't know how useful the average figure is.

[JESII]

Wayne,


I don't know what 5700 or 6500 really means in practice, could you give an example of a green at SHGC with approximately 6000 sq ft.?

I think these fall-offs you and Tom have been discussing are surely a very big reason for the subtle difficulty of the golf course, but I think the relative size of the greens combined with a fresh wind also contribute to this difficulty.

Do you think the tee shots or the approach shots are more important in navigating your way around the course with a decent score?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I'm just guessing because I don't know for certain.  However, I would say currently 2,5,6 and 18 are all around 6000sf

4,9,11 and 15 are probably the smallest greens with the 11th being 3600sf or so and the others in the low 4000sf range.

The original green sizes were all significantly larger with the exception of 6,12,13 and 17 which have been recently enlarged.  

With expanded greens, the pin positions can be much tougher so I think the course will actually play harder with the larger greens.  The positioning off the tee or the second shot on par 5s become that much more demanding as pin positions will certainly influence angle of approaches more than they do today.

Your question about which is more important to decent scoring (a different concept for different classes of player--let's call it par for someone like yourself) is an interesting one.  

With the fescue up and typical summer winds, I would say the tee shot is slightly more important and will be even more so with continued green expansions.  The position you approach the pins from is critical.  This isn't to say that the approaches are not critical as you simply cannot score well if you miss the greens.  Yet I don't think Flynn's green designs are so unforgiving that a good putter doesn't have a chance for a two-putt on most greens.  But first things first.  You have to put yourself in the right position on the fairway so that your approaches do not leave you above pins (as at most courses) and you cannot miss the greens.  The large areas of closely mowed grass around the greens leave long and difficult recoveries.  The balls don't come to rest on down slopes allowing lofted recoveries.  The rough is sufficiently far that the ball will often find a position well below the greens.  

In general, the middle of each green leaves you a potential 2-putt.  There are few internal contours that make putting overly penal.  Shooting at pins, especially near the falloffs and bunkers can result in a whole bunch of others if you do not or are unlikely to execute.  The 5th green is a classic example of that.  If you miss that green long and left, good luck recovering to a back right pin position.  There are lots of recoveries around the greens that are so difficult, many of which are not apparent without repeated play.  

So you simply have to put yourself in the correct position in the fairway to approach the greens for an ideal angle of attack if you choose.  If you are in the wrong area of the fairway, the center of the green is rarely a bad place to be.  But you have to be able to hit a good shot into the greens and have an understanding of where the trouble areas are--the falloffs and slopes into the bunkers.  They are subtle and so not readily apparent.  It takes time to learn the nuances around the greens.

In summary, I think the positioning in the fairway, being the first shot of each hole is key, but are nearly in balance with difficulty of the approach shots as you would expect in a great championship design.  There is a great deal of variety to the tee and approach shots dictated by hazards, fall-offs (some very subtle or obscured), collection areas and fairway contour lines.  You have to be thinking all the time.

I guess I'm hedging saying they are both very difficult with a slight nod to the tee shots.  What do you think?

[Thomas_Brown]

Sorry to interject, but I give a big edge to the approach shots at Shinny.  Assuming a tee shot of 280 yards off of the tee - I don't put much weight on left side or right side of the fairway at Shinny.  I only played once in October playing under member conditions, the greens aren't so firm to really matter to a low amateur handicap.  Open conditions would be a diff. story.  Many of tee shots are to fairly wide fairways w/o severe trouble out there.  I can only speak for myself, but I'd say most scratch golfers are just trying to survive and not attack flags on the approach.

I am curious about expansion of the surfaces, but again I think it may not matter - so many of the slopes on the edges are so severe as to not allow a hole location.

It's a guess, but I would say the green section on 11 with allowable hole locations is probably around 2000 sq. feet.  It's a thimble when on you're on the green looking at it.

Read Sweeney's post - #15 is my least favorite hole on the course.  I need to play it again for a 2nd look.  Shinny & RCD are my #1 courses.  And it's certainly, the #1 US Open course.

[TEPaul]

"Do you think the tee shots or the approach shots are more important in navigating your way around the course with a decent score?"

Sully:

Again, I don't really think tee shot placement on the sides of those fairways on most all the holes is all that important---that is if you're trying to play basically conservative to avoid unintended mistakes. Obviously there're a few that it's pretty important like on #5 (third shot) or on #8, but for most of the rest I think one could do just fine in the middle of most all fairways out there.

And I think the primary reason for that is because the basic middle of most all the greens out there just aren't very complicated. It's just not all that hard to putt to tough pins from the middle of those greens.

It's when you start getting aggressive on that course with approach shots to tough pins that things can go awry in a New York second and that's the product of the fact that the peripheries of those greens really are complicated not just for aggressive approach shots at them but for recoveries to those tough pins if you miss those greens in those interesting fall-off areas that basically protect those tough pin areas.

Does this mean that a greater fairway expansion project for Shinnecock would not be a good thing?

Not at all, in my opinion. I think it would be a good thing because if the fairways were wider it would probably tempt some players to still get too aggressive with those tough pins on the peripheries instead of just wedging out of tough rough or even trying to get the ball into the middles of those greens.

Wider fairways out there would work well with the "give them a little more rope and they'll hand themselves" adage.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I'm sure you're aware of the theory that if you took all the pins off a golf course some players (perhaps most) would score better---eg because they would probably just try to approach into the middle of greens (not knowing where the cup was).

This is what I'm saying about Shinnecock---this is it's secret in spades, in my opinion!

However, some of the recommended (and completed) green expansions will make this way of playing the course a bit more demanding, in my opinion.

[George Pazin]

I'm about to ask a question that I'd like to make clear is indeed a question, and not any sort of backhanded indictment or criticism:

I was thinking about this thread last weekend, and someone, I think BillV, mentioning Pinehurst #2, and I started wondering:

Is there any chance that some of the subtle elements of Shinnecock's strategy are the result of years of maintenance refinement, as opposed to intentional design? Could some of the subtle misdirections be more a matter of amplified elements, as some allege the famed #2 greens are the result of years of top-dressing?

[KBanks]

Another Shinnecock question.

Does Shinnecock play at all like a links? Can you bounce the ball into the greens there? Is that ever the optimal play?

It seems like the 2004 US Open sought a presentation of the course that was almost linkslike in terms of how fast and hard the course was. Does the course need to play that fast in order to challenge the pros?

I watched the final round in a pub in Ireland, and remember being astounded at how far some shots were running. They weren't running that far on the Irish links courses we were playing.

Ken

[wsmorrison]

George,

I guess there is a non-zero probability that some component of the elements are via maintenance practices.  We don't have detailed construction instructions on the design drawings.  However, the low mowing height collection/chipping areas were there from the outset and they do integrate with the falloffs as they do today.  My assumption is that they are all intentional.  It doesn't make sense to have the collection areas off the greens if they did not feed into these areas.  The greenside bunkers haven't moved for the most part and they too integrate perfectly with the falloffs.

Unlike Pinehurst, the falloffs and contoured surrounds are not systematic but varied and sometimes hidden.  There was a lot of thought that went into them.  I think the tremendous amount of strategy is by design rather than by accident.

KBanks,

You could run the ball into about half the holes when the course was first opened.  There was some variety as to how open the fronts of the greens were.  These included holes 1,2,3,5,6,12,13,14 and 18.  A bunker was later put in short and left of 5 that makes it almost impossible to run the ball in.  A bunker was removed fronting the 16th green though it is now a very high demand run up through an extremely narrow opening that wouldn't really be considered an option.

The club appreciates firm and fast.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Wayne.

You should really write on book on that Flynn guy.

[TEPaul]

KBanks:

I wouldn't call Shinnecock soft at all when the weather cooperates. The ball will run some "through the green", particularly if you play a shot low, but it's not as firm and fast as its contiguous neighbor NGLA. It seems like the Shinnecock membership just doesn't ask for that or demand it the way the membership at NGLA apparently is these days.

[KBanks]

I was reading an account of the 1977 Walker Cup at Shinnecock last night. The author gives design attribution to Toomey & Flynn, and then refers to a "remodelling" of Shinnecock by William Mitchell, which occurred in 1967.

Who was William Mitchell, and what did he do at Shinnecock in 1967?

Ken

[wsmorrison]

KBanks,

Toomey didn't do any architectural work for the firm.  It was a one man show and that was Flynn.  Gordon, Lawrence and Dick Wilson didn't do any design work while working for Flynn.

William Mitchell, a local golf architect, added a bunker short and left of the 5th green, as proposed by Dick Wilson.  Flynn's design had a long sandy waste area short of the green allowing a precise ground shot that fed onto the green.  The bunker removes that option.  It would be interesting to restore the sandy waste and remove the bunker.  It would integrate very well with the green restoration (no apologies to Forrest Richardson for suggesting a pure restoration).

Mitchell designed a new irrigation system in the early 1970s.  I believe that is all, though I need to check my notes.

[KBanks]

Thanks Wayne. It is interesting that such a relatively modest part in the evolution of the course gets conflated into a "remodelling".

Ken