[Patrick_Mucci]

JKinney,

Why just two feet, why not 4, 6 or 8 feet ?

Were they trying to reach a previous elevation or was it just a general lowering without any historical significance ?

[TEPaul]

"Why just two feet, why not 4, 6 or 8 feet ?
Were they trying to reach a previous elevation or was it just a general lowering without any historical significance?"


Patrick:

Part of the discussion was to remove the additional tee height that was done relatively recently and to go back to the height Flynn built. Part of the reason it only came down about two feet may've had to do with estimating the height Flynn built it but other considerations have to do with the natural grade in that area so with that limitation something like 8 feet might not make sense.

The other consideration that I'm sure you would approve of is that when you come down even 2 feet you begin to capture a true or truer visual skyline backdrop on that green from the tee as you can not see the trees in the distance behind that green as much, if at all. We looked at it and if you can create just sky as the green's backdrop it happens to be one of the most awe-inspiring true "skyline" situations I've ever seen in golf, part of the reason being that the green is significantly enough above you from the tee! Some of the trees that were visible at the higher tee elevation aren't even on Shinnecock's property. Obviously they will continue to grow but for the near term a much better true "sky" backdrop is captured. In the future they could even build another tee immediately to the right of the present and original one which would lower things even more and wouldn't change the angle all that much and/or would actually create something of an interesing optional angle----which in my opinion would be a bit easier for a tee shot because the green's orientation and cant is a bit more receptive from the right.

[jkinney]

Patrick - I'm told it's the level Flynn had, as I said above. Let me investigate further.

[Sean Leary]

Has there been any discussion about reopening the Flynn tee on 7?

[TEPaul]

SeanL:

That one was our strong suggestion and it was at least discussed but as far as I know at this time it may've been tabled or put on the back burner. The middle of the old Flynn tee on #7 was actually only a mere 7-8 steps to the left of the present tee but we made the point that even that slight amount of difference given the angle and orientation and design of that green makes quite an interesting strategic difference----eg turns the tee shot into much more of a traditional "redan" kicker shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't have the time right now, but, tonight, I'm going on Google earth and will measure the tee to green angle at # 4 at NGLA and then compare it to the tee to green angle at # 7 at SHGC and then measure what movement of # 7 tee would duplicate the angle at # 4 at NGLA.

If someone wants to do it sooner than I can, that would be appreciated.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I could probably estimate that for you right now. But even so it probably doesn't have much architectural or strategic merit simply because #7 at Shinnecock just doesn't have the same kind of fairway and fairway kicker at its front and/or right anything like NGLA's #4 does. Nevertheless to duplicate the tee/green orientation or angle of NGLA's #4 on Shinnecock's #7 you would need to move the tee considerably farther left than Flynn originally had it on Shinnecock's #7 that as I mentioned before was only 7-8 steps to the left of the present tee. And if you did that you would be jumbling up that tee with #4 at Shinnecock.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul.

There's tons of room further left, well before you begin to clutter the 4th tee area.
You even have a road/path between the two holes, so I don't think there's any substantive impediment to moving the tee beyond 7-8 yards, if you needed to.

I don't think the angle of attack into the right side of both greens is so different, I think it's the configuration of the green from the far right side,... the area to the left of the right side.

From the facing left front side, the 7th at SHGC slopes to the golfer, the 4th at NGLA slopes away from the golfer.

I think the difference in the configuration more than the angle of attack is what distinguishes the holes from one another.
That, and the elevations differentials

[TEPaul]

Pat:

We even talked about moving or even obsoleting that maintenance road just to the left of Flynn's original tee but those who consider these things and make those decisions at the club apparently think that is impractical for various reasons. One of the problems with jumbling up into the 4th hole is they have added some substantial distance to the back tee on #4.

[jkinney]

TEPaul - I'm not sure that moving the tee left would make much of a difference, though I have enormous respect for Flynn's vision. In fact, if the tee could be moved right (which is not practicable due to proximity to #3 green) , then the Redan-like kick left off the first bounce in front of the green might be more pronounced. One day I may tee one up on the maintenance road (it's packed dirt and is an integral part of the course) to see how it bouunces greenside from more on the left, in order to test your theory (if you haven't already done so). It would be substantially harder to do that test on the right side because of the deep fescue.

[TEPaul]

jkinney:

I know just what you are saying but I'm afraid I can't agree with that at all----pretty much the opposite in fact. What I think one is trying to accomplish on that hole is to get the ball to somewhat bolster initially and then move as much in a right to left down and sideways fashion as possible off that initial bolster impact.

Taking the tee to the right only accomplishes a far more glancing and straight down and away result. With a tee to the right what you would effectively accomplish is far more pretty well executed shots finishing over the back of the green to be chipped back or in the left side bunkers.

[jkinney]

Let me attempt them both (subject to permission from Chas. Stevenson) in the SW trade wind, and I'll report back around 6/20. It'll be a fascinating test.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKinney & TEPaul,

The prevailing winds on # 7 have to be factored in, but, take a look at the hole on Google Earth, I tend to agree with JKinney that moving to the right would create more of a deflection shot off the fronting features.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Moving the tees to the right would create a deflection shot? What do you mean by deflection?

If that golf course utilizes anything resembling true firm and fast conditions if you moved those tees to the right it would make that hole virtually unplayable as far as a decent chance of hitting and holding the green. I realize the 2004 US Open and particularly that green and the 10th were definitely over the top, particularly on Sunday but even from the present tees very few of the US Open competitors could keep their tee balls on that green. If the tees were farther right probably no one could have possibly kept it on the green for pretty obvious reasons.

On the other hand, if you moved the tees just slightly to the left (where Flynn's original tee was) it creates enough of a bolster for tee shots hitting the front right of the green that would then filter left off the unpinnable high right front of the green.

There is something of a fairway kicker or shoulder on the front right above the fairway incline that was in rough but when we were out there with CS and Michaud the suggestion seemed to be agreed on to put some of that shoulder back into greenspace and the rest into short approach or fairway cut height rather than rough to enhance the "Kicker" effect from there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The tee can't be moved to the right, but, if it could, the relationship to the fronting feature and upper right shoulder would allow the golfer to produce a shot that would more readily deflect to the putting surface.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

From a tee further to the right it sure would deflect. It would deflect hard left across the green and right into the left bunkers or off the back of the green. You may not appreciate the steepness of that shoulder and the front right of that green. We spent considerable time out there for the specific purpose of analyzing it all carefully with the people who administer that golf club and course.

I don't think one can accurately analyze and consider these kinds of things using Google Earth! You need to do it on the ground. Moriarty fell into that method trying to analyze some of the nuances apparently including the vertical dimensions of Merion East. This kind of analysis pretty much takes a certain amount of time on that hole analyzing it. You should try it; you might learn some things you have not considered.

In my opinion, it's sort of Architecture 101 with this tee and its angle to this particular green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()