After reviewing a few of the photos I took at Shinnecock I was reminded of some questions I had regarding the 9th and 18th holes.  As you can see below, the 9th hole provides a dramatic uphill approach shot to a plateau green.  Anything that comes up short is in real trouble and double-bogie or worse comes into play.  There is no ground game option and the player's skill is tested to land the ball on the green or face an uncomfortable third shot.  

This hole also finishes right in front of the clubhouse and appears an a natural final hole.  One can easily imagine all the members sipping their late-afternoon G&Ts and watching the concluding moments of a match from the clubhouse porch.  However, the 18th green is further down the hill and not in comfortable visual range.

So if the 9th hole at first brush appears as the better match play hole and is in much better position it terms of it's proximity to the clubhouse - why aren't these two holes switched?

Perhaps it is because the routing change would require a switching of the entire front and back nines.  If that is the case, then it is understandable to keep it as is.  Certainly starting the player out on the 10th and 11th is a bit taxing; and the current #1 is a benign warm-up hole.  

I can also understand wanting to keep the 16th on the inward half, because it's one of the strongest holes at Shinnecock and wanting to keep #8 on the front because of it's weaker nature.

Does anyone know the history of these two holes?

How were they treated by Raynor/Macdonald before the renovation by Flynn?



The 9th at Shinnecock



The 18th at Shinnecock

"When the Flynn Shinnecock course opened the 10th was the 1st and the 1st the 10th. That routing configuration didn't last more than a year or two so and the nines were switiched in the early 1930s to what they are now." - TEPaul


Tom,

If Davis/Dunn and then Flynn had the present 9th as the finisher (which seems logical and obvious) WHY was the switch made a year or two after Flynn's course oppened?

Do you feel the course plays stronger in it's present order or as the original Flynn design?

The approach shot to the 9th is very dramatic and very penal on short left mishits.  However, the 18th is much more demanding.  The tee shot is probably the toughest, usually into the wind to a firm uphill fairway that bounds edge shots into the rough or bunkers.  The approach is almost always (even for the tour pros) a long iron into a severe green.  The shot is really tricky because the hillside shields an appreciable amount of the wind force.  Play the shot too safely right and you are hung up right and dead!  Play directly at the pin and you will hopefully have a tough bunker shot (thanks to your angle of bunker shot in relation to the greenslope).  A miss further left will probably result in the experience of a missed green from 20yds even by a Justin Leonard quality wedge player.  the false front makes for a tricky up and down--this is definately the prefered spot. 9 is a super hard hole, but an experienced player can effectively negate up to 1 1/2 club winds by hitting a hard punch shot. Wind is somewhat shielded by the clubhouse, and the fairway is slightly easier to find than 18.  The green is severe, but not as scary as 18. Also, the opportunity for recovery is better on 9, especially from the right--though it is extemely far from a pedestian up and down.

"Tom,
If Davis/Dunn and then Flynn had the present 9th as the finisher (which seems logical and obvious) WHY was the switch made a year or two after Flynn's course oppened?
Do you feel the course plays stronger in it's present order or as the original Flynn design?"

Jonathan:

I feel, like most apparently do, that the course plays much better with the nines the way they are now, not the way the course was originally opened. The reasons are a few, particularly the fact that it sort of makes more sense for golfers to slide into the round through the flatland holes first then to experience the building topography beginning on the 9th, running though the first half of #15 and winding back out to the flatland again on the second have of #15 only to build once more on #18. It also seems that #1 is a more reasonable opening hole than the unusual drive and second shot on #10 (the original #1).

Obviously #9 would be an ideal #18 due to it's postion next to the clubhouse but other considerations outweighed that benefit. Pat's right that the walk from the original 9th (present #18) over to the original 10th (present #1) was a bit of a concern, and that's sort of an interesting story in and of itself!

Originally, that involved a proposal to remove the garage next to the road and between the road and the present 14th tee (this old garage is still there!!). The purpose of that was to get the present 18th green (the original 9th green) about 30 or more yards higher on the hill---probably very close to where the 14th tee is now. That would've allowed golfers to more easily walk around the present 9th (original 18th) on their way to the back nine (present #1).

That was not done and the present 18th green (original 9th) was actually moved down the hill perhaps 30 yards or more to where it is now. (Wayne or I will check to see whether Flynn intended to move the tee up on this hole or make a hole approximately 30 yards longer). Personally, I'm glad this decision was made because the present 18th (original 9th) is perhaps one of the most beautifully positioned into a hillside and the most beautifully molded and constructed in that kind of hillside postion I've probably ever seen. If you want to see a manufactured greensite set, melded and tied in about as naturally into some natural grade lines as possible this green site would probably be it, although the way they set and tied in the manufactured lines into natural grade lines on #14 is real clever and pretty hard to top too.

This iteration also would've made the tee shot on #14 (original 5th) somewhat more complex which Alison wrote in a lengthy review of Flynn's Shinnecock plan was a good thing---'...this tee shot is much more difficult than it looks.'

So the nines were reversed early on for a variety of little reasons and yes I certainly do think this makes the course much better than the nines the original way---matter of fact I think it makes the course much better although I admit that to most golfers it might be somewhat subliminal. I think as most analysts do that it's just much better on a course with this kind of varied topography to get most of the flatland holes out of the way early on as it does with the nines as they are now.

I've even seen a number of golfers---and good ones, who're playing the course for the first time say after 3-5 holes of the front nine---"What's the big deal with this course?"---and then the routing starts turning and triangulating and slowly ratcheting up in topography and demand until when it's all done not a one of them thinks to say again---"What's the big deal with this course?"

The nines as they are is best for Shinnecock although many many people still ask why #9 is next to the clubhouse and #18 down the hill to its left.

Tom,

Interesting idea.  That would be a tremendous amount of close cut ground as the area between current 9 and 18 is pretty vast--not sure how it would look relative to the rest of the course.  

If you look at the copy of the field map that you have in miniature, it shows the current 18th green near the clubhouse as you described in an earlier post.  He must have been trying to get that design in to the very end as this is the map he used in the field.  On the drawing, you can see the pencil outline of the green in what I believe to be the current location.  Sure looks like he tried his darndest to get the green by the clubhouse where there are plenty of contour lines.  Do you recall if the tee for 18 is near the current 5th?  In looking at a 1939 aerial of Shinnecock (thanks, Craig) it looks like Flynn moved the tee back a bit from his plan to account for the green being down the hill a bit from his preferred location as you suspected.  This design plan does not show the garage being torn down but the tee for 14 down the hill close to the 9th (current 18th) green.  It may have been intended to be removed on a different design iteration.  But as it is on the field map, it wouldn't have to have been disturbed.  I wonder what the underlying factor was.  Could it have anything to do with the severe slope that might have existed on the green if it were in the originally intended spot?

As you stated Tom, the crescendo-like effect of the current routing works really well and I don't think 18 is at all a let- down.  9 does however have one of the best approach shots in golf, very unique and one of Jim Finegan's all-time favorites.

Regards,
Wayne

One interesting note for this year's US Open.  This will be the first time they use the 1st and 10th tees for starting at Shinnecock.  Each player will start once from 1 and once from 10 before the cut.  Given what everyone has said about 10, 11 and 12 as a start, it might be fun to see how those guys who start there each day do relative to the normal start on the other day.

"In general it sounds like you wouldn't mind seeing the 9th as the final hole so long as you do not switch the entire sides of the course.  Perhaps simply requiring the player to walk from the 8th green to the present 18th tee box.....and for the player to walk from 17th green to 9th tee box.  Is this realistic or would it create more traffic problems than benefits?"

Jonathan:

That's true, I wouldn't mind seeing the 9th as the final hole and the 18th as the 9th but I certainly wouldn't want to see the nines reversed to acheive that.

I'm looking on a 1938 aerial of the course and certainly there's been some tee length additions in that area, particularly #5 but although sort of a long walk from #8 green to #18 tee (perhaps 200yds) and somewhat longer from #17 green to #9 tee (perhaps 250yds) that really isn't so bad for something like the Open and the players would be basically following the same trail back and forth. Of course there's somewhat more of a commute from the lower green to 10 tee but no real big deal.

The real concern in doing something like this for the US Open would probably be just the rope gate control as the players (and various others) would need to walk directly in front of present #18 tee off of #17 green to get over to present #9 tee (as the new 18th). But I guess that wouldn't be much of a big deal as the US Open sure does have a ton of staffing and really good crowd and commuting control.

I guess the real benefit to this type of one time switch (US Open) would probably be for the USGA as it just seems to make more sense for spectating and everything else they need to do support-wise to have the tourney end on the green right next to the clubhouse where there is more space than on the lower present 18th green.

"The currrent weaving, bending fairway lines present several challenges to those standing on the tee, and those challenges would be totally removed if the fairways were connected."

Pat:

Sure they do but if you have really interesting and rolling topography and width that creates perhaps some gravity golf (off the tees), perhaps varying lies and maybe visibility differences and some really varied angles into green-ends basically you can't do better than that in golf and architecture! If this kind of thing really worked well it can create far more psychological interest and challenge even for the touring pro than just rote trying to hit a drive down a single 27 yard wide fairway corridor--or hacking the ball out of high rough if he fails to hit that corridor! Somehow I think you realize that. But again everything that's out there has to work well together and if it's going to create truly varied options and strategies from tee to green those additional varied options and strategies do have to be used and in some degree of balance.

TEPaul,

Remember, the fairway can only exist on what the mowers can mow.  Sharp, uneven features would have to be leveled/beveled and gang mowers tend to serve that purpose.
So, I don't think you'd achieve radical lies.

Rich Goodale,

I'm certainly not a fan of the current fairway widths for normal play, and would hope that the pre-OPEN fairways will be returned to their intended margins.

I'd be very surprised if the area that Tom mentions can't be mowed.  Think of all the links in GB&I that have incredibly lumpy fairways and a fairway like the 16th at Pacific Dunes.

Tom,

Can you think of an example where two adjacent holes, both running in the same direction, have played across each other as you suggest with the 9th & 18th at Shinnecock?

This is not a loaded question.....I do not have the answer, but suspect there is an example, my guess would be in the UK.

Paul Turner - do you recall such a routing?

Tom Paul:  Interesting idea about 9 and 18 fairways.  It seems to me that it might make 9 a little easier.  Bigger flat spot over there on the left if you can hit it far enough. 18 I think still works best as a dog leg. By playing it from the 9th tee I think you would loose something.  Kind of a cool idea though.  
  Very interesting how they considered moving the 18th green toward the 14th tee.  Have to say I'm glad they didn't.  Any idea how narrow the fairways have gotten for the Open?   Wish the USGA would have left it alone.  I sort of like the idea that scores would depend on the weather if they hadn't pinched everything in.  With dry and windy conditions that course is perfect with wide fairways.  

Jonathan Doyle:

No, I sure can't think of two holes playing in the same direction and playing across each other even if moderately like this idea. Somebody on this resourceful site might think of something somewhere though. However, if holes are to do that somehow it would seem to me playing in the same direction would be easier and possibly more interesting for obvious reasons. In some situations it would probably include two groups hooking up out in the melded midbodies of the holes somewhere and then sort of saying "See you later" and going on their way to their respective green.

Basically, I have no real idea how something like playing to #18 from #9 tee or playing to #9 from #18 tee would work out with fairway expanded on those two holes in some intereseting ways, as I've certainly never looked at either hole with that in mind. But it is an interesting idea, at least in general concept.

If I, or anyone, went out there and looked at those two holes with that in mind we might immediately see it wouldn't or couldn't work at all but what if it did in some interesting way?

Thinking a bit more about the idea, if it could work at all, it seems the strategies just might be dictated by the direction and extent of various wind conditions. That, in itself would be interesting!