Is Sebonack the proto-type of the course of the future

« **on:** July 24, 2007, 02:21:22 PM »

with its small, pronounced undulating/sloped greens providing a heightened defense against the better golfer, while at the same time, accomodating the less than stellar golfer vis a vis very wide fairways ?

« **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2007, 03:16:38 PM »

Pat,

Hopefully it is, but it's not anything new, is it? Doesn't that describe Pine Valley, and the original ANGC with slightly larger greens, and Royal Melbourne, etc.?

It seems like a lesson that the golf world never fully learns but occasionally remembers.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 24, 2007, 03:18:00 PM »

Not for the public or resort courses, they need big greens because of the amount of play

« **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2007, 03:39:32 PM »

Patrick
I don't know the course, but I'd imagine that the wide fairways would need to be "linked" or "matched" to greens sites with openings that allow for the run-up shot, at least occasionally. That is, it seems to me that pronounced undulations on small greens would be fun and challenging to all levels of golfer only if poorer golfers were given (at least occasionally) a non-aerial option for their approaches. Otherwise, I think there isn't enough width in the world that could markedly assist the average golfer in effectively handling such greens, or at least not any better than they would flat or less undulating greens on a course with narrower fairways (and more rough). But as I say, I don’t know the course, so this is just speaking in general terms.

Peter

« **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2007, 03:49:10 PM »

Haven't played or seen Sebonack, so can't comment on it ... but --

I don't want a "prototype."

I want variety and originality -- from hole to hole and from course to course.

I don't want wide fairways on every hole.

I don't want small, undulating greens from 1 through 18.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2007, 04:17:50 PM »

Patrick, do the small/undulating greens not put a premium on placement of approach shots to afford makeable putts? That would seem to favor the better player, no? Also, doesn't the better player have a much higher likelihood of getting up and down when such a green is missed since the pitch must be landed in a very specific spot?

I agree with your comment regarding fairway width. As a less-than-steller (LTS) player, I hate being out of a hole before I retrieve my tee from the ground.

While I have neither played nor seen (except for the cottages towering over The National Golf Links of America

Sebonack I wonder if there is a move afoot to create very dramatic green contours among several of the architects favored by this very site.

Of the three Doak courses I've played in the past year, I liked the greens at Pacific Dunes the best by far as they were generally subtle in contrast to the dramatic environment. By comparison, I thought the contouring at Tumble Creek was a little more dramatic and at the fantastic Ballyneal almost over the top.

Mike

« **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2007, 06:41:34 PM »

Patrick:

I sure don't think Sebonack is a prototype ... not many people are going to want to build a golf course at that difficulty level.

However, if future architects ARE going to try to build courses that are challenging for the best players in the world, but playable for anybody else, it's going to have to combine wide fairways and smallish, severe green targets. Challenging great players really can't be done with length anymore.

It's essential to have enough slope in the greens that players want to stay below the hole ... if you achieve this, then the players start aiming ten feet away from the hole instead of right at it, and the number of birdies goes down markedly.

« **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2007, 07:23:49 PM »

Can the same result be reached with larger greens containing "greens within greens" each having sufficient undulations? Will the grasses used on most new courses permit sufficient undulation given green speeds? If the objective is to challenge the tournament caliber player as alluded to by Tom Doak, which is the better challenge; recovery shots when small greens are missed or approach putts from one mini-green to another through difficult undulations?

« **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2007, 11:33:56 PM »

A short modern course that has plenty of width and small perched greens that is challenging for the good player is Chechessee Creek. Only a little over 6600 yards from the back, it's the type of course that after first looking at the scorecard gives you a false sense of security. There is plenty of width off the tee, yet you must properly place your tee shot to have a chance to attack the flags. The greens are very small and crowned and demand precision. And, varied green surrounds with collection areas create much short game interest and chance for recovery.

This type of course is playable by everyone, yet still tough to score well on.

« **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2007, 01:56:32 AM »

I keep hoping someone will post a photo-tour of Sebonack, with comments and critiques.

« **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2007, 02:35:08 AM »

Quote from: cary lichtenstein on July 24, 2007, 03:18:00 PM

Not for the public or resort courses, they need big greens because of the amount of play

If that's true, how do Pebble Beach and Harbor Town manage the amount of play they receive?

« **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2007, 03:26:50 AM »

Doug:

The greens at Pebble Beach and Harbour Town really take a beating from all that play; it's very rare to find them in really good condition, but their clientele accepts it because they are so happy to be there.

Shel:

I've tried the greens-within-a-green concept, too -- probably most successfully at Lost Dunes, but I don't think it is nearly as challenging for a Tour player as Sebonack. Lost Dunes lets you get away with shots thirty feet below the hole and still make a bunch of pars. At Sebonack you must have an A+ short game to keep making pars from there.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2007, 09:31:24 AM »

"Can the same result be reached with larger greens containing "greens within greens" each having sufficient undulations?"

Shel:

Sure it can, but this kind of technique always runs the serious risk of being unpopular amongst most players who aren't all that good.

Obviously, the reason it's unpopular with them is in modern times most all golfers seem to feel they have some consitutional right to be able to two putt any green if they hit good putts or at least to be able to get their first putt pretty close somehow.

The fact is that real "greens within a green" don't allow that and are consequently highly strategic for any player (particularly in approaching them), certainly including very good players.

« **Reply #13 on:** July 25, 2007, 10:48:33 AM »

Tom & Tom; Thanks for the responses. Tom D; I've played Lost Dunes and I think you underestimate the difficulty of your handiwork. Nonetheless I agree that if one is content to aim approaches below the hole 2 putting will usually be easier than chipping or pitching to undulating greens. Sand play is a more interesting question. Tom P.; I suppose a good part of the question will be answered by the size of the subgreens and the manner in which they are connected. I agree that where these features are severe enough to test the tournament player, many lesser players will view the features as "unfair".

« **Reply #14 on:** July 25, 2007, 12:58:05 PM »

Shel Solow,

I think you have to differentiate the game of amateurs, even great amateurs, from the game of the PGA Tour Pro.

What's difficult for us, is duck soup for them, especially if they're on a putting green.

With today's high green speeds, noone's building super contoured greens, hence the challenge isn't that great from 30 to 60 feet.

Cary & Tom Doak,

Pebble Beach also gets an inordinate amount of play, 365 days a year. I don't know of many resorts that get anywhere near that amount of play, especially 365 days a year.

« **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2007, 01:03:39 PM »

Quote from: Dan Kelly™ on July 24, 2007, 03:49:10 PM

Haven't played or seen Sebonack, so can't comment on it ... but --

I don't want a "prototype."

Why not ?
Golf has accepted them from CBM, SR & CB as well as AWT.[/color]

I want variety and originality -- from hole to hole and from course to course.

Why does the concept of wide fairways and small greens preclude that ?

Have you played Pebble Beach ?

As to originality, the land and the architect will influence that.[/color]

I don't want wide fairways on every hole.

Sebonack doesn't have them on every hole.
# 6 and # 16 are quite narrow, especially compared to the other holes.

Without width, you can't accomodate the ends of the golfing spectrum.[/color]

I don't want small, undulating greens from 1 through 18.

Why not ?
Especially if you've been given wide fairways.[/color]

« **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2007, 01:11:18 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 25, 2007, 12:58:05 PM

Shel Solow,

With today's high green speeds, noone's building super contoured greens, hence the challenge isn't that great from 30 to 60 feet.

Patrick,
Could you provide a list of some of the modern courses you've played? You keep making comments such as the one above when it seems like most of the courses you play are classics.

I can think of Lost Dunes, Lakota Canyon, Black Mesa, Kingsley Club all off the top of my head that have significant contours.

« **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2007, 04:02:29 PM »

Quote from: Andy Troeger on July 25, 2007, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 25, 2007, 12:58:05 PM
Shel Solow,

With today's high green speeds, noone's building super contoured greens, hence the challenge isn't that great from 30 to 60 feet.

Patrick,
Could you provide a list of some of the modern courses you've played? You keep making comments such as the one above when it seems like most of the courses you play are classics.

I can think of Lost Dunes, Lakota Canyon, Black Mesa, Kingsley Club all off the top of my head that have significant contours.

Andy,

Don't forget Redlands Mesa...

« **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2007, 08:13:39 PM »

Kalen,
Certainly Redlands Mesa as well. I would also add Arcadia Bluffs, Pilgrim's Run (MI), Pinon Hills (NM), Blackthorn (IN).

« **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2007, 08:39:29 PM »

I haven't had time to read all of the responses because I have limited computer time, but after playing Sebonack I thought that it was reminiscent of what has already been built in the past few years. The greens may be a little more severe but they were wonderful. The look is certainly similar to other contemporary courses. IF it is a prot-type I hope it is in the roller coaster wild ride. The Par fours were the strength of the course. The mix of long short and medium length was truly outstanding. I Even after one play it has become one of my favorite courses. The rugged bunkers and and greensites are contemporary. What I loved about it was that NGL:A is a salute to British golf, Shinny is earyl American with some British flavor and Sebonack is all American. What a threesome.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2007, 09:19:05 PM »

Quote from: Andy Troeger on July 25, 2007, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 25, 2007, 12:58:05 PM
Shel Solow,

With today's high green speeds, noone's building super contoured greens, hence the challenge isn't that great from 30 to 60 feet.

Could you provide a list of some of the modern courses you've played?

Here are some of them.

Sand Hills
Wild Horse
Bandon Dunes
Pacific Dunes
Sandpines
Pumpkin Ridge
Laurel Links
Shadow Creek
Atlantic
Friar's Head
Sebonack
Hidden Creek
Galloway National
Trump National NJ
Trump National FL
Trump National NY
Notre Dame
The Medalist
The Bear's Club
The Floridian
Ballyowen
and many other post 1960 golf courses.
[/color]

You keep making comments such as the one above when it seems like most of the courses you play are classics.

I'm an equal opportunity course player.
Why does it seem that way ?[/color]

I can think of Lost Dunes, Lakota Canyon, Black Mesa, Kingsley Club all off the top of my head that have significant contours.

Not having played the four you mentioned I couldn't comment on whether or not they had greens with significant contour.[/color]

« **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2007, 09:23:01 PM »

Pat,
Thanks for the listing

Does Pac Dunes really not having internal green contour? The ND course does not have as much as the courses I've mentioned, but it certainly has some. #4 and #16 are wild, the rest have enough to keep you paying attention generally.

« **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2007, 09:44:25 PM »

Quote from: Andy Troeger on July 25, 2007, 09:23:01 PM

Pat,
Thanks for the listing

Does Pac Dunes really not having internal green contour?

Where did I state that it didn't.

Pac Dune's greens tend to be on the slow side due to the wind and the slope.[/color]

The ND course does not have as much as the courses I've mentioned, but it certainly has some. #4 and #16 are wild, the rest have enough to keep you paying attention generally.

I never stated that modern courses are without contour.
However, for you to question or reject the cause and effect relationship between fast putting speeds and the removal of contour and slope is to be in denial.

The PGA is coming up soon.
What did they do to some of the greens at Southern Hills because of pace ?

Answer, they flattened them.

What did Winged Foot East do to some of their greens that they're considering doing to some of the greens on WFW ?

What is Merion considering doing to some of their greens ?

The trend is clear, and not just at courses that host majors, but, at local courses throughout the country.

Certainly, you can't deny the trend, can you ?

What modern day courses are built with super contoured greens, compared to courses with greens absent super or pronounced contours ?[/color]

« **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2007, 10:02:53 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 25, 2007, 12:58:05 PM

Shel Solow,

With today's high green speeds, noone's building super contoured greens, hence the challenge isn't that great from 30 to 60 feet.

Pat,
Please re-read your quote...it sounds like "modern courses are without contours to me." You appear to have meant courses do not have BOTH super fast greens and super contoured greens, which I would believe. That's not what you said though.

For a list of modern courses with contoured greens please see my last two posts where I listed about 10 that I had played in the last two years.

« **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2007, 10:10:13 PM »

As for Pac Dunes, the greens may not be in the SitWell park class, but there is plenty of both noticeable and sublte break and movement in them.

The only exception to this would be the practice green at PD. Its a wild beast!!!

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Matt_Cohn

cary lichtenstein

Peter Pallotta

Dan Kelly

Mike Hendren

Tom_Doak

SL_Solow

Jimmy Muratt

Jim Nugent

Doug Siebert

Tom_Doak

TEPaul

SL_Solow

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

Kalen Braley

Andy Troeger

Tommy Williamsen

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

Kalen Braley