I was lucky enough to play Ballyneal last week, and I have to say that it was one of the best golf experiences I have ever had. I think that it would be tough to find a more "Raw" golf experience. In a time when memberships want a ball washer on every tee, 3-5 bunker rakes on every bunker, 3-5 sets of tee markers on every hole, and god forbid a round without a cart. Ballyneal has done the opposite. It seems that Ballyneal has figured it out.

My question is,  with both of these projects completed at roughly the same time has anyone played both courses, and more importantly has anyone determined which one is better. I have been to Sebonack several times and it is one hell of a golf course, some of the most outstanding views on a golf course (of the water and other golf courses) in the country. With that said I think what Ballyneal brings to the table with its lack of view carries a lot of weight in this argument.

Let me know what you think.

I have played Ballyneal many times and Sebonack twice.  It's impossible for me to make an unbiased comparison.

I like both places very much.  Sebonack's short holes are less compelling than its par 4 and 5 holes.  Ballyneal's sandy soil makes it a rare commodity in American golf.  Both clubs offer a great overall golfing experience.

Adam,

While the Ballyneal experience may be "raw" in some respects, we are proud how the grass filled in this year.  Playing conditions this fall have been great.  The bunkers have matured beautifully.

Tom,

I actually nominated Sebonack as an honorable mention selection for toughest par 3s in that thread about 10 minutes after making my first post here.

I do not find Sebonack's par 3s as enjoyable as its long holes precisely for this reason.  I played the course in a strong wind, 15-25 mph, and felt the greens were too small and too well guarded to hit in those conditions.  I may have mentioned this to you before.

In general, I'm a big greens guy.  I like big features.

"Which is better, Shinnecock or National ?"

Come on, Pat.  That's too easy,   That's like asking who was a better architect, Macdonald or Flynn.  There ain't no bout adoubt it!

MSS,

I have fun playing both courses.  I'm not trying to evade your question, they are two masterpieces.  Shinnecock Hills has an advantage in that it was finished almost 20 years after NGLA so it is no surprise that it is more advanced in addition to having the benefit of a designer that foresaw the future of golf better than most and designed in elasticity. The elasticity in its layout and its design has stood the test of time better than NGLA. When the green expansions are completed, the course will be even better.  Long lost strategies and demands will return and make the course even more interesting.  However, to answer your question, I enjoy the naturalism and greater sophistication of design at Shinnecock Hills more so.  However, NGLA is among my favorites.  

I recognize that a great many golfers like the internal contours and the manufactured green sites of NGLA.  They are more overt and in many ways easier to accept than the subtle interplays of slopes and the harder to discern demands of Flynn courses.  Shinnecock Hills takes into account the wind in a far more advanced way than NGLA with triangulation and other elements that make it more interesting.  Given the land available to Macdonald, it is curious to consider what land he chose and avoided.  

The tradition of Shinnecock Hills as a non-relenting brutal test of golf is a myth.  It is an excellent example of enjoyable difficulty.  Shinnecock is playable for all classes of golfers, anyone who says differently doesn't understand the course well enough or is repeating a party line without an informed opinion.

I can only speak about Ballyneal. IMO it had the second best set of greens I have ever played, behind only Crystal Downs.
A slight error in judgment or execution and you go from licking your lips to licking your wounds.

Wayne-

Thanks for the reply.

I will disagree with you and argue the FUN aspect of National. I do not know enough about architecture, or the architecture of both courses for that matter to argue the merits with you.

I do think I am able to judge fun pretty well.

I just feel National offers you many different types of golf shots. Regardless of the manufactured.....

When I hit the desired shot, or hit the desired angle, I want to jump up in the Air like Jordan in the playoffs.(i guess i get this from my other sports)

I don't think you get that at Shinnecock. (as much)

I do think Shinnecock is a better Championship course.
So what matters most--fun or test of golf? Is it the mix of both?

There's a golf course on a little island not far away from Shinnecock and National that gets me most on the FUN factor, and golf shots---and it ain't Fishers Island.  

Wayne--you mention that Shinnecock is finished 20 years after National--While I got you here-

Do you think Shinne would have played as big a role in Womens golf if it was established with Flynns course?

(again sorry to jack this up)

Wayno,

You forget that NGLA remains the real deal, in it's original form, whereas, SH has had a few facelifts and makeovers  

Interesting comment about the land.

NGLA's present site was NOT CBM's first choice.
Land near or adjacent to the Shinnecock Canal was one of his early choices.

The land finally chosen had never been surveyed and was thought to be worthless..  It abounded in bogs and swamps.
Of the 450 acres available on the site that's now Sebonack and NGLA, the company that owned it agreed to sell CBM 205 acres.

Initially, CBM didn't want to build a golf course close too Shinnecock Hills, fate however, determined that he would build it about as close as you could get to SH.

CBM states that the land was impoverished and that soil and soil additives, to the tune of 10,000 loads, had to be added in order to get grass to grow.

Hence the choice of land may have been a default choice rather than a choice of the choicest property.  

I was fortunate enough to play both this summer.  Both are extraordianry golf courses.  It isn't like choosing between NGLA and Shinny it is more like choosing between Sand Hills and NGLA.  If I had to cholls one to play it would be the one I am near.  Ballyneal is wonderful.  It may not be in the middle of nowhere like sand Hills, but for this eastern boy it is next door to nowhere at all.  The course demands good tee shots and very good shots into the greens.  The greens themselves require great imagination and touch.

Sebonack is a stunner.  It is hard to beat the views.  The par threes and fours are just wonderful, but what I like the most is the bunkering.

If I had to choose between them I would pick Sebonack.  Itis easier to get to for me.

Pat,

As I recall, CBM turned to Piper and Oakley for help after complete turf failure at NGLA.  They made the mistake of trying to grow grass on sand and completely unsuitable soils.  Piper and Oakley's advice was useful at Pine Valley several years before and the work that Flynn and Wilson did in rescuing the turf loss at PV was probably the remedy used at NGLA.

Pat & Wayne

It was my understanding that sometime not too long after WWII, NGLA resowed many of the fairways with fescue in an effort to eliminate lush crab grass.  I expect the completion of the program would have taken several years.  By the late 50s the unwatered fairways were said to be as close to British links as possible in the US and that only a handful of courses in the country could make this claim.  

I don't know, but the greens were meant to be a bit unusual during this time as well.  There was no Bermuda, instead the the greens were made of quicker bent grasses which complimented the fescue fairways.

Can either of you shed any light on the above?  True, false or whatever?

Ciao  

I'll check my notes, Pat and get back to you.  I think I may have mentioned the wrong course .  CBM made a pretty sizeable blunder at Lido, where he tried to grow grass on nearly straight sand.  Perhaps that is the course where CBM utilized the prior efforts of Piper, Oakley, Wilson and Flynn at Pine Valley.

Beautifully hijacked thread.  You've even got Tom D. talking about The National.

I like Ballyneal better.

 

I liked Tom D's answer. Although he forgot to include the pinnacle of gca analyitical tools. Proximity to Tommy Williamsen's location.

I'm also severly biased but based on sheer dollars spent and membership number$, Sebonack is 10 and 20 times better, respectively.