[TEPaul]

"Have you or Wayne played Southampton ?
What are your thoughts relative to SH and NGLA?"

Patrick:

We didn't play Southampton, only went around the course with Gene Greco who can tell us anything we need to know about it and the way it plays compared to SH and NGLA.

From the look of it there're some very interesting holes and greens architecturally and a few holes with pretty cool topography and it looks to me like the type of course that would play real sporty with F&F maintenance practices. A restoration of various elements has been considered but I don't believe it's on go or even on the table at this point.

I'm sure you're aware that Macdonald, Whigam and Raynor are all buried in the Cemmetary next door within thirty yards of one another and we had to take Wayne to their graves so he could piss on them. Didn't you see that photo posted on here?  

[TEPaul]

"So what, since when is embracing naturalism the ultimate goal of architecture?"

Patrick:

That's the essence of Wayne's question and point. Maybe naturalism isn't the ultimate goal of architecture but it most certainly was an apparent goal and concern both philosophically and actually of an important group of architects who plied their trade in the decades following the creation of Macdonald/Raynor's NGLA and the style it represented or created.

To simply try to cloak or deny that obvious fact by only saying it was popular, or more popular and remains so is not the point at all and is frankly missing Wayne's entire point which is a valid, legitimate and most important point of discussion on an architectural website like this one.

"You forget that golf is a game, conducted on a field of play that is specially prepared for that endeavor.  And, in that context, CBM, SR and CB succeeded royaly."

Wayne didn't forget that at all and has said that endlessly. He certainly admits those architects did succeed in producing popular and respected architecture and courses. Again, that isn't the point. The point is in his opinion, only someone who is half blind or simply architecturally uninformed or unobservant could mistake its architecture as natural appearing or occuring as most of the work of architects such as Mackenzie or even Flynn.

In this vein, the Monterry School or even some of the Philadelphia School is about as different and different looking (Re; "naturalism") from the National School as night and day. But that's OK Pat, neither one of us actually expected you to notice a difference between various styles of architecture or even the difference between night and day.  

I think Tom Doak made perhaps the best remark of all in the context of Wayne's point. He said Macdonald dedicatedly copied some of the best holes of GB for the simple reason he believed (as did others of that time) they were the best holes in the world of that early time. But the question is were all those holes he copied from GB natural or natural looking or were some of them remarkably man-made and man-made looking?

I think the answer to that question is not all that debatable. Some of them were patently man-made and man-made looking. That's some of what Macdonald emulated. At that point he probably wasn't even thinking about real naturalism in constructed architecture---he was apparently only thinking of emulating in America GB holes that were the most respected over there.

Are those GB prototypes great holes and hugely respected? Of course they are. But that does not mean they're particularly natural looking and it doesn't even mean they aren't patently man-made looking.

That's Wayne Morrison's point. Again, his point isn't about how they play, it's about how they look in the context of a natural look or lack of it.

[Ted Kramer]

This is one of the best GCA threads in quite some time . . .
For whatever they are worth, here are the opinions of someone who was lucky enough to play SH one time:

When I played the course I was a single digit handi, probably around an 8, playing most rounds between 77 and 83. I was expecting SH to be VERY difficult, and to be honest, it really wasn't. We probably had a 2 club wind at most, the ground wasn't super firm, but it wasn't wet or slow either. While I'm no stimp-meter expert the greens couldn't have been rolling any faster than 10, they were a pleasure to putt on, plenty quick but I wouldn't have descirbed them as scary. I had a putt on #11 that was super scary, but that was the exception, not the rule.

I was hitting the ball reasonably well that day. My driver is usually one of my better clubs, but that day it wasn't really behaving. My iron play was much better. My chipping and putting were decent at best duirng the round and I shot somewhere in the low 80's (I really don't remember the number) from the back tees. If I remember correctly, the back tees weren't very far back that day and the course didn't seem to play overly long even though my driver was a bit suspect.

I found the course to be extremely playable. Tee shots had plenty of space to land. I particularly remember being surprised at the width of the first fairway and thinking to myself, "ok Ted, this doesn't look too crazy, get your jaw off the floor and make a decent swing". I managed to hit a truly pathetic block, cut, push, slice off that tee but was so happy to have made contact that I really didn't care.

I think I had a smile on my face during the entire round. I was most impressed with the way that most every single shot asked to played a certain way. The ground, the shape of the fairways, the greens, and the wind really seemed to "ask" for a certain type of shot. Some were draws (#7), some were fades (#11), and some were low bullets into the wind (#16). I pulled off some of the shots that the seemed to suit the moment and I also butchered a few. The point is that without playing anything even close to my best golf, I managed to shoot right around my handicap.

I haven't played a lot of the World's best. But I have been lucky enough to play Bandon, Pacific, Pebble, Spyglass, Bethpage Black, and few other great courses, Shinnecock Hills is on another level. That golf course is as close to perfection as I have seen. The members of that club have something very special. I have thanked my buddy over and over again for inviting me out there to join him for a round of golf. It was one of the most memorable of my life.

-Ted

[Patrick_Mucci]

"So what, since when is embracing naturalism the ultimate goal of architecture?"

Patrick:

That's the essence of Wayne's question and point. Maybe naturalism isn't the ultimate goal of architecture but it most certainly was an apparent goal and concern both philosophically and actually of an important group of architects who plied their trade in the decades following the creation of Macdonald/Raynor's NGLA and the style it represented or created.

TE,

I think it may have been a natural by-product rather than the goal.

As you know, some of the early architects had their roots in the UK and Scotland in particular.

Cost, or rather frugality was a, if not THE, driving factor.
The more a course could be placed upon an unchanged land form, the lower the cost to construct.

Hence, I think minimalism is a function of cost and not a goal in and of itself.[/color]

To simply try to cloak or deny that obvious fact by only saying it was popular, or more popular and remains so is not the point at all and is frankly missing Wayne's entire point which is a valid, legitimate and most important point of discussion on an architectural website like this one.

I disagree with you.
I think that COST was the driving factor, which manifested itself in minimalism, and not the other way around.[/color]

"You forget that golf is a game, conducted on a field of play that is specially prepared for that endeavor.  And, in that context, CBM, SR and CB succeeded royaly."

Wayne didn't forget that at all and has said that endlessly. He certainly admits those architects did succeed in producing popular and respected architecture and courses. Again, that isn't the point. The point is in his opinion, only someone who is half blind or simply architecturally uninformed or unobservant could mistake its architecture as natural appearing or occuring as most of the work of architects such as Mackenzie or even Flynn.

Viewing a play from your seat presents an entirely different view from viewing the play from backstage.

NGLA's constructed nature is clearly visible from behind each green, but, not so visible from the golfer's eye as he trods the golf course.  That's part of CBM's genius.

If you want to sit there and tell me that the 9th green appears to be unnatural looking from 100, 150 or 200 yards out, you're eroding your credibilty.

Likewise many other green complexes.
The only reveal themselves as constructed from behind the green, not from the front of it, and thus, appear quite natural to the golfer from the tee to the approach.[/color]

In this vein, the Monterry School or even some of the Philadelphia School is about as different and different looking (Re; "naturalism") from the National School as night and day.


Everyone understands that CBM's, SR's and CB's works are constructed at the green end, unless you think that they were just lucky in finding template holes.[/color]

But that's OK Pat, neither one of us actually expected you to notice a difference between various styles of architecture or even the difference between night and day.  

And, who was it that pointed out the abandoned spine that deflected balls hit just right of the turbo boost into the hidden bunker on the right side of # 5 at NGLA ?  [/color]

I think Tom Doak made perhaps the best remark of all in the context of Wayne's point. He said Macdonald dedicatedly copied some of the best holes of GB for the simple reason he believed (as did others of that time) they were the best holes in the world of that early time.

They sure appear to have held up and have evidently passed the ultimate test, the test of time.[/color]

But the question is were all those holes he copied from GB natural or natural looking or were some of them remarkably man-made and man-made looking?

What difference does it make if the hole produced contained enduring architectural values ?

This goes to the purpose of the hole, the specially prepared field of play.

Is the 8th hole at NGLA, the Bottle Hole, not one of the great holes in golf ?  From the tee, from the approach, from recovery ?

Every bunker at SH and NGLA was constructed, none were natural in their present form.  So what ?

It's the efficiency of their function that's the critical issue.[/color]

I think the answer to that question is not all that debatable. Some of them were patently man-made and man-made looking.

Can you give me five examples ?
And, how do they function ?
Poorly, fair or extremely well ?[/color]

That's some of what Macdonald emulated. At that point he probably wasn't even thinking about real naturalism in constructed architecture---he was apparently only thinking of emulating in America GB holes that were the most respected over there.

I doubt that he was thinking in the context of form, but rather, in the context of function.  
To create a spectacular golf course that would challenge the best players in the world, while at the same time providing an enjoyable challenge for the rest of the golf world.
Surely, you understand that ?  ?   ?[/color]

Are those GB prototypes great holes and hugely respected? Of course they are. But that does not mean they're particularly natural looking and it doesn't even mean they aren't patently man-made looking.

Let's abandon vague references.
Which holes at NGLA look unnatural as you play them ?[/color]

That's Wayne Morrison's point. Again, his point isn't about how they play, it's about how they look in the context of a natural look or lack of it.

If you read what I wrote, I mentioned that BEFORE Wayne did.  

Have you been out plucking the cows and milking the chickens ....... AGAIN ? [/color]

Ted Kramer,

One of the keys to having an enjoyable round is playing from tees commensurate with your ability.

SH from the back tees is difficult... without the wind.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted Kramer,

One of the keys to having an enjoyable round is playing from tees commensurate with your ability.

SH from the back tees is difficult... without the wind.

Patrick,

Being that I'm no better than an 8, and we played from the back tees, and we played in a two club wind, are you telling me that I really didn't have fun?  

-Ted

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Tom Paul was able to play Shinnecock Hills from the very tips...US Open yardage even with his wet noodle shafts.  He had enough to reach every fairway.  Even though these weren't the correct tees for him, the carry distances were manageable.  He may have had some difficulty with greens in regulation, but with a short game like his, that wasn't a huge obstacle to overcome.  The course may be difficult from the back tees even without wind, but it is playable for all classes of golfers.  Sure they should play the correct tees, and when they do, it is not the demanding brute that it is made out to be.  I wish you would understand and help to dispel this notion.  Ted is exactly right.  I think he knows his game well enough that we can take him at his word.

[Mike Sweeney]

I know that Wayne has modified his original post, but I still think the problem with Shinnecock (in terms of being the greatest......) is the back 9 at Shinnecock. It may be the best 9 hole stretch in golf.

10 - For the club golfer many ways to play it. Go for it blind and go down the hill or lay back and have a better view of the green. Don be short ....or long.

11 - Maybe the greatest short 3 in golf?

12 - Awesome, downhill long 4 with a bounce into the green opening. May be short for Tiger but not the club golfer.

13 - Underated shorter 4 with a great approach.

14 - All world hole.

15 - Also an underated shorter 4

16 - All world hole

17 - At least a very good hole, but something on the back had to be 9th best.

18 - May not be as good as #9, but Corey made it famous.

Simply stated the front 9 at Shinnecock can't hold a candle to the back which prevents Shinnecock from being #1.

PS. This is stated with the silly concept that there is actually a #1.

[Bill Gayne]

PS. This is stated with the silly concept that there is actually a #1.

It is a silly argument because the point you make is the exact same argument people make against County Down with the front side being absolutely incredible and the back side not being the equal of the front. One could easily argue the RCD is the best course but it's all subjective.

[TEPaul]

"If you want to sit there and tell me that the 9th green appears to be unnatural looking from 100, 150 or 200 yards out, you're eroding your credibilty."

Patrick:

I didn't say the 9th green was unnatural or manufactured looking and it isn't. It's probably the most natural looking and least manufactured green out there. Ironically it also may be the most mundane in play out there. Some of the best greens out there are very manufactured looking and from the approach not just from behind. But just because they're excellent greens doesn't mean they don't look extremely man-made and less than naturally occuring.

But a good number of others certainly aren't natural looking or naturally occuring and one sure as hell doesn't have to go behind them to see that.

Macdonald's genius was that he built a golf course that plays so well and in that vein his genius was the course was distinctly ahead of its time, that it set a virtual precedent in American architecture that way. He genius was not that he built a golf course in NGLA that looks ultra natural compared to some of what came after it because it doesn't look that way and it never has.

[TEPaul]

"11 - Maybe the greatest short 3 in golf?"

MikeS:

It sure might be. There're a lot of great short par 3s in golf but #11 certainly has gotten the attention and respect of many including some of the best players in the history of golf, and interestingly I've never heard of one calling it unfair, as unpredictable and score snatching as it has been in Opens and such.

If you really look carefully at that hole you can get a glimpse into Flynn's inherent gutsy routing genius. That green site essentially uses the end of a little rolling natural diagonal ridge. There's another natural little diagonal rolling ridge about 175 yard from it in the first half of the 12th fairway.

This is a good example of how Flynn could use unobvious natural landforms so well for golf without unnecessarily manufacturing things.

I'll tell you something else about the present hole. Not that long ago in one Open preparation the present tee was entirely raised higher than it should be. My hope is that the club will eventually drop the tee level back down to the grade Flynn originally built it on. If they do that I'm pretty sure the green will be back to total skyline behind it again which makes the hole just that much more awe-inspiring looking from the tee.  

[wsmorrison]

BillV,

Come on, what makes you think the USGA had a role in the construction of the tee on 11?  You may have been kidding, but if not, the true story has nothing at all to do with the USGA and it is easily corrected.  

[TEPaul]

You're right Wayne, it's just amazing how easily some of these guys on here will attack the USGA for most anything.

I shouldn't have said that was done due to an Open preparation since I don't know that.

I guess what I should have said was like one should beware of Greeks bearing gifts, one should also beware of contractors bearing spare fill.  

You know my feeling about that tee---I think they should drop it down to where that tee was before that spare fill was brought in.

And I think they should just slide that spare fill over 20+ yards to the right and build an alternate tee there.

The more I think about it the more I think #7 should have the Flynn tee reestablished and #8 and #11 should have alternate tees to the right.

The long and short of all of them is that far more variety would be created on all three holes and I can't see why that's not a good thing.

Almost forgot----eg moving the new US Open tee on #16 directly behind the old tip tee would also be excellent and that was a fine recommendation mentioned. That little shift would very much reconstitute better strategic effectiveness for that right fairway bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Could you identify those greens that look unnatural from the approach ?

Wayne,

Why did SH raise the 11th tee ?
Where did the idea come from and why did the club act on it ?

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

17 has gotten a lot better with the green expansion.  The green has been extended towards the tee some 20 feet.  This creates a bit of a false front and extends the important diagonal along the left side of the green.  The green was also extended towards the rear a few feet and more importantly, to the left wrapping around the last bunker.  The added pin positions front and left make for a much more interesting hole.  It may not be as dramatic a hole as the others on the back nine, but it is an excellent and challenging hole none the less.

As for your notion that the two nines are out of balance in terms of greatness, I disagree.  What is interesting to consider is that the front nine is generally flat save the tee shot on 1 and the approach on 9 (which is a perfect prelude to the topography of the back nine).  However, the angles, bunkering and mounding on the front nine create a lot of interest.  There just isn't as much ground movement.  I still feel the front 9 is excellent but in a different way than the back.  Consider the relatively benign opening hole.  The line of play relative to the offset green is pretty intense.  It will be even more so with some recovered pin positions after that green is expanded that will have you thinking extra hard on the tee and requiring a challenging tee shot along the right.  The 2nd is an excellent par 3, which should be lengthened.  The long 3rd is a very challenging tee shot to the most benign green on the course.  The 4th is an excellent reverse dogleg hole with an outstanding green.  The green will be expanded back to the drop off and will have a much better appearance from the fairway.  The 5th is a great short par 5 and the green expansion will improve the hole a great deal.  The last fairway bunker on the left may have the rear topline restored which will raise the rear of the bunker so that the sand is more visible and the landing area between it and the green is hidden with the distance perception foreshortened.  The 6th is an all-world hole, especially if the sandy waste area is somewhat restored so that sand is exposed and visible. The green expansion that was done there offers awesome pin positions.  Like it or not, there is nothing tame about the 7th.  The restored Flynn tee and the retained Macdonald tee will offer outstanding variety depending on weather and ground conditions.  The 8th, with its new and lower tees and expanded fairway to the left is a solid hole with a very fine green with great fall-offs and collection areas.  The 9th...well, that is a terrific tee shot and a very challenging approach to a steeply sloped green.  Flynn had a false front and fairway all the way up to the green.  Imagine how difficult a front pin would have been.  I doubt very much that will be restored since fairway heights are so much lower today.  Can you imagine the visual impact that had and the sinking feeling you would have seeing your ball come back down that slope to the left?

The front nine is great and isn't out of balance with the back.  Do you think the lack of dynamic ground movement gets you to think that way?  I can appreciate if you do feel that way.  I just don't see it, and see it more as a different kind of challenge leading to more variety.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Tom alluded to the reason the club raised the tee on 11.  The tee was being redone and they had extra fill and were able to bring it right up to the tee given the private road right behind the tee (which is now thankfully closed).  So that is where it went.  This has been discussed and the club is very interested in bringing back the horizon green.  Lowering the tee 3 feet or so back to its original height (is that right, Tom?) will improve the hole quite a bit.  Tom mentioned the possibility (remote) of a new tee he proposed 20 yards to the right, which would offer quite a different approach angle so the diagonals of the green really are highlighted.  It is also a skyline green from that angle.  With the trees down around 16 tee, the back tee can be shifted over and would be a much improved angle.

Gotta run now so I can lose my GAP match.  See you guys later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

As you know I'm a big fan of skyline greens.

I don't understand your comment about the 16th tee, which has to be a thousand yards from the 11th tee.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Could you identify those greens that look unnatural from the approach?"

Of course. The really man-made, engineered looking greens from the approach are #6, #7 and #8 and to a lesser degree #11 and #3.

A replicated green that Macdonald did a really good job of making look far more naturally occuring than its prototype is #4.

[wsmorrison]

Sorry, Pat.  I was referring to Tom's previous post about the new tees in general.  I got off the subject of 11 and was talking only about moving the rear tee on 16 to the right now that the trees have been removed, it is an easier process.  This had nothing to do with the 11th.  Sorry about that.

See you soon?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Could you identify those greens that look unnatural from the approach?"

Of course. The really man-made, engineered looking greens from the approach are #6, #7 and #8 and to a lesser degree #11 and #3.

Now I know why you need your faithful guidedog, "Coorshaw"

You're blind.

And so are the 3rd and 11th greens.
You can't see them from most approaches.

As to # 7, from the DZ and AZ that's a natural looking green.
It's only when you're on the green and examine the severe falloff behind the green, which is invisible from the fairway, that you understand the constructed nature of the green.

As to # 8, the left side ridgeline blends magnificently into that green.  One would have to agree that it's far more natural looking in its setting than the 11th green at SH.[/color]

A replicated green that Macdonald did a really good job of making look far more naturally occuring than its prototype is #4.

CBM stated, in "Scotland's Gift" that he found the ideal ridge for his Redan, which again, is far more natural looking than the redan at SH.[/color]

I fear that Wayno has irreversibly tainted what little architectural perceptions you had.  Absent your faithful guidedog, "Coorshaw" you're totally lost on a golf course.

In fact, Bill Salinetti told me that the last time you were at NGLA, when you were standing on a tee, that you looked at the tee markers and claimed that they were your lost Christmas Ball decorations, and that you tried to put all 36 sets of Red and Green markers in the trunk of your car.

The only thing that prevented your absconding with the red and green tee markers was the fact that your trunk was already packed with 18 rather large and unusually shaped wicker baskets.

[TEPaul]

This discussion has been really helpful to me in that it's made me think so much more about some of the nuancy and perhaps mysterious reasons why the greens of Shinnecock are perhaps more difficult for some golfers than they at first look.

What I'm about to say will probably be misunderstood or likely disagreed with---and perhaps for the simple reason it may not be all that well thought out.

But it's occuring to me that the basic risk/reward theme of Flynn's greens at Shinnecock (some call them "potato chips" because their outlines sort of look like that from the air) is that they are sort of centrifugal in how risk is ratcheted up for golfers with tough pins on that course which are basically pin settings all around the peripheries of those greens that have to deal with a bunch of fall-off diagonals all over that course's greens.

The reason the pins around the periphies of those greens are risky is because of the likelihood of an overly aggressive shot falling off (shedding off) the periphies into those pervalent chipping areas from where it can be so hard to recover back onto the green close to those pin settings.

If you were a very good player and most all the pins were set tough around the peripheries of those greens and you wanted to play Shinnecock conservatively you could simply attempt to play most of your approaches to the centers of those greens and then just conservatively two putt out to the peripheries from there.

The more you attempt to play approach shots away from the middle of those greens at those peripheral pins the more the risk ratchets up exponentially.

Is this something that is fairly common on most courses and most greens? I'm not sure.

On the other hand, take NGLA next door. I think it's pretty true to say that there're a number of greens out there that sort of force you to play into the sections where the pin is or you may not be able to two putt even from the center.

Does this make NGLA's entire set of greens somewhat more variety laden vis-a-vis strategic approach shot positioning than Shinnecock's? Perhaps it does.

Although it may not be the easiest thing in the world to putt from the middle of any of Shinnecock's greens to hole locations on the peripheries of those greens I can't really think of a green out there that could be classified from this position (centers of all those greens) as what we sometimes call "greens within a green".

On the  other hand, coming from the middle of some greens at NGLA to pins elsewhere there are definitely a number of greens that could legitimately be called "greens within a green". In other words, on those greens you pretty much need to get the approach into the pin's area or your expectation of two putting is very low even at best.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think you have to footnote your above post to note that the greens at NGLA that are configured with greens within greens, are enormous, with the exception of # 1.

# 3 and # 6 are huge.

You also have to remember that # 6 plays at about 120-140 from an elevated tee, with the wind usually at your back, so, it's effectively, a very, very short hole, and as such, should require a higher element of precision, as all par 3's are inherently target golf holes.

As to # 3.
Well, there's nothing quite like # 3 and its green.

I also think that the context of your premise, and your premise are flawed.

Tough hole locations on every green isn't the norm for member play.

Shinnecock's members are like golfers at most clubs.
They don't want to be tortured, they want to enjoy their round, while rising to the challenge.

I think the fault of many on this site is to continually context golf and GCA in the realm of the PGA Tour Pro and/or the U.S. Open, to the exclusion of daily play.

If you view SH and the presentation Flynn helped create in everyday terms, and not in extreme situations, I think it provides a more reasoned perspective.

P.S.  You certainly don't want to miss the greens at NGLA when the holes are cut close to the perimeter of most greens.
The falloff is a killer, starting with # 1 and ending with # 18.

[TEPaul]

Pat, I'm very happy to see you post #119 and I'm going to save it and play it back when this subject comes up again.

That post leaves no doubt at all that you probably have no aesthetic eye whatsoever capable of determining the finer points in golf course architecture of what constitutes a "natural" look in architecture or what constitutes a green that looks "naturally occuring" from the approach shot direction or perspective and what doesn't.

This is Wayne's point regarding Macdonald/Raynor's style of architecture.

Again, most all of it plays just great and always has but that in no way means that much of it looks natural or naturally occuring the way so much of the later architecture of Mackenzie or Flynn or Colt and Alison's architecture does.

This distinction, ney difference, is so stark and sharp as to be virtually not debatable.

The ongoing problem on this website has obviously always been that those who can't or won't accept that obvious fact for some odd reason think that those who are making this claim about Macdonald/Raynor's architecture also mean to say that indicates they don't play as well, as challenging or as interesting. It doesn't indicate that at all. We are not talking about how these differing styles of architecture comparatively play---we are only talking about how they comparatively look!

That is not the case (how they comparatively play) at all with Wayne's point here about the look of naturalism or the lack of it in golf architecture.

Matter of fact, one may even be able to make the case that the man-made and engineered look of much of Macdonald/Raynor architecture is the very thing that DOES make it play so strategic, interesting and challenging. In many ways the engineered look of Macdonald/Raynor architecture may produce the very same strategic intent and consequence of say Pete Dye's architecture many decades later. One can certainly say this type of aesthetic style at the very least creates some very slim "margins for error".

But apparently these are distinctions that are just too sophisticated for you to comprehend.  

In the final analysis it doesn't really matter. I love you anyway, despite your obtuseness to the finer points of the aesthetics of golf course architecture, and what that means and what it doesn't mean.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

With all due respect, your post #121 is pretty worthless.

I'm not talking about making every pin on the greens at Shinnecock nearly impossible for the membership and I'm not talking about membership satisfaction at Shinnecock or NGLA or any other golf course. That's just something you brought up because you apparently can't deal with the actual point here.

What I am talking about is some of the nuancy and mysterious and finer points of the golf course architecture of Shinnecock and to some extent NGLA.

This has nothing to do with proposing setting 18 really tough pins for members or anyone else. This is simply a detailed analysis of some of the POTENTIAL finer points of golf course architecture vis-a-vis this golf course.

Just because any green has some great potential pin positions for either approaching or chipping or putting does not mean those areas have to be used every day and for all occasions.

Obviously, you make those kinds of responses simply to be argumentative because you have nothing of consequence to say on the actual topic at hand.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You can't use the consequences of missing perimeter hole locations at SH and ignore it at NGLA, where it's even more punitive.

And, in terms of natural looking design, could you tell me what's natural looking about the 7th and 11th holes at SH, the redan and the wonderful uphill, highly sloped green, surrounded by bunkers look that you object to at # 6 at NGLA ?

Surely, Coorshaw's keen eye and low level communicative skills can be of assistance in helping you to answer the above question.

[Chris Cupit]

Without a doubt, it is the wind that makes SH play more difficult than it looks.  #10 and #11 were two holes that played very straightforward (not necessarily easy) when I played with no wind and were brutal the next time I played with a hard left to right wind on #10 and a hard headwind on #11 (I think--it was 7 or 8 years ago).

For some reason, this discusiion reminds me of Pete Dye talking about people referring to Pinehurst #2's charm and "subtlety".  He points out (correctly I think) that while PH #2 doesn't appear butal and its roundness versus say shapness of edges seems soft, it is anything but.  Just because the edges are rounded instead of linear, there is little subtle about missing those greens on the periphery!

At SH, other than the green on #11, the roundness (sorry, best term I can think of) masks how brutal missing a green can really be.  (I was trying to say that #11 seemed anything but "soft" to me--actually, it may have been my favorite hole on the course).

PS  #6 at NGLA is an absolute gem--how can anyone not love that hole?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()