"You can't use the consequences of missing perimeter hole locations at SH and ignore it at NGLA"

Patrick:

Just another worthless response. This is a thread about Shinnecock and not a thread about comparing the greens of Shinnecock's to NGLA. Furthermore since you mentioned NGLA I did mention the strategic consequences of some of the greens of NGLA compared to Shinnecock and how they are different in that vein from Shinnecock. I guess you forgot to read that too, huh?

TEPaul,

Obviously we disagree with respect to the 11th at SH.

But, you omitted mentioning anything about # 7 at SH and how unnatural that green and surrounds are.
Why was that ?

And, Wayne brought up, and/or continued the discussion on  golfer's preference for NGLA vs SH.

I've addressed Wayne's original question in depth.
I also addressed the subsequent issue related to playing preference in detail,  hence, I've stayed on topic.

Chris,

Both # 11 at SH and # 6 at NGLA are fabulous holes.

I give the nod to # 6 at NLGA because of its vast if not overwhelmng diversity in play, which I think has far greater appeal for the average golfer.  # 11 at SH may be a form of the ultimate in target golf, which is inherent in all par 3's.

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.

Yes, and maybe I have been hanging out with Mayday too much.

The same could be said of National's flatter section, the difference being that is gets disbursed roughly equally between front and back due to the out and back routing.

The only three "Top 10"  courses (that I have played) that in my Maydayish mind have perfect balance are National, Sand Hills and Pine Valley.

Call me an architectural dunce, but I love #7 at Shinnecock.
What is so bad about having to hit a precise mid to long iron into a par 3?

During my round out there, I hit a lowish 3 iron into the wind on #7 that hit the closely mown "run-up?" area in front of the green. The ball bounced once or twice and released into the middle of the green . . .The next two putts were two of the most exciting that I've ever played. I'm honestly surprised to hear that a bunch of you guys don't like #7 at Shinnecock.

-Ted

TEPaul,

I NEVER said that I didn't like the 7th at SH.
I think it's terrific.

I just said that it was more unnatural than its sister hole, the 4th at NGLA, and evidence that CBM wasn't the only architect who constructed holes that might be deemed unnatural.

Wayne,

With the obvious benefit of going 6-8 yards left.
Why isn't there a permanent tee in that location ?

And, how much further left would you go if it was up to you and TE ?

"And, how much further left would you go if it was up to you and TE?"

Pat:

Personally I wouldn't go a single yard or step further left on #7 for a number of reasons.

First, the old original Flynn tree is right there in shape and form--it was simply let grow and became overgrown over the years and apparently forgotten about. Up until about five years ago there was a medium sized tree right in the middle of it that was removed when the hedge to the right of the Macdonald/Raynor tee was removed recently.

Second, from that seemingly inconsequential shift left the shot into the green changes noticeably as the right to left bolster of the green cant really takes effect on holding the ball when it hits the green. A normal straight shot at the green does not appear to get anywhere near the riccochet or skidding result that casts the ball long and left that seems to happen from the Macdonald/Raynor tee just seven steps to the right, particularly when the green is very firm and fast. From the Flynn tee the shot once it hits the ground becomes more "redanish" in bounce and roll.

Third, it is actually possible to get a ball on the green by playing a very low running shot up the rather severe upslope of the approach fairway and if a tee was farther left the angle and runup ability on that shot probably wouldn't work well at all.

Fourth, there's an old original maintenance road immediately to the left of the Flynn tee (by about one step) and if a tee were build left of the Flynn tee that road would have to be moved left which would start to jumble it and the new tee up with the 4th tees, particularly with play from the new US Open tee on #4 that is app 40 yards behind the original 4th tip tee.

These things need to be considered from numerous perspectives. Your new thread about good and bad tee placements would very much come into play and rather quickly on a hole like this one.

It's a digression to mention but through the 2004 Open tee length addition and recently on hole #8, in my opinion, the club has done a really thoughtful and excellent job of positioning the height of tees as they should be particularly in this lowland front nine section. I'm sure there's always the tendency these days to raise tees off the ground too high to simply establish total visibility on what's in front of you and the club avoided this inclination really well.

If the club does decide to reestablish the original Flynn tee which is not a sure thing at this point, the next question would be if the Flynn tee should be melded into the original Macdonald/Raynor tee or reestablished as a separate tee immediately juxtaposed to it.

This question actually came up. One important opinion was that the Flynn tee should be reestablished as a separate tee immediately juxtaposed if for no other reason than that's the way it was done in 1929 and at this point restoring it that way again tells a fairly interesting story of the evolution of the golf course. In other words, it would be redone exactly the way it was undone---which in restoration can be a pretty cool way to go.  

"Who built up the tee on #11?"

It was "this man" who did it. He had a bunch of truckfulls of fill with no place to put it. And that's the truth!  

But not to worry. If and when they remove that unnecessary tee height and that fill that creates that height they don't even need to take it away. A mid-sized "D" can just plow it all over to the right in less than an hour, and if the club decides to build an alternate tee over there---voila they will have a wonderful alternate tee shot angle and one of the most awesome skyline greens anyone has ever seen.  

Who is "that" man?  

If you mean one of those people that are referred to as an architectural "Open" physician, that has not happened at Shinnecock in any of their Opens and I very much doubt it ever will for another Open or any other major tournament they may hold. The club seems to have an admirable ethos in the way they go about things with the course. They're quite deliberate about what they do, they're very historically grounded with the coures at his point and they pretty much do what they do in-house with little to no fanfare.

However, sometimes even these purist, perservationist people can really surprise you. We don't get involved at all in this part of Shinnecock but apparently there's a move afoot in the club to tear down their ultra historic Sanford White clubhouse and replace it with a 30,000 sf structure whose building architectural style is being referred to as "faux neo-teepee".

Wayne & TEPaul,

I know you're close to the situation, as as such, at a disadvantage when discussing certain issues related to SH.

I believe that the identity of those responsible for altering and elevating the 11th tee is important.

Not in the context of any one individual's identity, but, from the perspective of who authored the idea, who considered it, who gave it their blessing, who funded it and who ultimately authorized the change, because it provides insight with respect to the architectural mindset of the club.

Which, is a most critical factor.

SH's architectural mindset is the foundation of the effort to improve the golf course by returning to the ideals of those responsible for its design.

Deviating from those principles, vis a vis a formal process, wherein the golf course is altered contrary to those principles would seem to indicate that their architectural inertial guidance system is askew and needs to be corrected.

I found it interesting that you indicated that a good deal of debate is being entertained with respect to the restoration of the Flynn tee on # 7.

Yet, the 11th tee was altered, contrary to the original designers intent, almost overnight.

How can the club reconcile those two actions, one negative, which was implemented, apparently, without much debate, and one positive that is tied up in committee meetings, discussion and debate.

I'd prefer that neither of you address my post as I don't want you to compromise your relationship with the club.

But, I hope you can see the apparent conflict as it relates to issue of alterations to the 7th and the 11th tees, and, my questioning of SH's committment to improving their great golf course while adhering to and not deviating from the design principles and intent of the orginal architects.

Sully:

Good point on your post #144.

You should make a post describing what you think the ideal fairway locations are for ideal approach shots at Shinnecock.

You know, I was thinking about that kind of thing the other day and particularly after a poster on here who mentioned he was an 8 or 10 handicap said how much he liked Shinnecock and how he figured it required from him all kinds of fades and draws into greens.

People, and even architects talk about that kind of thing all the time when they describe courses but how much of a reality is that? Or to say it the other way around, how theoretical is that?

I mean I used to play a lot of golf and tournaments and frankly I don't remember ever really trying to hit fades and draws into greens or even to hit particular areas of fairways. I'm not sure I even see the tour pros try to do stuff like that all that much.

Frankly, all I've ever tried to do is just hit fairways and put the ball on the green.

At Shinnecock I'd be a very happy man if I managed to simply hit a bunch of fairways period and I'd be even happier if I could just put the ball in the middle of every green out there no matter where the pins were. If I could do that I'm pretty confident I'd have a good scoring day. The only shots I remember trying to "manufacturer" out there the other day was on #1 when I tried to play a low ground game run-up shot to #1. It worked. I also tried to hit a big draw on #17. It didn't work.

On the other hand, if I actually attempted to hit various parts of fairways and went pin hunting with attempted fades and draws I'm pretty confident I wouldn't have a very good scoring day, particularly on greens like Shinnecock's that can shed balls in numerous ways.  

This old adage----"Fairways and greens"----there's definitely something to it. This over-analysis of placing the ball strategically in various fairway locations and then hitting fades and draws at pins at Shinnecock---that's probably more the purview of the PC architeture analyst.  

But these things are for you to respond to, critique and analyze because one thing is certain---and that's you're a helluva lot better golfer than I ever was.  

"The "new" proshop (1985?) is an eyesore, though."

Yes it is and that is being considered too. For starters I would not put any more hope in the survival of the top half of that pro shop than I would in an American who speaks English loudly in the center of Baghdad.

Did you know that the shed between the road and the 14th tee that preceded the Flynn course is now gone?

"TEP,
The thing that makes the drive so important is that once it is properly placed, you no longer are required to hit one of those fancy hooks or slices to get to the pin..."

That's true and that's a very fine point.

However, one of the things that so struck Wayne and I about Shinnecock's greens is all the places around the peripheries of so many of those greens, particularly some sides and backs, that aren't just about direction or even carrying over somethng, they're about some really good distance control due to the fact they just aren't visible on approach shots from any angle.

And that is basically most of the reason strategically I would be more than content to just play the ball basically into the middle of those greens no matter where the pins were. I say this obviously thinking much more in a stroke play context.

You know this admonishment from commentators--"Don't miss it on the wrong side"? This is just huge at Shinnecock and it's going to get even huger or better.

In match play, depending on the situation, this kind of thing could really be a ball to consider and pretty nuancy.

The deal with so many of those green sides that can shed approach shots so easily is not just that it can happen easily approaching them but it can be so hard to recover back near those pins in those areas.

Later, I'll explain the 5th green and why it's so good that way and how we think it can be made even better with what they may be considering restoratively.

It may not be that popular with some but there is just a ton of nuancy visual deception at Shinnecock on and around those greens.

This fact alone could help explain why Goosen and Mickelson were basically the two left standing on Sunday in the 2004 Open. I don't think anyone could deny those two are about the most accomplished there are in chipping and putting recovery.

JES II,

On a windy site, small greens make for very difficult play.

While there are some larger greens, like # 2, hitting those greens in their usual or stronger winds is very difficult.

The wind is another reason Shinnecock should widen their fairways, especially when they're bordered by difficult rough.