[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have played both courses and Jason might be right about Praire Dunes property.  It is the golfing ground that architects see in their dreams.  Sandy constantly rolling land where holes are simply found.  However, Shinny is probably the most brilliant course in the US.  I rate Sand Hills slightly higher than Shinny, but probably because the found holes are so natural.  Architecturally, Shinny examines every facet of a great player's game while allowing the high handicapper to enjoy a fun round.  No other course equals Shinny in this regard.  I've played quite a few rounds and every round has been a different experience.  I drove it to the fringe on #1 and have hit 3 wood for my approach.  Every hole has provided these differing conditions and the course remained eminately playable.

[TEPaul]

Jason;

Would 3-8 be "huh hum" land or "Ho Hum" land?

There is a tremendous architectural difference between the two you know? If you don't know what the difference is, I'd be glad to explain it to you.

[JESII]

Jason,

I have not been to Prarie Dunes so I ask this purely in terms of Shinnecock...does a hole need "great land" to be considered a great hole? If so, why? If not (and I'm sure this is the case), what is it that holds back #'s 3, 5, 6 and 8 in that low area of Shinnecock?

[TEPaul]

Jason:

It is definitely not unusual for a first time player at Shinnecock to ask at some point on the first 4-8 holes what the big deal is with the golf course.

Frankly, I've seen the same thing happen a number of times with first time players at Seminole.

On the other hand, I've never seen those impressions last with those people if they get to know those courses.

[Jim Franklin]

Isn't it the variety that makes it great?

As to the pond on #6, I just played there last week and didn't even realize there was a pond. I hit a good drive down the left and played a short iron to a front pin.

And #10, I hit a good drive to the bottom of the hill which left me with 101 to the stick and I spun it off the green to the bottom of the hill. It may be better to lay up your tee shot if there is a front flag and bust the drive if it is in the back.

[Patrick_Mucci]

However, there's something noticeably different when a great hole is designed on dramatic and dynamic land.

Would you call the land at TOC dramatic and dynamic ?

Maidstone ?
GCGC ?
Riviera ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

How can you say it goes the wrong way ?
# 2 plays north as does # 11.  # 7 plays south and # 17 plays west.  That's reasonable balance and it brings you to the 18th tee, another hole that you've already admitted
is brilliant.

Yes, 17 completes the compass but it's an awkward direction at that point in the routing.

Could you explain how it's an awkward direction ?

If # 16 and # 18 are perceived as great holes, then, isn't
# 17 a great connector of the two ?

In what context does its order in the routing affect the awkwardness you allege ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you really think that the site that occupies the back nine at PD is that good ?

Better than SH ?  ?  ?

Surely you jest.[/color]

Pat:

Surely you must jest or you haven't a very good memory of the back nine at PD.  10 at PD isin't on great land, nestled in the dunes? 11 doesn't snake around a massive sand dune and play to a mini-benched green site; 12 doesn't start on one of the largest ridge tops on the property? 13 plays along and around a dune and to a ridged greensite and is also used for 14 tee; the 14th hole plays down a large ridge line that the 15th holes plays back up.  16 is a subtle switch back with a greensite on a shelf that falls away from you, cut into the hillside that occupies the current 17th tee.  17 plays along a massive dune site and plays up to a ridge, 18 tee sits atop that ridge line, plays back down between dunes to another greensite benched in the dunes.  Oh, and the fairways all naturally undulate, 17 and 18 like crazy.  Other than that I guess the back nine at PD is on pretty bland land . . .  

Jason,

You're confusing land that's adjacent to the golf holes with the land that the golf holes actually reside on.

There's a huge difference.

As to dunes and ridges, nothing beats the one that borders the right side of # 14 at SH

Just go through the hole by hole comparison in terms of land movement on the back 9 of PD and SH.

There's NO comparison.

The golf holes at SH sit ON the dramatic and dynamic land you refer to.  The golf holes at PD sit NEXT to the land you refer to.  And, that's a huge distinction.

[TEPaul]

"Tom;
I'm not sure why everyone is defending the fact that Shinnecock has some relatively average land.  I love the course and think it's one of the best I've played but it has some bland land in the grand scheme of things.
How can anyone deny that the land of 9, 10 and 11 is far more interesting than 3, 4 and 5?"

Jason:

Not at all. I don't think anyone is denying that some of the land on the front nine is really bland topographically and certainly compared to some of the back nine. That is obviously why the nines were flipped early on.

It's never been denied by the club or anyone who knows the course well that most of that front nine is flat and bland land.

You should see the Hugh Alison report that Shinnecock had done before deciding which of Flynn's layouts to go with. It's really good and Alison talks about exactly how Flynn's plan went about enhancing that bland area architecturally in some interesting way---matter of fact, ways that the club either misunderstood or forgot about in the intervening years.

One of the most interesting aspects of the original Flynn/Tyng plan for Shinnecock is what they were going to do with trees. It was pretty amazing but apparently it was just too expensive to impliment.

They were going to plant trees not with a scheme of treelining holes but planting "boskies" all over the course with trees that at maturity would be LOW in the LOW lying front nine and HIGH in the HIGHER elevations around the #10-#14 stretch.

The purpose of that was that at maturity when one looked out over the course and across the tops of those mature trees from the high clubhouse the entire course would look to "roll" a lot more than the ground actually does.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't find the pond strategic.
It hardly comes into play.[/b][/color]

The pond is in play if you get fooled by the angle off the tee and play too far down the left side . . . you then must think about the pond, especially if playing from the rough.  From that left side I laid up once and played to the green with a long iron once and carried the pond no problem but I hit a great shot.

Jason,

If you aim at the last tall tree on the left side, your worries are over.

The tees you choose can influence your play and perspective.

I played with a 14 handicap, a 16 handicap and a 5 handicap the last time I was there and the pond didn't come into "practical" play for any of them.

Had they played from the U.S. Open tees, the story might have been different on the second shot.

But, the critical factor is playing from tees commensurate with your game.

As to the comparison of the land at 3, 4 and 5 as opposed to the land at 9, 10 and 11, that's a matter of relativity, not a matter of absolutes.

The land at # 3 is fabulous.
You hit from an elevated tee, down to rolling terrain and then back up to the green.

Is it as dramatic and dynamic as # 9 ?

No, but, which land is ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

In order to gain perspective on your views, could you answer the following question ?

Have you become a recent member of Prairie Dunes ?

[wsmorrison]

JKB,

A featureless site (or in the case of Shinnecock, a portion of the site) for golf only is a detriment when the architect does not design interesting holes on such land.  The holes on the flat portion of SHGC are excellent holes, playing from different angles and offer an interesting contrast to the hilly portions.  Speaking of contrast, Flynn's planting plan, if implemented, would have enhanced the effect of the differences between the flat and topographic areas.  Flynn wanted low trees for the low areas and tall trees for the hillier portion to increase the perception of the elevation changes.  

Yet, there are commonalities that tie in the flat holes with the hillier ones.   Each section have fall-offs around the greens and short grass areas where balls continue on well beyond the greens.  This was designed in from the very beginning and is presented as well as any other course I've seen.  SHGC makes great use of angles.  Throughout the golf course, Flynn used offset fairways and greens along with a brilliant use of hazards (formal bunkers and undulating sandy waste areas) to create angles of play that may or may not be apparent and sometimes counterintuitive (ideal line on the outside of some dogleg holes).  The green expansion project is restoring outstanding pin positions behind bunkers and next to fall-offs that impact strategy back to the tee.

I don't understand how 17 doesn't fit in with the remainder of the golf course.  It is a very solid hole, one of the best on any other golf course.  With all the world class holes at SHGC it is may get overshadowed, but that is not an indictment against the design, it is still a terrific hole and not awkward in any way, especially orientation.  How would you route the course differently?  In what way is the 17th a weak hole?  Please consider the recent green expansion on this hole.  The restoration improves the hole with new pin positions (back left and front left for instance which brings the bunker into play much more so), elongates the diagonal of the left side of the green and reintroduces the false front with the green extended some 20 feet.

[George Pazin]

JKB,

A featureless site (or in the case of Shinnecock, a portion of the site) for golf only is a detriment when the architect does not design interesting holes on such land.  The holes on the flat portion of SHGC are excellent holes, playing from different angles and offer an interesting contrast to the hilly portions.  Speaking of contrast, Flynn's planting plan, if implemented, would have enhanced the effect of the differences between the flat and topographic areas.  Flynn wanted low trees for the low areas and tall trees for the hillier portion to increase the perception of the elevation changes.  

Yet, there are commonalities that tie in the flat holes with the hillier ones.   Each section have fall-offs around the greens and short grass areas where balls continue on well beyond the greens.  This was designed in from the very beginning and is presented as well as any other course I've seen.  SHGC makes great use of angles.  Throughout the golf course, Flynn used offset fairways and greens along with a brilliant use of hazards (formal bunkers and undulating sandy waste areas) to create angles of play that may or may not be apparent and sometimes counterintuitive (ideal line on the outside of some dogleg holes).  The green expansion project is restoring outstanding pin positions behind bunkers and next to fall-offs that impact strategy back to the tee.

I don't understand how 17 doesn't fit in with the remainder of the golf course.  It is a very solid hole, one of the best on any other golf course.  With all the world class holes at SHGC it is may get overshadowed, but that is not an indictment against the design, it is still a terrific hole and not awkward in any way, especially orientation.  How would you route the course differently?  In what way is the 17th a weak hole?  Please consider the recent green expansion on this hole.  The restoration improves the hole with new pin positions (back left and front left for instance which brings the bunker into play much more so), elongates the diagonal of the left side of the green and reintroduces the false front with the green extended some 20 feet.

Terrific post.

I don't think any course prompts the insightful discussion on here that Shinnecock does. It seems to be the perfect storm of great course and lots on thoughtful people who've played it, along with a small number of highly passionate posters with a fountain of knowledge.

I'd say we should commit to weekly Shinnecock discussions, but it seems to happen naturally, thankfully!

[Doug Siebert]

Isn't it the variety that makes it great?

As to the pond on #6, I just played there last week and didn't even realize there was a pond. I hit a good drive down the left and played a short iron to a front pin.

And #10, I hit a good drive to the bottom of the hill which left me with 101 to the stick and I spun it off the green to the bottom of the hill. It may be better to lay up your tee shot if there is a front flag and bust the drive if it is in the back.

Considering the difficulties I saw even the world's best have on their short approaches to the 10th a few years ago, if I played there I think I'd bust the drive and then play to the middle of the green totally ignoring whether the flag was back or front and be happy to walk away with a four.

[TEPaul]

The 17th hole at Shinnecock is a weak hole?

I don't think so.

It's not the most interesting looking hole from the tee because the green basically sits out there in an enormous flat expanse but the green has right and left side bunkering that work together in a really good diagonal both functionally and visually. With the latter I mean the left side diagonal bunker is completely obvious to the golfer and the right side diagonal bunker is anything but that. To a front pin the golfer can obviously see he wants to play safe away from the left side diagonal bunker but the right one, particularly in the front, comes up a whole lot quicker than it looks like it will---eg basically because you can't see it from the tee well at all.

Particularly with the new exanded front section of greenspace the hole will pick up much more front pinnable space and this will be the key to the hole, in my opinion.

It will also make this hole much more strategic in that a back pin is so much easier than a front one which will offer the hole some real strategic elasticity.

If you miss a front pin in the right greenside bunker you're chances of getting a bunker shot close are not good.

The new expanded greenspace in front will actually create something of a sucker pin in the front or enhance the sucker pin placement that's always been there. If the hole was 140-150 yards it wouldn't be that much of a sucker pin but the hole is a lot longer than that.

A smart golfer to a front pin in something like the US Open on the 71st hole should play a front pin by just getting the ball to at least the middle or beyond and then taking his chances with a longer putt coming back down the gradual slope with a left to right break that's not easy but it's doable. Overcook a long putt from the middle into this new front greenspace and your ball will probably go right off the front of the green.

I like holes like this in this position on the course because given particular pins they can catch the unaware and the needlessly aggressive golfer and bite them in a heart-beat.

This kind of thing is very much in the theme of Shinnecock---eg the course's green arrangements are just harder to play for the aggressive pin hunter due to unseen greenside falloffs and things like really good diagonal bunker arrangements that can be very difficult to recover back near pins from.

In a sense this golf course rolls every nuancy trick William Flynn ever used into one course which would make sense since it was relatively late in his career and it was obviously one he concentrated on a lot.  

In my opinion, the overall deal with Shinnecock is that if a good player wants to play this course conseratively he could just try to play all his approaches basically into the centers and always slightly favoring just past the middle rather than favoring the fronts of most all the greens and then just putt out to the pins that aren't center located.

But get aggressive and go pin hunting to some of the peripheral pins on this course and miss even close to them in various places and you have real problems, generally because you're coming back up and over the falloffs and down and away to peripheral pins.

Given the basic makeup of many of Flynn's green shapes, shapes that some have referred to as "potato chips" (some think they look like this from the air) most of the time the safe play is always to the center-back of his greens. Think about it.

From there one can putt out to peripheries easler than some of the greens of most other architects who use all kinds of tiers and distinctly separated green sections with some wild internal contours et al. Basically Flynn rarely used the latter in his green designs.

In this way Flynn's greens may be the fairest of any of the really good architects if you stay conservative. But get aggressive to peripheral pins on some of his courses, particularly Shinnecock, and miss wide or on the short side and it's very hard not to pay in strokes, even with well executed recoveries.

These basic themes and architectural arrangements may also be the reason Shinnecock has always been, for all golfers, harder to score on than it actually looks.

#17 is just another architectural iteration (the right and left greenside diagonal bunker arrangement that fans out from narrow in front to wider in back) on this same basic Flynn theme of where not to miss his greens.

[wsmorrison]

JKB,

If we have established that an architect can design outstanding holes on featureless ground, what relevance is there to discussing the flat nature of portions of the SHGC property?  Boca Raton South had 10 feet of elevation change and if it were still in existence it would be one of the best courses in the country.  The use of undulating sandy waste and many man-made hazards (though natural in appearance) add interest and strategy.  On seaside courses where there is wind, gravity golf is less important, though Flynn's use of fall-offs and short grass areas around raised greens offer subtle gravity golf.

If your only real complaint about SHGC is that the 17th hole veers away from the clubhouse, that's not much of a complaint.  It is an excellent hole but in subtle ways.  The green diagonals that Tom Paul mentions are not considered by an overwhelming majority of golfers.  Perhaps you are one of them.  Nevertheless, they are fascinating features, especially in combination with false fronts, fall-offs and bunker diagonals.  Standing on the tee, it is hard to figure out how much more club you need to clear the bunker back left versus front left.  That is a design feature Flynn used very well at SHGC and Indian Creek.  Not surprisingly, they were built around the same time; late in his career but poorly timed with the Depression going on.

Hopefully your bogey, double bogey and bogey finish does not influence your consideration of the course.  I have played SHGC many more times than you and have usually struggled on the 17th.  Trying to figure out why has led me to some important understandings of the design.  Of course having Tom Paul along didn't hurt either  

[JESII]

Jason,

You suggest that the routing is partially to blame for your distaste of #17..."I never said that there is an average hole on the course, although 17 is certainly my least favorite.  It's direction, to me, is award as I feel like at that point in the routing your heading full steam home and make a right hand detour."[/i]

When did you gather this full head of steam? The 14th te sit down below the clubhouse and heads straight away from it, and #15 is just about at a right angle to that...#16 heads to the clubhouse, but surely you don't think 2 holes ought to fill that 200 yards between #16 green and the house, do you? Well, it gots to go somewhere...


As to #17 on its own merits, I would disagree with your distaste, but am not concerned with debating the point. I also disagree with Tom Paul's suggested strategy for playing the hole...I always think that with the pin back hit it back, with the pin front...albeit a narrower area, hit it short of the pin. I cannot fathom how more greenspace coming down the front would make me want to hit it to the back...

I think #17 is a real sleeper that demands you to pay attention to everything going on and to execute...and isn't hard on the eyes either...I'd rank Shinnecock's set of par thres at the top of my personal list, and rank them in order of preference as #11 - #17 - #7 - #2.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I guess I can understand that after having Shinnecock beat the tar out of you for four hours most people probably would want to be heading full steam ahead toward the clubhouse with no detours.  

I can just hear those golfers:

"OH NO, is the course (#17) taking me out there again to beat the tar out of me somemore for another hour or two? Please let me outta here and heading straight back to the clubhouse."

Jason:

It may even be OK to proceed directly from the 16th green to the clubhouse---it's not very far. Your score for the round probably would be pretty decent to.  

[wsmorrison]

We're all for analytical criticism and I see no indication where it is squashed.  However, your position that a lack of undulation is a negative is unfounded.  You yourself said the holes on the flat portion are outstanding.  What you fail to do is demonstrate how a lack of topographic movement in any way reduces how great a course SHGC is.  When pressed, your response is that the 17th turns away from the clubhouse.  So what?  Then you get all sarcastic and indict the discussion.  The discussion isn't flawed, your conclusions and contradictions are.  

You state that in your mind Prairie Dunes, a course you are a member of, has better land movement than SHGC.  Yet you do not address what that implies to you or to the architecture.  We know your passion for your courses, that's a great thing.  But what does that have to do with an understanding of the flat portions of SHGC?  If you look carefully at how Flynn designed the holes on the flat portion and contrast that with how he designed the holes on the hillier portions, I think that makes for a great discussion.  Comparing the topography of 2 courses 1000 miles or more apart intends to do what?

[wsmorrison]

JKB,

Nobody has a problem recognizing that Shinnecock Hills has some featureless land.  What we fail to recognize is the importance of that fact given that some world-class holes have been designed and built on that relatively flat ground.  The way the greens have been built up, the angles, bunkering, fall-offs and short grass collection areas all make the holes play a lot more interesting than the land would indicate.  You have remarked about some of this.  So why do you keep beating the drums about the land being drab when it has no effect on the quality of the holes?  Because in your mind one of the courses you belong to happens to have "better land," whatever that means.  Pat Mucci disputes that notion and I respect his eye for most everything to do with golf architecture.  Now you say for the first time that the fairway contouring at SHGC is "rather tame" as compared to the contouring at Prairie Dunes.  I don't know if this is true or not.  Even if it is, so what?  You then go on to remark about the compelling nature of topographic holes versus the flat holes.  What a waste of time.  

You call this flatness denial.  Yet nobody denies it.  What I do deny is the validity of your position that flat ground dictates less compelling holes.  This notion is easily disproved, though clearly not in every case, yet enough so that your comments, especially about SHGC, fall flat.

[Michael Ryan]

Well I'm certainly no expert but yesterday I finally played Shinnecock and would love to comment.  I feel it's the greatest golf course in the world and my feet didn't hit the ground for all 18.  The wind was blowing very hard when we teed off just prior to 2 pm off of the 10th tee (a morning members event was going to a playoff and the pro asked if we would help him out...who was I to say no?)

As it relates to this conversation, I know that both the stretch of #3-#8 and the 17th hole have been hot topics and I was thoroughly impressed with that stretch on the front nine and the par 3 that I found to be rather bland as a spectator at the '95 and '04 Opens.  First, I felt #3 was a very strong hole with a great angle on the drive.  Also, to question #3-#8 means that #7 is being questioned and I don't see how  someone can do that.  The shot value required on that tee shot is outstanding, my 5 iron that was slightly right of the pin carried 2 yards to far and I fell off the back right, my caddie said if it was 2 yards less, I catch the slope and funnel all the way to the pin.  My 25 foot putt up the slope to a green that runs away from me with 4 feet of break was quite a knee knocker.  I played it well and it still scurried 10 feet past, left the par effort on the lip.  As for #17, I was again impressed with the shot value and my shot that landed on the front right of the green actually went too far and veered into the right bunker...the shot called for the combination of distance control, direction, and shot shape that the great courses "require you" to hit.  I only wish I could shape the ball on command...oh well.

To try and bring this back to Patrick Mucci's original post, I thought the flow of the land was tremendous and loved how the course sat perfectly in its enviroment.  

My desire to learn more about Shinnecock (yes I was obsessed with it long before I played it) led me to this site and I have enjoyed the learning process as it relates to golf course architecture very much...it certainly enhanced my experience finally playing there.

My question to you all that are more familar with the history of the course...What kind of player was William Flynn?  I'm reading a great bio of C.B. MacDonald and I know that he was one of the premier players of his generation, and that his protege Seth Raynor was not a golfer when he began work on National.  I would suspect that MacDonald's ability as a player was at the forefront of his design (Pure opinion of mine).  

Was Flynn a competitve golfer?  Did the angles that he created at Shinnecock reflect the strengths or weaknesses in his game?  Would love to hear a little about him and how it impacted his design...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Ryan,

Did you buy the yardage book ?

You played in a NNW wind of about 25-30 mph.
It's an unusual wind in that the short holes play shorter and the long holes play longer.

Had the greens been faster you wouldn't have been able to hold a lot of greens on approaches, recoveries and PUTTS.

What tees did you play.

[Michael Ryan]

Pat,

Bought the yardage book and one for my brother, thanks for the recommendation, great images in that one.

I played the back tees and on about half the holes, they were at the US Open teeing ground on some holes (all par 3's, 1 and 12 for example), one tee box up (16 and 6 for example) on the rest.

Yes, the wind was howling when we started, it actually calmed down a bit later in the round, but my rescue club off of #10 almost went too far, I had the "last available even lie" before the downslope...that hole is just plain scary.  

It certainly changed 17, as I had to try and kill a 3 iron into the wind, and just left it right and watched it kick into the bunker.  

I was happy to have the full "experience" as far as the wind blows, and yes, my host said that if it was August, some of the chips and putts would have been very different...it was all I could handle I know that.

Mike

[TEPaul]

William Flynn was a good golfer. He was also a very good tennis player. Once his career began I don't believe he probably continued to play or compete much in anything.

There could be an interesting reason for that. Flynn built his first course in Heartwellville Vermont at 19. Shortly after that he moved from Massachusetts to Philadelphia and became involved with Merion. In those days you could not be involved in golf in any way professionally (including architecture or maintenance) and maintain an amateur status. (That's probably part of the reason the likes of Macdonald, Hugh Wilson, George Thomas never took any money for anything they ever did in architecture).

As a young lad in Milton Mass, Flynn was good enough to beat Francis Quimet who was a year or two younger.

[wsmorrison]

As Tom indicated, Flynn was one of the best schoolboy golfers in Boston, considered the favorite in most scholastic tournaments.

Early on, Flynn played as a professional golfer due to his work as greens keeper and later architect.  Flynn played in the 1916 and 1917 Philadelphia Golf Association Championships, finishing near the back in 1916 and middle of the pack with a 96 in the final round in 1917.

I guess amateur standing was not an issue in 1926 as Flynn played on the victorious Philadelphia Athletic Club team that won the Latham Noble Trophy against the NY Athletic Club, Boston Athletic Club and Crescent Athletic Club teams.

In 1937, Flynn and his son came in 9th place in a Golf Association of Philadelphia Father/Son tournament.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()