Gentleman,
How are you? I'm new to the site, and enjoying reading the posts and different opinions, I'm very impressed with the level of knowledge regarding architecture across the board. I have been lucky enough to play a handful of the great courses (Pine Valley, Winged Foot West, Southern Hills) but I have yet to play what I feel is the greatest course in the world, Shinnecock Hills. I have walked the property during the last two US Opens ('04 and '95) and any chance I get to speak to someone who has played it, I ususally pepper them with questions. I recently had some dealings with Lee Trevino due to my job in golf event management, and he said nothing has changed his opinion of #11 being the shortest par 5 in the world.
My question to you all regarding how the course plays to the amateur golfer....have you seen any changes in how the course plays with the recent change in equipment? I was very intrigued (and then dissappointed) in the set up of the course by the USGA in 2004. In 1995 I recall that for the 4 days, the closest I saw anyone to the 16th in two was just inside 100 (I think Norman had 87 left for a 3rd shot in the final round...being one of the longest in the game at the time). I arrived at the first round in 2004 and watched Fred Funk and Jay Haas (both two of the shorter players in the field) knock rescue clubs to hole-high with their second shots. Granted there was no wind the first 2 and 1/2 days in 2004, but 1995 didn't have what I would say "blustery conditions", just the prevailing wind, into the player's face at 16. Anyway, I remember feeling terrible that the course seemed to have been lapped by technology, and therefore, forcing the USGA's hand in the set up, and condition of the greens. 1995, players left saying it was one of the best tests in golf, 2004, players left saying it was a circus act.
Sorry for the long winded question, I was just wondering if the course still holds up to the amateur golfer in the same manner...I suspect it does.