Oh and I was not suggesting the ideal approach needs to be fairway, I was just curious as to the opinions of others. Hell, just look at the prior hole to this example and you'll see there is no real reason to give the golfer an ideal look at anything, even with a tee under his ball.

I played Oakmont CC on Monday, and it was as difficult from 7300 as It was enjoyable.  Best golf experience I've ever had!  And had my ass handed to me despite hitting the ball very well.

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.

Yet there is a Redan-like hole (Flynn's completely redesigned 7th) and a Channel-like hole, the sixth at the top of the photograph.  Flynn wasn't designing templates, or replicating concepts, at least he never wrote about it.   Flynn used alternate fairways, as he did on the 5th hole (with the scorpion shaped sandy waste areas).  Rather than water, Flynn used undulating sandy waste areas that hid some of the landing zones and offered risk/reward options off the tee on the par 4 sixth with a bit less of one on the par 5 fifth.

Now there is a Biarritz, it is just south of St. Andrews Road near the railroad tracks.  I was on the remnants of it a few days ago.  

What made you think there was a Bottle Hole on Flynn's version of SH?   He wasn't making conceptual remakes.  If Flynn had a template hole it would be like the 12th at Pine Valley and replicated elsewhere such as the 1st at Philadelphia Country and the 4th at Huntingdon Valley.  There are more examples, some of which NLE.

Jim/Wayne,

Thanks for the replies, very interesting to read your insights.  Are any of the tee shots truly blind out there?  The only knocks I have ever heard on the place usually contain something along those lines.  Again, never having played, I'm going on what a person can see from "outside the ropes".  #6, #8, #10, #18, can you see the landing areas?  Those are the only ones that come to mind.  Personally, I don't get as upset about blind tee shots as most, I think they add to the game if used very sparingly.  

One more from the amateur playing view, #10, can an average Am knock driver down the hill?  By average I would say the 230 to 250 yard driver.  Would you say it helps or hurts your chances on that hole?

Michael,

The landing areas are fully or partially obscured on several holes such as 5,6,8 (left), 9,10, much of 14 and 18.  The 10th hole is really the only one that you lose sight of the ball so soon after the shot.

I cannot find my yardage book--I think I left it up there--but I think a carry and roll of 260 yards will continue down the slope.  I don't know if the average player wants to execute a blind approach up the hill to the skyline green, especially knowing how much trouble there is behind.  Then again, would the average player hit one 230 to the top of the hill and then 180 onto the visible green?  I don't know.  Interestingly, Flynn's green was slightly smaller than the present one, which was expanded a bit at the rear.

The great thing about that 60 yard wedge on #10 is that when they really have the course greased up you can hit it three or four times in a row and really get good at it.


11 is really an unbelievable hole if you ask me.

I think Ben Crenshaw had that pleasure on #10 in 1995 if I remember correctly.  Tom Kite had a similar run in around the 5th green as well, with his chip shots.

#10 SHGC--harder than #8 at Rolling Green?

Just different.

At RG, if you can drive it over the creek, you do. At SH, if you can drive it over the hill, you think about it, and usually wish you hadn't.

Totally different holes if you ask me. Which one is tougher? Beats me!

 One of these days I'll make my own comparison. But, it looks like the similarity is the approach shot. I imagine the internals of the greens are different but the ridge that runs through #8 at RG is very difficult.

 If the tees are on the plate then it depends on where you hit the drive. If you go to the right you end up 150 ish in the rough. If you go straight you may just get over the creek and be in the ideal spot or go in the water. If you go well left you are short of the creek with 170 ish and significantly uphill.

exactly!

Throw HVCC C-2 into that mix as well. In fact, I think that hole might be a good model for a way to improve #2.