What about Shinnecock Hills makes it more demanding than it looks?

« **Reply #50 on:** May 02, 2007, 03:30:22 AM »

Tommy P

Sorry to hear you have two sore shoulders. Carrying a chip on each of them for so long probably wore them down......

I don't remember too much about the Applebrook bunkers, as I was never in one of them. I do remember having a chat with Bill Kittleman on the veranda and him telling us of his "chucking" bunker enhancement technique. I also remember being one of the first if not the first person on this site to make the points that:

1. The Merion bunkers in their upholstered state looked ugly but played great (I had been in a few of them, as you may remember)
2. That judging their long term look and playability was something that could only be done over time, and that the uphosltered edges might just morph into something more estehtically pleasing.

Getting back to Shinnecock and "greatness," I continue to think that the integration of gravity into design is the key element of gratness. If you disagree, pray tel us why?

Respectfully

Ricardo

« **Reply #51 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:48:56 AM »

If this thread points out anything, it is that if you study any course long enough (especially the best ones), you will learn to identify and appreciate the subtleties that separate good from great. That is the reason many on this site talk about why it is so important to get out and see and play these great courses as often as you can. I've played Shinnecock Hills a half dozen times over the years and walked around it during past Opens. It will always be one of my favorites for many of the reasons mentioned and many others as well.

One of the other great hidden factors at Shinnecock is "the wind". It is a totally different golf courses in different wind conditions. Got to run.

« **Reply #52 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:59:29 AM »

Ricardo:

The puffy and upholstered look of the Merion bunkers was not your term because you weren't here to see them in their ungrassed state (and during the time their grassing lines were growing in) when that appelation was applied to them.

There probably are real similarities in the look of the eventual grassing of Merion's bunkers and those of Applebrook although something tells me neither architect (Hanse/Kittleman and Fazio & Co) would appreciate the comparison.

The occasional Hanse/Kittleman bunker construction technique is sometimes referred to as "chunking" (where large pieces of sod are scooped out from somewhere by something like a front end loader and "chunked" into place on the faces of new bunkers) not "chucking" (which perhaps is a Scottish golf term for the hurling of cowpies about a golf course).

You are absolutely right that "gravity" golf is perhaps some of the finest kind. I've felt that way for years now, and ever since the Ardrossan project where I began to learn this stuff about golf course architecture.

And I agree that the grassing on the Merion bunkers does look very good and very rugged and those bunkers now play much deeper with vastly improved sand surfaces. The real irony is that their grassing, their depth and their new and improved sand surfaces are almost precisely the polar opposite of the way they used to be in all three categories.

Does that mean they look better and play better now or that they looked better and played better back then? Obviously different people have very different opinions about that. The real criticism was probably just the result of the fact that despite how good they may be now they LOOK and play almost entirely different than they used to, and they also look very different from any of the app 2-3 previous iterations of Merion's bunker look over time.

Personally, I've always felt the screeching and the rallying cry of the severest critics of the Merion bunker project did not really know what they were talking about vis-a-vis the details of the way those old bunkers used to be or even the details of their damnations of the way the present bunkers were and are.

Their primary rallying cry of damnation of the Merion bunker project was based on the fact that one should just not touch the architecture of a course like that one with its age, history and significant place in the evolution of American golf architecture.

« **Reply #53 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:09:48 AM »

Mark, you wrote, "If this thread points out anything... One of the other great hidden factors at Shinnecock is "the wind". It is a totally different golf courses in different wind conditions..."

This thread also points out hoe GREAT minds think alike! See post #15 on p.1.

« **Reply #54 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:28:39 AM »

Mark and Phillip:

No question the wind enhances the challenge of playing Shinnecock but that is not what we were speaking about on this thread regarding the mysteriousness of some of the architecture of the course to challenge unaware and unthinking golfers.

But it's very true that the routing of the course is and was dedicatedly arranged to take the wind into consideration in something of a series of "tacking" sequences.

Flynn did that there by routing the holes into a number of 2-3-4 hole triangulated sets.

That kind of thing seemed to be a routing style that evolved in the mid to late 1920s and on and was probably the result of the increasing unpopularity of "parallelism" in golf and architecture.

Fortunately or unfortunately to do something like that really well (triangulation) on a piece of property one needs more land than on a tight parallel hole course and the result is a certain amount of unutilized land for golf which in and of itself becomes pretty attractive looking, as one can clearly see by looking down on the course from the high clubhouse and over in the direction of NGLA and Sebonack G.C.

I should also say that the magnificent look of that sweep of land from that vantage over to NGLA and Sebonack now has a new kid on the block in building architecure----eg the frame of the structure of the new Sebonack clubhouse is now very apparent on that beautiful previously unencumbered horizon line to the north and west.

The old ramshackle shed storage building that has been on the property beside the 14th tee since before Flynn's golf course was built is now gone and the sight of the hillside and its beautiful "toplines" to the left of the 10th hole from various vantage points on the front nine is really magnificent.

There was some discussion about removing the trees on the top of that hillside or ridgeline to the left of #10 and to the left of #13 to expose those beautiful ridge "toplines" to those vantages on the front nine. All in all it would be very beautiful but for one very unattractive reality which should probably kill the whole idea. If there were no trees on that ridgeline (which happens to be the highest elevation at Shinnecock) one would see from the high 13th tee that really unattrative string of high power lines running all along Rte #27 to the south.

« **Reply #55 on:** May 02, 2007, 10:00:17 AM »

Thanks Gents for all the great discussion! I was very intrigued by the 1938 photo and what changes have been made. Here is the overhead from today:

This is overlayed with the 1938 image:

At first glance, I am struck by the faithfulness of the greenside features. It seems that most of the changes are in waste areas or bunkers that do not influence the strategy of the hole.

« **Reply #56 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:34:30 PM »

Wayne or others - what brought the changes in the bunkers and waste areas? Was Flynn involved?

« **Reply #57 on:** May 02, 2007, 09:48:40 PM »

Interesting question, Jeff. Flynn designed the undulating sandy waste areas (mounds, vegetation and sand) to evolve somewhat. Flynn was not involved in the evolution of them in a manner not consistent with his intent. More likely it was due to cost and reductions in maintenance staff as well as a changing aesthetic, the sandy waste areas were either lost or made into discreet bunkers.

A lot of thought is going into what to do about the disconnect between the present way the areas are presented and the way they were meant to be. This involves raising the topline of one bunker to hide the landing area between it and the green and sandy waste areas on hole 5; the extent of sandy waste on hole 6 between the two fairways and especially down the right side and the bunker field on hole 8. There will be some interesting discussions and we'll see how it goes.

The stewardship of this course and this club could not be in better hands. They have an ideal sense of history and their place in golf. It is very important to them to give back to the game with tournaments, organizing and sharing their archives and their historic record. What a club!

« **Reply #58 on:** May 02, 2007, 11:05:31 PM »

Wayne,

Without having read any of the responses, I'd say that there are several reasons.

First, the topography appears to be benign, fairly flat from the 1st fairway to the 9th fairway.

Second, the openess is disarming.

Third, the wind can't be seen.
It's influence on play can't be felt until you're on the golf course.

Fourth, I find some of SH to be very subtle, which can be deceiving.

Pre-U.S. Opens, the golf course was MUCH wider, and I think that width, visual and measured, conveys a benign nature.

As to the issue of preference, I think it's almost universal.
Clearly SH is harder than NGLA, but, NGLA has a unique sportiness to it, that makes it more diverse, more enjoyable and more appealing for many golfers

In addition, for years and years and years, NGLA was in better playing shape than SH.

Prior to the first of the recent U.S. Opens, there was clover in the greens, and that's just for starters.
SH had the Maidstone syndrome when it came to maintainance and spending money on the golf course.

Hopefully, that's changed.

However, the narrowing of SH's fairways to 30 acres is a travesty.

That golf course sings when the wider fairways are in play.

Target golf was never meant to exist at SH, and the perpetuation of same detracts from or obscures the brilliant underlying architecture.

« **Reply #59 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:08:55 AM »

Patrick:

SH's fairways are back out to what they were before the 2004 US Open and that was the plan going into the Open.

As for those so-called "sandy waste" areas that Flynn actually shaped and created on particularly holes #5 and #6 (the massive area of numerous bunkers on the left of #8 is another area) and why they evolved into vegetation, I don't believe anyone knows at this point either when or why that happened.

My guess has always been, at some point, probably early on, the club simply did not realize they actually were created by Flynn and were supposed to be maintained in that state of apparent open sand naturalness. Perhaps the club thought those sandy waste areas were that way naturally and therefore would remain that way naturally without any maintenance. If they thought that way back they may not have even noticed they vegetated over since it probably happened quite gradually.

Matter of fact, I'd challenge anyone on here to identify any golf course that dedicately maintained (or even plans to dedicately maintain) the open natural look of sandy waste areas without letting them vegetate over through time.

The only club I'm aware of that is planning this and doing this is Ken Bakst and his nearby Friar's Head.

« **Reply #60 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:28:27 AM »

Would SH consider reestablishing those massive sand waste areas on holes #5 and #6?

Probably not at this point even though it has been discussed.

Even if they decided to do it there are other considerations other than the cost of stripping away the vegetation and the cost of maintaining those areas that way that have to be taken into account.

First of all, there needs to be some discussion of what Flynn created them for in the first place. Wayne and I are quite confident he created them mostly as a type of visual intimidation, and not necessarily as an architectural element of strategy. We think we can make an excellent case that this look was part of the influence Pine Valley had on Flynn.

But today there is an issue with the prevalence of the massive areas of blue stem around the course, particularly in areas between tees and those old sand waste areas.

The fact is if those areas of blue stem grow to even a foot and a half or two feet tall which they do in the season those sandy waste areas can't even be seen from tees and so forth since that area is so low profile.

So, if the blue stem makes those sandy waste areas virtually invisible from tees and such the whole purpose of the visual intimadation of those sandy waste areas is defeated anyway.

The point is there's generally a whole lot more to consider in this kind of decision making than most are aware of at first blush.

There's probably another good reason those Flynn created sand waste areas were let go or the vegetating over of them went unnoticed over time, and that is that up until less than a decade ago all those areas were completely covered with trees so those areas of sandy ground couldn't be seen anyway.

Most may not know it because it happened with some deliberation but a ton of trees have been removed from Shinnecock in the last decade.

« **Reply #61 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:30:15 AM »

Just so I can try to understand your opinions on the title of this thread, what is it that makes Shinnecock more difficult than it appears?

« **Reply #62 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:38:07 AM »

Sully:

Obviously there are a good number of reasons but the primary one that Wayne and I are talking about on this thread is the ability of so many of those greens to shed balls off them in all kinds of less than obvious areas and less than obvious ways.

That element alone, particularly when enhanced through restoration makes particularly approaching those greens so much more strategic than most realize.

I guess it's about time we go through the holes and explain in detail what we mean with those greens and the areas around them that do that, and will do it even better with ongoing green space restoration and expansion.

« **Reply #63 on:** May 03, 2007, 10:15:14 AM »

First of all most of the following is possible in that low-lying front nine simply because the lines of visibility are so "low profile" out there.

Hole #1:

There is a slight swale in front of this green that deepens as it goes to the left of the green. Due to a slightly higher elevation on the fairway in front of this swale (it's probably a swale created by Flynn to drain water off the front of the green and away to the left of the hole) this swale cannot be seen from the approach area (depending how far back one is in the fairway).

With greenspace expanded in front this area creates a functional false front on the green which will collect aerial shots hit a bit short on the green and also serves to direct run-in shots hit to the left front towards the bunker on the left. Expanded greenspace in the front also serves to make putts from behind front pins pretty dicey---eg you defiinitely don't want to putt from behind these front pins much past them.

The rear of the green that cannot be seen well from the approach shot areas falls off to a chipping area behind.

There is a fall-off on the left side of the green behind the left green-side bunker and it's our recommendation that this fall-off should have green space lapped over along part of it as the fall-off on the right of #6 green does (this greenspace fall off on #6 is also a really beautiful unseen diagonal or oblique line).

If this were done the left bunker would be able to guard a pin position closer to the left side of the green.

This in effect would require a drive much closer to the right fairway bunkers to open up an approach to a far left pin.

The point is that all these fall-off areas mentioned on this green are not particularly visible from approach areas and that is what makes this hole look much easier than it really is since approach shots that are too aggressive at these particular pin positions will very easily shed right off the green into short grass surrounds that are below the putting surface.

« **Reply #64 on:** May 03, 2007, 10:24:40 AM »

"I suppose that using that criteria one might most closely compare HCEG (Muirfield) and Pinehurst #2 in the USA and likely several sandbelt courses as having similar features."

Bill:

Absolutely, and very fine pick-up on your part. I was going to mention this strategic effect in comparison to particularly Pinehurst #2 but I haven't yet simply because I don't know Pinehurst #2.

It is my sense, however, that these areas around many of the sides of the greens of Shinnecock are distinctly less obvious from most approach shot areas than those areas around Pinehurst #2's greens are, and that fact alone is one of the reasons Shinnecock may look easier than it really is.

The point is Pinehurst's #2's greens are remarkably crowned and this is not at all the case with Shinnecock's greens particularly in and around the middle of those Shinnecock greens.

« **Reply #65 on:** May 03, 2007, 10:31:22 AM »

"I can't speak for the sand belt courses at all (yet) but I think in using the formula proffered to explain Shinnecock's greatness one has to give the higher nod to Muirfield. Interestingly in playing at HCEG I am only reminded of SHCC and no other course.

I can't speak about how the sand belt courses shed balls off green surfaces because I don't know those sandbelt courses, but I can say I did not get this impression from playing Muirfield, at least not near the extent of Shinnecock's greens.

« **Reply #66 on:** May 03, 2007, 05:22:58 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 03, 2007, 09:08:55 AM

Patrick:

SH's fairways are back out to what they were before the 2004 US Open and that was the plan going into the Open.

TEPaul,

Those fairways remain considerably narrowed from their PRE- Modern U.S. Open widths.

And, that's far narrower than Flynn or anyone else ever intended.[/color]

As for those so-called "sandy waste" areas that Flynn actually shaped and created on particularly holes #5 and #6 (the massive area of numerous bunkers on the left of #8 is another area) and why they evolved into vegetation, I don't believe anyone knows at this point either when or why that happened.

It's usually a product of benign neglect.[/color]

My guess has always been, at some point, probably early on, the club simply did not realize they actually were created by Flynn and were supposed to be maintained in that state of apparent open sand naturalness.

I'd disagree with that in principle.
To state that the collective wisdom and historical recollections went into a deep fog doesn't fly.

Those clubs tended to be generationally oriented.
They didn't turn over memberships because executives were transfered, thus creating a collective gap in their historical connection to the past.[/color]

Perhaps the club thought those sandy waste areas were that way naturally and therefore would remain that way naturally without any maintenance.

That's certainly possible, but, once vegetation began to rear its green little head, something should have been done about it. Remember, this was a golf course whose greens were laden with clover prior to the first modern U.S. Open.
The culture of the club would seem to be the culprit, and not, absent mindedness.[/color]

If they thought that way back they may not have even noticed they vegetated over since it probably happened quite gradually.

You're making excuses. [/color]

Matter of fact, I'd challenge anyone on here to identify any golf course that dedicately maintained (or even plans to dedicately maintain) the open natural look of sandy waste areas without letting them vegetate over through time.

Seminole and NGLA for starters.

GCGC suffered the same fate.
They had magnificent sandy waste areas, dunes and mini-dunes that were spectacular. But, for a variety of reasons, money probably being one of them, they were neglected, from a maintainance and architectural perspective.

What makes GCGC's neglect more appalling is the incredible number of ground and aerial photos that hang in the clubhouse depicting those wonderful sandy areas that were allowed to vegetate themselves out of existance.
[/color]

The only club I'm aware of that is planning this and doing this is Ken Bakst and his nearby Friar's Head.

Add Seminole and NGLA to your list.
Hopefully, GCGC will bring this issue to the front burner in the not too distant future.[/color]

« **Reply #67 on:** May 03, 2007, 06:29:51 PM »

Wayne, thank you and Tom Paul for one of the better discussions on here in a while. I too fall in the camp of enjoying NGLA more than Shinnecock. However there is no question which is the better test of golf and golf course. I too also feel there are no two better courses in the world touching each other. The discussion of the angles and subtle aspects of Shinnecock bring forth the essense of my love of this site and classical architecture.

« **Reply #68 on:** May 03, 2007, 08:43:37 PM »

Wayne,

I've been thinking about the preference that some have for NGLA over SH.

I think some of it can be attributed to fairway width, the sense that the margins of error are greater, hence the golfer feels more comfortable on the tee, AND with greater margins of error, errant shots don't come to rest in such difficult positions.

In addition, I think the INTEREST at the green and green surrounds is far greater at NGLA because those structures are more dramatic.

Are there more unique greens in golf than the 1st, 3rd and 6th ?

The green complexes are so unusual, so sporty, that their appeal is almost universal. Look at # 7, # 8, # 10, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 15, # 16 and # 18. Look at the features near the green, like # 17, # 16, # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, # 6, # 7, etc., etc..

I think the greens and green complexes at SH are more natural, but, the greens and green complexes at NGLA are more FUN. Fun to approach, fun to recover to and fun to putt. And, that I think is the principle distinction.

NGLA is perceived as MORE FUN.

« **Reply #69 on:** May 03, 2007, 08:51:31 PM »

TEP,

That post #66 is a good one, thank you. One thing it dod though is highlighted an issue I have with an earlier statement Wayne made on this thread, and you have made otherwise.

You have both put forth the position that Flynn, more than most any other architect, used a form of trickery in how his green sites would best be approached on a dogleg hole...you have used the term reverse dogleg to identify the type of hole in which the preferred side of the fairway to approach the green is actually on the outside (longer) side of the corner...this is not the case with #1, I'm curious to see as we go through the rest...

« **Reply #70 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:39:04 PM »

"In addition, I think the INTEREST at the green and green surrounds is far greater at NGLA because those structures are more dramatic."

Are you kidding? Those structures are more man-made looking and far from natural. Of course such man-made features can be made more contoured with in-your-face demands that are rather gimmicky and take little time to learn. If interest needs to be overt and leaves little to figure out, then yes many would agree with you. If interest is subtle, sublime and natural with a longer learning curve, as appeals to me, then Shinnecock Hills towers above the less sophisticated designs of Macdonald and certainly that of his protoges. You are too much the Nationalphile to be taken seriously

"Are there more unique greens in golf than the 1st, 3rd and 6th ?"

Uh, yes. Among many as or more unique (though not necessarily overt), the 2nd,3rd, 5th, 8th and left 9th at Pine Valley, the 3rd, 7th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 16th and 18th at Merion, the 11th at Kittansett, the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 12th at Shinnecock Hills, the 4th at Rolling Green, the 15th at Huntingdon Valley, the 3rd, 11th and 12th at Merion West, etc.

"I think the greens and green complexes at SH are more natural, but, the greens and green complexes at NGLA are more FUN. Fun to approach, fun to recover to and fun to putt. And, that I think is the principle distinction."

FUN is so subjective as to have little comparative meaning. I completely disagree with you but recognize my subjective reasons for doing so. I don't think you realize how subjective you are.

Pay attention to Tom's hole by hole analysis and all will be clear and you too will turn from the dark side

« **Reply #71 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:43:16 PM »

Having played Shinny quite a bit the past 18 years, I've experienced a variety of conditions. TE Paul has hit the nail on the head in reply #17--the course fools you into choosing incorrect lines and being agressive at the wrong time or oftentimes being too conservative--missing 10, 11, and 13 long come to mind. It was at Shinny that I really understood how the design of a hole like #8 could play psychological havoc on a good player while making a high handicap slicers day. The 27 handicaper made a birdie off a pair of ugly looking shots and the pros made a double and a bogey off some seemingly well played shots. When I reflect upon Shinny, I get the feeling that with the fairways, bunkers and greens--everything belongs. I get the same feeling at Sand Hills and Royal Melbourne. The real brilliance, I know several 22 to 27 handicap golfers who play there regularly and enjoyably shoot to their handicap. Of interest,in the last Open, though injured with roter cuff problems, Dennis Paulson played for the left rough on #8 to get the best angle--the angle was more important than the fairway that week in his strategy.

« **Reply #72 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:52:36 PM »

RMD,

The fairway was extended 12 yards to the left on the 8th at Shinnecock. It takes a good sense of architecture and strategy to figure out where to go on the hole. Many designs lead you the way, but Shinnecock and other Flynn designs are among those that leave a lot to the golfer to figure out.

Sophisticated championship designs make you think and execute. Shinnecock Hills has this everywhere on the golf course with variety. Sometimes it is easier than others to detect proper strategy, but you have to think every step of the way more than most courses. And it takes careful consideration. The architectural features are tied into the natural landscape. It is hard to figure out what the designer's intent is if you aren't sure what is natural and what is man-made. It is a higher form of art to use nature and mimic nature. It is also more enjoyable than being struck by man-made features and getting the feeling that the architect is dictating everything rather than nature being a part of the process.

« **Reply #73 on:** May 03, 2007, 10:19:35 PM »

Pat:

With all due respect your post #69 is one constant stream of misinformation and petty argumentation. In the name and cause of historic accuracy I'm asking you now to desist from those kinds of posts and do better than that. I, by the way, am one who really does know you can!

« **Reply #74 on:** May 03, 2007, 10:31:39 PM »

"You have both put forth the position that Flynn, more than most any other architect, used a form of trickery in how his green sites would best be approached on a dogleg hole...you have used the term reverse dogleg to identify the type of hole in which the preferred side of the fairway to approach the green is actually on the outside (longer) side of the corner...this is not the case with #1, I'm curious to see as we go through the rest... "

Sully:

No, #1 Shinnecock is not a "reverse" dogleg concept. Again, if one is really strategically paying attention to that hole and bothers to look from the tee to the green and notices the hole location is on the extreme back left the place to try to put a tee shot is as close to the right side and the right fairway bunkers as possible.

But let's be honest here. Even if we were Retief Goosens standing on the tee of this hole in the final round of the US Open and noticed this pin and this strategy, our first thought probably would be to just put the ball anywhere in the fairway and think of moving on to the 2nd hole with a very safe par at worst.

BTW, Goosen was one of the few in the final round of the US Open who actually did hit a tee shot both long and in the middle of that first fairway!

Furthermore, Sully, even if you did, I would not call what Flynn architecturally did on this first hole a form of trickery, I would only call it a form of nuancy and less than totally obvious and visible problems created by the architect for the golfer to pyschologically and physically solve.

News:

Rich Goodale

Mark_Fine

TEPaul

Phil_the_Author

TEPaul

Jeff Doerr

Jeff Doerr

wsmorrison

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

JESII

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Tiger_Bernhardt

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

wsmorrison

Robert Mercer Deruntz

wsmorrison

TEPaul

TEPaul