[TEPaul]

Interesting discussion about Seminole.

That course has pretty much always been considered a very very good one and maybe a great one. The most interesting thing about that fact is no one has every really been able to pin-point exactly why it is. That, in and of itself is pretty cool for starters.

Are there any good golf course analysts who've ever maintained that Seminole's reputation as a very good or great course is over-blown? There sure have been but frankly all of them have maintained that opinion only when first seeing it or before they came to really know it (the fact is when most anyone first just looks at the course there's really nothing about it that just jumps out at you! ). I've never seen anyone say it's reputation is overblown after they've come to know the course over time.

But still, I've never seen anyone really pin-point exactly why the course is very good or great. Pat's attempting to do that here on this thread and he may have some good points. But still, I think Seminole is always going to remain somewhat of an engima as to why it's very good or great. And that's pretty cool.

One thing that's fairly undeniable about Seminole is a good golf analyst can say it's reputaion is overblown particularly after going out and shooting a good score on it but if anyone plays the course enough they will come to know that when you play it again a day, a week or a month later it can just kill you and it's sometimes hard to figure out why or what happened.

The course probably is great for a whole host of very subtle reasons but all in all the reasons why are always going to be pretty enigmatic, in my opinion.

In one of the early Coleman's I shot a 90 the first day and a 70 the next day, and to be honest I never did figure out what it was about me or the course that made that happen like that. I thought I actually hit the ball better the first day. (Actually, if I really think back and analyze why that may've happened the way it did and particuarly to the extent it did I just may be able go a long way to understanding why Seminole can do this the way it does even to some very good players--which does not include me! ). Hint---it basically happens on and around the greens and green-ends because essentially Seminole has never been a particularly penal course the way most of us think of a penal course!

One thing should be said about Seminole today compared to the way it was over 10-15 years ago. Today they have a general maintenance meld on that golf course that has completely turned the lights up on everything it is---even if it's still mysterious as to what that is.

15 years ago Seminole was basically asleep for about 20-30 years in the way it was maintained. Back then there never was that vast spectrum in scoring from any kind of player there can be today or in the last ten years even including the wind variations. That alone is very interesting and should be analyzed because basically it speaks to how good classic architecture can best show its stuff with certain maintenance applications. The reason for that began with Barry Van Gerbig who basically came in and did a bunch of things over a few years which just turned the lights up full blast on the inherent architecture of the course.

Is Seminole near the edge in basic set-up or "Ideal maintenance meld" application? It sure is! A whole slew of the winter residents from my club in Philly who belong to Seminole are beginning to filter back up north now and they say the course is just so hard to play most of the time now.

Can you get that effect, that kind of interesting spectrum on any golf course the same way and to the same degree they can and do at Seminole? I don't think so and in my opinion that's just another part of the on-going enigma and mystery of why Seminole is very good or great.

[TEPaul]

To act the part of the balanced golf architecture analyst I should add, once again, that my admiration for Seminole has never been and never will be complete in the sense of an "all 18 hole deal".

I don't care what Pat or anyone tries to tell me to the contrary, that 9th hole is a true weak sister in that line-up that is Seminole's other 17 holes.

Oh sure, you should keep your drive away from the left side of the fairway so you don't have to draw your second shot around a few left trees but other than that----not much at all the rest of the way!

#9 is just a bland par 5 in play and sort of in look too---always has been. The Donald went to sleep on that one.

I can't even remember how long #9 is but my recommendation for the Coleman or for good players would be to just play that hole from slightly shorter tees and it would put a real premium on slotting your drive up closer to that "neck" created by those left trees (and drainage ditch) and how that affected the second shot into a relatively mundane and fairly small green. Wouldn't really make that hole better just a lot more interesting in sort of a "par perceptive" way.

[ForkaB]

Tom

As one who knows both places, why would you say that Seminole is reportedly so much "better" than (say) Gulfstream, given that each had the same architect and a relatively similar clientele?  Was it the properties, or the routing or something completely different?

Thanks

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

That's a really good question! Really good! Matter of fact, I was thinking of mentioning Gulf Stream in relation to Seminole since there're so many dual members and because Gulf Stream has always---always been considered Seminole's little southern "Ross brother".

I don't know the exact answer, of course, because I've seen anything from either Ross or either club's original principles as to why one may be different or far more demanding than the other---but they sure are.

As I'm sure you've heard a thousand times Seminole just may've been the only project that Ross went after dedicatedly (other than apparently ANGC which he didn't get). Maybe because Ross had to work to get the Seminole project may've made him put something extra into Seminole or maybe Seminole asked him for something different and harder than Gulf Stream.

Gulf Stream has always been considered a nice little "member's" course and Seminole is certainly more than that. But could Ross have done a serious "championship" course and great golf course like Seminole on the site that is Gulf Stream's? I don't think so! Basically Gulf Stream's site just doesn't have either the space or the natural assets Seminole does. Basically, other than #18 Gulf Stream is no more than a longish par 4 from side to side throughout! Of course that does not mean one can't have a great golf course on a site that's narrow because there are so many of them in the linkland and even in America like NGLA and Merion but in Gulf Stream's case it doesn't exaclty have the natural assets in it's narrow configuration some of the others do. There are two pretty good area at Gulf Stream topographically and Ross used both of them really well there too.

Seminole's site is a really good natural site for golf, although perhaps not completely obvious at first (pre-routing and pre-construction) as to why but clearly Ross maxed the possiblities of the Seminole site!

I was just thinking this morning that one of the reasons Seminole's routing may be sort of unusual for Ross or even any architect of that day is the fact that with the first hole Ross went dead into the middle of the property!!

That fact right there sort of sets the entire counter-clockwise/clock-wise configuration of the routing in motion and allowed him to max out particularly that western ridge-line in the interesting manner that he did. (ridge-running holes like Seminole's great #4 are pretty unusual for Ross's common high tee/valley/high green site style!)

If you think about it most of Ross's course's and maybe most of the courses of that early day sort of started out by running along one or the other borderline of the property.

I've never really thought about when he did NOT do that or even the reasons he didn't but it seems like on most of his courses he did start by going alone the borderline of the property. Why he didn't at Seminole, though, should be pretty obvious. Starting out by running along one of the borderlines of the property is also a far more common thing to do if you are the type of architect to recommend an ideal clubhouse site in relation to the entire property as Ross was apparently inclined to do (if a client let him). We can see from Ross's own book that he tended to advise that the ideal spot for a clubhouse is generally in a corner of a site!

Riverton and York are two I can think of at the moment where he didn't start along a borderline (although Riverton may've changed that way from how he originally routed it).

[BCrosby]

Interesting thread.

What struck me as special about Seminole is that it is located in south Florida with all the attendant south Florida atmospherics. The wind, the heat, the sandy soil. All of which stand in stark contrast to a terrain than looks and feels like the Appalachian foothills. The happy result is a course with all the advantages of a setting in Florida AND North Carolina with none of the disadvantages of either. It's a unique, oddball combination of latitude, weather and land forms. Better yet, I think Ross understood that it was a unique combination and exploited it to the max.


Bob

A sidenote: I've never been convinced that "high tee - low point - high green" is a distinguishing feature of Ross courses. He built some holes like that, but who didn't?

The high/low/high marker doesn't come to mind as a dominant trait at P II, Seminole, Aronimink, East Lake, Athens, Roaring Gap, Augusta CC, York or others. And those are among Ross's most distinguished courses. I'm not sure the high/low/high thing is very helpful way to capture Ross's style. He ran lots of ridges in his day. Where, specifically, did the idea come from?

   

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom.

[TEPaul]

You're welcome Rich. For you---anything!

[TEPaul]

"He built some holes like that, but who didn't?"

Bob:

You're right about that but it seems like on the type of site and topography where that was possible Ross just did a whole lot more of it with regularlty than any other did. The danger in analyzing that type of routing characteristic or modus or style is to think that most every hole has to be that way. Any casual observer will know that's just not possible, and so it's just to some additional degree or extent.

On a course like mine and a good number of others with the same type of basic topography conducive to that sort of thing the thing to note is Ross really did do high tee/valley/high green sites as much as the property could possibly do! The only time he seemed to avoid it at all is only if it would completely screw up something that might be good that came next. For instance on my 3rd hole he could've shifted the green to the right to get it a little higher but that would've completely screwed up the obvious and neat little 4th quarry hole as well as the obviousness of the 5th hole.

It's a jigsaw puzzle in the end and the pieces do have to fit together and the fact is in the old days because of no carts and walking the pieces fit together a whole lot tighter (less latitude sometimes on individual holes) than some do today.

Also, I certainly can't be sure of it but this idea that Ross had some constant inclination to do high tees/valleys/high green sites on property that lent itself to that may've been something I thought up so I'm only going to defend that point of view so far. I've never seen any mention of that anywhere from Ross. It's only my observation and I just can't exactly think of anyone who said that before I did--but maybe I'm wrong about that too----I don't know.

[Pat_Mucci]

With all due respect, what you have described is a fine green complex with an AMM (Admirable Maintenance Meld) which plays differently upwind or downwind.  There are hundreds of holes like that.  You are talking hole design, not routing,IMO.

What you're missing is the equivalency of the cumulative result brought about by the varying winds effect on each of the individual holes.   Therein lies the genius, not that one hole retains its values in the face of winds from 360 degrees, but that all 18, collectively retain an equivalent value, no matter what direction the wind blows.

Could you cite the hundreds of golf courses where you state  that phenomenon exists ?  Listing ten would suffice.[/color]
 
Now, if you were to say that at Seminole every hole has a unique challenge BECAUSE OF its orientation vis a vis the points of the compass, then maybe I might begin to put some credence to your thesis.  

That's inherent in the theory, but, it's the balance of the collective result that's unique.[/color]

Until then, however, I think what you are describing is just a very well designed golf course.  Nothing to sneeze about, but hardly "genius."

Seminole's isn't just "very well designed" there's far more to it's routing, and I haven't touched on the use of the massive sand ridges and waterways, especially when the wind blows from any one of 360 degrees.[/color]

[Pat_Mucci]

TEPaul,

All of the par 5's at Seminole are par 4's to par 5's depending on the wind.  They were designed that way.

I don't find # 9 to be the weak sister you allude to.

Heavy bunkering and water left, a canal right, a stand of tall trees left, more trees down to the right, a center playing fairway bunker that faces players on their second shot, combined with a slightly elevated green that's well bunkered all conspire to frustrate the golfer, especially with winds out of the east, south or north.

It is interesting that Ross chose to slice # 1 and # 10 dead into the middle of the property.  Perhaps he wanted both nines to play up to, and then down from the westerly sand ridge.

But, the clubhouse location dictates but a few starting points, hence, I'm curious as to how it's location was determined.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If I'm understanding what you mean or think you mean by this description of Seminole's holes despite an incremental and decremental shifting of value or shot value as the wind turns 360 degrees as the entire course holds some cumulative value or shot values, it seems to me that any golf course whose routing keeps the sequence of the holes constantly turning around the compass is going to do that very thing (with a 360 degree wind consideration).

Some refer to this type of routing sequencing as triangulation. Flynn was really good at that and no better example of that can be found, in my opinion, than Shinnecock---eg 3-4 hole sets that triangulate around the compass.

By the way---'incremental and deremental.....and cumulatively holding the same overall value'....?  

Who in the hell do you think you are now----some Nasa rocket scientist or something? That sure seems to sound like the way one would describe how to bring Appolo 13 back to Earth or some such thing!  

[JESII]

Pat:

If I'm understanding what you mean or think you mean by this description of Seminole's holes despite an incremental and decremental shifting of value or shot value as the wind turns 360 degrees as the entire course holds some cumulative value or shot values, it seems to me that any golf course whose routing keeps the sequence of the holes constantly turning around the compass is going to do that very thing (with a 360 degree wind consideration).

Some refer to this type of routing sequencing as triangulation. Flynn was really good at that and no better example of that can be found, in my opinion, than Shinnecock---eg 3-4 hole sets that triangulate around the compass.

By the way---'incremental and deremental.....and cumulatively holding the same overall value'....?  

Who in the hell do you think you are now----some Nasa rocket scientist or something? That sure seems to sound like the way one would describe how to bring Appolo 13 back to Earth or some such thing!  

I hit the Websters On-line site to understad that opening post.


As to your question from the first paragraph. No!

Flynn's use of triangulation at Shinnecock is brilliant, but that only accounts for 3 holes at a time balancing out in the full spectrum of wind directions. Patrick (and I'm supporting) is saying that Seminole does so for 18 holes. An exponentially more difficult (and more impressive) accomplishment.

Shinnecock is my favorite golf course on the planet, I've been to, and played in competition, many of the "top" courses and Shinnecock stands alone in my book. That being said, to say its routing is such that the cumulative value of the holes is equal in any of the 360 wind directions would be innacurate.

The prevailing wind at Shinnecock helps on virtually all of the long holes and hurts on the short holes thereby making them play similar distances when the wind is in the two club neighborhood (not a rarity). When that wind turns around, the long holes become brutally difficult in large part because of their 'playing' length, while the short holes also become harder because the greens are set up to receive a soft landing (into the wind) shot, (think of #'s 8, 13, 15). Even with the hole playing shorter, and the liklyhood of a wedge approach, the greens slope from front to back and when firm simply demand a very high quality shot to hold the green. This does not diminish the course by any means, it does however differentiate it from Seminole from a routing balance perspective.

Huntingdon Valley is similar in that the prevailing wind is the easiest to play the course in, and that a reverse of that makes the course extremely difficult.

One argument for Seminole is the balance over all 18 holes with regards to a players quality of play on a particular day. The example of shooting 90 and 70 on consecutive days with little difference in your play is interesting and probably more likely at Seminole than any course I can think of because of the very fine line that distinguishes a good shot from a not so good shot, and where that line is drawn. Typically that line might be along the edge of a green, or even a bit off the green so that when your approach lands on one side of it you will be in good position to make a par or birdie, while on the other side of it (maybe only a few feet away) you will do very well to make a par, and are likely making a bogey or worse. Think about the lip of a bunker, or a hazard along side a green, or even a false front like the 9th at Augusta. At Seminole, especially under Coleman conditions, that line is well into the confines of the green itself.

Think about how many shots on that first day landed on the green and gradually filtered off into a bunker or low area. Probably several.

How many of them did you get down in two for your par? On this day, probably not many. This is why you felt you hit the ball as well in shooting 90 as you did when shooting 70, but the reality is you probably missed your targets by a very small amount on the wrong side of the line, and ended up in the worst spots available.  

[JESII]

The short version would be to say that if you went out there today in a 10mph breeze off the ocean, there would be a certain challenge presented. And if you went out tomorrow with a 10mph wind from any other direction the course as a whole would present an equal challenge, but the individual holes would vary as to their specific challenge. It requires the same quality golf to shoot even par (or 80, or 90) tomorrow as it would today, but each specific hole would become an easier or more difficult hole based on the wind direction.

Can that be said about another course?

[ForkaB]

Pat (and JESII)

Here are the first 10 courses off the top of my head (each of which I've played several times) which have the same characteristics you describe:

Elie
Lundin Links
The Old Course
The New Course
The Eden
Carnoustie
Prestwick
Troon
Western Gailes
Dornoch
Brora
Golspie
Cinnabar Hills
etc. etc.

All these courses have two characteristics in common--they are exposed to the wind and have excellent green complexes.  Some are routed out and back, some wander around the compass, so what?  (a hint: as long as the wind stays in the same direction, the total effect of the wind is a zero sum game, regardless of the routing, presuming that the routing starts and ends at point A......).

Don't give up guys, however.  I'm sure there's a pony in there somewhere (and I really mean this, I want to learn)!

[Mike_Cirba]

I've not played Seminole, but I just wanted to weigh in that I think this is one of the best, most detailed, and interesting discussions I've ever seen on GCA.  It's really painting a picture, with some incredible analysis and thought-provoking questioning.

Thanks, guys.

BTW, I do think that Donald Ross had a clear penchant for driving down into a valley, and then an approach back uphill to a perched green.  I think probably the first ten Ross courses I played all had a starting hole (i.e. Mid Pines, Southern Pines, Torresdale_Frankford, Aronimink, Buck Hill, etc.) that exhibited those characteristics, each with a number of other examples, as well.

However, Alex Findlay did the very same thing, even more than Ross in my estimation.    

[George Pazin]

I thought Patrick's original point was not so much that the holes/greens play differently in the wind, but that they played differently, yet retained their same proximate values, which I took to mean the hardest hole still played the hardest, the easiest the easiest, etc.

[JESII]

George

I'm sure Patrick will weigh on that soon enough, but I believe his (and my) position is that the actual value of each hole will fluctuate with the different wind directions, but the total value at the end of the day (all 18 holes together) remains the same.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the clarification, Jim.

Regardless, it is not the same thing as saying that the green complexes play differently in different winds, which seems to be the major objection of Rich, et al.

By your new explanation, you seem to be saying the course plays equally difficult under most differing wind conditions, it just plays difficult in a different manner. This is much more unique than saying the green complexes play differently in different winds, IMHO.

[Pat_Mucci]

George Pazin,

JES II is correct.

Rich Goodale,

I'd surmise by some of the courses on your list that I haven't explained the concept clearly enough or that you don't understand it.

Do you feel that the cummutive values on the collective of all 18 holes at TOC remains intact irrespective of whether the golfer is playing in a cross wind or direct winds in their face and at their back ?

[ForkaB]

George

I'm not "objecting" to anything, ole' buddy.  I'm just trying to get those who can articulate what makes Seminole so spcecial to tell us how.

PS--even if some course or other might appear to be "uniquer" than others (have you been on a Bushspeak course?) they really aren't--wind wise, that is, IMVHO, of course.

Pat

Vis a vis TOC.  Yes.  It's axiomatic, but even if it weren't, it's the paradigm.  Could you play Seminole backwards and get the same cumulative shot values that the Reverse course at TOC offers?  Just wondering......

[Pat_Mucci]

Vis a vis TOC.  Yes.  It's axiomatic, but even if it weren't, it's the paradigm.  

It's certainly not axiomatic, and for you to say so would seem to indicate that you don't understand the concept.

While the values of each hole shift with the wind direction, they retain individual values, and, the cummulative value for all 18 holes remains almost constant.

Does Shinnecock retain it's cummulative value in a southern versus a northern wind ?   A western versus eastern, an eastern versus southern, a western versus northern ?

If you think so, you need to play Shinnecock more often.[/color]

Could you play Seminole backwards and get the same cumulative shot values that the Reverse course at TOC offers?

That's a seperate issue.

And, do you get the same cummulative value playing the current versus the reverse course at TOC ?
In all wind directions ?[/color]



 Just wondering......

[JESII]

Pat (and JESII)

Here are the first 10 courses off the top of my head (each of which I've played several times) which have the same characteristics you describe:

Elie
Lundin Links
The Old Course
The New Course
The Eden
Carnoustie
Prestwick
Troon
Western Gailes
Dornoch
Brora
Golspie
Cinnabar Hills
etc. etc.

All these courses have two characteristics in common--they are exposed to the wind and have excellent green complexes.  Some are routed out and back, some wander around the compass, so what?  (a hint: as long as the wind stays in the same direction, the total effect of the wind is a zero sum game, regardless of the routing, presuming that the routing starts and ends at point A......).

Don't give up guys, however.  I'm sure there's a pony in there somewhere (and I really mean this, I want to learn)!

Rich,

Understand your point about the zero sum game, that is obvious excepting in rare cases of extreme green to tee distance, 99% of courses fit. 99.999% of older, classic courses due obviously to the emphasis on walking.

With regards to your two common characteristics; so long as they are also subject to variable wind directions, not simply off the water or towards the water (I've played none of your examples so I'll defer to you on that), those two would count for some of the requirements.

A "genius" routing would also need:

1) a balance of long and short two-shot holes
2) holes that moved right and left
3) holes that went uphill and downhill
4) varied par threes
5) three-shot holes going in multiple directions
and most importantly IMO
6) a balance of punishment for balls missing their target due to the wind direction of that particular day.

This last point is difficult to make clear so please forgive a bit of redundancy as I try. If you looked at the aerial of Seminole and assigned a degree of difficulty to the various places around each green that might be visited by a player in one specific wind condition (ie; an easterly wind will increase the number of balls missing greens on the west side of that green) due to that wind condition, you would find that each wind direction will produce a total degree of difficulty within a tight variance.  

Can anyone locate the aerial that was on a post 4 or 5 weeks ago and add the link to this thread, I think it'll help the discussion. Thanks, my search skills are pathetic.

[ForkaB]

Pat

I do understand everything you are trying to say--it's not rocket science, after all.....

And, having considered all you have said and are trying to say I agree with all  that I have said.  It's axiomatic.  Just do the maths and report back to Mrs. Grundy and/or TE Paul.

JES II

Some "genius" routings go around the compass, some go out and back.  All play very similarly (to themselves) regardless of the wind--IF IT IS A GENTLE WIND--the point of my first post on this topic.  When you get to 2-3+ club winds, all axioms go out the window, even (I would suspect) at Seminole........

[Pat_Mucci]

as long as the wind stays in the same direction, the total effect of the wind is a zero sum game, regardless of the routing, presuming that the routing starts and ends at point A......).

That's not true.

First, the individual holes have to hold their values, not their optimum values, but, certainly, adequate standards, and many, if not most holes don't do that.  

Seminole's holes hold far more than the adequate standards, they retain high standards.
A simple example would be the "easy" little 12th.
As difficult as it may be into the wind, it may be harder downwind, or in cross winds.  Different features come into play with the various winds, making the hole challenging in a varietal way.

Perhaps a review of the aerial would assist you in your efforts to comprehend the concept as it applies to Seminole.

At this point, I don't think it's a case of you wanting to learn, but more of a case of a desire to refute.  Perhaps, after you've played Seminole you'll see the light, or at least the play of the wind.

Reference my comments regarding the play of Shinnecock in varying wind directions.  It's not the same, despite your insistance to the contrary.[/color]

[JESII]

Let's boil this down to the nuts.

"Par" at Seminole with no wind for me (a former Canadian Tour player and current +1) - 70. "Par" = The score I could reasonably expect to shoot if I played well.

Keeping all ground conditions the same - firm, fast greens, light rough etc...

Par in a one club wind off the ocean - 72
Par in a one club wind out to the ocean - 72
Par in a one club wind coming up the coast - 72
Par in a one club wind coming down the coast - 72
Par in a one club wind coming from any direction - 72


Par in a 3 club wind off the ocean - 75
Par in a 3 club wind out to the ocean - 75
Par in a 3 club wind coming up the coast - 75
Par in a 3 club wind coming down the coast - 75
Par in a 3 club wind coming from any direction - 75

The point of this is that the routing of the golf course results in a balanced test of golf when one variable (wind strength) remains constant while another (wind direction) changes.

I very seriously doubt an "out-and-back" routing could accomplish this for the simple reason Pat stated. A horizontal wind for every (or almost every) hole cannot result in the same value as a vertical wind over the course of 18 holes, you simply cannot have the same variety of shot requirements and decisions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()