[Geoffrey Childs]

Matt,

I completely disagree with you regarding #2 at BPB-I've always loved that hole.  You need to hit a strategic draw in order to have a level lie for the approach shot and, even though the green is pretty flat it's still a blind second shot that makes it very difficult to get the ball close to the hole.

The Black is the Black is the Black.  They can do whatever they want to lengthen it for the pros, but it will always be, for me, an incredible golf course from the while tees playing at about 6600 yards. Tee to green, far and away, the best course I've ever played.  Of course, I'm prejudiced, I suppose.

I agree with Mike 100% #2 is a majestic golf hole. You walk through the tunnel and emerge to see that fairway so well described by Kyle and Mike and then walk forward to see that HUGE bunker complex and the uphill approach.

It could be a great short hole with an appropriate green at the end.

BB is indeed the greatest tee to green test Tillinghast ever designed and my comment to that effect was in Golf Digest places to play booklet MANY years ago along with my comment "If only everyone else would stay away".

Matt - you are pissed at the higher out of town greens fee- get over it and stop trying to redesign BB  

[Mike_Cirba]

Quite unlike TOC, I think BB's 18th is fair game for re-design.

Simply, because it's already been redesigned by Rees Jones into something approximating his dad's "pinched in" bunkering in the fairway landing zone on acid.

I don't think a driveable par four is the answer, however.  

The course already gives way too much advantage to the power hitter.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

The answer lies two holes over...  

(and no, not the first hole of the green course).

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

The issue with the 2nd doesn't have to do with the turning nature of the hole or that the green complex is at the top of the hill.

I'll say this again s-l-o-w-l-y ...

It's the PEDESTRIAN GREEN. It's simply a big fat disc that has nothing of uniqueness to it. Let me also point out AGAIN for those who may not be thaaaat familiar with the Black -- but the bunkers at greenside have literally no functional role for the top player. They do catch Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass but that's the extent of it.

Bethpage needs to have no less than two (2) finesse holes in the mixture. The 2nd & 18th are grand places to start.

I have to agree with Tom Doak when he says that a truly great golf course can only be so when it provides for short par-4's that excite the senses no less than the muscular fastball holes you face at the Black.

Kyle:

How does the 2nd fit into the grand scale of the Black. It is a transition hole between the start and the actual rolling nature of the terrain you get in fast order with the start of the 4th hole.

Also, where is the "fortress" you speak about? It's there for the average Joe and Jane but not for players of quality. What's amazing is how distinct the green complex is at #15 -- a far superior and more demanding hole -- than what you see with the lame green complex at #2.

Mike C:

A driveable par-4 doesn't give anything away unless it's EARNED. Yes, power is part of the nature of golf -- so what? The ending of the Black doesn't need some nondescript long par-4 -- you've already encountered no less than a half a dozen prior to the finale.

The 18th needs to have some electricity -- candidly -- at least the 18th at TOC provides the possibility of a two or a five in very quick order. I like the uncertainty that comes with such holes. We do agree that the existing hole is lacking for anything close to excitement -- it is pro forma "take the iron or fairway metal" out of the bag and then lay-up before the bunkers that look good from the sky but have 0% meaning to the actual playing of the hole.

[Kyle Harris]

Matt,

The green complex on 15 is made distinct by the approach shot, which for the aforementioned Joe Sixpack is often times from over 200 yards. Put a wedge into my hands (or Joe's) and you better believe the 15th would lose a lot by your standards as well.

I don't think you're advocating lengthening the 2nd to add interest, so I fail to see the comparison. They're two different kinds of holes, but both look and feel a part of the greater motif.

The second time I played the Black, I yanked my tee shot on the 2nd hole a bit, hit a overhanging tree branch, and had 5 iron into that green. You better believe that hole looked like a fortress from way back at 190 where I was. However, experience told me the green was benign, so I just told myself to put a good swing on the ball and ultimately did.

Even the first time I played it, where I had PW in, it intimidated me. However, I found out that the hole had more bark than bite, which was a welcome relief. When I play the Black in my head, anticipating my return, the second hole provides much enjoyment when I think about playing it. As much as any other hole out there.

[Matt_Ward]

Kyle:

You missed my point by a country mile.

The 15th has a dynamic green complex -- even if people were placed at the botton of the hill leading up to the hole.

Where is the uniqueness of the 2nd green? I have seen more movement on my carpet at home.

The 2nd is nothing more than filler -- you get a fine starter hole with the 1st -- the green there is quite special because of its lack of size and movement -- but at the 2nd you get a big fat disc with no movement.

You keep focusing on the blind aspect of the hole -- yes that's true -- for the first time -- after that it becomes a situation in knowing your effective yardage and pulling the trigger.

Kyle -- appreciate your golf tales about your 5-iron adventure but that's not my point or interest in knowing. The average Joe has a tough enough time simply in walking the Black. The issue on this thread is not about how demanding the course is for average Joe's who can hit the tee ball past 225 yards on a steady basis.

It's about enhancing the qualities of the Black beyond the steroid-induced muscular hole styles you see now with the inane back tee at the 9th. The Black generally pounds people into submission it's about time you have a hole(s) that seduce or beguile the player beyond simply whacking the long clubs time after time after time.

When you say as "much as any hole out there" than you and I are in different zip codes partner. The 2nd is likely near the botton 2-3 holes in overall quality on the Black -- only the riveting 18th   deserves a higher billing in my book.

[Kyle Harris]

Agreed with the 18th.

How about 13? As far as I can tell in both my playings it's a really benign par five that has some strategic merit to it. Seven as well, if you make the carry (even bailing out to the left) is a pretty easy hole for all but the highest of handicappers.

I also agree that a new tee on nine is probably over the top (haven't seen it).

I guess I am missing your point. Why does the second green need more contour? Isn't it unique in the sense that it is so flat?

I always thought the purpose of the first three holes on the Black was to give the golfer something to start off well with before the course starts swinging. Is it not strategic to have a hole you almost have to attack and you are able to attack successfully in order to give yourself some breathing room that you'll statistically use later on?

[Matt_Ward]

Kyle:

I didn't say the 2nd green needs to be some sort of Oakmont or Augusta rolling green that looks like an ocean on a stormy day, however, the pedestrian flat-as-a-pancake green one sees today is really in need of an upgrade.

My point on #15 is this -- here you have a hole of even greater length and it has the better green complex than a hole which is far shorter and less compelling from the green complex perspective. I don't see the "uniqueness" in a flat green that becomes an easy target no matter where you land the ball on the green. The purpose of a short hole is to make the player play a more precise approach. With the 2nd green it doesn't matter where you are -- it becomes a pro forma two-putt.

I have no issue with #13 -- the tee shot allows for the bold play and long hitters can get there when they execute at the highest of levels (see Tiger final round as example in the '02 Open).

I like the bunker complex that is not immediately next to the green in the front area. I also see the green at #13 having sufficient back-to-front movement to keep the players from getting too frisky.

[Kyle Harris]

Pro-forma two putt isn't good enough there though, ESPECIALLY on a flat green with the meat of the front nine ahead of you.

Yeah, you can choose to bunt the putt and take your tap in par... but that's probably going to lose a shot on the field ultimately.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

When the greens are really firm, #2 green actually becomes very interesting. Due to the amount of elevation, shots tend to long bounce and fail to bite on the second bounce.  It is under these conditions that the greed factor takes effect and top players do find the bunkers.  The 2002 Open had so much rain that the Black played quite a bit below its toughness capability.  

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Yesterday, we were involved in an hour long electrical weather delay.  There was quite a bit of discussion about the course--I asked quite a few players for imput.  Everyone thought the new 9th tee was the ultimate in stupidity.  The consensus for improving the 9th was moving the fairway over to the right about 10-15 yards.  Sure a few trees would have to be cut, but the right greenside bunker is among the most aesthetically pleasing bunkers.  Due to a bad drive, I actually experienced the hole from the right and had to hit a nuked 176 yard 6 iron into a moderate wind.  It actually had a scarier look than the norrmal view from the current middle of the fairway.  I am pretty sure that this would pump the yardage up to 440. In addition, because of the dogleg, the fairway would be harder to hit.  The current plan calls for filling in the hollow to accomodate the new tee.  With 14 ruined, and this possibly occurring, what is going to be tinkered with next?

[Frank Pasquale]

The 2nd green is not always a pro-forma two-putt.  In the final round, Tiger three-putted it.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

 The current plan calls for filling in the hollow to accomodate the new tee.  With 14 ruined, and this possibly occurring, what is going to be tinkered with next?

Robert-

  Are you talking about the hollow in the drive zone?  That i sone of the features that makes the hole--the challenge of drawing the ball and clearing the hollow with the tee shot, which the reward is having a level lie for the approach.  

  My opinion that it would make the hole from a good hole into a very average hole.  What do you think?

[Paul Richards]

Before Shivas takes this the wrong way, I actually agree with Matt and much of what he says on this thread.
 

As background, I don't think what Rees did to the Black was in keeping with the original intentions, in many areas.  Especially bothersome to me was the 18th hole.

The 18th has an amazing downhill drive and then uphill second to the green cut into the hill.  I love what was there originally.  I didn't like what Rees did with putting all those bunkers in on both sides and 'choking' off play the further you hit it.  It looked unnatural, and, I'm sure, unnecessary.

Shivas wants to add a pot bunker to the 18th at TOC.  Matt wants to make 18 at BB a driveable four.  I respectfully disagree with Shivas and agree with Matt.

The 18th at TOC is meant to be a par 3 1/2, following the par 4 1/2 Road Hole.  This year's ridiculous conditions and even more ridiculous technology issues caused it to be 'defenseless' in some people's words - in my words, it made it much more exciting.   There was no opportunity for a Van de Velde, but there was an opportunity to make an eagle, make a birdie or lose a shot with a par.  That was cool.

The 18th at BB, on the other hand, is a boring medium-length hole - and I'm sure with the technology advances since 2002, the pro's will be able to blast it over the goofy-looking bunker complexes anyways.  For this reason, make it a do-or-die, risk-reward, driveable par 4, as Matt advocates.

Matt says:
>The 18th is a big time dud.

Make it interesting and exciting by moving those tees forward!


 

[Paul Richards]

Matt also said:

>The course I fell in love with doesn't need more length -


I agree.  I fell in love with it the way it was.  

Maybe the best way to 'get it back' to where it should be is the competition ball ....

 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Though 18 does not equal the previous 17 holes in design quality, it certainly did the job in determining this years New York State Open Champion.  Rick Hartmann made a triple when needing birdie for the tie after a two shot swing on 17. The course can come up and bite anyone at any time.  For the three rounds I played 5, 10, 12, 15, 16 even par and played 5, 9, 18 at 5 over and finished 7 over.  The primary cause was 98 putts for 54 holes.

[Phil_the_Author]

I decided to stay out of this discussion because I feel that too often I comment about Bethpage, but I can't take it anymore!  

Paul, you wrote, "As background, I don't think what Rees did to the Black was in keeping with the original intentions, in many areas.  Especially bothersome to me was the 18th hole. The 18th has an amazing downhill drive and then uphill second to the green cut into the hill.  I love what was there originally.  I didn't like what Rees did with putting all those bunkers in on both sides and 'choking' off play the further you hit it.  It looked unnatural, and, I'm sure, unnecessary."

I've tried making as detailed a study of the Black Course as is possible. From what I can tell, the work Rees did was accurate to the original details as possible. For example, # 18 had clusters of bunkers, this was not an invention of his. Yes, they now "pinch in" slightly more than they did in the past, but so what? The narrowing is very strategic for those playing for something important, match or tournament, and in the 2002 Open, a number of high scores were recorded on the hole by the leaders and others whose rounds were ruined there.

The hole pre-renovation needed a complete re-working to make it as good a finishing hole as possible for the Open. There were only two possible choices to accomplish this. Either lengthen the hole and challenge the landing area or make the hole much shorter - a driveable par four. IMHO the right choice was made.

How many on GCA feel strongly that a course should be renovated in lione with what the architect's original design intended? Most if not nearly all. Why then make an exception here. Tilly designed it to be a driver and medium to short iron to a very elevated green. With the renovation that is what was accomplished. A driveable par four flies in the face of what he wanted.

Real world, you come to 18 in the Open with a one-shot lead, what do you do? That depends on what length this Driveable hole would actually be. 320 yards? with the green perched that high up? Who is going to make an attempt? Let's be real, no one would even consider it as the actual carry distance would be at least 350. That's carry, not with a roll. No, the land the 18th is on does not allow for a short par four.

Also, how poor a hole has the 18th at TOC become now? it averaged 3.5 (or thereabouts). Yes, it is drivable by almost everyone now, and that's the problem. The likelihood of being to overcome a two-shot lead isn't there. Is that the model for a championship finishing hole that we should desire. Not as far as I am concerned.

I think that the final answer for #18 is for one more bunker, either a single one or a slanted cross-bunker. about 310 yards from the tee. Since it is downhill, there will be a temptation by some to have a go at it, while a lay-up then brings a longer second shot.

Sorry Matt & others, but the Black is that great course that has NEVER had a short par four from day one and shouldn't be given one now.

The problem with the second green (& several others0 is that the greens no longer are as large as when they were first built. In nearly every case, and this would be so with #2, if the greens were to their original dimensions there would be more areas of undulations and elevation changes. On #2 the green actually should be further back & up to the right with an area directly past the end of the bunker complex. Even as it is, there is CONSIDERABLE breaks in putts when the green is at Open speed.

Robert, you recommended that the 9th hole should have its fairway angled further right &, in effect, making a dog-leg out of it. This would only become a challenge to the shorter & less talented player. The fairway area on the upper plateau would be unchanged and so those who can carry their drives up there now will do it then. How then does this make a better hole?

In addition, if done, this new landing area will have the exact opposite effect than what is desired. Consider, since the big hitters will have no problem landing it in the fairway on the upper plateau, the only ones going right will be the shorter hitters. They will now find themselves on flatter terrain with a full view of the green. The fairway as is rises up a small valley can leave the player whose drive just isn't quite enough to get up on top with an imbalanced stance at a minimum and even, in some cases, a totally blind second shot. I will take a four-iron from a flat area over a blind seven-iron from an imbalanced stance any day.  

The only thing that was needed was more distance and that is what was done. This tee area will only be used during tournaments anyway so why is there a controversy.


About the ninth you also mentioned, "The current plan calls for filling in the hollow to accomodate the new tee.  With 14 ruined, and this possibly occurring, what is going to be tinkered with next?"

As far as I am aware, there is no "current plan" for doing anything to the 9th hole, especially one that would involve a MASSIVE amount of earthmoving. I could be wrong, but I will find out for you for certain.

There were some other changes that have been bandied about, lengthening 4 & 13 for example, and these would be both good and workable and financially viable to do. Yet they are on hold because they want to preserve Tilly's masterpiece and will only do what is absolutely necessary.

The only thing that was needed was more distance and that is what was done. This tee area will only be used during tournaments anyway so why is there a controversy.

Finally, I'd like to know what questions everyone has about the Black & any of the other courses at Bethpage. I will be meeting with some of the "powers that be" there the first week in August and will gladly ask any & all of them & get back to you with the answers.

AAAHHHHH!!!!!! That felt good! Heck, I think I may have outdone the two Tom's on this one it's so long.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

I don't think you can look at the putting surface on the second hole without viewing it in the context of the approach shot, which is totally blind.

No part of the putting surface is visible from the Driving Zone, hence a relatively flat putting surface is unobjectionable.

One could state that about the 3rd green at NGLA, but, the putting surface at # 2 is in harmony with the putting surfaces throughout the golf course.

Mike Cirba,

Anyone can make a general comment that a golf hole should be changed.  The question and challenge for them is describing HOW they feel the golf hole should be changed, and how it should play.

That question is usually followed by silence.

Many people complain about a perceived problem, but, few, if any, offer a prudent or viable solution to the problem.

You don't seem offended by the finishing hole at TOC.
Why are you offended by the finishing hole at BPB ?

Is Olympic's finishing hole so great ?
Is Congressional's finishing hole so great ?
Is Bandon Dunes's finishing hole so great ?
Is Prestwick's finishing hole so great ?

My suggestion is to restore bunkering behind the green and move the grandstands further back when the big show comes to town.  This would provide additional, tactical, hole locations at the back of the green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Anyone can make a general comment that a golf hole should be changed.  The question and challenge for them is describing HOW they feel the golf hole should be changed, and how it should play.

That question is usually followed by silence.

Many people complain about a perceived problem, but, few, if any, offer a prudent or viable solution to the problem.

You don't seem offended by the finishing hole at TOC.
Why are you offended by the finishing hole at BPB ?

Is Olympic's finishing hole so great ?
Is Congressional's finishing hole so great ?
Is Bandon Dunes's finishing hole so great ?
Is Prestwick's finishing hole so great ?

My suggestion is to restore bunkering behind the green and move the grandstands further back when the big show comes to town.  This would provide additional, tactical, hole locations at the back of the green.

Patrick,

I think your suggestion might be part of the equation, but just another RTJ Sr. SPECIAL with pinched in fairway and gaudy bunkering on both sides doesn't do the trick.

How about some bunkers running on a diagonal?  How about those bunkers flowing into the fairway, or setup in a way where someone trying to make a dramatic carry and bold play is rewarded with an angle that is advantageous?  

The problem with the hole is that there are NO angles, to either the fairway features and hazards or the green.  It is a case of lay up with an iron short of the bunkers and then hit an 8-iron to wedge to the green.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Nobody hits driver because there is no advantage.  You're left at the base of the hill, still hitting wedge to an uphill target that sits straight in front of you.  If you lay up, you have the same shot with a slightly longer club.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Throw in the overcooked look of the hazards, and you might as well take a whole bottle of sedatives.

[TEPaul]

"It's also well overdue for the fairways to be widened -- why the need to keep them in the 25-30 yard areas."

Matt:

What kind of grass is on them? Maybe it's the type that needs to be sodded out and then sodded back in for the next Open and maybe they don't feel like spending the money to do that.  

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The current perceived problem with the 9th is that everyone is carrying the plateau and hitting sand wedges into the green.  That is not the case.  Even on the PGA tour, not everyone carries the ball 290.  Currently it is a 265 carry to the flat, 256 to top of plateau.  As for moving the fairway to the right, the players with not great carry distance can have half a chance of running the  ball up the slope.  The current angle involves hitting into the steep part of the slope.  By moving the fairway to the right, it actually plays away from the power hitters.  This results from having to factor the wind conditions, firmness of fairway, and how the driver is being sdtruck that day--doglegs are sometimes very cruel to very good drives if a miscalculation has been made--the best players are not robots and choosing an angle of attack is not always so easy.  Even for US Open conditions, the new 9th tee is going to simply eliminate the moderate to short hitters.  

[Matt_Ward]

Pat Mucci:

Don't buy your analysis -- the 2nd green needs some movement. The green is simply a big flat disc. Just because it's blind doesn't mean a bit more character can be included. Blindness exists only for the first time around.

Phil:

You need to see beyond your own love affair with the Black. The course could be EVEN GREATER with the addition of one or two short par-4's. Please enlighten me how the extended tees on #5 and especially #9 make the course better? The Black doesn't need more length -- mroe long par-4's -- it's already tough and long enough already.

The Black's MO should not rest 100% on the proposition that it is a MUSCULAR COURSE -- all brawn and little brains.

I concur with Doak's assessment that truly great courses have some sort of meaningful contribution from having at least one superb short par-4.

Phil -- I saw the Open no less than you did -- there is no CONSIDERABLE BREAK at Open speeds on #2. It breaks more than what is there today but any assertion that it's at the same moement as one sees at Augusta, Merion or Oakmont is patently false. Even the low character greens at Baltusrol Lower have more break than what you see with #2 at the Black.

The 18th could be modified to be something entirely different than the yawn "let's lay-up with our irons before hitting the green with a mid to short iron" approach that nearly all the top players followed when playing the hole.

C'mon Phil -- admit it -- the 18th is a dog of a closer given all the top notch stuff that preceded it. It's time to think outside the box as you had suggested was needed for #14,

What's the issue on people at Bethpage admitting as such and changing the hole to something along the lines of a 300-yard closer with a green complex of quality and a bunker scheme that goes beyond the overkill approach you see today?

Phil -- trust me -- you're not the only person who loves the Black.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

"Phil -- trust me -- you're not the only person who loves the Black." You are right, there are LEGIONS of us out here!

"Please enlighten me how the extended tees on #5 and especially #9 make the course better?" They are a necessary evil that will only be used when championships are played there. They won't have tees at the back for everyday play. The reason they are necessary you are very aware of - technology and where it may bring distances hit by the top players by 2009. For everyone else, the normal front tees are a great enough challenge to showcase the course, it's design and challenge.

"I concur with Doak's assessment that truly great courses have some sort of meaningful contribution from having at least one superb short par-4." So do I, but I also believe that the Black is the EXCEPTION to that rule. The only time in its history that it had anything even remotely approaching a short par-4 was when someone. in a stroke of incredible stupidity, moved the tee box on 9 forward so that the tee was buried back in the woods to the left & up the hill from the eighth green, creating a horseshoe shaped 279 yard par-4 (I still have the old card!). It was done as a means of "speeding up play." The hole was designed as a medium length par-4 requiring a long & accurate drive to leave a short iron in to the green. Tillinghast never put a short-4 on the course.

"C'mon Phil -- admit it -- the 18th is a dog of a closer given all the top notch stuff that preceded it. It's time to think outside the box as you had suggested was needed for #14"

First, I disagree with your characterization, it is a better hole than many give it credit for, and appears easier than it is because of the brutal holes that come before it.

As for thinking outside of the box for an "answer," I am surprised at you for you seem to have forgotten MY proposed solution that anyone would admit, if nothing else, is WAY outside of the box. My answer is to put a new green for the 1st hole where the current tee is for #17. This will make #1 in the 480-90 range. Build a new tee for #17 in the waste area between #16 fairway & the 5 hole of the Red course. Now thay hole will play to a green that is long and narrow rather than wide and short. Finally, put the tee for #18 to the right of the new # 1 green and you now have a great, uphill 480-yard dogleg par 4. With proper placement of trees along the side of the tee. the 1st fairway becomes no option of the tee & will serve as a protection for those on it.  

The only other reasonable thing that can be done is to build a new green complex for 18 at the newly cleared area at the top of the hill. This would add another 40+ yards and twenty feet in height to the hole.

Let's also remember, like it or not, the hole, as it stands now, did acquit itself well in the 2002 Open, and is playing as it was originally designed to play. The bunkers as complexes are where they were originally and a good drive is rewarded while one off the mark isn't.

You wrote, "Phil -- I saw the Open no less than you did -- there is no CONSIDERABLE BREAK at Open speeds on #2. It breaks more than what is there today but any assertion that it's at the same moement as one sees at Augusta, Merion or Oakmont is patently false."

C'mon Matt, let's not put words in my mouth! I wrote, "The problem with the second green (& several others0 is that the greens no longer are as large as when they were first built. In nearly every case, and this would be so with #2, if the greens were to their original dimensions there would be more areas of undulations and elevation changes. On #2 the green actually should be further back & up to the right with an area directly past the end of the bunker complex. Even as it is, there is CONSIDERABLE breaks in putts when the green is at Open speed."

Where in any of that did I make "any assertion that it's at the same moement as one sees at Augusta, Merion or Oakmont..?"
I'll stand by what I said.

Ahhh, there's nothing like a good debate between Bethpage Black fanatics! All that are missing are some beers!

[EAF]

Hi Guys,

After 3 days of great golf on LI and Upstate (Middle Bay CC, Centennial, and The Woods @ Cherry Creek), I played the Black yesterday at 7am. The weather was perfect and some medium wind was up. I can't tell you how great it was to be back there. I had it in my sights until the 15th.... I hate that hole. Carded: 4 4 3 5 6 4 4 3 5   5 5 6 5 4 7 4 6 5 for an 85.

Now for the debate!

Matt:
You are wrong about the 2nd green. Next time you are there, stand left of the green so that the green is at eye-level. You should see the subtle back right shelf that influences many putts on that green. I had a 20ft look at birdie there and didn't hit the perfect speed. I have seen many very good players usually miss mid-length putts. What's the shortest birdie putt you've made on that hole?  I'm presuming that you have often made 3 on the hole because the green is so easy!

I too will defend the 18th. That hole is the temptation to hit it onto the 100 yd marker! Downwind yesterday I should have layed it up in the pro zone short of the bunkers and made 4.

I'll be back later for more on the Black.

Eric
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think your suggestion might be part of the equation, but just another RTJ Sr. SPECIAL with pinched in fairway and gaudy bunkering on both sides doesn't do the trick.

Mike, how does the current hole differ CONCEPTUALLY from the original ?

You make it seem as if there was a radical design change, and there wasn't.[/color]

How about some bunkers running on a diagonal?  How about those bunkers flowing into the fairway, or setup in a way where someone trying to make a dramatic carry and bold play is rewarded with an angle that is advantageous?
OK, knowing the length of this short hole, and the elevation of the tee, let me see you design this feature on an overlay of the hole.   And remember, the US OPEN stops by once every decade or so for four days, the rest of the time, average to better than average golfers inhabit the course.[/color]

The problem with the hole is that there are NO angles, to either the fairway features and hazards or the green.  
That's the way Tillinghast designed it.
Where are the angles on # 17 ?

Where are the angles at # 18 at Merion ?

Have you never heard of a straight hole ?[/color]

It is a case of lay up with an iron short of the bunkers and then hit an 8-iron to wedge to the green.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Do you mean like the 1st and 2nd holes at NGLA or the 18th at Olympic ?[/color]

Nobody hits driver because there is no advantage.  You're left at the base of the hill, still hitting wedge to an uphill target that sits straight in front of you.  If you lay up, you have the same shot with a slightly longer club.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sounds like the 1st hole at NGLA and # 18 at Olympic.[/color]

Throw in the overcooked look of the hazards, and you might as well take a whole bottle of sedatives.

You're trying to be critical of the hole without being critical of AWT and his architectural talents, choosing instead to lay the blame for the holes perceived shortcomings at Rees Jones's feet.

It's a straight away hole with two elevation changes.

Is the layed back approach to # 18 at BPB any different from the approach into # 8 at NGLA, one of the great holes in golf ?

Do you want to redesign the hole such that it's out of context with the rest of the golf course, like the 12th at GCGC ?

Your complaints are subconsciously rooted in your Rees Jones bias   [/color]

Matt Ward,

How does the green at # 2 at BPB differ from the green at
# 8 at NGLA ?

Both holes have blind, uphill approach shots, and both greens are absent substantive contours, although, contours exist, which come alive at higher green speeds.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()