Sebonack, an interesting study

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played Sebonack with Bobby Ranum, the Superintendent, extrodinairre, from Atlantic.

I know that Ran is scheduled to play Sebonack later this summer, and, I don't want to detract from his phenomenal write ups, but, I would like to mention a few points about the golf course.

# 1.  I think the JN-TD combo did a smart thing in not trying
        to replicate any of their neighbors.
        Sebonack has its own design, its own personality, which
        is unique, interesting, challenging and fun.

# 2   The collaboration worked.
        The product is exceptional

# 3   The golf course, while it offers spectacular views, is
        far more than just views.

# 4   There's an interesting variety in the holes.

# 5   The routing transitions from the water views into the
        woods, back to the water, back to the woods and
        finally back to the water.   It's an interesting mix.

# 6    The golf course can be benign and it can be very
         difficult, depending upon tee and hole location.

# 7    The golf course is blessed by the WIND

# 8    The fairways are very generous, although, some holes,
         from the tee, give the impression that the fairway is
         narrower than it really is.

# 9     Pascucci was right, # 18 is better as a par 5

# 10   In 2 to 3 years the golf course will look like it's been
         there for the last 80 years.

# 11   The greens are challenging, but, shouldn't be
          maintained at speeds in excess of 10

# 12   The bunkering is marvelous, as is the scale of the
          bunkering.

# 13   Smart and strategic play is rewarded.
         Dumb play is penalized.

# 14    The golf course will stand the test of time.

# 15    Both # 1 and # 10 are relatively benign starting holes.

# 16   # 16, which is having the green moved back 40 yards
         and elevated about 10-15 feet will be a bear of a hole.

# 17   One of the neatest features is the tees.
          In many cases, there are markers placed in what many
          would consider fairway areas adjacent to the
          preceeding green.   It's a very neat, low key touch.

# 18    It's the kind of golf course that after finishing on the
          18th hole, makes you want to go straight to the 1st
          tee.

# 19    It's a relatively easy walk

# 20    A book is coming out soon.  It will be a coffee table
          sized book, and worth getting

# 21    The Superintendent, Garret Bodington, gets it.
          He understands firm and fast and architecture
          Given some time to mature, he'll have the
          golf course in optimum playing condition.

# 22   There are centerline hazards which enhance interest
         and strategy

# 23    The bunkers challenge the tee shot in a variety of
          ways.

# 24    The course is in good shape given its youth.
           Friar's Head opened up after two years of grow in.
           However, Ken Bakst is younger than Mike Pascucci,
           so he had time on his side.  Mike's impatient.

# 25     WIND, what an asset.

# 26    Bobby Ranum and I shared a great number of thoughts
          and comments on the golf course.  Bobby thought it
          was terrific in many, many ways.  We shared our
          comments between ourselves during the round, and
          only verbalized them to our host, Garret and Mike after
          the round.  Bobby and I would like to return ASAP.
           HINT !

# 27   Our forth was a fellow I hadn't seen in 44 years.
         The last time we spent some time with each other was
          in South Bend, over a few beers in 1962.  He later
          went on to captain the undefeated Miami Dolphins.
          Nick Buoniconti was great guy to play with.

# 27   Our host was a fellow I met at a dinner party in
          Manhattan monday night.  I've known him for years
          but had never played with him.   We enjoyed each
          other and the golf course.   Based on the way these
          fellows played, I don't think anybody works anymore.

# 28   It's really a wonderful golf course, and different from
         what I had expected.   I guess that we're all
         predisposed in one way or another, and I'm glad that I
         got to see and play the golf course for myself, before
         anyone could sway my expectations and views.

# 29   I'm sure that Ran's write up, complete with pictures
         will provide far more information than I've provided, but
         I wanted to try to give you a sense of what I thought.

Questions, except from that idiot-savant TEPaul, will be answered.

[Craig Sweet]

How's the food?

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick, did it feel more like a Doak or more like a Nicklaus?

If it felt more like a melding of the two, which features from Doak and which from Nicklaus?

[Peter Galea]

# 23    The bunkers challenge the tee shot in a variety of
          ways.

Patrick, do the bunkers challenge you, to position your tee shot?
Or...do you challenge them, as in driving over them for favorable angles?

[Michael Dugger]

Great write up  Mucci!!!

Sounds wonderful

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, did it feel more like a Doak or more like a Nicklaus?

If it felt more like a melding of the two, which features from Doak and which from Nicklaus?

The "feeling" I got was that the green sites were influenced by Jack with the rest of the course influenced by Tom.

The routing was Tom Doak's.
However, I was told that approximately 12 holes on the Doak routing were similar in the Nicklaus routing, which may speak more to the site.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Great write-up Patrick.

[Patrick_Mucci]

# 23    The bunkers challenge the tee shot in a variety of
          ways.

Patrick, do the bunkers challenge you, to position your tee shot?
Or...do you challenge them, as in driving over them for favorable angles?

Pete,

One of the assets at Sebonack is the variety.

On some holes you have to make a decision as to where you want to position your ball.

The downhill 5th hole, which reminded me a little of # 17 at NGLA, in that there are a myriad of bunkers to contend with on the drive, and you have to pick your line and your distance in order to arrive at your "selected LZ"

On another hole, # 15, you have to decide whether or not to play down the safe left side or to challenge the diagonal right side bunker.   And, if you challenge the bunker, how much of it are you going to bite off.

Theres no doubt that I would play certain holes differently now that I'm armed with a little local knowledge.

I also liked the varying scale of the bunkers.

Some are huge, others medium and others small.

The large bunkers appear closer than they seem, deceiving the golfer into thinking that he can drive over them.
# 16 is a perfect example.
We all thought that we could fly the right side, uphill fairway bunker until our caddy told us that it was over 275 just to reach the bunker.

Some bunkers off the tee grab your eye, others, like on # 13 aren't quite visible from the tee unless you're Mike Sweeney.

Another of the course's assets is the driving challenge presented by the position of the bunkers, the slope of the fairway, the angles into the greens, combined with the wind.
# 10 is a perfect example.
Drive over the right side fairway bunker and you've got an optimal angle into the green.  Take the safer, appearing, route and the fairway slopes will take you away from the prefered angle of attack, leaving you with a large bunker to carry, uphill, into a prevailing wind.  It reminded me of # 6 at Pacific Dunes.

Another feature I liked is the sharp shift from wide fairways to a tight fairway.

Holes 1, 2, 3 and 5 have very generous fairways, then you step onto # 6 tee and it's a bit of a shock, it's very narrow looking, lined with tall trees and a sloping, left to right fairway, with a prevailing wind coming from left to right.

# 16 is more of the same.
You come off of wide fairways and suddenly have to thread the needle.  I was lucky to hit great drives on both holes, the visual setup is intimidating because you've come from expansive fairways to a bowling alley affect.  I was very relieved when my ball came to rest in the middle of the fairway.

I'm a decent driver of the ball, so I really liked that aspect of the golf course.

On # 5, because we were there to have fun, and because the wind was at our backs, I decided to fly it over the visual/virtual minefield of centerline bunkers by trying to drive the green.  Unfortunately, one bounce landed me in the left side bunker just short of the green where I wedged out to 10 feet and missed the putt.  It's a hole where birdie or double bogie are easily obtained.

[TEPaul]

"Questions, except from that idiot-savant TEPaul, will be answered."

That's OK, Pat---I don't think I need to ask any questions of you about Sebonack. I already saw the whole place with a guy who probably knows more about it than you ever will. After the tour was over he did say in a very nice way that he'd prefer it if, for now, we didn't discuss it on here with Patrick Mucci.

But again, my sense of that course is that it will be really something to play when they get some real speed on it "through the green".

As for the green speeds----I completely agree with you---eg above 10 (and with some firmness) some of the greens would probably begin to get sort of silly.

I don't know what they're doing with #16 green but I loved the boomerang---it was pretty similar to Crystal Downs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

# 16 green will be returned to fairway.

I think there may be a difference of opinion on pace of play through the green.

I'd hope that Garret prevails on that issue.
Time will tell.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You know, I just don't know what to say about that, other than I just can't see why they don't give that hole and its green some time.

Regarding that green, there's a pretty interesting overall story to something like that.

By that I mean, on the one hand, Tom Doak is an architect who generally professes to want to do only original holes and not get into "copy" holes like redans and such.

But there's no question at all that Doak is the most knowledgeable generally on Mackenzie and obviously Tom is fascinated by Mackenzie and his architecture. Tom also belongs to Crystal Downs.

Tom Doak definitely did a mimic representation of the great first green at Crystal with his third green at Stonewall. And there's no question that he did a great mimic of Crystal's boomerang green with Sebonack's 16th green.

We putted all over that 16th green and I sure thought it was a ball. That kind of radical green concept, in my opinion, is the type that needs to be at the end of a pretty short hole (for obvious reasons) like it is at Crystal Downs.

So what do they want to take it out for and move the green 40 yards farther out just to build a hole that you describe as something that will be a real ball buster?

That 16th green with the hole the way it is now can be a real ball buster too, just like Crystal Down's #7, if you get on the wrong part of that green like in the front if the pin is in the back.

But maybe Mike Pascucci wants to be like Macdonald at NGLA, Crump at PVGC, Wilson at Merion East, Leeds at Myopia, Fownes at Oakmont or Ross at Pinehurst #2 and just make changes on his course constantly for the next couple of decades.

TomD, is this something where Mike Pascucci is only allowed a tiebreaker vote too?  

[Bill_McBride]

# 16 green will be returned to fairway.

Pat, could you please elaborate on this?  

Do you mean this is a huge green and parts of it that may be unplayable will be returned to fairway, perhaps a chipping area?

Also, when you say the greens are more Jack than Tom, are you thinking flatter?  My limited experience with Nicklaus greens is they are not as incredibly contoured as Doak's are in many cases.  

Good write up, look forward to a visit to eastern Long Island, perhaps this fall.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

The reason I was ready to give up on the original 16th green at Sebonack was not just that Michael really wanted to lengthen the hole, but also that I didn't think it was our best work.  The green had been watered down in the design process and I thought it was a weak imitation of the green at Crystal Downs.  I don't like to do weak imitations.

More importantly, in the interim, we had built the 7th green at Ballyneal in Colorado which is a wild thing and may even be an improvement on the 7th at the Downs ... so the green at Sebonack had no sentimental value for me after that.  In fact I doubt I will be tempted to build another one like that again unless I see a great natural punchbowl just screaming out for it.

Bill M:  The new green has been built about fifty yards behind the original, so the old green will just become part of the approach once the new one is in play.

Patrick:  I had tried to reach Bobby Ranum to invite him to play a week earlier on my way to Scotland.  I'm glad to hear he got out there with you.  And thanks for all the kind words.  It's funny for me to think how we arrived at some of the things which you liked so much about the course.

Did you have one or two favorite holes?  One or two you thought weren't as interesting, or where there was something a bit out of place?

[Bill_McBride]

Thanks for clearing up the mystery about the 16th green.  I have to go back to Patrick's report and see what I missed.  

Could you describe the old and new greens?  What was the problem with the original green?  What does the additional 50 yards do to the approach shot and how it fits the new green vs old?  Was the original green ever used in play?

Thanks.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat

That was a great write up and tease for what will undoubtedly be a hot topic on here for some time.

Sebonack is a 7200+ yard golf course.  I assume you did not play it from the tips. Ran very often picks and rates golf courses based on the fun factor (your go right to the first tee after finishing the first 18).  You said Sebonack did that for you but I'd like to hear a bit of your views on the potential "fun factor" for a variety of golfers with varying skill levels.  Will this course be a "ball buster" or will it ALSO be fun without beating up the higher handicap player?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:
The reason I was ready to give up on the original 16th green at Sebonack was not just that Michael really wanted to lengthen the hole, but also that I didn't think it was our best work.  The green had been watered down in the design process and I thought it was a weak imitation of the green at Crystal Downs.  I don't like to do weak imitations."

TomD:

Whatever you say---you're the boss and you're the designer. I thought that Sebonak 16th green was pretty cool. Talk about "greens within a green". I probably spent an hour on the 7th at Crystal last summer hitting putts from the front to the back. It's really fun to try and it takes a whole lot of practice and imagination but the problem is, even at Crystal, that if they run speeds over 10 on those greens the pin has to be pretty far over on the right on the back or there's no chance at all of getting near it from the front. I guess somebody could actually try to chip it but we all know that's really messy and not a recommended realistic option.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill M:

I'm not going to try and answer all of your questions, but the new 16th green was just seeded a month ago and the original green will still be in use for most of this year.  So, if you can get there soon enough you can judge both of them for yourself.

Tom P:

I'm only co-designer.

The seventh green at the Downs is one of my favorites in the entire world.  I've done about everything you can do on that green (golf-wise, anyway) -- I've even hit a flop wedge from the front right to the back right a few times, got up and down 3 out of 4 tries and only lightly scuffed the putting surface the fourth!

[Dan Kelly]

We putted all over that 16th green and I sure thought it was a ball. That kind of radical green concept, in my opinion, is the type that needs to be at the end of a pretty short hole (for obvious reasons) like it is at Crystal Downs.

Tom I --

I haven't seen either of the greens in question -- but am curious about your apparently generalized observation.

What are the obvious reasons that radical greens should be at the ends of pretty short holes?

Dan

[TEPaul]

Dan:

For the simple reason that the boomerang green size and particularly its shape is the kind that could only receive a fairly short and lofted approach well. I think that's particularly true of the one at Crystal Downs which Tom Doak admires so much.

TomD:

I'll tell you the holes I liked the best (obviously since I only looked at them and didn't play the course).

First I liked the 5th and the 12th. I liked the 5th because it seems so unobvious how to play it, although there seemed to be a number of possible ways. I loved the shape and particularly the really good back left side diagonal line of the green on the 12th. I liked the deceptive look of the tee shot on #11 and the fact that you can probably hit the ball so much further right than it seems. I think I really liked the 10th because of the two driving options that would seem to make such a difference approaching that green---not to mention that hole seems very deceptive to me disatance-wise.

The part of a hole that looks odd to me is the green on #2. It just seems too high and too shallow for a green on hole of that length and with that tee shot landing situation.

And of course I loved the LZ on #3.

Oh yeah, #8---I forgot about that one. To me the look of that hole seems like it should be on another type of golf course somewhere else, if you know what I mean.

One last thing---I really did like that boomerang green on #16.  

[Dan Kelly]

Dan:

For the simple reason that the boomerang green size and particularly its shape is the kind that could only receive a fairly short and lofted approach well. I think that's particularly true of the one at Crystal Downs which Tom Doak admires so much.

In other words: In the interest of fairness to the better player -- whose long approaches might not fare any better than the long approaches of the inferior player?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:  

I had tried to reach Bobby Ranum to invite him to play a week earlier on my way to Scotland.  I'm glad to hear he got out there with you.  And thanks for all the kind words.  It's funny for me to think how we arrived at some of the things which you liked so much about the course.

Did you have one or two favorite holes?  

I could say the ones I birdied, but, that wouldn't be true.

The reason that I don't have a favorite hole or two is that I thought that there were an abundance of them, and, my selection of favorite holes would be for varying reasons.

I might pick one hole on the basis of the presentation from the tee.   Another from the presentation from the fairway, another from the green and surrounds, etc., etc., so, I don't think I'd be doing the other holes a service by selecting just one or two as my favorites.

I did like the fact that both nines start with relatively benign holes, giving the golfer some margin for the jitters or lack of an adequate warm up.[/color]

One or two you thought weren't as interesting, or where there was something a bit out of place?

ONLY because you asked.

I don't think you could classify any hole as uninteresting.
I think each hole has a unique design and playability factor.

But, I thought # 8 was out of context with the rest of the golf course.

I understand the need for the retention pond, and it's a pretty big one at that, but, it seemed to interupt the flow and style of the golf course.

It immediately reminded me of the 4th or 5th at Caves Valley, the long par 3 over the water.

From a purely nit picking perspective, again, because you asked, I loved the view of the 14th green from the fairway, as well as the land behind it which rises up to the right to present a skyline effect.   Yet, someone has planted 4 or 5 new trees on the horizon, which destroys a really neat look.

I thought that some additional shrubs, undergrowth and trees could be removed, providing more brilliant vistas and allowing the wind to sweep the area, uninterupted.  To the right of # 10 green was one such area.

I also thought that the trees to the right, off the tee of # 4 should be removed since they would seem to impede a draw into the green, which, with the prevailing right to left wind, and the topography at the green, would be the shot of choice.

I thought # 6 could be pruned back a little as well.

As to # 16, it's an intimidating hole as one stands on the tee.

I hit a decent drive just short of the bunker, and hit a 3/4 7 iron approach to 1'.  However, my approach landed left of the hole and was fed to the hole.

Taking that green back 40-50 yards, with the added elevation makes it a bear of a hole.  It would change my 7 iron to a 2-3 iron from an uphill lie.  Granted the prevailing wind can help, but, I found the existing green ...... forgiving.

The new green, while appearing much larger, has tiers, nooks and crannies and isn't as forgiving for a much longer and harder shot, from the same uncomfortable lie.

But, the die is cast.
My only suggestion on that hole would be to consider another forward tee.  I can't see how the general membership could handle that hole, from the current tees, with the green moved up and back 40-50 yards and reconfigured.

I'd say that Bobby and I agreed on about 99 % of the issues we discussed.  He too loved the golf course and thought that for its age, it was in very good condition.

On a non-golf topic, I prefered what Metedeconk did with their cabins.  They scattered them in the lower woods and made them invisible from the golf course.

If I was staying in a cabin, I'd be playing golf and practicing from dawn until the sun went down, and once it did, everything looks dark, the woods, the water and the sky, so while the views are great, who in their right mind would be sitting in a cabin during daylight hours when that golf course is at your front door.

Ditto the parking lot.
Most are leased cars and don't deserve those views.

It's a wonderful golf course, one you should be extremely proud of.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

That was a great write up and tease for what will undoubtedly be a hot topic on here for some time.

Sebonack is a 7200+ yard golf course.  I assume you did not play it from the tips. Ran very often picks and rates golf courses based on the fun factor (your go right to the first tee after finishing the first 18).  You said Sebonack did that for you but I'd like to hear a bit of your views on the potential "fun factor" for a variety of golfers with varying skill levels.  Will this course be a "ball buster" or will it ALSO be fun without beating up the higher handicap player?

Geoff,

I believe that depends on the intelligence and ego of the golfer.

Playing from tees appropriate for ones handicap is critical.

The group I played with had a 10 and a 15 and they both had a lot of fun from 6,717 on a fairly windy day.

I will play the golf course from 7,220 when my game is up to the task.

I shot 74 with three three putts and a handful of missed birdie attempts.

The white tees allow play from 6,164.

So the choice is up to the golfer.

If he wants to play a golf course beyond his ability, he won't have fun.  He might have fun occassionally, but, the overall experience won't be fun.

Not many golfers find comfort on windy sites.
I happen to love them, and this is a wonderfully designed golf course for a windy site.  100 yard wide fairways in some places, BUT, if you bite off more than you can chew, you're in for a long day, AND, the wind out there is usually a damper, heavier wind that's fairly constant.

You'll have fun or abuse yourself depending upon how wisely you choose the tees to play from .[/color]

[Steve_Roths]

Is there a clubhouse on the grounds yet?  Or did they build a temporary pro-shop ala Friars Head?

[TEPaul]

"In other words: In the interest of fairness to the better player -- whose long approaches might not fare any better than the long approaches of the inferior player?"

Dan:

On Crystal Downs' "boomerang hole" no one who hits a decent drive should have a long approach to that green. That's why I mentioned that a boomerang green works best on a short hole, in my opinion.

[Dan Kelly]

Tom --

I thought you were making a general point -- namely, that "radical" green ideas work best on holes to which players will be hitting short irons.

And I was wondering about the validity of that general point.

It seems to me that a "radical" green is likely to have its greatest "strategic" effect on the playing of a hole if players will be hitting long irons or wooden clubs toward the green.

Case in point: the Road Hole green.