[Jason Blasberg]

The Long Island Golf Association held their annual Amateur Stroke Play Championship at Engineers yesterday and today.  

It's a 36 hole event with a cut after the first day.

Course set up was about 6,742 yds, par 71

Low round days 1&2 = 72
Winning Total=147 (5 over par)

Cut of low 40 and ties after Day 1=80.

This week Engineers illustrated well the point that defending par at the green on a course of relatively short length still challenges very good players.  

The Old Gal Stood Strong!

see www.longislandgolf.org for full field results

[grandwazo]

Jason, I have a friend that played and qualified, shooting 79/81.  I'm looking forward to talking to him to get his impressions.  With all the wet weather we have had over the past two weeks I am sure that added some length to the course, but after having played it with you recently I agree that Engineers defends par at the green as good as course I have played.  

[Jason Blasberg]

I spoke with one of our members who played and everyone he spoke with had great things to say.  I toured around late afternoon to get a look at some pins and they were tough.  Plus, the primary rough has gotten very healthly with all the rain.  Greens were slick but seemed very playable.

Numbers were about 5 shots higher than I figured.  I thought someone would get it around level par or better but nobody bested 1 over in either round.  
   

[T_MacWood]

Good for Strong and Engineers. Was it entertaining? Which course did they use?

[Jason Blasberg]

I didn't watch any of the play, they used Duane's third and "2 or 20", Strong's 10th was out of the rota.

Interestingly, we have Strong's third tee being resoded and the ledge is perfectly intact so hopefully we'll be able to play the original routing soon.  Even if the field doesn't want to play it since we've always got holes cut on both Strong's 10th and 14th it's doable everytime you play so long as there are no groups immediately in front of you after you finish 2.  

[Jason Blasberg]

1 green from front right:



1 green from back left looking toward tee.
 


back of 1 green looking toward tee:

[Jason Blasberg]

bunker behind 1 green, pin yesterday was on back shelf bringing this bunker very much into play, good luck from here.  



The routing and sight lines at Engineers give you many previews of what's to come, here the player sees what awaits on 17 green while walking off the back of the first green.  Green to tee Engineers is an intimate experience.



The player also sees this angle of 17 green while headed to 2 tee, the front to back tilt is severe and anything short of this pin is a tough two putt, the miss here is past the pin.



After crossing the road Engineers' heaving terrain is apparent from 2 tee.  


From the back markers this slope on the left can be carried by only the longest hitters but from the blue tee it can be done with a well struck tee ball (tees are mixed daily).  This is the first of many ridges in play off the tee, creating blindness and also stunting distance making a long par 4.5 play even longer, however if you crest the ridge you catch the slope and are rewarded with vision and distance.  



The right side landing area is the preferred angle in, especially from the back markers and yields a more level stance and a clear view of the green.  From this point it's about 190 to the center of the green playing 210.
 


From the front right bunker the front slope is seen clearly, the false front on the right side is a shorter carry from the fairway but if you're short you roll back down for a harder pitch.  The left side is a longer carry but short shots will hold up with the rough for a better look on your third.
 

[Jason Blasberg]

Again from the right side of the green the ridge in which Strong benched this greensite is apparent.  



The back left to front right tilt of 2 green is seen here.  



Again, another preview of things to come, from the 2nd green a look back reveals the ridge atop which Strong perched his 14th ("2 or 20").  You can see why long is no good there!  

[Jason Blasberg]

Here’s a closer look at the false front to 2 green.  The 15th fairway is seen in the background on the right side.



The left side of 2 green has got some bit too!



Here, a look back down to the 2nd green from Strong’s 3rd tee.

[Jason Blasberg]

Strong’s 3rd tee shot played as a short 4par.



The walk to Duane’s 3rd tee is just down the side of the ridge in which 2 green is cut.



A look back up toward the 2nd green reveals the sloping terrain.



Another preview, a look back from the 3rd tee reveals the snaking uphill 5 par 4th hole.  Another green site perched atop a ridge.



Although added in the 70s, Duane’s 3rd fits in naturally.




This fall off on the right side provides for ample recovery options, especially considering the hole plays 228 from the back markers this swale sees a lot of action.  I generally putt up the slope if I'm pin high and pitch and run if I'm not.  

[Michael Simes]

I played in the event at Engineers, and watched some of the play after I finished.  What strikes me is how difficult it is to putt those greens if you have no prior playing experience at the course.  The grain is such an influence on the speed and direction of the putts, but most players do not give the grain proper respect.  As a member who plays with some of the better players out there, it's a joy to watch people who have the acquired knowledge to putt these greens well.  The amount of imagination and thought that must go into each putt is what I love most about the course.

I was playing with a guy who was striking the ball quite well but must have had 40+ putts.  From 25 feet, he five-putted Strong's 12th because he watched his first putt leak about 12 feet by and assumed that it was breaking, when in reality it was just taking the grain.  He then played the next three putts outside the hole, thinking it had to break.  None of them moved.  He followed that up with a 4 putt on Strong's 14th, and 3 putts on 15, 16, 17.  As Jason said, the greens were not particularly fast (I would say no more than 9.5 or 10), and pins were not that difficult (on Wednesday; pins were tougher on Thursday).  But the average number of 3+ putt greens per player per round (based on my conversations with several competitors) was probably between 4 and 5.

The Old Gal sure did stand Strong.  Nothing says protects par around the green quite like my round.  12 fairways hit -- shot 85.  There's very few courses out there where I could hit 12 fairways and shoot 85.  Wasn't that tough at Engineers.  

Needless to say, I spent the next day working on my iron play  

[Jason Blasberg]

Michael:

Welcome to the Boad!  You'll love it, hate it, love to hate it and hate to love it, at least that's been my experience.  

Jason

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Hopefully, these great pictures are giving a decent visual of how the many contours work at Engineers. The pins were all in the best location areas, but not in the absolute (but fair) hardest locations.  Also, the pictures are great at capturing the amount of slope that exists on every hole.

[Billsteele]

Jason-Thanks for posting these pictures. The greens at Engineers appear to be some of the most interesting and difficult anywhere. The only other Strong that I have played is Canterbury and the internal contours of the greens are very tame...making me think that some of the bite has been taken out of them over the years. But the one thing the two courses appear to have in common are some terrific false fronts which repel imprecise shots with heartbreaking indifference.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jason,

What stands out about the greens at Engineers to me are two things, primarily;

1) They are all located very well, many perched high above the approach, but also quite a few just flowing naturally from the fairway.

and

2) They were all designed by a sadistic maniac who must have taken great, twisted delight in imagining how they'd play.  

Seriously, they are among the top fives sets of greens I've played in terms of amazingly creative internal contours and there is not a single one of them that is redundant or reiterative of another.   They rival the most wild at ANGC in terms of combination of slope and internal contour, but thankfully seem to be kept at speeds where they don't result in goofy golf, and can still be very playable, even in the most daunting hole locations.

I know there was a lot of debate here in the past about the work that Tripp Davis did to the course, particularly to the greens, where some spots were softened a bit to accommodate modern speeds.

While I can't offer expert analysis based on playing them prior to Davis' work, I would say that based on the pictures from Ran's analysis, and my own study of aerials that preceeded his work, there seems to me that there are a number of benefits he provided;

1) The clearing of a significant amount of trees that opened sightlines, angles, and improved turf conditions throughout the course.

2) The addition of quite a number of original bunkers that had been lost over the years, and a conscious effort to return them to a look and playability that is consistent with their original intent and look.  The only questionable looking bunkers were the ones in the fairway on #7, but to be honest, I don't know how they looked originally.  They just seemed a bit more like Dick Wilson than Strong or Emmett.  However, most were just cool, rugged, irregular pits and were very good hazards, overall.

3) The significant increase in the size of most greens back to their original sizes.  In some cases, that meant bringing them up to their most precipitiously sloping edges, and that is where almost all of the softening took place.  It seems to me that this work caused the addition of quite a number of possible hole locations on a number of them, and I can't imagine that would have been possible prior.  

4) The re-addition of the amazing "2 or 20" hole, which thankfully was in the rotation the day I played.

5) Some new tees that fit in well, and which maintained traditional angles of play.

6) Overall, nothing about the course was "modernized" in look or playability and it retains (restores?) the feel of a course befitting it's age and historical stature.

How this course falls largely under the radar is a mystery to me.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Mike

How would you compare the greens at Engineers to Lederach? Since I haven't played Engineers, I recall the first at Lederach as being a wakeup call as well.

Steve

[T_MacWood]

1) The clearing of a significant amount of trees that opened sightlines, angles, and improved turf conditions throughout the course.

I agree.

2) The addition of quite a number of original bunkers that had been lost over the years, and a conscious effort to return them to a look and playability that is consistent with their original intent and look.  The only questionable looking bunkers were the ones in the fairway on #7, but to be honest, I don't know how they looked originally.  They just seemed a bit more like Dick Wilson than Strong or Emmett.  However, most were just cool, rugged, irregular pits and were very good hazards, overall.

What original Strong bunkers were restored?

3) The significant increase in the size of most greens back to their original sizes.  In some cases, that meant bringing them up to their most precipitiously sloping edges, and that is where almost all of the softening took place.  It seems to me that this work caused the addition of quite a number of possible hole locations on a number of them, and I can't imagine that would have been possible prior.  

Are you certain the new greens are an improvement over the ones Strong originally devised? Do you advocate redesigning greens to accept modern stimp readings?

4) The re-addition of the amazing "2 or 20" hole, which thankfully was in the rotation the day I played.

I might be mistaken, but I beleive Gil Hanse restored this hole.

5) Some new tees that fit in well, and which maintained traditional angles of play.

6) Overall, nothing about the course was "modernized" in look or playability and it retains (restores?) the feel of a course befitting it's age and historical stature.

I think you could probably say that about the Rossification experts too.

How this course falls largely under the radar is a mystery to me.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

There seems to be a very common statement today- "It is what it is."  This pertains to Engineers.  How about judging how great the course is today.  The present course is the one people love playing and it continues to get rave reviews from people who play it for the first time.  Just because some promoters of progress messed up a bunch of golden age courses does not mean that the idea of progress should be squelched.  At Engineers--there is an opportunity to witness how progress can occurr when a good group of people with a vision seek to elevate the course to a level of greatness that they believe can exist!

[Jason Blasberg]

1) They are all located very well, many perched high above the approach, but also quite a few just flowing naturally from the fairway.
. . .

Seriously, they are among the top fives sets of greens I've played in terms of amazingly creative internal contours and there is not a single one of them that is redundant or reiterative of another.   They rival the most wild at ANGC in terms of combination of slope and internal contour, but thankfully seem to be kept at speeds where they don't result in goofy golf, and can still be very playable, even in the most daunting hole locations.
.. .

. . .

How this course falls largely under the radar is a mystery to me.

Mike:

Yesterday and today I drove around the course for hours looking at every hole from different angles and taking tons of photos, some I'll be sharing here.  What most struck me was the genius in the green sites, which, while the result in large part to a spectacular piece of property . . . was really Strong's greatest success at Engineers.  That, combined with his internal contouring that always works with the natural pitch of the green site, is what makes Engineers such a special place.

Here's a run down of the green sites:

1) run up green that falls away hard left to right but doesn't look it . . . one of many where you could putt from 20 yards short of the green.

2) benched into hillside, tilted back left to front right.

3) run up green that runs away from the tee, although it doesn't look it, as the hole plays down hill.

4) perched on the top of a ridge with a major false front titled back right to front left, also hard fall away entire left side of green.

5) green significantly below fairway, very tough to get close to a front pin, runs away from the player although, again, it doesn't look it.  

6) Tripp green, perched on top of a ridge, severe false front and green is oriented back left to front right.

7) perched on a ridge, punch bowl, will again be horizon green with some tree removal, and has a baby false front . . . tons-o-fun.

8 - benched green tilted hard right to left but with pin placements on top right shelf, can use back of green as kick plate, Redanish . . .

9) Tripp green, down hill green site, false front to a pinched front section, Tillinghast like, above front ridge vertical spine repels shots to the back left or back right . . . back right portion of green falls severely away from the tee.

10) slightly elevated and crowned green, false front and false left side, bowl in the back right corner with major back stop, seriously fun back in that corner.  

11) Perched at the end of a ridge line, run up the right side possible but left falls off the ledge, green is oriented front right to back left, hence kicking everything right of the green toward the green but everything left of the green down the mountain.

12) run up green with a funky funnel where green is raised on left side following the slope coming off of the 9th green site but the right side was raised by Strong, several horizontal ripples create different sections and one can often play a cross country putt the length of the green up the left bank or right bank and come to reasonable the same location if the speed is right.

13) perched atop a gentle ridge line, large swale short of green requires a carried approach and false front defends the front pins, green is crowned and slopes severely front right to back left.

14) run up green down the right side, fairway just melts into the green, however front left corner of the green is cut just above a steep ledge that runs down the back of 2 or 20 and deep menacing bunkers grab anything short left.  right side falls off and green has a significant front left to back right tilt.

14a (2 or 20) Perched on the edge of a peninsula that is best seen from below in the 15th fairway, the green runs significantly front left to back right and pinches the further back you go . . . one pace over the green is down to a pit of despair.

15) run up green with serious front left to back right tilt, green site juts toward right as if a cape green with left, back and right engulfed with pot bunkers and other nasties.  playing down hill you can bump and run to this green from way back in the fairway and everything feeds hard toward the back right.

16) sunken down over the edge of a ledge in a natural half bowl, significant orientation back left to front right.

17) run up green from right side of fairway/false front to be carried from left side of fairway . . . tilted hard front right to back left, green site is just at the end of a natural slope and approach plays 1/2 club down hill.

18) sunken green in a similar but larger scale half bowl, false front repeals anything short, green runs hard left to right and has a back left to front right tilt.

Thus ends the roller coaster ridge to ridge ride that are the Engineers' green sites, some of the best I've ever seen.


BTW, for better or worse Engineers is no longer under the radar.  I hope those with a passion for classic gca get to see this course because it is a unique, dramatic and sophisticated  layout tee to green and the greens are an experience alone.

Jason

[Jason Blasberg]

1) The clearing of a significant amount of trees that opened sightlines, angles, and improved turf conditions throughout the course.

I agree.

2) The addition of quite a number of original bunkers that had been lost over the years, and a conscious effort to return them to a look and playability that is consistent with their original intent and look.  The only questionable looking bunkers were the ones in the fairway on #7, but to be honest, I don't know how they looked originally.  They just seemed a bit more like Dick Wilson than Strong or Emmett.  However, most were just cool, rugged, irregular pits and were very good hazards, overall.

What original Strong bunkers were restored?

3) The significant increase in the size of most greens back to their original sizes.  In some cases, that meant bringing them up to their most precipitiously sloping edges, and that is where almost all of the softening took place.  It seems to me that this work caused the addition of quite a number of possible hole locations on a number of them, and I can't imagine that would have been possible prior.  

Are you certain the new greens are an improvement over the ones Strong originally devised? Do you advocate redesigning greens to accept modern stimp readings?

4) The re-addition of the amazing "2 or 20" hole, which thankfully was in the rotation the day I played.

I might be mistaken, but I beleive Gil Hanse restored this hole.

5) Some new tees that fit in well, and which maintained traditional angles of play.

6) Overall, nothing about the course was "modernized" in look or playability and it retains (restores?) the feel of a course befitting it's age and historical stature.

I think you could probably say that about the Rossification experts too.

How this course falls largely under the radar is a mystery to me.

Tom MacWood:

We've beaten this dead horse enough, no?  

Given that I'm a member and sharing these photos for everyone's discussion about what is there not what was or could have been, please do me the courtesy of blowing the restoration horn somewhere else.

Don't stiffle the exploration of such a unique place with this broken record you keep playing.

Be as critical as you'd like about what you see but just don't tell me you're critical of it because it's not what you think was on the ground in 1917.  Have that discussion on threads where I'm not posting current photos to discuss.  

As I've stated numerous times, I'm happy to have the restoration discussion with you (which should more appropriately be done off line) once I've seen you've developed an open mind on this topic (which you haven't apparently).

Don't turn a discussion about what something is into what it was or what you think it should have been . . .

Jason

[T_MacWood]

Jason
I'm sorry if you feel my statements or questions are out of line.

 

[Jason Blasberg]

Tom:

I never said your comments were out of line (at least not today)  .

While I don't always agree with you, I do respect your position vis-a-vis many of these old goodies.  I also believe, firmly, that without folks like yourself doing what you do we will miss things down the road and that for today's projects be them restorations or whatever we call them, your research and input is very valuable.  

Where we've parted ways, I believe, is in the way we accept the realities of how these projects happen and how they progress.  It's not easy and ruling by committee is difficult at best.  All that being said, I do also have a more agressive view toward sympathic renovation in order to meet the challenges of the day.  I am, however, far more of a pure restoration on many things which we've yet to discuss.

Be as outspoken as you'd like about Engineers, especially when I'm posting contemporay photos because there's so much to be analyzed there, today, no matter who designed or re-designed it.  

What I do ask is that discussion of what's on the ground today, remain, for the very most part, about what's on the ground today.  

Jason

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Those are good and fair questions and and since I brought the restoration into the discussion (with apologies to Jason's intent) I'll be happy to answer them here to the best of my ability, admittedly knowing little about the course prior to my recent visit.

Before going, I looked up Engineers on http://maps.google.com and noticed a paucity of bunkers.   Today, there are many more, and they seem consistent with what I've seen in some of your old pictures, although that could just be my lack of knowledge of the original features.   For instance, some of the original string of pearl bunkers on 16 were restored but not all of them.  

Based on your question, I'm assuming you know differently?

As far as the greens, Tom, I would say that based on what I know existed previously based on the old pictures, compared to what the course had evolved to, based on Ran's, to what is there today, I'd say honestly that I'm impressed by both the intent and execution of what Tripp Davis did.   As I mentioned, the surgery was mostly done around the edges, as he obviously tried to bring the greens back to their original sizes and shapes, and Tom, I'll be frank.   I have no idea how those spots were pinnable back in the early days without some softening because the slopes would have been like 7-8%, even though I know there is photographic evidence that indicates they were.

When we played, the greens were probably running at about 8 on the Stimpmeter, and theywere very, very challenging at those speeds.   What's more, it didn't seem to me that any of the greens had been changed in terms of negating the overall slope, or carving into or flattening any internal Strong features, but simply by raising up some of the most severe edges a foot or two, and then blending that within the overall green structure.

You also know I'm a purist about this stuff, Tom.   If you're a strict constructionist like Scalia or Thomas, I'm probably Roberts, so I think you know I wouldn't give it a pass if I felt the work in any way was not done with the finest of care and sensitivity to what was originally designed.  

I really hope you can come out and play it sometime and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised, although I'm sure that you'd hope they'd push for more of the original design, and that's ok...

Speaking of the original design, the other fact is that some things just weren't restorable.   For instance, the original 8th green is now someone's backyard, and the green that Duane? created in its stead was awful, by most accounts.   The new 8th green is superb, and very Strong-like.   It's a great hole, as well.

I guess I assumed wrongly that 2 or 20 was part of Davis's work.   If it was Gil, then that's great, as well.  

As far as your last comment about the Rossification experts, you and I both feel that too many Ross restorations go for the same look and feel of the bunkers despite historical evidence to the contrary.   I don't think that issue is really related to this discussion because I do feel that significant efforts to capture the historical look, feel, and playability were done with prudent sensitivity, thoughfulness, and care.

Also, one question.   Dev Emmett was commissioned to do work at Engineers just a few years after it opened.   Do you have any idea the extent of what he did?  

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Emmet moved the 18th tee, giving the hole more of a dog-leg. He also installed french drains in the greens at #16 and #18 to improve drainage.

Strong's course had minimal fairways bunkers (beyond the string of pearls). Not only are many of the bunkers not original they look nothing like the bunkers Strong created.

I know I've heard the story about the 8th green being in someone's backyard too...I have my doubts about that one.

"As far as your last comment about the Rossification experts, you and I both feel that too many Ross restorations go for the same look and feel of the bunkers despite historical evidence to the contrary.  I don't think that issue is really related to this discussion because I do feel that significant efforts to capture the historical look, feel, and playability were done with prudent sensitivity, thoughfulness, and care."

How is this different? Most will tell you a Rossified course has also captured/recaptured a historic look, feel and playability. Prudent sensativity? Do you think the new bunkers are a good representation of Strong's original design? I would think not recontouring over half the greens would have been the most sensative option.

As I have said many times on past threads I'm certain Engineers is still fabulous. So is Merion, so is Riviera, so is Cape Breton, so is Yale, so is Bethpage...

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jason

Thanks for the great photos.

Mike

That was some really thoughtful commentary on Engineers and I agree with all of it.

Today, Engineers has reawakened and it is a course that GCA aficionados should see, study and most importantly enjoy PLAYING.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()