What makes Shinnecock Hills so difficult? Can difficult still be enjoyable?

[wsmorrison]

Shinnecock Hills GC is one of the special places in the world of golf.  It has the first and one of the greatest clubhouses in golf and has my favorite golf course in the world.

Tom and I have been spending some serious time studying the Shinnecock Hills golf course over the past few weeks.  Without a doubt it is a beautiful course in a natural style with some of the best Flynn greens and bunkers anywhere.  I'll talk about the greens a bit later.  There are a lot of holes on flat ground and some holes with elevation change.  There are a few fairways with flat lies and some with uneven stances.  There is a combination of long and short par 3 and par 4 holes.  The long par 4s tend to play with the prevailing wind and the short ones against.  The two par 5s are not overly long in today's game with one always playing into the wind and one always with the wind.  The course was routed in a way that results in a series of triangulations that keeps the wind coming at you from different directions.  Is it this constant variety of holes and shot requirements that keeps one a little off balanced?  The holes are, for the most part, pretty open to view and while there is a need for strategic planning, there aren't too many surprises, certainly not after playing it a few times.  What makes the course play so hard for GOOD players?  

Because of its difficulty, however it is derived, some find the course brutal and unrelenting.  I don't see this understanding at all and have alluded to it in the past.  It is a wonderful setting for golf with some of the greatest views in golf that don't have water in them.  The clubhouse is magnificent.  Why is difficulty not enjoyable to so many?   What other courses tend to be viewed in a similar way?

[Darren_Kilfara]

I think sheer difficulty can be amazingly enjoyable when other mitigating factors are present - design elegance, great off-course or on-course scenery, etc. This is the man reason I find Carnoustie so off-putting: there are no such mitigating factors, so all you're left with is an extraordinary difficult test of golf, which can be really frustrating if you're not playing super-well.

By the way, I haven't played Shinny since 1993, but having played it four times I can't say I found it to be terribly difficult - it wasn't easy, but I scored reasonably well and never once found myself saying, "Gosh, this is hard." I suppose that's the true test for me in this regard: if I'm constantly thinking about how difficult a course is, it must be lesser in quality than if I'm constantly thinking about how great it is.

Cheers,
Darren

[wsmorrison]

Darren,

I agree with you, I don't find myself saying this is such a hard golf course--I don't think about it at all while playing or walking the grounds.  But that seems to be the overwhelming reaction to so many that play there, including many on this site.  Naturally, SHGC is compared to its neighbor, NGLA and the vast majority of people on this site speak about how much more enjoyable that experience is and that given the choice, they'd play NGLA much more often.  NGLA has about twice the fairway acreage that Shinnecock has so, combined with less length, it is not so testing a course.  Is less difficulty a requirement for enjoyability for the majority of golfers?  I think just like you, that it is not--difficult golf courses can be enjoyable with the mitigating factors you site.

Like you, I walk the grounds of SHGC and am constantly thinking about its greatness.  But let's face it, it is a difficult test under windy conditions and from the back tees.  What makes it difficult?  I don't think length really comes into play.  I also think it will be much more interesting and testing as true restorations are made over the next few years.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I've wondered why Shinnecock can be so difficult too when it just doesn't look like it is.

Obviously wind has something to do with it but of course it can't be quite that simple or easy to explain.

But I think I might have the reason for the majority of it. It's the greens! Not necessarily how they putt because although they certainly aren't exactly real easy to putt they sure aren't as hard to putt as many, many other courses.

I think the thing that makes Shinneock hard is that an aweful lot of the greens just shed the ball off of them very easily in certain spots, whether it be on some fronts, some of the backs and on some of the sides.

This could be the thing that makes the course so hard and the fact is it's pretty subtle and takes real understanding simply because it just isn't obvious.

In other words a real thinking golfer will know to just steer clear of those parts of those greens that shed the ball off them easily, because even if the ball sheds off them into those prevalent chipping areas a golfer always seems to be revovering back up onto a basic convex angle which is the hardest thing to revover to ala Pinehurst #2.

One really great example is that back right expansion area we were looking at yesterday with the guys. Did you see where Sam Evans was and what he noticed? Can you imagine trying to recover up to that new pinnable spot from where he was standing? And not just that, can you imagine how easy it is to miss that green into that area where he was standing? It's hard to even know what to try to recover back up to that new pin position from where he was. If I were over there I'd just try to get my ball back up on the green way to the left of that hole location and two putt from there. If you tried to revover right at that hole location the chances of coming short and having the ball come back to you are pretty good and then of course if you hit it too strong you are over the back and facing the same thing from the other side.

I think this might be the thing that makes the course so hard without looking like it is. You've just got to know what to play away from and what that is on so many of those greens just isn't easy to see or pick up on---but what it is really is those greenside areas that shed the ball generally down below the green surfaces, or even some above the surfaces from which the ball will be rocketing back down from, like #9 and #18.

Another great example is trying to recover back onto the 11th from long left. That might be one of the mothers of all revovery shots in the world for even the likes of Tiger and Phil.

I think that basic feature is what makes Shinnecock so difficult to play without looking like it is.

If a golfer has a great day chipping and putting on Shinnecock like Goosen did on Sunday of the last Open you can get away with it but as we saw that takes some ice-water in your veins, some incredible execution and probably a lot of luck too.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

That's exactly what I was going to get at when I mentioned discussing the greens a while later in the thread.  It is amazing to think that with the green shrinkage they've had over the years that the remaining fall-offs require so much more planning by the golfer to avoid them.  With the green area recoveries that have just begun and will be completed over the next few years, the pin positions you spoke of on 5 that Sam marvelled at and on many other greens will make the approach demands that much more interesting because of the increased number of pin positions that will be available and bring more of the existing fall-offs into play.  

Other pin positions will be recovered, as greens are expanded, that will provide a different impact than additional proximity to roll-offs that are now disconnected to the greens.  One such pin position is on the left side of the 17th green.  This pin, as with others, will be presented over an interesting diagonal that will impact club selection due to yardage differentials that may not be apparent from the tee.

[TEPaul]

Wayne. with what I just described you can just imagine when that course gets its greens pretty firm and the surfaces pretty fast the difficulty of what I described is going to get exponential real quick!  

In a real way it's not something like bunkering difficulty, it's sort of the constant drip of what might be called "gravity" golf in recovery around those greens.

If I belonged to Shinnecock I know I'd practice all kinds of greenside recovery shots and options about ten times more than I need to at my own course.

[wsmorrison]

I'm not sure how the course was presented several years ago, before I ever saw it, but from a high resolution aerial photograph from 1938 (7 years after the course opened) it sure looks like the fairways wrapped around a lot of the greens and these chipping areas, although higher mown than they are today, were around early on.

[Philippe Binette]

I don't think it's that difficult a golf course for a guy who is playing 90 to break 100 because:
there's no real big force carry..
no water hazard
you can find your ball in the rough and almost always play it forward.

For the sames reason it's a fun place to play.

but it's god damn hard for somebody who is playing 75 to play below 80...

Example, when I played there (I was a 9 handicap at that time) I hit 4 fairways and 2 greens and shot 86. My wild misses of the tee could always be chop back in play 120 yards or so, next shot on the green, 2 putt bogey

[TEPaul]

That seems to be getting more interesting and much more important to know. Even if they didn't have them the same way as they do know there is very little question that they work and work really well to make that golf course what it is in such a subtle way.

This may be a good example of what Jim Finegan said to me years ago;

"We must be mindful that there may be some things we can learn from modern times that can make those old courses play even better than they did at their best back then."

Those chipping areas around so many of those greens appear to be just what Finegan was referring to in a general sense.

What CS referred to on the upslope to #9 probably should be considered in the next Open. But for the membership it would be way too much.

Can you imagine the mindset of a touring pro if they did that in the Open? It could be something like the mind-set that the three entirely different sections of Merion East evoke in most players. At Shinnecock they would probably think standing on the 9th tee---please let me get through the "gravity golf" section of the next three holes without a train wreck over short grass."

This could be some application of that subtle world of short grass and topography as a hazard feature.

We should ask Ben Crenshaw about that. He will certainly not forget what happened to him a couple of times standing so close to #10, and as I recall he was definitely in contention at that point.  

"Gravity Golf", one of the neatest things there is, in my opinion. I think it just forces golfers to really connect with the land itself.

[wsmorrison]

That is a great point, Phillipe.  There are recovery shots around SHGC that do allow a satisfied recovery or some sort of advancement.  The only real water on the course is on 6 and that does not come into play for a well placed drive.

Tom, right you are--but of course.  I think the course is so interesting in the way it is set up and as good today as it ever was--better in fact with the agronomic advances.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Wayne

The US Open setup was a joke for the membership to play for at least a year.  I played it when they had the rough so bad that caddies down the fairway could not find a ball in the primary rough when they were less then 50 yards away.  The members played a local rule for a year that allowed them a free drop with a wedge out to the fairway.  In other words they were not playing golf for a year.  THAT WAS NO FUN.  In fact, I turned down an opportunity to play again it was that bad.

Then I had another chance to play late in the season about this time when Mark had cut the rough all the way to the bunkers to put them back into play and it was great fun and a joy to play.  I did not find it that difficult under those firm conditions with little rough.  It was like night and day and a totally different game entirely.

[JESII]

On top of everything you guys have said about the greens, I think the way the fairways all sit at a bit of an offset angle to the tee is difficult. You are always asked to work the ball with the fairway, which is not always so easy....

[JESII]

Agree with Dr. Childs.

And to think Mr. TEPaul had not considered rough in his Ideal Maintenance Meld until lst week....

[Jerry Kluger]

I played Shinnecock in 2005 when I was fortunate enough to also play NGLA, Friars Head and Maidstone and it was by far the most difficult of the group.  We played it on a day when the wind was blowing opposite of the normal prevailing winds which made the long par 4s even longer plus there had been plenty of rain and the rough was extremely thick although the fairways were firm.  It made the course feel very narrow and there was no intermediate rough to speak of so driving the ball was very difficult and if your ball wound up in the thick grass you would be lucky to hack it out to the fairway.  Perhaps I am a bit unusual in my likes and dislikes because I always enjoy difficult green sites as I find recovery shots around greens to be the best part of the game

[Darren_Kilfara]

Then I had another chance to play late in the season about this time when Mark had cut the rough all the way to the bunkers to put them back into play and it was great fun and a joy to play.  I did not find it that difficult under those firm conditions with little rough.  It was like night and day and a totally different game entirely.

I also agree Dr. Childs on this - that matches my recollections entirely. To use Philippe's terminology, I played Shinnecock when I was "playing 80" and shot four rounds between 79-81. But then, I don't recall the wind really blowing that hard; in addition to difficult ground conditions (maintenance), you also have to consider difficult aerial conditions (wind + precipitation) in evaluating a course's difficulty. And of course the former are more likely to be consistent on a day-to-day basis than the latter...

Cheers,
Darren  

[Gene Greco]

Wayne:

     On Saturday I gave you my reason and it has been confirmed by both TE Paul and Redanman.

TE: " I think the thing which makes Shinnecock hard is that an awful lot of greens just shed the ball off them very easily in certain spots whether it be on some fronts, some of the backs and some sides."

Redanman: " Small greens made smaller by drop leaves and chip flips."

Shinnecock has always been a joy for me to play but obviously not the merry-go-ride of NGLA and I've always thought of it as 'sneaky hard', but not an impossibly hard course to conquer which is confirmed by several final round 65s in past US Opens.

[wsmorrison]

Jim Sullivan,

I'm glad you pointed out a key feature that I overlooked in my post but not in my regard for the course and Flynn in general.  Offset fairways and greens are a wonderful design feature and one that was not prevalent prior to and in some cases during the classic era of golf design.  The tee shots at the starting hole and on 4, a bit on 5, 6, 8, a bit on 12, 13 and especially 14!! are more difficult than straight away tee shots since you have to factor in the forward and rear fairway lines.  The line of play and distance factors are much more interesting and demanding than straight away holes.  When you couple this with offset greens, integrated slopes on the greens and outstanding bunkering that all dictate shot selection back to the tee then golf architecture is really the best it can get.

[JESII]

Gene,

I agree with your assesment of the shedding nature of the greens, but to me what couples with that to make the greens so awsome is that you can relatively safely avoid those areas but some other challenge jumps up. Whether it be a tougher putt (like when you play long on #4) or a bunker to flirt with (when you want to stay below the hole on #5).


Wayne,

I think it is less of a factor in non-Open prep years just due to the width of the fairways, but I feel like almost every hole asks you to shape your tee shot one way or the other. In addition to the holes you mention I really think #3 asks for a draw, as does #9, #15 asks for a fade, as does #16. From top to bottom, Shinnecock is a great course.

[wsmorrison]

Good morning, Gene.  I'm having the aerial photograph you saw digitized and should receive it on Wednesday.  I'll send it up to you ASAP.

It was great to see you and thanks so much for showing us around Southampton GC.  The Hogsback was a joy to see as were other fine holes.

I think we are all in agreement that the greens and the integrated surrounds really do ratchet up the shot demands in a fascinating way.  If I were playing  think I would want my wedges to have the right bounce for those closely mown chipping areas and new grooves for a bit of extra bite.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne - you and I have sure discussed this before.

I'm sure Shinnecock can be conquered, but as a great man said on the day I was there "it's not so tough - all it requires is perfect shots."

And sadly not many of us have too many in their bag.

I believe this impression is derived from having quite a few very long shots into small targets where the slighest miss is deflected into doom.  Couple that with high rough (if one gets it) and well... it is a strern challenge.  But many have called it "fun difficult" and it surely is - due to the views, the feel, the variety of recovery shots one inevitably faces... all of it makes for a course that doesn't beat you up and leave you crying, but rather beats you up and leaves you wanting another crack at it.

So difficult it is - but not in a bad way at all.

Of course, the final straw is that it sits next to one of the world's paragons of "pure fun" golf... so inevitably it seems a lot more difficult as folks play both.  

TH

[Geoffrey Childs]

Wayne

I think offset fairways are an under appreciated virtue of many golf courses and not only Flynn.  I am much more familiar with Tillinghast and I always found him a genius at setting off fairways just enough to make fairways play much narrower without proper shape and distance control.

Pete Dye does this very well too.

[Mike_Cirba]

I must admit that I never quite understood the perception of Shinnecock as a joyless, punishing slog.  

When the fairways are at their standard width, I think the course is eminently playable, certainly fair, and only a small handful of holes (i.e. 7, 10, 11) are really disaster-laden where one can easily make double or worse.

Instead, I think it is that equitable "fairness" and general lack of quirk and whimsy (as well as a standard par of 70) that makes low-handicappers bitch about it being tough and unforgiving.   Yes, the greens are smallish and repel weak or overly aggressive efforts, but the areas around most of them permit reasonable recovery (unlike, say Pinehurst 2), and some holes can play quite long depending on wind direction, but I think ultimately the thing that gives Shinnecock the "too tough" rap is simply that the player who averages 75 can easily shoot 85, riding the bogey train all day.  

However, for the mid to higher handicap guy, I've seen many a course way more punishing than Shinnecock.   The funny thing is that fellow, who may average 85 elsewhere, can easily shoot 85 at Shinny if they have a good chipping and putting day.

Ultimately, I think it's just a course (like a number of great ones) that ratchets up the challenge the more aggressive you get.   If you play each hole conservatively, it permits you to shoot a decent score.   If you get a bit bolder, you'd better perform to the top of your ability because it will shrug you off like an accountant riding a bucking bronco.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - I concur with your assessment of how the course plays 100%.

I just wonder though who ever called it a joyless, punishing slog?  I can't recall ever hearing that.

The take that I've heard - and that I've given myself - is that it is very difficult, and less pure fun than the course across the street.  Thus I prefer the course across the street.  But plop me down on Shinnecock any time and I'd be one happy camper.

TH

[Sean_A]

Wayne

I think offset fairways are an under appreciated virtue of many golf courses and not only Flynn.  I am much more familiar with Tillinghast and I always found him a genius at setting off fairways just enough to make fairways play much narrower without proper shape and distance control.

Pete Dye does this very well too.

Geoffrey

I think many of the master designers used this principle to its fullest.  This is one reason many classic courses "play longer" than the yardage suggests.  How much of this shot shaping VS laying up do you think is due to the length of modern equipment?  

Ciao

[Gene Greco]

Gene,

I agree with your assesment of the shedding nature of the greens, but to me what couples with that to make the greens so awsome is that you can relatively safely avoid those areas but some other challenge jumps up. Whether it be a tougher putt (like when you play long on #4) or a bunker to flirt with (when you want to stay below the hole on #5).
/quote]

Indeed, JES II, a great variety of challenge is constantly presented to the player. I spent much of Sunday afternoon of the last Open to the right of 8 green. The pin as expected was cut tight behind the right front bunker. Pro after pro went right after that pin only to have the ball kicked off to the back of the green or left short in the bunker with an impossible up and down.

The play should be to about 15 feet left of that pin in order to safely stop the ball - a longer putt ensues which is the greater challenge but less of a chance of making a higher # and a very reasonable opportunity for bird.

But try telling that to the pros while they play what is perceived to be the easiest hole on the course.