[Gary Slatter]

The US Open course and conditions make SHGC a difficult test, but under normal conditions it is a great course. If your short game is imaginative you can get it up and down as often as you usually do; I think good players play better (because they get into playing the course) and poor players play worse at SH (lack of talent to make the required shorter shots).
It would be interesting to compare how members scores compare to their guests scores vs. their handicaps. The awe factor is at least 3 strokes.

[JESII]

Gene,

Great example, #8. And the topper to your comments that keep Shinnecock in that highest echelon of golf courses is that the better the drive down the left edge, the easier that back right pin becomes. Somehow I have a very difficult time aiming the tee shot far enough left and usually bail further right, either in or near the bunker. Talk about dead city.....

[tonyt]

There are difficult courses that beat you up. And there are difficult courses that beat up your scorecard. The number may be the same, but the experience isn't.

A great fun course that is tough can leave you with an ugly scorecard without feeling like you've gone a few rounds in the ring and losing a couple of sleeves of balls.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I've played Shinny many times over the past 17 years and have found that it is so difficult to play conservatively for all 18 holes.  Usually, you make an early stupid bogey, then another.  After the second mistake, you try to make up for the mistake and then embark upon the bogey train.  The beauty of this course is that a 100 shooter at my old club always shot his handicap because penalty stroke hazards are almost absent.  On the other hand, birdies come from patience --correctly placed drive, iron under hole, solid putt.  Although, both #5 and #16 are reachable, depending upon the wind, one of the two usually plays fairly short; and with a westerly wind, a fairly long player can reach them both during the round.  Over the years, my stroke average is over par, but I have shot a few unders, so it can yield the good to great round.

[Jason Blasberg]

It's tough just like the Black is for me, I put waaaaaayyy too much pressure on myself to perform and then I kinda of stink anyway . . . the combination is not good for the card.  

[TEPaul]

Speaking of the 8th at Shinnecock, that particular hole just may be the most egregious mis-application of US Open narrowness than any other hole on the course. Obviously we all know what they were doing by narrowing everything down to about 25 yards but they took away totally the Flynn "designed" clever strategic safe play into the green on that hole big-time. Did they actually realize they were nixxing that Flynn designed safe play or ideal angle into the green? Who knows. I don't know what the carry distance was from that new US OPen back tee but they were probably just trying to force a longer tee shot selection on that hole. I believe #8 was the only hole on the Open card under 400 yards. I think it was 399

The club knows it now though. If you follow the line of the left side of that fairway on Flynn's plans and even the 1938 aerial you can see it follows the line of the most left bunker on that enormous field of bunkers that were the carry option out to the far left.

That tee shot demand and that angle from the tee which appears almost straight-on from the tee makes this hole an unusual wrinkle on Flynn fairly common use of what we call the "Reverse" Dogleg. (for this hole to be a total "Reverse" dogleg the Flynn tees would've had to be way over to the right of where he designed them. Unfortunately that starts to jumble with pushed shots off #3 tee if the tees are taken too far right).

The truth is that the ideal angle into the orientation and the slopes and contours of that green including avoiding that dangerous greenside bunker right is about 30 yards into what is now rough on the left side.

We believe the club will seriously consider restoring that fairway way out to the left where it once was, as this is a very clever little hole in that regard for the thinking golfer. Those who aren't thinking tend not to read the "whole" hole design of this hole and try to get next to those fairway bunkers on the right because it probably seems like the straightest line to the green--that aspect really is sort of instinctual. If they take that risk and succeed on the tee shot they are left with far more risk on the approach and the likelihood of doing what Gene Greco saw so much of up at the green in the last US Open.

Wayne and I have taken to calling some of those Flynn "Reverse" dogleg designs "Fake Out" holes---eg many golfers instinctually take the tee shot risk along the inside of the dogleg only to be left with a much worse approach angle from the fairway.  

[Ted Kramer]

I'm not a very good player. I have only been as low as a 6 handicap or so during my best ever stretch as a weekend golfer. I also tend to be in the minority here at GCA becuase I tend to really like a tough/trying layout and I don't mind long . . .

I've only been fortunate enough to play one round at Shinnecock, so please only take this for what it is worth, I didn't find Shinnecock to be an overly difficult course.

Maybe my feelings have to do with being a bogeyish golfer. Maybe it is a very tough course for the scratch player to get around on at even par. But for me, the weekend bogey golfer, I didn't have much trouble at all getting around in the low 80s.

The course was pure joy to me. It certainly wasn't easy. And it most definitely was not set up anything like it was during the Open, but I would never have described the course as being overly difficult after that round.

I thought Shinnecock was the perfect blend of strategic, testing, and playble. I have trouble imagining a better golf course.

-Ted

[T_MacWood]

The par-3s are what separates from other courses of similar length IMO. The long second is a hard three but fairly easy bogey, but the other three are all potential round killers. There is a very fine line between 3 and 5 or a 6.

Other than PV what other course has a more difficult set of par-3s?

[TEPaul]

Ted:

That's a good take on Shinnecock.

In golf and architecture there truly is a most fascinating departure in great courses that may generally be called the "Looks easy but plays harder" vs the "Looks hard but plays easier" theory.

Some of the greatest architects in history very definitely came down on both sides of that differential and sometimes very far apart on it.

Ross was probably the extreme in "looks easy plays harder" and an architect like Mackenzie (and his school) probably the extreme in "Looks hard plays easier".

Flynn seems more mysterious with his Shinnecock because it looks easier than it can be but it's so hard to tell why. To me that is clever and mysterious, which inherently would pretty much have to be the best kind of all, I guess.

At Shinnecock, Flynn was definitely very solid with his functional design principles but he sure didn't try to go overboard on his visuals and aesthetics either to generate some overly dramatic psychological effect on golfers. I guess we could legitimately say it really is the excellent architect who knows precisely when the time has come to stop in both those two distinct areas.

It's probably somewhat similar to that thing that most all great actors fear so much---which is overacting.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think Gene and Redanman said it well. I found Shinny to be fair, fun and yet punishing if you make a poor shot. One must think and make good shots. Everything was fair, yet demanding. I think the USGA took the fun and balance from the course and possibly gave it a very unjust reputation. The Shinny I played was a delight in every way.

[Ted Kramer]

Tom:

I think you hit on something that rings very true with me regarding Shinnecock: Nothing is ovedone. It is the subtle combination of well thought out and integrated features, hazzards, angles, etc. that make the course so special.

The first hole is pure class. I'll use it as an example for what I'm trying to say:

The first at Shinnecock is probably one of the best examples of using an offset fairway that I have ever seen. The fairway bunker on the right is probably a good example of a feature that makes the hole what you called a "reverse dogleg". Challenging that bunker in an effort to play a line that is shortest from tee to green probably isn't going to offer much reward. It might offer a slightly better angle into the green, but certainly not enough in my opinion to warrant such a risky tee shot.

The features seem to stack up on top of one another creating drama, strategy, and interest. One of the 1st hole's features standing alone would likely be lost or relatively insignificant. But the offset fairway, combined with the fairway bunker on the right, and the slightly angled, sloping green all combine to make a first class opener. None of those features are overly penal, or defining on their own. They are well integrated details combining to create something subtle, yet powerful. The attempt to create and or use the same "power" with only one feature often times comes off as contrived or simple.

There is nothing contrived or simple with regards to Shinnecock.

-Ted

[JESII]

Ted,

Maybe it's just me, but I would argue that the green orientation on the first at Shinnecock warrants favoring the right side off the tee. Taking this to extremes I would say the approach from the left corner of the fairway is awkward and less than ideal while the approach from the right corner has the green opened up right in front of you. Is it enough better to risk going in any of the crap to the right? Maybe not, but the crap on the right is better than the crap on the left I would say.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

Maybe it's just me, but I would argue that the green orientation on the first at Shinnecock warrants favoring the right side off the tee. Taking this to extremes I would say the approach from the left corner of the fairway is awkward and less than ideal while the approach from the right corner has the green opened up right in front of you. Is it enough better to risk going in any of the crap to the right? Maybe not, but the crap on the right is better than the crap on the left I would say.

Fair point. The crap on the left is very far away from the tee though. I don't imagine many people ending up in the left rough after their tee shot. But again, I've only played one round there and could certainly be wrong. I see the realistic two options being:

1. bomb one over the right hand bunker in an effort to play on the shortest line from tee to green.

2. play more conservatively out into the middle of the fairway, leaving yourself a longer approach but still maintaining the option of using the open front of the green for any bounding approach shots.

I agree 100% with the idea that the crap on the right is better than the crap on the left, I just wonder about how many people actually ever miss that far left. I imagine there are a ton of people who end up playing out of the the crap on the right.

-Ted

[JESII]

Interesting how we are explaining our views on the hole because now that you mention the perceived distance to reach the crap on the left, you are correct. Perhaps that is the fake out. Luring one over there out of safety and comfort, after all it is the first hole. And no doubt, from there, so long as you keep the same conservative and comfortable mindset and play to the front of the green a 4 is well likely.

p.s. My best round there (out of about 10 or 12) began with a pulled drive a yard or two into the crap on the left that we could not find. Consequently I am scarred, what a game.

[TEPaul]

Ted:

Oh no, the 1st hole most assuredly does offer some reward to a golfer who gets as close to those right bunkers as possible. Just in between them on the extreme right of the fairway is ideal. That entire green orients right out that fairway spot and as much as possible it minimizes most of the subtle arrangement of the green's front slope, the left and right front bunkers and the green's fall-off in the back and back sides. This hole's green most definitely calls for the ideal drive to the far right next to those bunkers. The 8th hole, is the opposite. It actually calls for the ideal tee shot as far out to the left as possible even though the hole does go gently from left to right and all anyone needs to do to prove it is stand way out there on the left (about 30 yards into the rought right now) and look at the green, its orientation, slopes and contours, greenside bunkering and fall-offs.

This stuff at Shinnecock doesn't just smack everyone in the face obviously but it's definitely there. That's why the course architecturally is pretty subtle, and why some golfers probably don't pick up on it and get eventually penalized even with what they think are good approach shots.

[JESII]

Tom,

Let's talk a bit more about #8.

Maybe Wayne can post an aerial or a drawing.

What is the carry over the longest leftist bunker to get near the ideal approach area? Estimates are fine, but please include the regular men's tee and the current back tee.

If this area is returned as fairway, would the fairway still extend over to those right bunkers that always seem to find my drives? This is about what, 60 yards or more?

Were you suggesting a few posts ago that the hole might work better from a tee way off to the right, closer to #3? My instinct is that it would then be easier to aim at this ideal approach area because it would then become merely a matter of hitting it far enough as opposed to committing to a direction. Visibility would also likely improve because you would then be looking right up the flow of that short part of the fairway. that would certainly make it a dog-leg that could be coined a Fake-Out dogleg, but I think there is a much stronger fake out on the ground right now.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

Oh no, the 1st hole most assuredly does offer some reward to a golfer who gets as close to those right bunkers as possible. Just in between them on the extreme right of the fairway is ideal. That entire green orients right out that fairway spot and as much as possible it minimizes most of the subtle arrangement of the green's front slope, the left and right front bunkers and the green's fall-off in the back and back sides. This hole's green most definitely calls for the ideal drive to the far right next to those bunkers. The 8th hole, is the opposite. It actually calls for the ideal tee shot as far out to the left as possible even though the hole does go gently from left to right and all anyone needs to do to prove it is stand way out there on the left (about 30 yards into the rought right now) and look at the green, its orientation, slopes and contours, greenside bunkering and fall-offs.

This stuff at Shinnecock doesn't just smack everyone in the face obviously but it's definitely there. That's why the course architecturally is pretty subtle, and why some golfers probably don't pick up on it and get eventually penalized even with what they think are good approach shots.

I think the key is your term "some reward".
I would argue that the reward isn't great enough to warrant a play hard up the right side of #1 . . . Maybe after a few more rounds I would change my mind. But if I get a chance to play out there again, I will be aiming my drive a good bit left of the fairway's right edge.

I made 5 from the right fairway bunker during my round and when I got up to the green and looked back down the fairway I was mad at myself for not playing to the middle of the fairway.

-Ted

[JESII]

Thanks R,

I would bet the best approach position is about right on top of that sandy cart path over in the fescue. The one closest to the fairway.

The other side of this coin.....is it a requirement to make the best, most ideal approach angle, to a green accessible from the fairway?

[Ted Kramer]

Thanks R,

I would bet the best approach position is about right on top of that sandy cart path over in the fescue. The one closest to the fairway.

The other side of this coin.....is it a requirement to make the best, most ideal approach angle, to a green accessible from the fairway?

I was wondering the same thing.
It isn't an overly long approach.
If I hit a decent drive I'm not too sure that I'd ever have to worry about the "best angle in". I'd be much more inclined to worrry about hitting it into the fairway bunker . . .

-Ted

[JESII]

Ted,

I think 9 iron to sand wedge is about what I hit into that green, and I will say that the left corner of the current fairway is dramatically better position that the right corner at say 120 yards. The left rough is even better than the right corner of the fairway. You certainly remember the high mound protecting that front right corner, do you also remember the subtle "suck-out" on the back left corner. Coming from the right side of the fairway you're fighting both of these. When it is soft, the only disadvantage to the right side is the visual obstruction from that front right mound, but when it's firm it becomes very difficult to hit the green from 120 from the right side.

[JESII]

Interesting R,

I assume #15 is the soft doggy right in the center of your image (I still haven't found someone to invite me up to Lehigh, know anyone?).

What do you think about the perceived requirement for the best angle of approach to be in the fairway?

[JESII]

Is the fairway way left on #8 a requirement? I doubt anything is a requirement but it makes strategic sense looking at that green. The longest part of that field of carry bunkers is at the left side too.

Tom,

You mis-interpreted my question. It was more philosophical than specific to SHGC.

In general, do you feel it is a fair requirement to prepare the most advantageous approach position to a green as fairway?

[JESII]

Wayne has some really cool drawings (I know he has posted many on here), but what struck me about the HVCC ones was the width of the fairways. 50 - 60 yards wide in most cases. On that type of property, with the firmness model we practice I really think that type of width would add tremendously to the golf course. I would like to find out how expensive it would be to maintain 50% more fairway acreage.

Has there been the same phenomenon at LCC? Would you restore it today if it were that easy? Would you do it on every hole?

[JESII]

With respect to a tournament like the PA Senior Am, and determining a winning score, it's the greens. Firmness, speed and hole locations. Nothing else factors in enough to care, especially at a course with the great reputation LCC has.

[JESII]

And that, Tom, is why I asked what you think the carry over the longest, leftist bunker off that 8th tee is from both the mens and championship tees.

I understand your thoughts on Flynn, I am just challenging the application of that "fake-out" on this particular hole. I think the carry over that bunker field on the left was substantial. I also think the configuration of the fairway the way it is and the bunker complex along the right is for the short (very short) hitter that is not in any way capable of carrying those bunkers on the left. I think this is set-up as a very good, interesting three shot hole for those people and a very good, interesting two shot hole for those able to carry the ball whatever distance it is you tell me it is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()