What about Shinnecock Hills makes it more demanding than it looks?

[wsmorrison]

While this is not the primary point I'd like to make, Shinnecock Hills is the greatest golf course in the world.  Not because it is the best or other great courses fail to compare favorably.  For me, one of the reasons it is the greatest is how it looks easier than it plays.  In fact, it is getting even better with the in-house restoration work being done there.  Of course, I haven't seen all the golf courses in the world, so this should be taken as my own determination and not one I will foist upon you as another likes to do.  

We were out there on Sunday looking at some of the continuing green expansions (6th and 17th), new tees (not longer but better positioned) and a fairway expansion along the left side of the 8th hole.  Continued work on other greens and the restoration of one forward tee and one obsoleted Flynn tee (with the retention of the Macdonald tee) will surely return this great golf course to its fullest potential with the return of a number of interesting original pin positions on every hole and a restored angle into an especially challenging green.

It is slowly revealing itself to Tom Paul and I.  We finally figured out the reasons why Shinnecock Hills is such a testing golf course.  We don't feel that its difficulty is all that apparent when you consider the matter in detail.  This is not a brutal course nor one that you feel will beat you up day in and day out.  From the tips, it was nice that the fescue wasn't grown up, but these aren't the correct tees for us.  No surprise there.  I had more than enough length for the course but not enough control of my driver.  If I worked that out (miracles can happen) the golf course is not out of reach for me.  Long and wrong doesn't work on any course, especially this one with the fescue up.  

Playing from the correct tees, these aren't a factor at all.  Even playing from the wrong ones isn't necessarily a problem with forced carries.  Tom and I played from the very tips of each hole.  He is short hitting with 2 bad shoulders but found nearly every fairway with his drives.  Those few he didn't had enough length to reach but were missed horizontally.   Now of course Tom had distance problems reaching the greens in regulation but his marvelous short game and bunker play makes up for that and ensured nothing worse than bogey.  

Of course we aren't going to blab out the factors we think cause this to be such a supreme test.  The mystery of this is a pretty cool thing.  I will say this, the naturalism is a calming effect that makes a demanding golf course acceptable because it is so attractive and charming.  But I'd like to hear from others why they think it is so testing a course.  It has nothing at all to do with length (played correctly) or forced carries off the tee or from the fairway.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Wayne,

When you say new better positioned tees, did Flynn suggest these tees or are they the product of a modern mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

We are not too surprised that you have chosen a Flynn course to promote.

[wsmorrison]

Tom, I am certain that it comes as no surprise that it is a Flynn I am promoting.   What I should be, or was trying to promote are the reasons why the course is so demanding.  I guess I overshadowed the point I was trying to make with the heading about it being, in my opinion, the greatest course in the world.  

The primary point I was trying to make is the determination of what makes the golf course so demanding.  It isn't overall length and it isn't carry distance.  Of course the naturalism style, artistic bunkers, clubhouse setting, shot testing, shot and hole varieties are what make it so great in my mind.  But what makes it so hard?  It took a bit longer to figure out why the course is so hard.  It doesn't open itself up to instant understanding.

Some of this learning curve has to do with the Flynn style of greens, namely his interplays of slope being more prevalent than internal contouring.  The slopes being harder to read and more psychologically demanding since they look easy but play hard as opposed to look hard and play hard.  But there are two other features that are incredibly interesting.  One of which is just as demanding yet much subtler and aesthetically pleasing than the course much better known for the same features (not a Flynn).

John,

A mixture of both actually.  Some tee lengthening was put in for the Open and Walker Cup.  The offsets from the Flynn lines of play are being returned.  There are two cases of lost Flynn tees.  The most significant is on 7.  The Flynn tee is only 7 steps to the left of the currently used Macdonald tee.  It is going to be returned (with the Macdonald tee retained for historical purposes and for variety under different conditions).  The original forward tee on 11 was in a much more interesting and original location to the left of the in-house built current forward tee.

[cary lichtenstein]

I always perferred National to Shinnecock and I think I'm in the minority, but not exactly sure.

I played with a member of National who formerly was a member of Shinnecock, he quit Shinnecock, just found National to be a much more enjoyable course to play day in day out and never regreted it.

I believe at one time he won the club championship at both courses, but I am not certain about that.

[wsmorrison]

Cary,

I think you are in the overwhelming majority on this site and in general.  I cannot understand why.

I don't know why your friend quit a club that has so much less guest play and a very different alternative to the kind of excellence found at NGLA.

There is a mis-perception in golf about the difficulty of Shinnecock.  If it was understood, the perception might alter to some extent.  The majority of members of Shinnecock, be they young, old, women, or men of varying classes of play know that the course is not punishing in terms of carry or length (when played correctly).  The approach shot demands at NGLA can be much more difficult at times.  

What is clear to me is that the fairway acreage at NGLA is much greater than Shinnecock (although that wasn't always the case).  It might be 48 acres at NGLA and somewhere around 30 at Shinnecock.  The green acreage is a lot bigger as well.

The wider fairways and bigger greens add to the perception of more enjoyable golf at NGLA.  For some reason the approach demands and long putts that result at NGLA aren't taken into account so much.  I guess it is natural for people to decry the design (or maintenance practice) if the fairways are narrow and they have trouble with driver.  Those same golfers probably internalize the problems with approaches and putts, especially with short irons as it is more acceptable to take the blame for shots that missed the green with short irons.  I think the enjoyability of NGLA is no greater than Shinnecock.  The popular perception overrides reality.  But you ask the old guard men and women that gladly play SHGC regularly or exclusively and they would be surprised that it gets the knock it does.  I am surprised as well.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Maybe he couldn't afford both.

Something rare when a course's greatness extends both to everyday and to championship play. In addition to SHGC, can think of two (used to be three).

[TEPaul]

I'd hate to see a potentially good discussion about the course get waylaid because Wayne is an unabashed fan or even promoter of architect Flynn.

I don't exactly fall into that category but I have to admit there has been something about Shinnecock that has really gotten my attention for decades. By that I mean I've always thought it was a great course (how great I've never been certain) but I've never been able to figure out exactly why even having known it for decades.

The course has no water to speak of to get in trouble in---you really can't hit it out of bounds on the course, the bunkers aren't all that penal (unless you get stubborn or silly with some of them). Obviously the state of the rough is hugely determinant on how hard it plays and the wind, when it blows, is its constant "playability" asset.

My newly awakened sense of the real deal with Shinneock is it just has so many highly subtle but hugely effective "angles" on it of all kinds and all over the place---driving angles, vertical angles on some fairways and greens but the true strength I think are those greens, particularly some of the sides of most of them.

There is one element of the course that just may be the best in existence and that is the effective use of chipping areas (short grass surrounding various areas of those greens) all over that course in combination with green side angles (some of which are around the backs or sides and virtually unseen from most all approach angles) and the slopes off the greens and below them.

Unlike some courses and championship courses there's a ton of "safe area" on most all those greens if you know where to go and more importantly where not to go on them, which frankly is what strategic consequence is all about.

This seems to give the course some of the most subtely strategic approach shots in the world.

Like most great strategically mysterious courses it seems like you can decide to play Shinnecock conservatively and although it may chip away at you and your score here and there playing it this way does allow you to recover well with good management and it also allows you to avoid big numbers on most all holes----again if you really stick to conservative strategies.

This is probably precisely why Shinnecock has always managed to accomodate the higher handicapper pretty well and make playing the course more enjoyable for him than one might think while at the same time being capable of testing the best players in the world.

I guess this kind of general accomodation/real test of the best is what makes a golf course and its architecture IDEAL.

[jeffwarne]

Wayne,
just playing devil's advocate here but...
(As John K. suggests)
Isn't the building of "better positioned tees" exactly why courses eventually seek restorations.

meaning ,every new tee
(or green ,tree, or lake for that matter)
was certainly thought to be "better positioned" at the time it was built.

It just seems to me that when a change is made the parties involved and those close to them think they are "better positioned", but eventually history and the passage of time are the barometer.

It is for this reason that I don't think many true restorations are feasible, practical, or even desireable.(unless there was a great product there to start with)
For instance, I don't think most members of Palmetto would want a restoration back to circular, small sand greens-which leaves everything done since open to interpretation.

I do agree that Shinnecock is enjoyable to play and never get that beaten up feeling when I play it. (despite not often shooting good scores in relation to par 70)

[michael j fay]

Wayne:

Well written assessment. You make it difficult to argue that you are wrong. I have played most of the top 50 in the US and Great Britain and do not find any courses better than SHGC in either locale.

This does not make Shinnicock my favorite course. I prefer Crystal Downs and Dornoch mostly for aesthetic reasons, yet might well admit that SHGC is a better course.

Shinnicock has no weakness with the possible exception of number 5. This being said, # 5 is one hell of a good option 5 par. It is reachable, but poses draconian punishment for the errant second shot.

I followed Floyd on Sunday in 1986 and would have to say that the 32 he shot on the final nine that day was the best finish in any Open in my memory.

I also love the NGLA. Simply they are the best neighboring courses in the world.

[TEPaul]

cary:

The fact is Shinnecock is so much more of a championship style golf course than NGLA is even if NGLA's architecture actually looks more radical than Shinnecock's does. For a pretty good player to a handicpper NGLA is much more doable in things like GIR or par to your handicap than Shinnecock is particularly if anyone doesn't play Shinnecock in the context of their shot making capabilities.

On the other hand, and very ironically, if most any golfer starts to throw away shots at NGLA it's pretty apparent why it's happening to almost any golfer. At Shinnecock it's almost the opposite. Almost anyone can certainly throw away a ton of shots at Shinnecock but the reasons why are just so much more subtle----and I think in that fact alone (and all the reasons for it) is the real reason for Shinnecock's great architecture and probably why it deserves to be considered one of the world's greatest courses.

[wsmorrison]

Thank you, Tom.  Very well done.  I do get typecast and that should not always be so easily used to discount topics.  So if the website can stick to the topic brought up and not superficially look for bias, I think the details that Tom mention are worth discussing.  

The horizontal and vertical angles of Shinnecock are amazing.  Green fall-offs on all sides combined with short chipping areas and bunkers create intense shot demands that aren't overt like they are at Pinehurst, even though that doesn't appear to be Ross's intent but interventions over the years.  No matter, the current design is held in very high regard.  But the demands are systematically and overtly presented.  There is subtlety and charm about the similar demands at Shinnecock.  The slopes are in harmony with the architecture  and the natural surrounds.  The rolling fairways and slopes result in awkward stances, elevation changes on the shots and other factors that make the determination where to place the shot and how to hit it at the forefront of consideration.

The offset angles of the fairways due to mowing line, bunkering and/or topography make tee shots and approaches more demanding because straight isn't the only thin being tested.  Line of play, shot shape and risk-reward are all very much in the decision making equation.  The offset of the greens, the safe areas of greens and danger areas all influence the previous shot determinations.  This indirect tax (either a Paul or Behr term) identifies the thoughtful golfer as well as the execution ability.  This is a more enjoyable sort of difficulty than pure penal designs.

[wsmorrison]

More great words from Tom Paul.

Michael Fay, very well said.  I completely agree that a better course does not have to be a favorite.  I guess in that regard the regard it is easier to understand why NGLA is a favorite of more golfers, but I don't think many understand the reasons why or at least understand Shinnecock well enough even if they play it a lot.  It isn't that easy to figure out except over time, even when you study it very carefully.

Jeff,

A lot of trees came down at Shinnecock.  More likely in the future.  Some of the problems with tee locations are an artifact of the timing of the additions.  The trees were there, the motivation or ability to take them down was not yet in place so the tees were placed in spots that were dictated by trees.  Now that the trees are gone, the angles of the tees do not have to be subordinated by trees and as such are going to be moved to better positions.  This has already happened on the rear tee on 8 and hopefully will be done elsewhere.

Mark,

Maybe he couldn't afford both.  I thought knowing Cary precluded that possibility  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,
You say:"The slopes(vs. internal contours) being harder to read and more psychologically demanding since they look easy but play hard as opposed to look hard and play hard."

Can you explain this a bit more, especially the part about slopes being harder to read?

Thanks  

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I'll try, but pictures and better yet, being there in person is even more effective.  Unless of course somebody that writes better than me gives it a shot.

Flynn tended to build greens that have relatively long slopes, rarely in one direction alone such as back to front.  He had slopes that came from different points of the compass, often off the rear topline of a greenside bunker or from a broad mound or two that were drawn out and the interplays of the competing slopes make it hard to read putts.  It is not easy to see which competing slope will affect the putt the most.  Sometimes if you stray a foot or less to one side or another the putt breaks in a way that simply confounds you because one of the subtle slopes predominates yet it is hard to read.

The look easy play hard approach (opposite the macro approach to golf design of a Tom Fazio for instance) takes its toll psychologically.  You expect to make more putts than you do (a natural tendency anyway that is exacerbated) and over time you start getting down on yourself but rarely the architect.  When you putt on greens with a lot of internal contour, you don't expect to make many putts and are happier with a 2-putt on those kinds of greens as opposed to 2-putts on Flynn greens.  Overt contours take less time to figure out.  You may never be able to putt well on them or get into a lot of trouble being on the wrong portion of the green, but it is easily seen that you are.  Flynn greens take longer to know, which is a good thing on a private course, and require a different mind-set to what is achievable and what is not.

I'll try to post some photos after I get back to work for a bit.  Better yet is to go see and play some Flynn greens  

[Phil_the_Author]

Shinnecock is among the handful of courses that have an actual opportunity to convince the player that it is the finest golfing experience in the world. That Wayne sees this is not attributable to what some might refer to as his Flynn fanaticism, but that long study of Flynn might be the reason that he has discovered subtleties anew in the course.

I have no idea if Wayne is refering to this as one of the 2 areas that he has recently observed, but I am fascinated with how the course routing brings the wind into the course as an actual design feature.

I was struck with, and it is a long time since I was there, how the tee & green locations seem to do more than play up or down wind. Just as a sailboat is found to be a wonderful ship when the wind comes up and grabs its sails, so too Shinnecock.

Just as any sail will catch a wind, a green on a hilltop invites it into play, yet just as the height of the arm on which the sail hangs bring about subtle changes to how the boat reacts to the wind, it is the angle of play into the greens (and how they accept this play) that make the difference at Shinnecock.

I would imagine that it is for this reason that when comparing the great courses out there on the east end of Long island, the perception of beauty and challenge are greatly affected by this small idea of shot angle and prevailing winds.

I think Flynn was brilliant in his use of these.

[Phil McDade]

Wayne:

Great topic; two thoughts/questions:

-- Have you played Winged Foot West? I ask because a while back, a regular GCA poster (if I'm remembering this correctly) compared WFW with Shinnecock and -- from the perspective of playing from the member's tees, not as a championship test -- thought that WFW was more enjoyable to play on a regular basis, and that Shinnecock just relentlessly beat up his game. That's opposite your conclusion. Thoughts on why, if you've played both (or others who have)?

-- You've often noted that Flynn was particularly gifted at "fitting" his courses into the landforms available, and didn't think much of using archtype holes on his courses just for the sake of having them, i.e., if a Redan presented itself via the landform, he'd build one, but not "force" one on to the land. Is Shinnecock his best example of this? I know you think it's his best course, but is it his best utilization of the land, based on other Flynns you've seen and studied?

[TEPaul]

"This does not make Shinnecock my favorite course. I prefer Crystal Downs and Dornoch mostly for aesthetic reasons, yet might well admit that SHGC is a better course."

Michael:

You know, those words of yours just might be the real key to some of the mysteriousness of Shinnecock's greatness, and why so many players of all calibers respect it so much, even think they like it but nevertheless may not want to play it with regularity.

To play Shinnecock well or really well just doesn't look to be as hard as it is. That it IS hard to play well is also not debatable---it has proven that over and over again. In that way it just may be the easiest looking really hard course on the planet. On the other hand, there's no question at all that great courses like Oakmont, Pine Valley, Merion, HVGC et al look every bit as hard as they are and probably a lot more so in some cases.

There was a wonderful old remark in the movie "The Sting" where Henry Gondorf (Newman) explained to Redford's character that the key to being a really good and successful grifter/conman isn't just to pull off the con but to do what he called "Hold the Con" so the people conned would never know what exactly happened to them.

Shinnecock, in my opinion, is able to "hold the con" better than any great golf course in the world and this is probably why both it and its greatness has always been so mysterious to me.

But I really learned a lot about that mysteriousness this time around.

What I learned is why so many of the little things about its architecture work as they do. AND, having come to know that so much better I realize what that golf course is really doing to me and so many others is just exposing the inadequacies of me and my game in a pretty kind and gentle way compared to so many other courses and their "in your face" architecture. If a golf course can do that to golfers day in and day out it's pretty hard to get mad at it or its architecture.  

That may be the true mystery of Shinnecock. Of course, in my opinion, "mystery" is one of perhaps up to three of golf architecture's greatest over-all assets. It's architecture's way of "holding the con".  

[Peter Pallotta]

Let me add my thanks - a terrific and learned discussion.

Wayne, if you're not tired of answering questions, one or two  more:

You mentioned that it "wasn't always the case" that the fairway acreage at NGLA is greater than at Shinnecock. I assume this means that Shinnecock's acreage has been reduced over time, and not that NGLA's acreage has been increased. If so, can you expand on that, i.e:

1) why and when were Shinnecock's fairways 'reduced',
2) is there any serious discussions about returning them to their previous size,
3) can you suggest or make some guesses on how larger fairways might alter the course's playing characteristics, and Flynn's views on this

Thanks
Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Following on from Bill V.

Shinnecock is undoubtedly "great."  However so are at least 10 other courses around the world, each of which grows greater the more you know them and study them.  Shinnecock is no different, it's just that Tom and Wayne have recently studied it more than the others.

Study the other contenders with the same eye, Wayne, and I might just begin to take your opinion more seriously.

[Jerry Kluger]

     Unfortunately, the one time I played Shinnecock the wind was up and blowing in a direction opposite from the normal prevailing wind plus the fescue was up and thick.  This made the course extremely difficult no matter what tees you were playing from.  What it did emphasize to me were the angles that the golfer has to deal with around the course.  They aren't as obvious as say a course with water or trees but they are just as demanding when the fescue is so thick that a sand wedge is often the only recovery shot available.  

     The angles were not limited to tee shots.  Shots into greens from the wrong side of the fairway were extremely challenging and made you accept the fact that you could not go at the pin.  The green complexes are wonderful and do not need the ridiculous conditions that were seen at the Open to be recognized as such. Even if we did not have the wind conditions I think that the fescue is an integral part of the design of the course and should be considered when evaluating the course.

     We played NGLA the next day in calmer conditions so it definitely felt like there was much more room on the course.  I found it to be more fun because of its quirkiness which is a feature which I always enjoy in a golf course.  I would be hard pressed to say which is the better course although I would say that I probably would enjoy it more to play NGLA on a regular basis.

[TEPaul]

I just mentioned that for whatever reasons Shinnecock may be the easiest looking really hard course to play. I should qualify that though. Probably up to 14 or even 16 of Shinnecock's holes may look easier to play than they are but there are at least two and maybe three or four that are most certainly not that way. In order of degree, #11 definitely DOES NOT look easy to play and it isn't. Either is #7 and if there's a 3rd or a 4th in that category I'd nominate #9 for various fairly obvious reasons and #10 for various less obvious reasons.

[JESII]

RFG, WV, TD,


Let's discount the "easily the greatest" portion of Wayne's statements here and try to dig into why it is unanimously included with the rest of the greatest courses in the world...that sounds like a better discussion to me than does Wayne's slightly lacking objectivity...


I have always thought the tee shots had a way of challenging both distance and accuracy as well as any course I know of...it is through that test that the greens become significant because from the wrong position in the fairway (or rough) the playable area on the green shrinks considerably. #1 is as good an example as any. The approach is so inviting from the right corner of the fairway, and as you move across the fairway to the left, the area of green that will actually accept a shot in shrinks dramatically.

[TEPaul]

Richard the Magnificent:

As usual you miss the point in one way or another.

This thread is not about whether Shinnecock IS the #1 course in the world or the greatest course----it's about why it may be so great and why its greatness is pretty mysterious to so many people.

One thing is pretty certain about Shinnecock if it is in fact one of the great ones and that is both it and its architecture is definitely not some same old, same old type of thing.

But I guess if one really thought about it that would probably be true of all the world's say top ten courses.  

And that may even be the real deal on Bill Coore's thought that perhaps the most fundamental thing in all of golf architecture is in the differences.  

[tlavin]

The most interesting part of this incisive discussion, to me, relates to the effective use of angles of flight to place different demands and rewards upon the golfer.  It is refreshing indeed to be reminded that length alone is almost meaningless in the quest to make a golf course demanding for very good players.  It may well wreak havoc with a hacker, but length without well place hazards and with easily reached fairways and greens (those said to be "right in front of you") is no kind of challenge at all.  If the architect requires a player to accept a risky angle in order to get the benefit of an easier shot into a green, let's say, he is baiting the hook if the player is unable to handle the challenge.  I play at Butler National in Chicago from time to time and I am consistently amazed at the difficult angles into the greens on almost all of the holes.  Going for the flagstick is a venture for the very skilled.  At Butler, if you don't hit it exactly on line and within a few yards of the flagstick, your ball winds up over the green, off into a bunker or into a water hazard.  And it's not the length, it's the very demanding angle of attack.  Sounds like Shinnecock is an older example.