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

[Tom Huckaby]

My feelings are this (stated many times, but what the heck, we'll given it another shot):

Shinnecock is among the 10-15 courses that has a legitimate stake at the claim of the world's greatest course.

How one orders those 10-15 would depend on what one values most personally in golf courses.

Me, I prefer fun and chances at success requiring guile and thinking as opposed to getting my brains beaten in due to imperfect shots.  Thus I don't put Shinnecock as highly as others do.  In fact I am one who prefers the course across the street, pretty much for this reason.

But I have nothing but respect for those who call Shinnecock #1, and there are many who do so.

I just think that some courses are great championship tests, some courses are sporty and fun, the very very best are some sort of combination of both.  And Shinnecock likely is such.

I just personally err on the side of the sporty and fun first, with championship test being a nice icing on the cake.  Many do it exactly in the reverse of me.

And those who do would definitely prefer Shinnecock to National or Sand Hills or Cypress Point or Dornoch or the others at the top of my list.

And I respect them for that.

I just don't agree with them.

TH

[Geoffrey Childs]

Wayne

This is a fine way to discuss architecture and tastes in architecture. My only objection to your argument is your opening statement "Shinnecock Hills is, by a sizable margin, the greatest golf course in the world.

I have played many of the contenders and I can certainly agree that no one should rightly say you are wrong if you believe SH to be the finest course in the world.  However, others who might argue for Sand Hills, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, The Old Course or a couple of others have good arguments as well.

My experience with SH is two sided.  I've played it when they were trying to maintain Open conditions before the tournament and it was a poor experience.  A local/course rule for almost a year was that balls lost in the primary rough (even with forecaddies!!!!) could be replaced by dropping a ball in the spot you think the ball landed with no penalty and you wedgfe out.  Members did not play by the rules of golf for a year because your "best in the world" golf course did not allow a typical player to actually finish a round under the rules.  I was then lucky to play again late in the season and well after the US Opem.  the roughs had all been cut down and balls could actually bound into fairway bunkers. It was firm as is the case late season on Long Island and it was one of the most enjoyable rounds of golf in my life perhaps save for Tony Pioppi's company   .  The course really shined with all the choices available under those conditions.

If SH looked like this aerial I might even agree with your first statement!

[wsmorrison]

Rich,

Please stop exposing my inadequacies.  There is no sport in that as there are so many of them  

I certainly do agree with you.  There are a number of courses that all rise to a level of greatness that is in a category of their own.  From my experience Merion, Pine Valley, Sand Hills, Dornoch, St. Andrews Old, North Berwick, Royal St. George's, Swinley Forest are all probably at such a level.  Unlike these, Shinnecock is not as easily understood though, which is the point of this thread and not the rankings.  

While I learning to know Shinnecock very well, it continues to surprise.  Maybe the most surprising is how much better it will become with the continuing of the green restoration process and other works.

Jerry,

The fescue is a huge factor combined with a hole that has a narrow playing corridor such as 14.  Many of the fairways are relatively wide for the modern era, even for a course that has held an Open recently.  The club and the superintendent are of a mind and an ability to have elasticity in the fairway widths to an extent.  The new irrigation system and grass types allows this.

Peter,

Tom Paul doesn't like standardization.  Flynn had standardized fairway widths.  He was a superintendent and he was sensitive to the maintenance factors in his designs.  I guess his standard 50-60 yard widths had something to do with gang mower widths.

NGLA expanded their fairways back to nearly the original widths.  SHGC, though relatively wide at 30 or so acres is down from the original 45-50 acres.  But the holes aren't that narrow if you are somewhat straight though wind has an effect.  On the 1st, the fairway is wide, but the effective fairway width depends on the line of play and the shape of your shot.  The 3rd,4th,5th and 6th holes are plenty wide for the modern era.  The 8th has been widened on the left.  For practical reasons it is not as wide as it once was but they did go out an additional 12 yards.  This is not an excellent example of one of Flynn's design traits, but he did like to fool strict tenets of design and have the smarter player recognize that the ideal approach angle is played on the outside of the dogleg.  The green slopes, bunkering and surrounds dictate this preferred line of play.  Flynn sometimes bunkered the inside of the turn to make you think that the line of instinct was the risk reward you had to consider.  Better thinkers would realize that the longer tack is the better one.  The holes would then play longer than the scorecard for better players.

AS for a return to their original size, it won't happen.  They shrak to begin with with early irrigation systems.  Irrigation and higher maintenance is the reason why they won't go back to their original 50-60 yard wide fairways.  They don't need to.  Clubs and balls are much better than they were.  Golfers are better and conditions are supremely better.  I think some narrowing is more than acceptable in the face of other evolutions.  The way golf courses are presented should evolve as well in order to maintain some balance.  The pendulum can swing too far at times.  I don't believe it has at SHGC except in a few spots and like the 8th, they are being considered.

As to your 3rd point, I have to give this some thought.  I have a good idea and I know Tom can address this.  I have to go back to work for now.  Great questions!  I'm glad this thread is on track and sparking a fine discussion.

Geoff,

I made the suggested change about "sizable difference" as I do agree with you and Sully but got carried away.  Everything else is cold and calculated    That is one great aerial photograph and for those that know the golf course, I suggest it is studied very carefully.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Have your valet re-read to you Wayne's initial post.  Aw shucks, maybe he's outside checking the weekly merlot shipment--I'll do it for you!  It starts.....

"Shinnecock Hills is, by a sizable margin, the greatest golf course in the world."

Sure you and Wayne talk a little bit about angles of attack and slopes, but not in a specific enough way to enlighten us.

ALL great courses have the attributes Wayne (and you) ascribes to Shinnecock.  Neither of you has convinced me, at least, that SH is better (or even as good as) than the others of its ilk.  That's all, Kemosabe.

[Brad Swanson]

Like Geoffrey, I too played SH the fall after it hosted the U.S. Open.  Although that was several years ago, I have only played a few rounds of golf since then, so I still remember it quite well.  From as far back as we could play it, and in a brisk October breeze, I didn't find the course was a bully at all.  I thought it inflicted its damage more by many little cuts rather than a few huge gaping wounds.  My game wasn't particularly sharp at the time, but I managed to beat what Ernie Els shot in his final round at the Open by a shot or 2.  Spending hours reflecting on everything I could gather in about the course has really given me a greater appreciation for its subtle greatness.

Cheers,
Brad

[wsmorrison]

As BillV pointed out, the following had no place on the other thread:

From BillV to me:

"No Wayne

I am absolutely correct in my inclusion of LCC and ECC
in my simile as that is what it is a simile.

One can lose perspective as that is my point.

I am also posting a C & P over on the Shinney thingey
thread as that is where this belongs."

My reply:

Yes, but unlike Engineers and Lehigh, I am not a member of Shinnecock Hills.  You don't see me championing my home course...much.  I champion SHGC not for my association with the course, but because I have studied it and have learned a great deal about it.  Forget the best course portion of the post, that was stupid on my part.  Consider the reasons why it is difficult and how this adds to its differentiation and its greatness.

Lehigh?  Several problems there.  It isn't as great as Mark champions it though it is outstanding.  Engineers?  Who knows, I've never been there.  The passion to picture content ratio seem a bit too high.  But that is speculation.  I do know people who I admire for their understanding of golf architecture find it a very fine course so I am sure it is solid.

Rich,

I changed my provocative statement and title of the thread as I get your point.  I hope you get the point we're trying to make.

[George Pazin]

Great thread.

I've been harping on the magical mystery of subtle courses for awhile now, but Tom P's posts on this thread do a better job of conveying my sentiments than anything I've posted.

Other than the "sizeable margin" part, I think Wayne and Matt finally found something to agree on; don't let that frighten you too much, Wayne!

 

[wsmorrison]

George,

Thanks for completely ruining my day  

Actually, unlike Matt Ward, I am capable of learning from others and deleted the sizeable margin phrase (it isn't accurate) and changed the title of the thread to reflect my true intent, that is the subtle and long learning curve regarding the difficulty and greatness of Shinnecock.  Its original and continued use of short grass areas around greens, slopes, offsets, angles, bunkers, topography and safety areas on greens is brilliant.  The lack of distance requirement is not often considered but is an interesting feature.  It goes to show that angles are a more interesting demand than length.  Shinnecock has them galore.

For those familiar with Shinnecock Hills GC, take a good look at the photo that Geoff posted.  Relate the amount of bunkering with the topographic features in the immediate area.  Where there is a lot of topography (9,10,11,12,13,14,15) there isn't a lot of fairway bunkering.  In the flat areas there is a lot of bunkering and mounding to create interest and strategy.  

Now, imagine if you will, Flynn planned to plant shorter plantings on the low portions of the ground and taller plantings on the higher portions of the property to give an even greater impression of elevation changes.

[Voytek Wilczak]

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

Greens complexes?

The day I played the course they were pretty baked and the wind was blowing (and no, it was NOT the US Open).

Impossible to score.

[George Pazin]

George,

Thanks for completely ruining my day  

Actually, unlike Matt Ward, I am capable of learning from others and deleted the sizeable margin phrase (it isn't accurate) and changed the title of the thread to reflect my true intent, that is the subtle and long learning curve regarding the difficulty and greatness of Shinnecock.  Its original and continued use of short grass areas around greens, slopes, offsets, angles, bunkers, topography and safety areas on greens is brilliant.  The lack of distance requirement is not often considered but is an interesting feature.  It goes to show that angles are a more interesting demand than length.  Shinnecock has them galore.

No problem! I know it scares the hell out of me when Matt and I find common ground, just thought I'd share some of my pain.

Actually, I feel much the same about Oakmont and it's use of angles, land forms and the green complexes.

I think many golfers today find more enjoyment in the obvious. They like to see clearly delineated challenges that they either pass or fail. To look at any course such as Shinnecock (I'm assuming, having only experienced the course through the tube and everyone's posts) and not see why the course is proving so difficult just leaves most golfers confused and ultimately less satisfied.

Just another sympton of the decaying society - cheap thrills and instant gratification are where it's at for most.

[Adam Clayman]

Reading this thread I can't help but sense that it is the balance that makes it so great. Having never played there, my hope is to be correct for a couple of reasons. One is that will help Tom Paul place a phrase on what was so confusing to him in trying to figure out what it was that made the experience so special. The other of course, is proving Pat Mucci wrong,   that someone can read into others descriptions and have input on a course they have never stepped foot on. If it is moot or not the correct phrase, nevermind and Pat's theory will still hold some modicum of water.

What say you TePaul?

P.s. Undoubtedy Mark Michaud has alot to do with everything going on and his experiences are likely a result of all that quality. Once again, caveat, if he's not.

[TEPaul]

Richard the Magnificent:

What you should try doing is reading Wayne's post #3, not just post #1 and you probably wouldn't have written post #29.

Of course we didn't convince you, we don't even think to try to do something like that, for the simple reason even if you were convinced of something said on here it would be practically impossible for you to admit it unless you said it yourself.  

"ALL great courses have the attributes Wayne (and you) ascribes to Shinnecock."

On the other hand, that above remark could be one of the least thoughtful I've ever seen on here. That sounds like all great courses are very similar which is of course the farthest thing from the truth.  Maybe that's why you thought the bunkers of Merion and the bunkers of Applebrook were virtually identical.  

[TEPaul]

"What say you TePaul?"

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me Adam.

[Adam Clayman]

From readng your thoughts (and others) no one has mentioned the word balance.

So what I'm asking you is..

Is it the balance of everything (Aesthetics, Angles, Straetgies, Scales etc.) that works so well? Does that word "balance" sum up what it was you could not put your finger on?

Alright, there was some attempt to get you to have one of your classic PM ribbings. All in good fun of course.

[Jerry Kluger]

I would ask this of Wayne and TEP - can you learn enough about Shinnecock by playing it once to fully understand the course and recognize the features which make it great?

[Tom Huckaby]

Can anyone make a serious argument that it doesn't look demanding as hell?

I sure think it does.

Thus to me it's no more demanding than it looks.  It scares the crap out of me without hitting a single shot.

 

[TEPaul]

"Is it the balance of everything (Aesthetics, Angles, Straetgies, Scales etc.) that works so well? Does that word "balance" sum up what it was you could not put your finger on?"

Balance?

Hmm. No, that certainly isn't the first thing (or the second or third ) that comes to my mind about what I couldn't put my finger on about Shinnecock.

But maybe we have different impressions about what-ALL "balance" means in golf course architecture. If you mean balance in a sort of "art principle" way (which I suppose some of golf course architecture uses) I wasn't thinking of that.

By the way, I think C&W has a very fine list of definitions on the five elements of "art prinicples", particularly as they may apply to golf course architecture, perhaps mostly through landscape architecture "art" principles (Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm and Emphasis).

When I think of balance on a golf course it's generally in some sort of routing sense or routing/par sequencing sense. Do you know what I mean by that? It's when you think you may need a particular type of hole or par in the routing sequence at any particular time.

But frankly with a whole lot of other natural assets, quality routing, quality architecture and quality playability or whatever I don't even like to think about that and on the very best courses I think the individual holes can sometimes get so interesting that any thought of balance in a routing sense doesn't even occur to you. The back nine of Pacific Dunes may be one of the best examples of that, where on other courses the holes can be so basically uninteresting that you start thinking a par 3 or a par 5 should be about to come up just for balance.

Do you know what I mean by that?

But again, with the aesthetics, angles, strategies and scale of Shinnecock some type of balance thing is not what was so mysterious about the course's greatness to me.

What I guess I didn't realize is just how well and how subtly and effectively some of those green side angles and the ramifications of their playablity worked. One of the reasons probably was so many of them aren't very evident from the approaches.

[David Stamm]

It is these types of threads that remind me how great this site is. Any worries about the discussions getting boring or losing focus are dismissed in my mind when reading the info that is found on threads like this. Encore!!!

[Jon Wiggett]

Wayne,

wouldn't you agree that most players i.e. 24 handicap and upwards want the course to look hard and play easy?

[TEPaul]

"What I guess I didn't realize is just how well and how subtly and effectively some of those green side angles and the ramifications of their playablity worked. One of the reasons probably was so many of them aren't very evident from the approaches."

Adam:

After a while I'll just go through the holes and particularly the greens and green-ends and explain in detail what I mean and where. Not that I understand every hole or green and green-end but mostly what I noticed yesterday about how a lot of it works, can work or can work even better.

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: As a follow up: Do you see this as unique to Shinnecock that you have to play it more than once or is that common to all the great courses?  It has always been my feeling that a great course has so many nuances that playing it over and over again only brings out even more of what makes it great. There is one but to my equation and that is Sand Hills - the first time you play it you recognize much of what is great about it - perhaps it is just so big that you can more easily see the features that are before you.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, I think I understand that.

I wasn't restricting my definition of what balance is or means. I certainly wasn't referring to it in an artistic sense rather more of a unique definition for golf courses.

Maybe in your next conversation with Mark M. you could ask him what he thginks is this (lame attempt at french coming) "june se qua"? With his experience at Pebble, a course that people don't seem able to appreciate the whole and prefer to pick apart the segments, he might be the best person to ask about these obtuse references i'm trying to convey.


I'll beg off now and continue to absorb the discussion.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne,

wouldn't you agree that most players i.e. 24 handicap and upwards want the course to look hard and play easy?"

Yes, I would agree.  And I would further say that some architect firms have a model that is to give them what they want.  I think we know some modern examples.  Classic era examples would include Raynor and Banks.  This isn't to say that they weren't excellent at their craft.  They simply do not have the range of creativity and originality.  In fact, with Old Macdonald, there is even a cycling back of this style.

Looking hard and playing easy makes a section of the golfing population feel better.  But this is an age where limited talent is celebrated and people watch reality shows to escape their own realities.  The common denominator is where money is made but rarely where great art is achieved.

Other architects would rather lead the public to what could be and push the envelope.  Frankly, I think many of the classic works of Colt, Park, Jr., Flynn, Thomas, Tillinghast, MacKenzie and others are examples of this and stand the test of time.  We know who the modern practitioners are as well.

[wsmorrison]

"I would ask this of Wayne and TEP - can you learn enough about Shinnecock by playing it once to fully understand the course and recognize the features which make it great?"

Jerry,

I think discussions like this can lead all of us to better understandings and a watchful eye to absorb more about what we are seeing.  Tom is right, if you go to these great courses worried about your score or the sport from your own player class perspective you tend to miss things.  I think it was terrific that our host chose to play from the very tips.  We learned a lot and saw more of the course in a literal sense but also an analytical sense.  It was real eye opening.  No doubt if you go to Shinnecock and keep some of the concepts brought up on this thread in mind, you'll easily notice what it took us a bit longer to achieve.

I am very grateful for Tom bringing his A game to this discussion.  His concepts and ability to phrase them is outstanding.  This is what I was hoping for in starting the thread.

[Jerry Kluger]

Wayne: I have come to the conclusion that every course that I can think of was originally designed from the perspective of the back tees.  Most often design features are their most obvious from the tips so I try and walk back there to view the hole even if I am not playing from there.  That being said, if the tips are too long for your game, you often do not experience how those features are intended to play.