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

[JESII]

Understand, and agreed.


My point though is that I don't think this "reverse dogleg" precept shows up much at Shinnecock...#13 is the only one I can come up with.


By the way, I would like the two of you to continue this detailed hole analysis throughout the course.

Describe #2 for us through the eyes of a player attempting to hit the green in reg as well as the player forced to play out to the right...

[JESII]

Furthermore, Sully, even if you did, I would not call what Flynn architecturally did on this first hole a form of trickery, I would only call it a form of nuancy and less than totally obvious and visible problems created by the architect for the golfer to pyschologically and physically solve.

well, what the hell do you think trickery means...

[TEPaul]

"well, what the hell do you think trickery means..."

Sully:

I think architecturally trickery means making something look like something it's not. There is nothing I can see about the architecture of #1 that fits that description or definition. At the very most I would only say that there are certain areas on the sides of and around that green that just don't look like they have as much effect on risk/reward playability as they might.

[Jim Nugent]

Obviously the state of the rough is hugely determinant on how hard it plays  

This statement of Tom Paul's leaped out at me.  Says the course's difficulty depends on rough.  

Isn't that what most posters on GCA.com decry?  Why does Shinnecock not only get a pass here, but is revered?  Finally, how would the course play if it had little to no rough, similar to how ANGC used to be set up?  Would it still present the angles and subtleties (off the greens) many of you describe?  

[TEPaul]

"By the way, I would like the two of you to continue this detailed hole analysis throughout the course.
Describe #2 for us through the eyes of a player attempting to hit the green in reg as well as the player forced to play out to the right..."

I'd be happy to and I'm sure Wayne would too.

For the very good and strong player, this hole from the tips in neutral conditions is about a good 4 iron for the long contingent and a bit more for the less long good player.

The architectural deal on this hole in the context of what we're presenting here which is the ability of Shinnecock's greens to shed approach shots easily is the unseen oblique line behind this green that over shot balls can go over creating a difficult recovery chip back onto the green. It is closer and easier to go over the green on left side of the back than the right side as the back of the green angles from left to right on a great diagonal.

To play this hole conservatively one would need to try to get to the fairway area directly in front of the green as the short left and greenside right is well bunkered.

But, again, it is the back of the green and its left to right diagonal that sheds balls in a very much less than visible way from the tee.

[TEPaul]

Jim Nugent:

In my opinion, Shinnecock's architecture does not depend on highly penal rough to make it play a ton more difficult than it looks. if the course had virtually no penal rough and it was firm and fast throughout its architecture would and could provide all the challenge necessary to highly skilled players.

[Jim Nugent]

Obviously the state of the rough is hugely determinant on how hard it plays

In my opinion, Shinnecock's architecture does not depend on highly penal rough to make it play a ton more difficult than it looks.

Tom -- on the face of it, these two statements seem to contradict each other.  

Your last statement -- that Shinnecock would provide plenty of challenge with little to no rough, given f&f -- is real interesting.  Would love to see them set up the course like that to test your proposition.  Is that a possibility -- or would it require wholesale changes to the maintenance that are surely never going to occur?  

[TEPaul]

Jim:

In my opinion, to challenge well Shinnecock's architecture does not depend on penal rough. If the club does that's another matter. As originally built the course had a bit over 50 acres of fairway. They may now apparently have a bit over 30. For the Open it was down to around 22. They cut the rough grass down in the late fall and when we played the other day it hadn't grown much obviously.

[Punchbowl]

Let's take one hole that appears on both Shinnecock and NGLA...Redan...The Redan at the National is one of the best holes in golf....requiring a linksy draw with a long iron from the back that has to be quite exact, but is incredibly rewarding when pulled off.  At Shinnecock the hole is just hard if not unfair....You almost want to cut a shot into the right front just to hope to hold the darn thing.

[TEPaul]

#8 Shinnecock really isn't even much of a dogleg hole. It would be if the tees were about 40 yards to the right but they never have been. The deal with the drive is to simply carry it as far as you can down the left side over that huge bunker field and if you can't you have to place it in the tongue of fairway on the right which starts much closer to the tee. From there it isn't a great angle to any pin on that green. The best angle into that green is about 10 yards into the left rough even despite this year's 12 yard fairway expansion on the left.

BillV, the only good angle into any pin on this green is from the left, not the right.

[Andy Hughes]

"Are there more unique greens in golf than the 1st, 3rd and 6th ?"

Uh, yes.  Among many as or more unique

Boys, don't let GCA's resident grammar nazi catch you misusing 'unique' like that! Something either is, or it is not.

Now, carry on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

With all due respect your post #69 is one constant stream of misinformation and petty argumentation.

Perhaps you're confusing your post numbers.

I stand by everything I said in post # 69.[/color]

In the name and cause of historic accuracy I'm asking you now to desist from those kinds of posts and do better than that.

I'd appreciate your pointing out anything that is historically, or otherwise inaccurate in post # 69.[/color]

I, by the way, am one who really does know you can!  
[size=8x]
?[/size]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent:

In my opinion, Shinnecock's architecture does not depend on highly penal rough to make it play a ton more difficult than it looks. if the course had virtually no penal rough and it was firm and fast throughout its architecture would and could provide all the challenge necessary to highly skilled players.

Jim Nugent,

I disagree with TEPaul's statement.

The rough, and it can get tall and thick, is an integral part of SH's difficulty.   More so today than in the past.

The problem is  that the rough WAS far removed from the centerline of the fairways.   Today, it is much closer to the fairway centerline, and as such, an undue, unintended and harsh influence.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"In addition, I think the INTEREST at the green and green surrounds is far greater at NGLA because those structures are more dramatic."

Are you kidding?  

Not at all.[/color]

Those structures are more man-made looking and far from natural.  

I've already stated that, but, that isn't the issue.
And, the greens only look man made from behind the green, and not from the golfer's eye view.[/color]

Of course such man-made features can be made more contoured with in-your-face demands that are rather gimmicky and take little time to learn.  

There's very little that's gimmicky at NGLA.

The putting surfaces are brilliant, as is the architecture on the entire golf course.[/color]

If interest needs to be overt and leaves little to figure out, then yes many would agree with you.

If you think there's little to figure out, you need to play NGLA more often.  I know architects who tell me that they learn something new every time they return to NGLA and they've been returning to NGLA for decades.[/color]

If interest is subtle, sublime and natural with a longer learning curve, as appeals to me, then Shinnecock Hills towers above the less sophisticated designs of Macdonald and certainly that of his protoges.  

You are too much the Nationalphile to be taken seriously  

I was going to say that, as a Flynnophile, you're my equal, but, I think you've far surpassed me in that department.
[/color]

"Are there more unique greens in golf than the 1st, 3rd and 6th ?"

Uh, yes.  Among many as or more unique (though not necessarily overt), the 2nd,3rd, 5th, 8th and left 9th at Pine Valley, the 3rd, 7th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 16th and 18th at Merion, the 11th at Kittansett, the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 12th at Shinnecock Hills, the 4th at Rolling Green, the 15th at Huntingdon Valley, the 3rd, 11th and 12th at Merion West, etc.

Of the greens I've seen and played, perhaps the 2nd at PV qualifies as a peer of # 1, 3 and 6 at NGLA.[/color]

"I think the greens and green complexes at SH are more natural, but, the greens and green complexes at NGLA are more FUN.  Fun to approach, fun to recover to and fun to putt.  And, that I think is the principle distinction."

FUN is so subjective as to have little comparative meaning.  I completely disagree with you but recognize my subjective reasons for doing so.  
I don't think you realize how subjective you are.

Wayne, the overwhelming preference amongst others is for NGLA, day in and day out.

Shinnecock is a GREAT golf course, but, playing NGLA is perceived as preferable by the majority.

I think it's difficult for you and TE to see that because you're too close to SH[/color]

Pay attention to Tom's hole by hole analysis and all will be clear and you too will turn from the dark side  

I'll say it again, SH is a world class golf course.
But, for play, day in and day out, NGLA tends to get the nod from most golfers.  It's more fun, subjective as that may be.

You certainly can't go wrong playing either, or both.

[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Are there more unique greens in golf than the 1st, 3rd and 6th ?"

Uh, yes.  Among many as or more unique


Can you name them ?[/color]

Boys, don't let GCA's resident grammar nazi catch you misusing 'unique' like that! Something either is, or it is not.

Now, carry on.

[wsmorrison]

"Shinnecock is a GREAT golf course, but, playing NGLA is perceived as preferable by the majority."

And that proves what, exactly?  You say the majority prefer NGLA. Hmm...I'd like to see the results of that study. Just when was that rigorous research process completed?  Of course that must mean... well, Jeez, I have no idea.  It is more fun?  It is a more sophisticated architecture?  Please, I'd like to know just what your statement means.

"And, the greens only look man made from behind the green, and not from the golfer's eye view."

Are you sure about that?  I don't think so at all.  Not only do the greens look manufactured, the bunkering does as well.  The whole course seems manufactured except the mid-bodies of the holes, bunkers excluded.  That doesn't make it a bad course but it is an architectural style that is not very sophisticated in appearance.  There is no tying in to the natural surrounds or distant lines and features.  It is early architecture and fascinating.  But it is not the zenith of American architecture by any means.  It lacks naturalism thus it lacks a pastoral sense and connection to the land and nature.  It is the greatest architecture of its kind.  Its kind isn't the greatest architecture.  In my opinion.

"You certainly can't go wrong playing either, or both."

I agree with you on this point.

[TEPaul]

"I think it's difficult for you and TE to see that because you're too close to SH"

Patrick:

As you know I love NGLA. This isn't a comparison between the two courses, it's an analysis of the Shinnecock's architecture which is clearly very different from NGLA's.

[JESII]

TEP


How would you describe #2 for a player incapable of carrying the ball 150 yards?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
How would you describe #2 for a player incapable of carrying the ball 150 yards?"

Sully:

I'm not sure I know how to answer that. Do you mean from the tips? Maybe there's enough fairway in front of that green to play it to and go from there but I'm not sure about that.

In the attempt to go through each hole I think I should probably skip over #3 because it's one I didn't really analyze very carefully the other day. I don't know what it is from the US Open tees, maybe 485 yards or something and I had to play it like a short par 5. For the good and long player it clearly has a bit of a turbo boost area in the fairway pretty far out there that can sure reduce the distance of the second shot for the long set.

The green on this hole is something of an engima to us design attribution-wise. It may be an original Macdonald/Raynor green or it may be one that Flynn redid in the same place. It's also a green that is agronomically problematic for some reason.

Personally, it looks like one of the least complicated greens out there but maybe I didn't notice enough. I don't know what it's like if you overshoot it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Shinnecock is a GREAT golf course, but, playing NGLA is perceived as preferable by the majority."

And that proves what, exactly?  

Others mentioned their preference and you took exception.
I merely described WHY they might prefer NGLA.[/color]

You say the majority prefer NGLA. Hmm...I'd like to see the results of that study. Just when was that rigorous research process completed?  Of course that must mean... well, Jeez, I have no idea.  It is more fun?  It is a more sophisticated architecture?  Please, I'd like to know just what your statement means.

It means that in over 40 years of discussions that I've been privy to, from a wide variety of golfers, that the great majority of golfers who have played both, expressed an opinion that on a day in and day out basis, that they prefered NGLA.[/color]

"And, the greens only look man made from behind the green, and not from the golfer's eye view."

Are you sure about that?  

Pretty much.[/color]

I don't think so at all.  Not only do the greens look manufactured, the bunkering does as well.  The whole course seems manufactured except the mid-bodies of the holes, bunkers excluded.  That doesn't make it a bad course but it is an architectural style that is not very sophisticated in appearance.  

We disagree.[/color]

There is no tying in to the natural surrounds or distant lines and features.

I'd disagree with that as well.
Many greens transition seemlessly from the fronting fairways and tie into the surrounds quite well.[/color]

It is early architecture and fascinating.  But it is not the zenith of American architecture by any means.  

It's certainly passed the test of time with the original version  remaining more intact than the original version of SH[/color]

It lacks naturalism thus it lacks a pastoral sense and connection to the land and nature.  It is the greatest architecture of its kind.  Its kind isn't the greatest architecture.  In my opinion.

Again, we disagree.[/color]

"You certainly can't go wrong playing either, or both."

I agree with you on this point.

Yes, I know.
The other points will take years for you to find agreement with me. [/color]

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Apparently there are a lot of roots and organic matter under the green.  Didn't the two assistants we talk to mention they took core samples and they were similar to the other greens in terms of construction?  I cannot remember with certainty nor can I remember what Mark said.  What is your recollection?

Pat,

We'll have some fun conversations about this when you get down here.  But lets stick to a discussion about the architecture at Shinnecock Hills on this thread, if you please.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I think it's difficult for you and TE to see that because you're too close to SH"

Patrick:

As you know I love NGLA. This isn't a comparison between the two courses, it's an analysis of the Shinnecock's architecture which is clearly very different from NGLA's.

I'd agree with that.

However, Wayne asked for reasons as to why some, if not most, prefer NGLA over SH.  I was merely trying to provide him with some architectural reasons, which, I feel are valid.

I think both courses are quite different from one another, as is Sebonack.  I"m anxious to play Southampton, another golf course contiguous to SH to see how it compares to its neighbors in architectural and playability terms.

Have you or Wayne played Southampton ?

What are your thoughts relative to SH and NGLA ?[/color].

[wsmorrison]

I think I know why some people prefer NGLA over Shinnecock Hills.  It has a lot to do with the width of the fairways and the size of the greens, actual and effective.  Of course many more players get to experience NGLA because of the many outings they have.  But it is an architectural style that appeals to a significant portion of the golfing population.  I think it is a wonderful golf course and club.  But it is of an era and a style that never really evolved nor embraced naturalism, certainly not to the degree of a MacKenzie or Flynn.

Tom and I took a quick tour of Southampton with Gene Greco.  There are some interesting holes there.  One in particular really stood out to me, it had a highly contoured fairway and ended up near Rte 27.  I cannot recall which one it is.  Gene is very knowledgeable on the subject.  You ought to go out there with him.  We got a very good 1930s aerial photo of NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton.  It is an important record.

I don't know how to relate Southampton to its neighbors.  It is tough company to keep and it doesn't fare at all well save a hole or two as it is today.  I don't think it ever did but I only know it from a 1 hour tour so I should reserve comment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think I know why some people prefer NGLA over Shinnecock Hills.  It has a lot to do with the width of the fairways and the size of the greens, actual and effective.

I think I alluded to that.
Width is golfer friendly, as is perceived width.[/color]  

Of course many more players get to experience NGLA because of the many outings they have.  

?[/color]

But it is an architectural style that appeals to a significant portion of the golfing population.

I believe it does.
I believe it wins the SH vs NGLA taste test, and, if you look at the blood lines of the clubs that emanated from CBM, SR and CB, they remain not only popular, but, well regarded by those who rate/rank golf courses.  And, they've certainly withstood the test of time.

So, again, YES, that style does appeal to a significant portion of the golfing population.

The holes, values and architecture remain appealing even though many are deemed replicas, templates of one monolithic design.[/color]  

I think it is a wonderful golf course and club.  But it is of an era and a style that never really evolved nor embraced naturalism, certainly not to the degree of a MacKenzie or Flynn.

So what, since when is embracing naturalism the ultimate goal of architecture ?

You forget that golf is a game, conducted on a field of play that is specially prepared for that endeavor.  And, in that context, CBM, SR and CB succeeded royaly.[/color]

Tom and I took a quick tour of Southampton with Gene Greco.  There are some interesting holes there.  One in particular really stood out to me, it had a highly contoured fairway and ended up near Rte 27.  I cannot recall which one it is.  Gene is very knowledgeable on the subject.  You ought to go out there with him.  We got a very good 1930s aerial photo of NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton.  It is an important record.

Gene has been kind enough to invite me to Southampton several times.  While I was willing, the weather wasn't.
I intend to get there this summer.[/color]

I don't know how to relate Southampton to its neighbors.  It is tough company to keep and it doesn't fare at all well save a hole or two as it is today.  I don't think it ever did but I only know it from a 1 hour tour so I should reserve comment.


I wonder how much is original and whether there was ever an attempt to disconnect the golf course from its roots.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

"I believe it wins the SH vs NGLA taste test, and, if you look at the blood lines of the clubs that emanated from CBM, SR and CB, they remain not only popular, but, well regarded by those who rate/rank golf courses.  And, they've certainly withstood the test of time."

Funny though.  The SHGC that Macdonald built only lasted 15 years.  That didn't stand the test of time very well.  Yes, the highway proposal had much to do with this but the course was so much improved and remains what it was meant to be 76 years later.  In fact, I'd say SHGC made a mistake in hiring Macdonald if Macdonald had no intentions of ever building a better course than NGLA as I have been told was his intention.  As for being highly regarded by those that rate/rank courses, you can allow them to dictate success and judge greatness, I'd rather not.  

I think we should stop comparing NGLA to SHGC on this thread for the sake of the point of this thread, namely the subtle difficulty of SHGC.  However, the difficulty at NGLA is more apparent and that is a point worth making.

Few Macdonald, Raynor and Banks courses are what they once were in terms of championship golf.  From what I have seen, they were not built with elasticity in mind, so that is a test of time that was not passed in terms of championship quality.  Elasticity has kept SHGC challenging for all classes of players from whichever tee they play.  Even when built, the multiple tees at SHGC offered a variety of play for all classes of golfers than the single tees of NGLA could.  Women enjoyed SHGC from the very start and still do today.  It is not too difficult a test of golf for all classes of players.  It is enjoyable difficulty, a hallmark of Flynn designs.

"You forget that golf is a game, conducted on a field of play that is specially prepared for that endeavor.  And, in that context, CBM, SR and CB succeeded royaly."

Gosh, you're right.  I completely forgot that    Actually, their courses are interesting to play but are not appealing to me from an aesthetic point of view.  You cannot change my mind yet I appreciate your argument.  So maybe we should get back to the SHGC concept.  The next question you ask starts to do that as SHGC is one of the most natural golf courses you can play.  Granted, the 7th is not, but Flynn had to fix that hole and that's what resulted    

"So what, since when is embracing naturalism the ultimate goal of architecture ?"

Naturalism offers a sense of peace and harmony; a pastoral retreat.  The architecture is enhanced when it blends into the immediate and distant surrounds.  When combined with outstanding strategy through the green and the greens themselves (which are usually more subtle resulting in a longer learning curve) then the golfer is closer to nature and further from the man-made.  That is a more pleasing aesthetic to me.  It doesn't have to be to others.  Aren't you at all curious why MacKenzie, Colt, Flynn, Thomas and others evolved a natural style far from the prevailing steeplechase golf and Macdonald and especially Raynor and Banks did not?  Do you think that Raynor not being a golfer had a lot to do with template designs and a lack of originality?  They may have worked on some sites, but his dedication to it is unusual on others.