Ballyneal or Sebonack

[Adam_Jessie]

I was lucky enough to play Ballyneal last week, and I have to say that it was one of the best golf experiences I have ever had. I think that it would be tough to find a more "Raw" golf experience. In a time when memberships want a ball washer on every tee, 3-5 bunker rakes on every bunker, 3-5 sets of tee markers on every hole, and god forbid a round without a cart. Ballyneal has done the opposite. It seems that Ballyneal has figured it out.

My question is,  with both of these projects completed at roughly the same time has anyone played both courses, and more importantly has anyone determined which one is better. I have been to Sebonack several times and it is one hell of a golf course, some of the most outstanding views on a golf course (of the water and other golf courses) in the country. With that said I think what Ballyneal brings to the table with its lack of view carries a lot of weight in this argument.

Let me know what you think.

[Jim Franklin]

I have been fortunate enough to play both and I loved them both, but if I had to choose, I would go with Ballyneal. Like you said, it is raw golf and just plain fun to play. The fairways movement is awesome and the greens were terrific.

[John Kirk]

I have played Ballyneal many times and Sebonack twice.  It's impossible for me to make an unbiased comparison.

I like both places very much.  Sebonack's short holes are less compelling than its par 4 and 5 holes.  Ballyneal's sandy soil makes it a rare commodity in American golf.  Both clubs offer a great overall golfing experience.

Adam,

While the Ballyneal experience may be "raw" in some respects, we are proud how the grass filled in this year.  Playing conditions this fall have been great.  The bunkers have matured beautifully.

[Tom_Doak]

To me, people's preference between these two courses will depend  entirely on how important they believe "championship" difficulty is as a deciding factor.

For those who think only courses which can host championships can truly be considered great, Sebonack will win out.  For others, Sebonack is so difficult and Ballyneal so much fun that the calculation will come out the other way around.

When John uses the phrase "not as compelling" to describe the par-3's at Sebonack, he obviously doesn't mean they aren't hard enough.  Taken together they are one of the hardest sets of short holes I've ever played, and since most people seem to choose very closely guarded targets as "great" par-3's, I suspect many would find them more compelling than John did.

[John Kirk]

Tom,

I actually nominated Sebonack as an honorable mention selection for toughest par 3s in that thread about 10 minutes after making my first post here.

I do not find Sebonack's par 3s as enjoyable as its long holes precisely for this reason.  I played the course in a strong wind, 15-25 mph, and felt the greens were too small and too well guarded to hit in those conditions.  I may have mentioned this to you before.

In general, I'm a big greens guy.  I like big features.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AdamJessie,

In what context do you frame the word, "better" ?

Why is there a need to pit one against the other ?

Both are reputed to be excellent golf courses.
Isn't that what's important ?

The par 3's at Sebonack are difficult to very difficult, depending on hole location, length and wind.

Which is better, Shinnecock or National ?

Both are superb golf courses that anyone would be content to play, day in and day out.

I suspect that the same is true of Sebonack and Ballyneal.
From the back tees Sebonack is a very challenging golf course, but, there's no mandate as to which tees a golfer has to play.

[wsmorrison]

"Which is better, Shinnecock or National ?"

Come on, Pat.  That's too easy,   That's like asking who was a better architect, Macdonald or Flynn.  There ain't no bout adoubt it!

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Wayne Morrison-

I am aware of your take on Flynn and Shinnecock.

I gotta ask you though--Which course do you have more FUN playing?

(sorry to jack up this thread)

[wsmorrison]

MSS,

I have fun playing both courses.  I'm not trying to evade your question, they are two masterpieces.  Shinnecock Hills has an advantage in that it was finished almost 20 years after NGLA so it is no surprise that it is more advanced in addition to having the benefit of a designer that foresaw the future of golf better than most and designed in elasticity. The elasticity in its layout and its design has stood the test of time better than NGLA. When the green expansions are completed, the course will be even better.  Long lost strategies and demands will return and make the course even more interesting.  However, to answer your question, I enjoy the naturalism and greater sophistication of design at Shinnecock Hills more so.  However, NGLA is among my favorites.  

I recognize that a great many golfers like the internal contours and the manufactured green sites of NGLA.  They are more overt and in many ways easier to accept than the subtle interplays of slopes and the harder to discern demands of Flynn courses.  Shinnecock Hills takes into account the wind in a far more advanced way than NGLA with triangulation and other elements that make it more interesting.  Given the land available to Macdonald, it is curious to consider what land he chose and avoided.  

The tradition of Shinnecock Hills as a non-relenting brutal test of golf is a myth.  It is an excellent example of enjoyable difficulty.  Shinnecock is playable for all classes of golfers, anyone who says differently doesn't understand the course well enough or is repeating a party line without an informed opinion.

[Gene Greco]

The tradition of Shinnecock Hills as a non-relenting brutal test of golf is a myth.  It is an excellent example of enjoyable difficulty.  

I agree with Wayne's statements 100%.

Shinnecock is truly a joy to play...and believe it or not so is Pine Valley.

[Pete_Pittock]

I can only speak about Ballyneal. IMO it had the second best set of greens I have ever played, behind only Crystal Downs.
A slight error in judgment or execution and you go from licking your lips to licking your wounds.

[wsmorrison]

"I agree with Wayne's statements 100%.

Shinnecock is truly a joy to play...and believe it or not so is Pine Valley."

I agree with Gene's statements 101%  Pine Valley is a lot of fun.  If you stray into the wastelands, you really have strayed and it is easier to accept such punishment.

Looks like we'll be visiting Southampton pretty soon.  I'll let you know and hope we can get together.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Wayne-

Thanks for the reply.

I will disagree with you and argue the FUN aspect of National. I do not know enough about architecture, or the architecture of both courses for that matter to argue the merits with you.

I do think I am able to judge fun pretty well.

I just feel National offers you many different types of golf shots. Regardless of the manufactured.....

When I hit the desired shot, or hit the desired angle, I want to jump up in the Air like Jordan in the playoffs.(i guess i get this from my other sports)

I don't think you get that at Shinnecock. (as much)

I do think Shinnecock is a better Championship course.
So what matters most--fun or test of golf? Is it the mix of both?

There's a golf course on a little island not far away from Shinnecock and National that gets me most on the FUN factor, and golf shots---and it ain't Fishers Island.  

Wayne--you mention that Shinnecock is finished 20 years after National--While I got you here-

Do you think Shinne would have played as big a role in Womens golf if it was established with Flynns course?

(again sorry to jack this up)

[jeffwarne]

Mike,
Don't give my secrets away

Shinnecock is fun also-and if you need birdies for fun , play the white tees.

And if they held a Major Championship at National, why wouldn't it be worthy? (I'm sure they could get Rees to build a few back tees-elevated of course)
The Masters once was the "funnest" course of the Majors and it seems a few worthy champions were crowned there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

You forget that NGLA remains the real deal, in it's original form, whereas, SH has had a few facelifts and makeovers  

Interesting comment about the land.

NGLA's present site was NOT CBM's first choice.
Land near or adjacent to the Shinnecock Canal was one of his early choices.

The land finally chosen had never been surveyed and was thought to be worthless..  It abounded in bogs and swamps.
Of the 450 acres available on the site that's now Sebonack and NGLA, the company that owned it agreed to sell CBM 205 acres.

Initially, CBM didn't want to build a golf course close too Shinnecock Hills, fate however, determined that he would build it about as close as you could get to SH.

CBM states that the land was impoverished and that soil and soil additives, to the tune of 10,000 loads, had to be added in order to get grass to grow.

Hence the choice of land may have been a default choice rather than a choice of the choicest property.  

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Jeff-

I never said that it was the birdies that made the fun factor go up.

I said it was the VARIETY of golf shots.

Why wouldn't it be worthy? Well I guess I just think that it would test the golfers ability better than National would.

Kind of like 'Lets see what you got'.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I was fortunate enough to play both this summer.  Both are extraordianry golf courses.  It isn't like choosing between NGLA and Shinny it is more like choosing between Sand Hills and NGLA.  If I had to cholls one to play it would be the one I am near.  Ballyneal is wonderful.  It may not be in the middle of nowhere like sand Hills, but for this eastern boy it is next door to nowhere at all.  The course demands good tee shots and very good shots into the greens.  The greens themselves require great imagination and touch.

Sebonack is a stunner.  It is hard to beat the views.  The par threes and fours are just wonderful, but what I like the most is the bunkering.

If I had to choose between them I would pick Sebonack.  Itis easier to get to for me.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne--you mention that Shinnecock is finished 20 years after National--While I got you here-

Do you think Shinne would have played as big a role in Womens golf if it was established with Flynns course?"

Probably not.  But, I don't really understand how that is meaningful.  It was designed for its time and beyond, not for any preceding era.  Women have enjoyed playing the club's course iterations since the beginning and continue to do so today.

Pat,

As I recall, CBM turned to Piper and Oakley for help after complete turf failure at NGLA.  They made the mistake of trying to grow grass on sand and completely unsuitable soils.  Piper and Oakley's advice was useful at Pine Valley several years before and the work that Flynn and Wilson did in rescuing the turf loss at PV was probably the remedy used at NGLA.

[Sean_A]

Pat,

As I recall, CBM turned to Piper and Oakley for help after complete turf failure at NGLA.  They made the mistake of trying to grow grass on sand and completely unsuitable soils.  Piper and Oakley's advice was useful at Pine Valley several years before and the work that Flynn and Wilson did in rescuing the turf loss at PV was probably the remedy used at NGLA.

Pat & Wayne

It was my understanding that sometime not too long after WWII, NGLA resowed many of the fairways with fescue in an effort to eliminate lush crab grass.  I expect the completion of the program would have taken several years.  By the late 50s the unwatered fairways were said to be as close to British links as possible in the US and that only a handful of courses in the country could make this claim.  

I don't know, but the greens were meant to be a bit unusual during this time as well.  There was no Bermuda, instead the the greens were made of quicker bent grasses which complimented the fescue fairways.

Can either of you shed any light on the above?  True, false or whatever?

Ciao  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

As I recall, CBM turned to Piper and Oakley for help after complete turf failure at NGLA.  

They made the mistake of trying to grow grass on sand and completely unsuitable soils.  

Piper and Oakley's advice was useful at Pine Valley several years before and the work that Flynn and Wilson did in rescuing the turf loss at PV was probably the remedy used at NGLA.

Wayne,

I think it may have been the other way around.

Work began on NGLA in 1907 and tentative play began in 1909.  By 1911 the course was hosting tournaments.

In 1912 Crump bought 184 acres that would become Pine Valley.  In March of 1913 he developed his site plan.

One would think that the soils at PV, SH and NGLA would be ideal for growing grass, but, CBM's reference to bogs and swamps sheds a different light on what the land at NGLA was like in its raw form.

Don't forget that golf and agronomy in America was in its infancy and that the climates at PV, SH and NGLA were vastly different than those in the UK.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

I'll check my notes, Pat and get back to you.  I think I may have mentioned the wrong course .  CBM made a pretty sizeable blunder at Lido, where he tried to grow grass on nearly straight sand.  Perhaps that is the course where CBM utilized the prior efforts of Piper, Oakley, Wilson and Flynn at Pine Valley.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

When I first saw National c. 1980 there was a fair amount of fescue on the outside edges of the fairways but more bluegrass and ryegrass in the middle.  The member I knew then said that in the seventies it really did play firm and fast like a links -- though honestly I think the standards were different then and it wasn't anything like, say, Bandon Dunes is now.

I don't know when the changeover was made but it would be surprising if they invested a lot of money in the club after WW II -- not many clubs did, anyway.

[John Kirk]

Beautifully hijacked thread.  You've even got Tom D. talking about The National.

I like Ballyneal better.

 

[Daryl David]

Reversal! Two points for Kirk!  

[Adam Clayman]

I liked Tom D's answer. Although he forgot to include the pinnacle of gca analyitical tools. Proximity to Tommy Williamsen's location.

I'm also severly biased but based on sheer dollars spent and membership number$, Sebonack is 10 and 20 times better, respectively.