[Ed Oden]

Ed Oden:

You are some photographer. It's not just that your shots are technically good, you have a real sense of position and perspective on a golf course. The only thing I wish you'd done is take two progressive shots of the 10th green from the top of the fairway and one from the bottom. A sense of that hole photographically needs that.

Tom, thanks for the kind words.  But you are giving way too much credit to the photographer.  At Shinnecock, the pictures literally take themselves.  I do wish we had thought to take one from the bottom of 10.  Until I saw it, I had no idea how far uphill the approach is.  Kind of like the first time I saw number 10 at Augusta.  It doesn't matter how many times I saw that hole on TV.  Nothing could prepare me for how far downhill it is in person.

Ed

[Joel_Stewart]

Shinnecock is one of those few golf courses that always look great in pictures.

It's like a baby sleeping, so peaceful, a spectacular work of god.  But when that baby wakes up, and when you play Shinnecock, it will kick the shit out of you.

[Ed Oden]

Is there any chance a mortal player can reach in two (it looks to play uphill)?

Bart

16 measures 542 yds from the tips.  The snaking of the hole, probably takes off a few yards.  But the uphill nature certainly offsets it.  I can't remember how it played at the Open.  But I suspect the pros can reach it with little trouble.  For mortals it would take 2 perfect shots and some help from Mother Nature.  My duck hook into the tall grass was anything but perfect.

Ed

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Joel I agree 100% with you on the comparison of Shinny and National.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Oddly enough I have better scores on the harder course though.

[JESII]

FLAWLESS!

[W.H. Cosgrove]

While I found the fron very interesting the golf course absolutley blew me away on the back.  From the demanding tenth to the historic eighteenth, I don't think there is a weak shot.  

As a first timer, the intellectual and shot making challenges were enthralling.  I almost think the simplicity of the front sets the back up for the dramatic set of finishing holes.

I loved it!

[Brian Brown]

I have never played Shinnecock, but I walked it during the 04 Open and it was amazing.  I have had the opportunity to take a limited amount of photos since, and the course is a fantastic subject.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Why do I favor the 1938 configuration ?

Is it the extensive bunkering ?"


Nope, It's because you were in your 20's and the world looked bright...

JES II.

I thought I was in my teens.
It's been so long ago that everything past VJ day is just a blur.

The 1938 aerial that captures all three courses and the Sebonack property is quite stunning.  The bunkering was far more extensive.  Hopefully, all three courses will use the 1938 aerial as a guideline for restoration.

In viewing old aerials of Hollywood, NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC and others, the common thread is that the bunkering was far more extensive, both in the number and size of the bunkers.

It would be interesting to know what factors brought about their reduction.

What's not captured in the photos in the opening post is the ..... WIND.  It's what makes all of these courses take on an added life and dimension.[/color]

[JESII]

Understood Pat, we all understand that what you type is, at best, a blur...


I would guess a key factor in the "cleaning up" of the bunkers is the thought process of what a bunker represents...don't you think bunkers were supposed to require a full stroke just to get out of with little or no opportunity to advance the ball? In the pot bunkers of links golf this punishment was created by the steep walls in front of you...on the courses like Shinnecock, with their big open sandy areas I would guess (and only a guess) the penalty was created by a lack of maintenance...you almost always had a crap lie.

I think people (including you) think bunkers should be less penal than that today and as that thought process evolved so did the manicuring of bunkers...

[TEPaul]

"It would be interesting to know what factors brought about their reduction."

Well, then, Patrick, all you need to do is ask me politely and I will tell you!

[TEPaul]

When Flynn began at Shinnecock he initially did three nines and on one of them the present 14th hole was the 1st on one nine.

I think we put this routing sequence on here once upon a time but it's pretty damn neat as an alternative way to play the course.

Wayne and I call it Flynn's "Merion" routing sequence because the two par 5 come early like Merion.

Get this:

Front=#14,15,16,17,5,6,7,8,9
Back=#1,2,3,4,18,10,11,12,13

[Ash Towe]

Ed,
Thanks very much for sharing those wonderful photos.

It is always a pleasure to see great courses on this site.

[Bart Bradley]

Ok...so if we shouldn't compare NGLA to Shinnecock....


What does compare?  Is there any other course similar or even reminiscent?  If I never get to Shinnecock, where can I go that would capture some of its essence?

I eagerly await my options, but I am afraid you all might tell me that there is nothing else like it.

Bart

[TEPaul]

Bart:

I'd compare some of the well known and well respected courses done in and around Shinnecock's era----eg, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, Aronimink, Seminole etc.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

I'd compare some of the well known and well respected courses done in and around Shinnecock's era----eg, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, Aronimink, Seminole etc.

TEPaul:

Very interesting.  Pebble Beach and Shinnecock....I would not have thought the two were similar...From my experiences at Pebble and what I have seen on TV and in photos of Shinnecock.  Could you explain why you think my playing Pebble gave my a glimpse into the Shinnecock experience?

In other words, could you compare and contrast the two?

Bart

[TEPaul]

TEPaul:
Very interesting.  Pebble Beach and Shinnecock....I would not have thought the two were similar...From my experiences at Pebble and what I have seen on TV and in photos of Shinnecock.  Could you explain why you think my playing Pebble gave my a glimpse into the Shinnecock experience?

In other words, could you compare and contrast the two?"


Bart:

Sure. I think we can all see that a contrast is in many ways those courses look quite different for a whole host of reasons and that's certainly the most obvious contrast.

But to compare them I think we are looking for various things in architecture that are similar about them--ie angling, bunker and hazard arrangment and use, green shapes and dimensions and contouring and such..

The fact that they were both done in the very same era or years at either end of the country so both architects were clearly aware of the most important and interesting developments in architecture at that time puts both courses in a comparable timeframe too.

Both of them were pretty near the last word at that time for natural looking man-made architecture in two fairly disparate atmospheres.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

But to compare them I think we are looking for various things in architecture that are similar about them--ie angling, bunker and hazard arrangment and use, green shapes and dimensions and contouring and such..

The fact that they were both done in the very same era or years at either end of the country so both architects were clearly aware of the most important and interesting developments in architecture at that time puts both courses in a comparable timeframe too.

Both of them were pretty near the last word at that time for natural looking man-made architecture in two fairly disparate atmospheres.

TE Paul:

I agree that the contrasts are easy...can we explore the similarites any further...what specifically about the angles, hazard placements and greens is similar.

My first trip to Pebble I was in awe of the small size of the greens and the amount of contour placed in such a small square footage.  Is this the same at Shinnecock..are the greens that small?

What makes the angles of attack similar between these but so different from other or more "modern" designs....You are probably right but can we find a way to verbalize it?

The bunkers and hazards....same question..how are they placed that makes them similar and yet different from any other course I might play?

These are hard questions...but at the heart of them must lie the essence of great architecture

Thanks for your thoughts,

Bart

[TEPaul]

"TE Paul:

I agree that the contrasts are easy...can we explore the similarites any further...what specifically about the angles, hazard placements and greens is similar.

My first trip to Pebble I was in awe of the small size of the greens and the amount of contour placed in such a small square footage.  Is this the same at Shinnecock..are the greens that small?

What makes the angles of attack similar between these but so different from other or more "modern" designs....You are probably right but can we find a way to verbalize it?"


Bart:

My first and easy answer to your questions about what the similarities (comparisons) of Pebble and Shinnecock is would be I'm not really sure. I guess that needs to be developed with a lot of thought and discussion, even if we should all be ready for the conclusion and fact that there may not be easily identifable similarities or perhaps it doesn't even matter.

You say you were impressed by the small size of Pebble's greens?

I would be willing to bet you that they were not originally that small or that size as designed. I certainly know Pebble's #17 was once much larger than it is now. I know Shinnecock's weren't as small as some of them are now and we are in the process of recommending the expansion of some of them, hopefully back to original dimensions if that seems reasonable. A few already have been and it's clear to see why those that have been were originally designed larger than they eventually became.

But I think what we will find in a comparison of Pebble and Shinnecock is how natural their architecture and man-made architecture seems to be compared to many other courses not just that came before them but also from their own time.

[TEPaul]

Bart:

One thing I would say about Pebble and Shinnecock when they were designed and opened is they were wider than they are now in fairway area and acreage and probably to the tune of 40-50%. I don't know that that's even worth mentioning because so were almost all the courses of their era.

Actually how do you look at a percentage like that? I'm the complete opposite of mathematical. Those two courses probably had around 50 acres of fairway originally. Today neither may be much more than half that.

I think I understand that's a fifty percent decrease from original but if they were expanded back to original fairway acreage from what they are now wouldn't that be a 100% increase?  

[Bart Bradley]

TE Paul:

Interesting thoughts...but what I am getting at is:  "what about the experience of going to Shinnecock is or is not unique"  to that experience?  Can going to Pebble Beach make me feel/ have a golf experience that would be the same as playing at Shinnecock...I must say, of the great courses I have played, none specifically seem familiar or the same as any of the other greats.  Where can I go and play and (if I had played Shinnecock) I might say:  "Wow, that experience really reminds me of Shinnecock.

I did have some of that reminiscent feeling when I played Prestwick in Scotland...It had some of the majic I felt at Lahinch....

The truth is, I cannot go back and experience either Pebble or Shinnecock they way they were  ...so I am looking for a chance to get the essence of Shinnecock but at another course?  I wonder if its even possible?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Bart

[TEPaul]

"The truth is, I cannot go back and experience either Pebble or Shinnecock they way they were  ...so I am looking for a chance to get the essence of Shinnecock but at another course?  I wonder if its even possible?"


Bart:

So that's what you're thinking about when you mention similarity.

I don't know if that's possible with Shinnecock or Pebble and I can't even imagine why it would be. I know both of those courses pretty well and I don't think either of them exactly reminds me of somewhere else. Why would you think that would be important? The fact that it may not be just may make both of them as special as a lot of people seem to thing they each are.

Look at the subject this way Bart---if you go as far away from the contiguous border of NGLA and Shinnecock on either course you probably aren't much more than a 1000 yards away, so the topography and atmosphere isn't that different but nevertheless there you have two courses that are separated by over 20 years in construction that are just so different in so many ways but still considered to be great architecture.

What does that mean to you?

What does that mean to you?

[Bart Bradley]

TE Paul:

Why would I think about?  Maybe I will never get a chance to play Shinnecock...and I want to! That's why  

Bart

[Ed Oden]

TE Paul and Bart:

I do not see any meaningful comparables between Pebble and Shinnecock.  I know my thoughts on all this stuff are overly simplistic because I really don't know what I am talking about.  But isn't that what really separates the truly greatest of the great from the merely great?  Its not just that they are outstanding designs, but they are unique to the point of defying comparisons.  That's what makes Shinnecock, Pebble, PV, Cypress so special.  

Ed

[Bart Bradley]

TE Paul and Bart:

I do not see any meaningful comparables between Pebble and Shinnecock.  I know my thoughts on all this stuff are overly simplistic because I really don't know what I am talking about.  But isn't that what really separates the truly greatest of the great from the merely great?  Its not just that they are outstanding designs, but they are unique to the point of defying comparisons.  That's what makes Shinnecock, Pebble, PV, Cypress so special.  

Ed

Ed:

I think you are probably right...Wouldn't it be great if there were "a poor man's Shinnecock"...I think Doak has said exactly what you said in the past.  Shinnecock is beautiful, unique and amazing...

Bart

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()