[Carl Rogers]

A lot has been written that is does not live up to the rest of the course.  What is your opinion?  I have some suggestions how to vote.

Option A:  It is a perfectly good hole as it, leave it alone.

Option B:  It may not be the best hole out there, but given the property, the location of the 17th green and other practicalities, it is at least as good as the reasonably identifiable other alternatives.

Option C:  It is an absolute disaster and all stops should be pulled to create something new.  What would you do?

How do you vote?

(Given my ignominious flop on my last thread origination effort, I will wait a while before I vote)

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

That's E-Z for me to answer ...

Option "C"

BB has no really solid world class short par-4 (possibly driveable) -- the 18th could provide the stellar concluding hole that it so richly deserves. The present 18th is nothing more than a political compromise that shows itself to be a half-baked effort despite the best of intentions.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt, in your opinion, would the 18th hole beacceptable if it were say the 15th?

[Rick Sides]

I agree with Matt Ward.  Move that tee up as far as possible and let them try to rip it.  Those bunkers guarding the green can cause some problems.  Besides, that would be exciting to see if a few golfers are close together on Sunday if they would hit a driver or lay up with a long iron if the tee is way up.

[Anthony Gray]

  I agree with Matt. Great drama for the finish.

  Anthony

[Mike_Cirba]

C

[PCCraig]

It's not that great of a hole, but making the hole play shorter to give the longest hitters (Tiger/Phil) a shot at hitting at the green is just plain goofy golf.

So you make the hole 300-340? Fine, so now the longer hitters are taking a driver and hitting toward a green not designed to be attacked by drivers so you then have Tiger and Phil having their 2nd shots out of bunkers...wooooooo  While the rest of the field also has an easier time with the hole by hitting a long iron/wedge into the green (which 90% of the field would do).

For a course that already favors a long driver of the ball far too much, why make it even more of an advantage?

[Dean Stokes]

I'm giving it B. Not a great hole but not completely aweful. I like Pat's answer. I think there could be nothing goofier than having a driveable par 4 to finish this course - especially since it is hosting the US Open.

[Ross Tuddenham]

What about a new temporary tee in front of the green on the first hole of the red?

[Anthony Gray]

It's not that great of a hole, but making the hole play shorter to give the longest hitters (Tiger/Phil) a shot at hitting at the green is just plain goofy golf.

So you make the hole 300-340? Fine, so now the longer hitters are taking a driver and hitting toward a green not designed to be attacked by drivers so you then have Tiger and Phil having their 2nd shots out of bunkers...wooooooo  While the rest of the field also has an easier time with the hole by hitting a long iron/wedge into the green (which 90% of the field would do).

For a course that already favors a long driver of the ball far too much, why make it even more of an advantage?

  St Andrews?

  Anthony

[PCCraig]

It's not that great of a hole, but making the hole play shorter to give the longest hitters (Tiger/Phil) a shot at hitting at the green is just plain goofy golf.

So you make the hole 300-340? Fine, so now the longer hitters are taking a driver and hitting toward a green not designed to be attacked by drivers so you then have Tiger and Phil having their 2nd shots out of bunkers...wooooooo  While the rest of the field also has an easier time with the hole by hitting a long iron/wedge into the green (which 90% of the field would do).

For a course that already favors a long driver of the ball far too much, why make it even more of an advantage?

  St Andrews?

  Anthony

The issue isn't having a drivable par-4 18th at a major. The issue is having the 18th at BB play as one and if that makes it a stronger hole for the entire field.

BB is no St. Andrews.

[Anthony Gray]

  Pat,

 Understood. But I would like to see a birdie hole at the finish. I think one thing that hurts the hole is that the faiway is not framed. It looks like it is in the middle of nowhere.

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

I don't see the issue with shortening the 18th to make it a birdie hole.

St. Andrews comes to mind as well as the countless other layouts that end with a par 5 which adds to the drama of someone trying to get home in 2 vs. a safer layup and wedge approach. Is 18 at Pebble a crap hole now that its reachable for many in the field?  Aren't half par holes the ones that are most exciting to play?  And wouldn't it be refreshing if that half par was 3.5 instead of the typical 4.5 that 18th holes are "supposed to be" on Tour?

[PCCraig]

I don't see the issue with shortening the 18th to make it a birdie hole.

St. Andrews comes to mind as well as the countless other layouts that end with a par 5 which adds to the drama of someone trying to get home in 2 vs. a safer layup and wedge approach. Is 18 at Pebble a crap hole now that its reachable for many in the field?  Aren't half par holes the ones that are most exciting to play?  And wouldn't it be refreshing if that half par was 3.5 instead of the typical 4.5 that 18th holes are "supposed to be" on Tour?

I think the main issue is that the 18th at Pebble was designed to be a par-5 with strategies built into the hole while BB 18 was designed as a two shot par-4 with no thought of making it a drivable hole. Sure half-par holes are fun and interesting, but only if the renovation/design takes into account this possible strategy (I'm speaking for modern "championship" venues). The drivable par-4 17th at Oakmont comes to mind as a half par 4 that works in that it is easily reachable, but the bunkering and surrounds are severe enough that a legit risk is evident and a bogey from the greenside bunker is just as possible as from the middle of the fairway. If made shorter at BB, the 18th will turn into a hole where all the players will pump a drive into a bunker and make easy birdies all day long.... and that's not exciting, that's boring (and I love birdies at an Open as much as anyone).

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

The issue is not the 15th hole -- nice try on your part.

The issue is that the 18th HAS been changed significantly over the years -- so this compulsion to keep it PURE Tillie is just plain silly.

You mentioned some time ago about having ANOTHER long par-4 hole. That's exactly what BB DOESN'T NEED ! It already maxes out on the muscle side of things.

The 18th could be the enticing hole for those who are seeking an eagle finish to jump over others in the standing. For those who bitch and moan about providing some sort of additional bonus to the power drivers -- that's rubbish. The driveable par-4 needs to have a clear element of risk and reward. One without the other makes the hole meaningless.

The current hole is political compromise to the max and the architecture / nature of what BB is about -- is undercut in a big time way. You will see it differently but BB deserves far better.

Pat Craig:

I concur that left as is and simply moving the tee forward is not the answer. The entire hole needs to be reconfigured and frankly after the '02 event there should have been a serious movement to make this change. The 18th at BB is a bore -- no other word can more accurately reflect this reality. The cluster f**k of bunkers is preposterous as the key players wll not tempt driver when a 3-metal or even iron will suffice. The green is smaller than it was previously but it's still a boring complex devoid of anything seriously interesting.

The issue becomes one of creating what you mentioned in regards to the 17th at Oakmont. Make the driver to the green a tempting reality but not a give away. BB has three superb holes prior to the 18th -- it's the closer that needs to act like a real climax and summary on the day itself. Nothing would make that more exciting than to see a pure muscle course have such a short par-4 serve as its ending dynamic.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt, you COMPLETELY misunderstood the nature of my question.

The hole, as originally designed, called for a drainage pond at the base of the hill. This pond was to extend from the 1st fairway of the Red around to the 18th of the Green. So the hole was never conceived as any that would allow for a drive to the green. In addition, the cluster *** of bunkers, as you so elequently stated, were restored to the way the course was originally designed with that. There were 2 significant changes made for 2002. A new tee for added length and a shrinking of the green and enlarging of the bunkers surrounding it.

Like it or not, the USGA IS a finite resource and spent a quite controversial sum of money to restore the course.

Their are several problems with your idea of having a drivable par-4 on the 18th. First is that there is NO conceivable design that would make a blind, uphill drivable par-4 even close to being good, especially on that lad! Second, you are stuck on this idea of what you believe constitutes a world-class course and that it MUST have a great drivable par-4. Again, no matter what one would do, you simply could not design a "great" drivable par-4 on that land. So your solutiuon is a so-so gimmick?

There are actually several REALISTIC means of addressing this "problem" although, let me stress this, I am personally fine with the hole as it is. I've spoken to building 2 new tees. The first one would be to the right of the 16th fairway. It would mean a reasonable walk to it and from here the 17th would be played. The green would then be one that is deep and narrow, rather than todays, shallow and wide. The second new tee would be put in front of the existing 17 tee box and slightly keft. Now the 18th would play as a long dogleg of 480+ yards with a far more difficult drive placement.

Another option is actually the most simple... Begin play on the 2nd hole! After 14, what would then be 13, you finish in this order... 17 becomes 14 (yes, back-to-back par-3's), 18 becomes 15, 1 becomes 16, 15 becomes 17 and 16 becomes 18.  15 & 16 as the final two holes would definitely be challenging. Also, 10 would now be the 9th and on Thursday/Friday would be a real knee-shaker for those who were on the bubble of qualifying for the weekend...

But, as it is, in 2002 the 18th played OVER par, was bogeyed on Sunday by most in the final groups including Tiger, has a green that is perfectly placed for the fiscal necessity of stands, interviews and celebrating (sorry but that is a necessity).

Frankly, for all those who complain about the hole, what does their complaint REALLY boil down to? Isn't it that it is too EASY a hole? How can a hole that plays well over par in the U.S. Open be TOO easy?

The hole serves well... leave it alone...

[Bill Shamleffer]

B

Although I would be in favor of moving up the tee (345 yards) and to removing ALL rough from the hole resulting in a fairway of perhaps 40 yards wide (so that there is fairway to the far sides of all fairway bunkers, and no rough around the green.  This may create a variety of options for the players.  And who cares how easy the hole appears, playing the 72nd hold of a US Open will CREATE the difficulty.  Look at Winged Foot.

Under the current configuration, I expect that most of the field (>80%?) will use a long iron/hybrid from the tee and then a short iron to the green.  Other than those who screw-up the tee shot, most of the field will play the hole the same way.  This will be different from the 18th at St. Andrews where some will try to get to the green from the tee, some will go straight but short of the green, and others will then play far left.  And then there will a variety of different ways the approach shots will be played (bump-and-runs, full wedges, knock downs shots, putting, etc.).

Of course the problem with this concept is that it may be very odd to play 17 holes of tight fairways, and then expect the players to suddenly change their approach from a very controlled game to a high risk wide-open game.  Due to the oddity of the difference my proposal would create between the first 17 holes and the final hole, I think just using the very front tee and leaving all else as is, may be the better alternative.

[Phil_the_Author]

Bill,

I personally witnessed someone drive the 18th green from the lower front tee back in 1988...

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Let me restate what I said previously because you seem to be confused by what I stated -- I don't see history as being a mandate that we cannot change things -- provided the change that's brought about is a clear improvement. RTJ did make such clear positive improvements to ANGC with the added tee box at #11 and the new playing angle, bunkers and green area for #16, to give you one example of what I am speaking about.

Phil, once again you play the defender of the realm role.

A few retorts are in order ...

Phil, read my lips -- the 18th at BB is a BORING HOLE. The issue is not stroke average -- it's about design elasticity and the 18th doesn't have it. It's simply cruise control 3-metal or iron off the tee and then mid-to-short iron to the green. Where are the key decisions for such a hole ?

Phil, you are hung up on fulfilling Tillie's design plans -- I am intent on creating a better hole that balances out what BB provides. The course overdoses on the demand feature of length and difficulty -- and I say that as a golfer who doesn't mind facing such obstacles when playing. But, BB is simply missing a gift horse in creating a finale hole that can cement the total picture when playing there.

Please help me stop laughing -- Tiger could well afford a final round bogey because the win was in the bag. Don't for a NY minute believe if needed Tiger could not par the hole.

Phil, when we are talking about $$ -- My God the '02 event was a financial windfall. The State of NY has easily reaped the benefits of the event with added revenues that have come since the playing of the '02 event. Making a better 18th hole would not break the bank by any means -- using the poverty argument is not applicable.

Let me mention since you said about course logistics -- the celebration, interviews, et al -- if the USGA can have a par-3 closing hole at Comgressional -- a hole that was not used previously for the '64 event -- then I see no reason why a complete change is made for the closing hole at BB. There's more than enough room to handle what is needed for the post event elements.

You also state some sort of 1000% belief -- I didn't know you are schooled in course design to make such a DEFINITIVE statement that such a driveable hole would "even (be) close to being good. Really? How do you make that leap?

Forgive me -- I get it - it's better to have a lame hole which has been altered a number of times but yet still provides nothing of real consequence as a closing hole to a course that features three spectacular holes that come before it. You argued previously that BB should have ANOTHER mega monster par-4 as a closer if the present 18th is not acceptable. That makes wonderful sense -- more muscle on top of the already too much muscle that is there.

Phil, you state CONCLUSIONS no such driveable hole can be created. Maybe for you it cannot be done but given the right brainpower -- no disrespect to Rees -- but I'm quite confident other architects of note could do such a thing.

Phil, just realize this -- I love BB -- my thoughts are not gimmicks but adding to the dance card what BB doesn't have right now.

Your thoughts on reconfguring the course is unnecessary and frankly bizarre. One of the most thrilling of shots at BB is the standing on the 1st tee perched high above the fairway -- it gives you a complete look at where you will be headed for the rest of the day. The 2nd hole is completely lost as the starting hole -- think of the logistical issues not alone the fact that the present 2nd hole is inferior as a starter when weighed against the present first hole. Also, the 16th is a fine hole -- for where it is positioned now. Your other idea to have the 18th be played as 480-yd monster hole is also overkill. BB has PLENTY OF SUCH HOLES. Got it. What it doesn't have is a short par-4 that provides thrills that can shape major decisons before pulling the trigger.

Bill S:

The 18th at WF is a muscular par-4 of 460+ yards. To throw that hole into the mix and lump it in with the 18th at BB is not an apples to apples comparison. I don't doubt there is pressure for a finishing hole at any Open -- however, the 18th at BB -- is a boring and empty closer for such a course and event.

Bill, BB would be better served with some original thinking that goes beyond the political compromises one sees today with the 18th. It is a boring hole and the cluster bunkering concept is laughable because the smart players will never bring them into play as they stand now.

A legitimate risk/reward finishing driveable par-4 would not be out-of-place -- my God, the USGA had the US Open conclude on a par-3 when they last played at Congressional.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

I get a kick how you can tell Bill that what is needed is "some original thinking that goes beyond the political compromises one sees today with the 18th..." Like my suggestions or not, they certainly are original and definitely fly in the face of the "political compromises" to which you refer. Yet you also state that my reconfiguration of the course is "unnecessary and frankly bizarre": i'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Once again we'll have to passionately agree to disagree about 18! 

One area, though, where you do need correcting, is your udnerstanding of the finances of the park. You stated, "My God the '02 event was a financial windfall. The State of NY has easily reaped the benefits of the event with added revenues that have come since the playing of the '02 event. Making a better 18th hole would not break the bank by any means -- using the poverty argument is not applicable..."

Yes it was, but not for the State of New York. The park revenues went DOWN that year because of how long the courses were closed for. Since then the rates on the Black have been raised, significantly for out-of-towners, but so have the costs for operating the facility. In addition, the number of rounds available at the higher rates have been lessened on a daily basis with the time between tee times having been lengthened.

So where has all this extra money that you believe has been raised gone to? Why back into the entire facility for one. The RED course has had a dramatic amount of money poured into it since 2002, so much so that the USGA could offer a U.S. Amateur to Bethpage with the Red as the 2nd course. Why did they turn it down? Money! The cost to Bethpage to close all 5 of the courses for several weeks is tremendous and not something that the State is willing to do.

In addition to the Red course, the other three courses have all had their maintenance budgets increased and so the conditions on the others have dramatically improved as well. Will this continue? There are some within the State government who would like to cut back on the maintenance budget now enjoyed at bethpage and divert these funds elsewhere within the state. Hopefully this Open will be another huge PR success for the State of New York and that thinking will once again be quashed...

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Thanks for your comments as defender of the realm ...

My retorts to your last post ...

My statement on political compromises tie specifically to the 18th -- what was done there was to slap some make-up and leave the basic boring premise in place? Of course, you then had the cluster f**k of bunkers that serve no real purpose accept for eye candy element. The political compromises simply have done plastic surgery to a failed outline of a hole and it has not worked. Phil, as defender of the realm -- with all due respect tied to the 18th hole -- you are more of a PR flak for BB on that specific issue than a serious critic.

The routing you mentioned is nothing less than bizarre. The original 1st is fine for the starting hole it now occupies. In fact, to bolster my case -- you admit the 18th is a weak finishing hole since your "new" routing would have it as the 15th hole buried in your "new" set-up.

C'mon let's be serious -- no doubt the revenues went down for the '02 year -- daaaaaaaaa -- that was the year the Open was played there. The cash cow situation has happened since that time -- fees were raised and the $$ is there. Phil, time to wake up and smell the coffee -- the USGA could also have easily asissted in making some bold changes to one hole. If the $$ was there for the 9th, 14th, et al, then $$ could have been there for the 18th.

Phil, you make it sound like Bethpage is undergoing true poverty and can't afford a thing. No doubt there are pressures from outside sources -- the ongoing saga being waged in Albany now is proof positive at how poorly served NY is with its state government. I certainly don't want to see funding be slashed but the scare tactic as tied to impropvements at #18 is overblown on your part. The 18th is a dud of a hole and it undercuts what BB provides prior to that point -- especially the preceding three holes. Other courses of high caliber have made needed improvements and little, if anything, has been held against them for doing so.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Bill S:

The 18th at WF is a muscular par-4 of 460+ yards. To throw that hole into the mix and lump it in with the 18th at BB is not an apples to apples comparison. I don't doubt there is pressure for a finishing hole at any Open -- however, the 18th at BB -- is a boring and empty closer for such a course and event.

Bill, BB would be better served with some original thinking that goes beyond the political compromises one sees today with the 18th. It is a boring hole and the cluster bunkering concept is laughable because the smart players will never bring them into play as they stand now.

A legitimate risk/reward finishing driveable par-4 would not be out-of-place -- my God, the USGA had the US Open conclude on a par-3 when they last played at Congressional.

Matt,

I very much agree that 18 at Winged Foot is a much harder and better hole than 18 at Bethpage Black.  I only referenced 18 at Winged Foot as an example of how the best can screw-up what should not be an overly difficult situation for their skill level.  For instance, Monty practically had his 1st major championship in his back pocket.  A 7-iron from a fine lie in the fairway should not result in missing the green by anyone in the top 500 in the world - other than that shot has to be played on the 72nd hole of the US Open.  This mis-hit was not due to any of the architecture greatness of Winged Foot; it was due to US Open pressure.



The 18th at St. Andrews Old Course is a perfect hole.  However, I doubt it could be repeated on any great course and result in being as wonderful as it is at St. Andrews.  It is a great example of how simplicity can still achieve architecture success.  However, many of the things that makes 18 at St. Andrews so good, or consistent with the other 17 holes at St. Andrews.  Therefore, although I think 18 at Bethpage Black could be a neat hole without any rough and played at only 350, I also think that those conditions would be so inconsistent with the prior 17 holes as to result in being a complete failure.

My opinion is that sometimes an 18th hole will not be great, but it should at least be quite good if the course is to be very good or great.  There are a few similarities between the 18th at Bethpage Black and the 18th at St. Louis C.C.  St. Louis's 18th is 410; Bethpage's 18th is to be 411 for the US Open.  The 2nd shot at St. Louis is slightly uphill (although the fairway also has some side-hill slant).  18 at St. Louis is better in my view due to the green is fronted by a very deep bunker (almost 10 feet deep, that is quite narrow but long so that it fronts the entire green).  In addition St. Louis's 18th has no fairway bunkers.

I think the multiple fairway bunkers on both sides are what most weaken Bethpage Black's #18.  I think a single deep fairway bunker (similar to some of the other fairway bunkers but smaller & deeper) on the right side of the fairway at about 265-270 would make the whole very interesting.  A pro with a lead would rather tee off on the 72nd hole with a fairway metal, so the bunker would either make him want to try to drive past the bunker with a driver (thus having to use a more difficult club), or try to be VERY careful not to allow the preferred fade to leak a bit to the right into a bunker too deep from reach to reach the green.  Now the tee shot may require more strategy, and now the hole may be played in a variety of different ways by the field.

[Michael Dugger]

M Ward,

Once again, yer as dense as pound cake.

You stated that you thought as an 18th hole, the 18th at BPB was a poor choice, option, golf hole etc...

So Philip asked you whether or not you felt if the current 18th was instead the 15th, would that be better.

I surmised Philip also meant would the 18th at BPB be a good hole as any other hole on the course other than 18, be it 15, 14, 13, 12 etc etc etc....

So answer his question.  If it was not the 18th would it be acceptable?

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Dugger:

The 18th is a boring hole IMHO -- it would still be boring whether it was the 5th or 13th hole -- it's even more boring when it's located in the closing role function.

The issue is trying to provide a closing statement that adds to the qualities of the course -- the existing 18th doesn't do that -- in actually lowers the overall qualities of the layout in my mind.

[Jay Flemma]

B.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()