Bethpage Black is not a great course

[Nick Ribeiro]

Mark, It's good you brought Phil into the discussion, someone needs to save you.


I'd ask you, what besides width did Rees "bastardize" in your opinion?
What was so riveting about the design pre Rees?
Is there anything about the course you think makes it "not great" other than width?


And now that we confirmed my previous post about you being #2 - Phil's opinion on width is obviously who you mimic now that your turning to him for support. So I would ask Phil - Is there good reason Bethpage should alter the original intent of the course for today's average golfers?


What was the average width of the fairways before Rees started consulting at Bethpage?
What is the average width now?
Can we find any information indicating the difference in driver accuracy between when the course was originally built and today?


Just wondering if the fairways are actually too wide? Should we maintain the intent of the founders or cave for Mark who just wants to hit it in the fairway?

[James Reader]

I’ve no skin in this game, never having played the course (and I confess Nick to not really understanding why you’re having such a go at Mark) but there’s an interesting set of aerial photos on Twitter comparing the fairways today with those in 1953.  I’m struggling to add a link, but @farrowgolf posted them originally last year and @linksgems commented on them yesterday. They suggest the average width is down from 52 yards to 30 yards over that time.

[Brian Finn]

Nick, the fairways are far too narrow, with the possible exception of when holding a major championship. The combination of fairway width(lack thereof) and deep rough make it one dimensional and far from the original intent. Aside from countless threads on this site outlining the reasons why this is bad (including views from active architects who know and love the black course), you can find commentary on various architecture related twitter feeds. There is near consensus in the gca community that the fairways should be widened. Phil Young is far from alone. Ryan Farrow has done some eye-opening comparisons with old aerials.

As someone who has played the course hundreds of times (back to ‘92 for me), and loves Bethpage intensely, I’d love to see the black course play wider and slightly less penal for the vast majority of time when not hosting a major.  And, i don’t support the cut even for majors, but if it must be that way, it should be for a limited time leading up to the event.

[Chris Mavros]

While I never played Bethpage Black in the 1990's, I enjoyed it immensely when I did play it a couple years ago.  I really didn't find the fairways to be narrow, and I'm a 14-15 capper.  The rough was not all that deep, yet certainly influenced lies.  As a mid (or high) handicap, I had a pleasant round and scored about 4 strokes higher than I typically do.  That had something to do with playing Engineers in the morning and running out of steam on the last few holes.  At no point in time did I feel the course was a brute, unfair, or boring.  I thought it was a great course and its revival has been great for public golf. 


I read both interviews by Phil Young that he did with Ran and a couple things stick out to me.  First, Tilly returned to Bethpage Red more than a half dozen times and made changes to the course.  One of his design philosophies according to Young is that he wanted to present a challenging course for the highly skilled golfer.  So can we say Tilly himself wouldn't have narrowed the fairways himself if he were alive today?   


Whether or not the fairways are too narrow though, my understanding has always been Bethpage Black was intended to rival Pine Valley in its challenge.  It was meant to be a brawny course, challenging acumen with the longer clubs.  To include heroic carries and a penal element.  I always thought the greens were a reprieve from the ardor of actually getting there, so the comment on putting is accurate, yet intended. 


So how do narrow fairways make it a "not great" course?  How did this narrowness suck the strategy out of the course?  Can anyone give specific examples?  We established that the corridors are wide, so you're able to draw, fade, hit it high, low, etc.  Those wide corridors give you shotmaking ability.  Really, the landing areas are what seem to be at issue.  Does being in the fairway 10 yards off to the right on any hole some how turn it into a strategic masterpiece?  Was Bethpage Black ever known as a strategic course?  Maybe so, but I have yet to hear anyone explain it.   


What I think gets lost nowadays is that strategy is simply a component of course design.  I enjoy strategic holes immensely but there are plenty of great holes that aren't strategic at all.  The Fifth at Pine Valley is one I can think of, or the Seventeenth at Sawgrass.  Unless we want to talk about placement strategy, in which case most holes fall under that.  I've said this before, but just because a beer isn't an IPA doesn't mean it's not a great beer.  The same holds true with strategy.  While I prefer strategic holes, I appreciate other styles of design and don't think I'd ever knock a course for not having a certain component.  For me, I always ask if the course is engaging.  That could and most often is with strategy, but could be through many other facets; challenge, temptation, penal, heroic, etc. 


With that said, there seemed to be many holes with options.  The Fourth is one that comes to mind.  There were different paths to the green, deciding whether to take on the middle bunkers, what line to approach the green, etc.  The Fifth lets you take on as much as you want off the tee for the approach (again options) while the Sixth has alternate paths to the green after the blind tee shot. 


I suspect when I played the course, the rough was kept fairly tame.  That's certainly one way to make the course more playable for the amateur (the other principle important to Tilly, accord to Young).  Apparently the course (whoever is in charge of this decision) wants to keep the fairways the same width that they are in for majors.  Maybe that's so guys like me can experience that same tournament condition.  I'm indifferent to it, but maybe there are others that want that same experience. 


At any rate, I disagree that Bethpage Black isn't a great course because the fairways are narrower today than they were in the 1990's.  I have yet to hear any clear reason why this would make the course bad, but I'm all ears. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm with Mark. I played the Black once, in the mid 2000s, and was unimpressed. It was difficult, and that's about the only thing I could say about it.

It wasn't difficult in the way that Oakmont is difficult. It was difficult for the sake of being difficult. It was just repeatedly bashing your head against a wall for five (plus) hours.

It's just about everything I don't want golf to be - guys playing a hard course so that they CAN get beat up. Playing tees too far back. Hack-out rough. Narrow fairways. Blockaded greens.

The course is rated highly because it's incorrectly attributed to Tillinghast (his influence is over-stated, often), and because they've had majors there. Before the first, it was actually pretty inexpensive to play, and it wasn't as crowded, I've heard.

Has Nick answered the question, Mark, about what he likes architecturally about the course?

[Nick Ribeiro]

I'm with Mark. I played the Black once, in the mid 2000s, and was unimpressed. It was difficult, and that's about the only thing I could say about it.

It wasn't difficult in the way that Oakmont is difficult. It was difficult for the sake of being difficult. It was just repeatedly bashing your head against a wall for five (plus) hours.

It's just about everything I don't want golf to be - guys playing a hard course so that they CAN get beat up. Playing tees too far back. Hack-out rough. Narrow fairways. Blockaded greens.

The course is rated highly because it's incorrectly attributed to Tillinghast (his influence is over-stated, often), and because they've had majors there. Before the first, it was actually pretty inexpensive to play, and it wasn't as crowded, I've heard.

Has Nick answered the question, Mark, about what he likes architecturally about the course?

You, as a pro should know better.... It is offensive to every rater out there that you, as a professional would suggest Bethpage is ranked where its at not by its merit but simply because its hosted tournaments and incorrectly attributed to Tillie. How does Golf Digest rate you? Is your ranking as an instructor with them incorrect? Golf Digest, Golf Mag, and Golf Week don't all magically pick the same course out of a hat for the top 50 in the country. It is a top 1% club and worthy of its ranking. For me the #1 Muni in the country.

I am a single digit and can hit the ball over 300 yards if I catch it. So I like Bethpage for its variety off and decision making demand off the tee. For me thoughtless golf is typically a course where nature has been slaughtered for open holes to promote green speeds that were never intended anyway. There is nothing forcing me to hit a draw or fade. It's just drive to anywhere 30-50 yards from the hole (doesn't even have to be my own hole) and then figure it out from there. Hole after hole after hole on all these classics. Bethpage forces me to think of my route to the hole before I even tee off. If the player isn't comfortable controlling the driver he's punished by stepping down to a more accurate club with a much longer approach to the green.

I am a lefty so from the tee: #1 requires a draw, #2 fade, #4 fade, #5 draw, 6 fade, #7 draw, 9 you finally get a break with the ability to spray a tee shot. #10 & #11 you have to hit a straight shot with traps on both sides, #12 fade, #13 draw, #15 &16 fade or fairly straight and #18 is an awesome finishing hole where you can hit a few different straight shots depending on club selection and self confidence. The way the round goes also can dictate what you do down the final stretch and confidence.

Then after that there is all kinds of decisions (mostly defensive decisions) you have to make with the approach shots as they are just as difficult. Why and when did a championship course become such a bad thing?

I understand this isn't the same game a 20 plus handicap would play who drives the ball 225 yards but there are other courses there for the average player. That's what is so great about Bethpage, plenty of variety for all. Golf does need to make the game easier for beginners and the ones technology can't help, but that doesn't mean there can't be a few courses out there for the better players. Especially the one that is in such high demand it requires you to go sleep in the parking lot to play..

[corey miller]

I guess this is why we have Golf Digest criteria and the other magazines.  To each his own and unlike Nick, I am not a good enough player to have any element of fun at Bethpage. 


And since I put no "value" on a course being hard my view/ranking of Bethpage will be considerably below Nick.


 I am not sure I would call it "naturalness" or perhaps it is just my aesthetic but a course that has eighty yard corridors looks stupid with 25 yard fairways.  My view and I will think less of it just for  that. Sorry, as long as that is the chosen maintenance it is not a great course IMO


And in that vain and something else that bothers me about the Black is that some of the hole corridors are fairly straight (15 as per my visit 8 years ago) with a fairway (the only place to be) doglegging.  Again repellent to my architecture sensibility. 


 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You, as a pro should know better.... It is offensive to every rater out there that you, as a professional would suggest Bethpage is ranked where its at not by its merit but simply because its hosted tournaments and incorrectly attributed to Tillie.

And yet… here we are, with BPB over-rated IMO. And not just mine.

How does Golf Digest rate you? Is your ranking as an instructor with them incorrect?

That's where you want to go? Truth be told they have no idea who I am or how good I am. They aren't out there watching me teach lessons. They aren't peering over my shoulder when I'm doing research or studying or reading PDFs of some papers, or asking me what I'm thinking about during a drive when I'm mulling some new drills or techniques or training ideas. They have no idea… and yet, I was on the Best Young Teachers in America list and I'm high on the Best in State list.

It is a top 1% club and worthy of its ranking.

Meh.

I am a single digit and can hit the ball over 300 yards if I catch it. So I like Bethpage for its variety off and decision making demand off the tee.

Decision making off the tee? Please cite some examples, because while I'm about in the same boat as you (+1 handicap, can swing 113), Bethpage is NOT about making decisions off the tee. 18, sure… though I hear that's been changed to eliminate the pinch point or something.

1 - Driver.
2 - Hybrid or 3W so long as it draws.
4 - Driver
5 - Driver up the right-hand side
6 - Driver over the bunkers.
7 - Driver up the right hand side bouncing to the left.
9 - Driver.
10 - Driver.
11 - Driver.
12 - Driver.
13 - Driver.
15 - Driver.
16 - Driver.
18 - Options!

Bethpage forces me to think of my route to the hole before I even tee off.

I legitimately don't have a clue what you're talking about here. You hit driver off almost every hole there, and what few doglegs exist don't require much of a curve. #1 might be an exception, but even that dogleg is gentle. The dogleg on 15, subtle as it is, is at 295 (uphill) and to a fairway that's 25 yards wide.

Then after that there is all kinds of decisions (mostly defensive decisions) you have to make with the approach shots as they are just as difficult. Why and when did a championship course become such a bad thing?

I didn't say "a championship course is a bad thing." I said Bethpage Black is severely over-rated and a boring, dull, beats-you-up-without-anything-like-Oakmont to give you.

You didn't answer the question: what, architecturally, is great about Bethpage Black? It's "hit driver to a narrow fairway" and then "fly it over bunkers onto a green" in almost every case. There's very little - to me - that's architecturally interesting about it.

Given the choice I'd play a thousand courses before I ever play BPB again.

Thrilling!

[Nick Ribeiro]

I guess this is why we have Golf Digest criteria and the other magazines. Bethpage is ranked top 50 in ALL major publications. To each his own and unlike Nick, I am not a good enough player to have any element of fun at Bethpage.  Kudos to you for admitting its just not the course for you.


And since I put no "value" on a course being hard my view/ranking of Bethpage will be considerably below Nick. The criteria is called Resistance To Scoring, its a real thing.


 I am not sure I would call it "naturalness" or perhaps it is just my aesthetic but a course that has eighty yard corridors looks stupid with 25 yard fairways.  My view and I will think less of it just for  that. Sorry, as long as that is the chosen maintenance it is not a great course IMO You disagree with 99% of golfers on what a good course is, but that's okay because you admitted you can not fairly critique the course given your inability to play it.


And in that vain and something else that bothers me about the Black is that some of the hole corridors are fairly straight (15 as per my visit 8 years ago) with a fairway (the only place to be) doglegging.  Again repellent to my architecture sensibility. Again personal preference but the view of the hole is more important to you then how the hole actually plays. Straight dog legs, I learn something new everyday...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You make a solid argument for Golf Digest having no clue what they are doing adding you to the list and not knowing who you are, at least the not knowing what they are doing part...

Save the insults. They make you look ridiculous.

If you knew anything about the Golf Digest rankings, for example, you'd know my peers to rate me. Golf Digest doesn't. Never mind that your approach from this angle is simply - apparently - a means for you to behave like an ass and insult, because the lists of top instructors don't have much of anything to do with how raters have rated golf courses. In fact, I'm NOT at a famous club (that's how some instructors make the lists), I make a point of not coaching a lot of Tour players (another way instructors will make the lists).

Yet, that's how Bethpage made the lists, IMO. By hosting majors and being associated a bit with Tillinghast.

Why you hitting so many drivers off the tee? The pros (tour pros) think start strategically thinking of entire hole from the tee, you should also, and more than likely teaching your students to do the same?

You really don't know much about me.

Why? Because it's a boring, difficult course where you hit a bunch of drivers. The fairways are about 25 yards wide, so if you're gonna miss a few, you may as well be further down there. Phil's pointed this out a few times - Mickelson - that long hitters have a bigger advantage in the U.S. Open because everyone's gonna miss fairways, but at least the long hitter is further down there in the rough (and has the swing speed to possibly play a better shot out of the rough).

Most tour pros will not hit anywhere near that many drivers this week. You make an even stronger case for Golf Digests incompetence putting you on that list.

Oh man, grow up buddy.

#1 is a Gentle Dogleg? Its an elevated tee box and you can not see the green. Gentle? We are talking about Bethpage Black here?

In the landing zone, sure. It's not like you can't hit a little draw or a lefty cut and be fine. Most of the guys on Tour just hit their one shot shape off the tee anyway.

Okay, you hate forced carries. Do you have good reason? Are you a senior? Can't fly the ball? google maps Pine Valley and count the forced carries, then tell me that place is worse.

When did I say anything about forced carries? I didn't.

So Bethpage does not crack the top 1000 for you?

Nope.

Cut the insults, Nick.

I think Bethpage - like the OP - isn't a great course. You feel differently. Cool by me.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Erik - After all that you stand by your claim that Bethpage Black is not a good course and there are 1,000 other courses in front of it FOR YOU. I can respect that.. Very Bold statement...


It would be unreasonable for me to ask you to list the 1,000 courses you have ahead of Bethpage Black so would you mind sharing maybe the your top 10 per 100 ? Im particularly interested in your 300-310 / 400-410 / 500-510 / 600-610 / 700-710 / 800-810 / 900-910... I will no longer insult you, I'd like to get a better understanding of YOUR great courses, especially after 200-300 and compare them to Bethpage Black..

[Mike Sweeney]

The trends of easier golf have taken the game away from single digits all over the world. Bethpage has multiple courses, why can't the better players have the black? People sleep in their cars to play it, where else does that happen? ?

I never slept in a car to play golf.    There is now an online tee time system, so I am guessing they keep a few walk up times for the legacy of the "Bethpage Inn" golfer.


There are a lot of assumptions in your statement, but I would just say that because there are 5 courses at Bethpage is the reason that there is The Black in the first place.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - After all that you stand by your claim that Bethpage Black is not a good course and there are 1,000 other courses in front of it FOR YOU. I can respect that.. Very Bold statement...

It's simply not a terribly interesting course. It was "long enough" and met the criteria (enough space around it, infrastructure, and a muni) that it got a U.S. Open at a time when the USGA was looking to go to a public course.


Where was Bethpage Black rated in 1996 on golf course ratings lists? Golf Digest had BPB rated #100 - it barely made the list. Then it was actually OFF the list entirely in 1999 and 2000, and returned at 46 before going to 30 the years before and after its first major. This alone gives weight to the idea that hosting a major greatly influences the position on the list.

It would be unreasonable for me to ask you to list the 1,000 courses you have ahead of Bethpage Black so would you mind sharing maybe the your top 10 per 100 ? Im particularly interested in your 300-310 / 400-410 / 500-510 / 600-610 / 700-710 / 800-810 / 900-910... I will no longer insult you, I'd like to get a better understanding of YOUR great courses, especially after 200-300 and compare them to Bethpage Black..

I'm not going through all of that trouble. I've stated my opinion on the course fairly plainly. In that thousand I'm saying I'd play courses I've never played - like Pasatiempo - before I'd play another round at Bethpage if given the choice between the two. BPB = been there, done that, broke 80, and didn't enjoy the pace of play or the architecture one bit.

[V. Kmetz]

I've got to stand up for Nick somewhat here both to the broad-strokes of the original post (which was meant to provoke) and the details since...


1. Bethpage Black is a stunning, rigorous and beautiful course, one that has been exhilarating and challenging to play since before it was tracked as a pro tournament venue... the people have been voting with their feet on this well before the industry sycophants got around to bringing the market bullshit to bear. In the 1980s and early 1990s, golfers were not waiting in line because it was on TV, or had journalism pieces written, or even because it was a Tillie...it was (from Day 1 I suspect) a bold audacious course that took the golfer over a rugged landscape with many dramatic views... it was tough, and you were likely to get beaten up, but it was almost a force of nature in some of its "monumentalness"


2. EB's breakdown of all the Drivers hit is flawed...I've played BB 20x and caddied on it in local professional events 40x... I've seen very few drivers on #1...many 3 woods on #4 and #9... I don't think I've seen ten Drivers total hit on #6... and if the wind is not howling in your face, most don't hit driver on #11...so EB's breakdown, which made it look like Driver was/is hit on all but 2 and 18 was not accurate, imo....


2a. ...and then the sparse comments about WHERE to hit those tee shots was a bit off too... the necessity to hit the fairway, or cleave to one side of a fairway was given short shrift...it was/is absolutely essential to be IN the fairway on #1 and #2 before or after 1997...they are almost "easy" holes from there and were/are terrors from the rough or out of position...the shape and effective length of the 4th fairway demands that you make a hole strategy from the moment you putt out on 3... the 5th absolutely can';t be played from the left half of the fairway (unless you're adept at hitting a 25 yard draw for an uphill 200+ shot)...#7 (whether played as a 500 yard 4 or 550 yard 5 is a veritable THESIS on strategic driving... cutting corners, shaping shots with the run of the fairway.


3. ... Most people criticize them or ubiquitously report they are flat, but I'm one to say I mostly admire the greens at BB and think they are an apt and fun set to play, almost singular in the Tillie canon (if his contribution extended to such detail) for their absence of the bumps, swales and impossibilities all over the place... this set is sublime, with many unbroken planes and smooth flowing contours... in particular I think 2, 7, 12, 16  deserve re-examination for their subtlety , while 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 17 carry the expected Tillie charms...however I will say that 3, 6, 9 and 13 are plain and uninteresting greens that could be on any ol muni.


4. Lastly, while it range(d)s to the unproductive and personal, I agree with Nick that we see the dilemma of citing Golf Digest when it bolsters a position and demeaning it when one want to be a free agent maverick from some hegemony that it holds... I do think it calls to mind the vacuous puffery of many honors, titles, certifications and systemic honors... and Erik I say this with the least amount of rancor possible, I think very few have ever thought better of you or your opinions more worthy, since the resume-esque tagline "GD Best Young Teacher" started appearing on your signature line... It feels like you're trying to validate what you have to say and then, in a case such as this, with BB not being in your Top 1000 (as opposed to GD's and many ratings' Top 50) it feels like you're biting the hand that gives you so little food to start with.


Bottom line... BB is a really terrific and memorable course, even if it has been altered as a better course for pros than it is for earnest amateurs. While I'd like the fairways widened, rough fescue grasses chopped and pro-bunkers removed, no one can deny that now, 25 years after it has become a thing, the playing grounds are on par with nearly any quality, F&F private experience I can recall and that is a delight for the local municipal player and the enterprising visitor who thinks he is up to it.  Truly, it is way too hard for a third of all golfers (to wit, I've almost never seen women, juniors or 70+ seniors play it), but so are many things...and it was that way when I first found it in bare, scraggly conditions in 1986-87.


cheers   vk

[Mike Sweeney]

Really great summary VK. 


Hope the rain stops soon!!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

On my phone so very briefly I wanted to point out that golfers aren’t “choosing sides” of narrow fairways. They’re merely trying to hit it.

And I don’t doubt your experience, but mine says amateurs are hitting driver on 430-yard holes. Even on 6 which is one of the few best chances to make a good score.

[corey miller]

Well at least we seem to have found a classic era course touched by the hand of Rees that has improved with his work. 

[Bill Raffo]

The scale of that golf course alone, makes it great.  Played it many times and have to say, am never as satisfied with a game of golf as I am when I have full control of the spin of the driver and split one fairway after the next out there. Unfortunately, that's not the norm and usually leave feeling beaten and frustrated.  That's the test and what makes it unique. It would depress me greatly if they mowed those fairways 30 yards wider and took down the sign.  Plenty of other places to get playability.  Bethpage Black is a test of ball striking. If you're not up for it, play the green.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Erik - After all that you stand by your claim that Bethpage Black is not a good course and there are 1,000 other courses in front of it FOR YOU. I can respect that.. Very Bold statement...

It's simply not a terribly interesting course. It was "long enough" and met the criteria (enough space around it, infrastructure, and a muni) that it got a U.S. Open at a time when the USGA was looking to go to a public course.


Where was Bethpage Black rated in 1996 on golf course ratings lists? Golf Digest had BPB rated #100 - it barely made the list. Then it was actually OFF the list entirely in 1999 and 2000, and returned at 46 before going to 30 the years before and after its first major. This alone gives weight to the idea that hosting a major greatly influences the position on the list. If someone wants to suggest Bethpage should be ranked #100 instead of top 50 I can understand that. The margin between 37 and 100 is very small. You lose me when you put it outside of 1000. I'd like to learn of just a few of the courses between 500-1000 that are clearly better than Bethpage.

It would be unreasonable for me to ask you to list the 1,000 courses you have ahead of Bethpage Black so would you mind sharing maybe the your top 10 per 100 ? Im particularly interested in your 300-310 / 400-410 / 500-510 / 600-610 / 700-710 / 800-810 / 900-910... I will no longer insult you, I'd like to get a better understanding of YOUR great courses, especially after 200-300 and compare them to Bethpage Black..

I'm not going through all of that trouble. I've stated my opinion on the course fairly plainly. In that thousand I'm saying I'd play courses I've never played - like Pasatiempo - before I'd play another round at Bethpage if given the choice between the two. BPB = been there, done that, broke 80, and didn't enjoy the pace of play or the architecture one bit. Pasatiempo pretty much makes all the lists. Golf Digest has it at 106, decimal points outside of the top 100. I have not played Pasatiempo but from what I have seen and read I would never argue it not being a top 100. Listing this course as better than Bethpage would be a good fair discussion, unless of course this is your example of a course you have ranked somewhere in the 500-1000 range? If that's the case I would also like to know what 500-1000 courses you put in front of Pasatiempo as well.

[Mike Schott]

Erik - After all that you stand by your claim that Bethpage Black is not a good course and there are 1,000 other courses in front of it FOR YOU. I can respect that.. Very Bold statement...

It's simply not a terribly interesting course. It was "long enough" and met the criteria (enough space around it, infrastructure, and a muni) that it got a U.S. Open at a time when the USGA was looking to go to a public course.


Where was Bethpage Black rated in 1996 on golf course ratings lists? Golf Digest had BPB rated #100 - it barely made the list. Then it was actually OFF the list entirely in 1999 and 2000, and returned at 46 before going to 30 the years before and after its first major. This alone gives weight to the idea that hosting a major greatly influences the position on the list.

It would be unreasonable for me to ask you to list the 1,000 courses you have ahead of Bethpage Black so would you mind sharing maybe the your top 10 per 100 ? Im particularly interested in your 300-310 / 400-410 / 500-510 / 600-610 / 700-710 / 800-810 / 900-910... I will no longer insult you, I'd like to get a better understanding of YOUR great courses, especially after 200-300 and compare them to Bethpage Black..

I'm not going through all of that trouble. I've stated my opinion on the course fairly plainly. In that thousand I'm saying I'd play courses I've never played - like Pasatiempo - before I'd play another round at Bethpage if given the choice between the two. BPB = been there, done that, broke 80, and didn't enjoy the pace of play or the architecture one bit.

Erik, I’ve played the Black course once, prior to its reconstruction. The bones were there but as anyone who played it then knows, it was a goat track in terms of conditioning. I suspect that’s why it didn’t rate higher.

[Nick Ribeiro]

I’ve no skin in this game, never having played the course (and I confess Nick to not really understanding why you’re having such a go at Mark) but there’s an interesting set of aerial photos on Twitter comparing the fairways today with those in 1953.  I’m struggling to add a link, but @farrowgolf posted them originally last year and @linksgems commented on them yesterday. They suggest the average width is down from 52 yards to 30 yards over that time.

Interesting. Lets assume @farrowgolf is correct and Rees Jones narrowed the fairways approx 42% which initially seems excessive, especially if you refuse to learn the reasoning behind the work. If you go to www.MilesOfGolf.com there was a study done that concluded driving accuracy has improved by 34% and driving distance has improved 26% between 1920s and 2009. Unfortunately nothing I found on that site between 2009 and 2019. I think we can all agree substantial improvement in both categories between 2009-present. There is further info at - [size=78%]https://practical-golf.com/modern-vs-classic-golf-equipment-tested-what-has-changed/[/size] which shows skytrak data results between a Persimmon Driver and a Titleist Driver. It's hard to gauge an exact difference between the 2 just because averaging 7 shots for the Persimmon really is not fair as the numbers are all over the board. Basically no consistency in the old clubs. The final result is that the new driver of today is approx 46% straighter then old clubs. There are a million articles online suggesting newer technology is up over 60% more accurate then old however these 2 listed sites have data behind them so I chose to use them as an example.


So if all above is true it looks like Rees Jones should really narrow the fairways another 5% if he intends on maintaining Tillies original intent making these changes to compensate for new technology. 5% really isn't all that much and Rees has stated in multiple interviews he keeps the original architects intention as a top priority. I think maybe the course as it stands now is a few years behind technology, or perhaps the data is slightly off and Rees has the course right where it needs to be for todays players with new equipment to experience the course the same way players did back in the day with old equipment.


Today's trend is ignoring the original tree plans that went with all these courses and having open fields with wide fairways. It's a good thing for beginner golfers and to keep average players interested. But Bethpage is one of the few courses left that has been improved to maintain the intent of the original designer and we shouldn't change that to accommodate beginners, especially considering the golf course was built to a degree of toughness and maintains that same degree almost a century later.


There are plenty of other courses out there to stomp all over and "bastardize" but Bethpage should remain restored and not redesigned for Mark and other beginners.

[Mike Sweeney]

There are plenty of other courses out there to stomp all over and "bastardize" but Bethpage should remain restored and not redesigned for Mark and other beginners.

1) Bethpage was never restored. It was modernized for the US Open I, more changes for US Open II, and some where along the way, they narrowed the fairways. I have no idea how many adjustments have been made to #18, but Bethpage is a continuing conversation.


2) I don't know Mark or you personally, but you are not being nice.


In golf, the customs and etiquette and decorum are as important as the rules of play.
Bobby Jones

[V. Kmetz]

Mike (and all),


You seem to have a fulsome experience of Bethpage on par with or better than my own, so I'm doubly glad you stressed this finer point...Bethpage was not "restored" but truly "modernized"...mainly re-grassed and re-drained with up to date technology (at the time and maintained since),


The route and tackle and broad strokes of the holes have not changed, Green contours have hardly changed (except for 11 and 14), but green margins were reclaimed and some surrounds expanded and re-contoured, and the new grassing given TLC,
... of course tree-clearings too.  The bunkers were re-edged and rescraped, they had decayed into rounded, masses without regard to any visible original style... I think the Bethpage of pre-1998 would have well-challenged the pros of those eras too, but in a different and rough hewn way that pros would go on strike.


I think most who didn't see it long ago take for granted the absolute perfection of premium conditions that today's model represents... there were washouts and hard pan and crabgrass swirls everywhere 25 years ago.... some small tees in the sun all day...you had to hammer the tee in with the heel of an iron.


18?  It's been tinkered with so many times I can't remember the pre-1997 look or feel of that whole plaza anymore... (1 Green, 1 Black, 18 Black, 1 Red, 18 Red).

[Kalen Braley]

VK,


Try this.  https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer  The various bunker configurations have certainly changed over the years...but perhaps not as much I would have guessed...

[corey miller]

Bethpage is not a top 100 course for me because I would rank solely on the basis of where I would like to play but would concede that it does deserve to clearly be in the conversation for top course whenever a panel of more than 1/me were called.


Perhaps it is just me and my view but everyone keeps speaking of "scale" as if that is a good thing and something to admire about Bethpage and in totality that may be correct.  But isn't part of "scale" the narrowness of the fairways?  Doesn't that take away from "scale" just as much as smallish bunkering features would on a big brawny course?


I would also ask V Kmetz about his view on greens at Bethpage....yes they are subtle and perhaps because I have not played and caddied there 60 times I would not understand BUT what top 100 courses have greens LESS interesting than Black?