[corey miller]

Great photo of #1. 


Can someone familiar with the course and the pro game comment on where these guys will be aiming off the tee?  Do the trees serve any purpose for the PGA guys?

[Mark Fedeli]

Great photo of #1. 


Can someone familiar with the course and the pro game comment on where these guys will be aiming off the tee?  Do the trees serve any purpose for the PGA guys?

Corey, they will likely be taking 3 woods over the left edge of the trees that are inside the dogleg. In the Barclays a few years back, Rory was able to cut the corner completely and drive it right up in front of the green, about 30-40 yards short, I believe. But they recently added a bunch of new trees closer to the green to make that option more difficult.

[mike_malone]

 Can you name another “great” course that starts(1) and ends (18) like BPB?

[Kalen Braley]

From where i sit on the sidelines, given what i know of the course from what I've read, heard, and seen in pictures, this quote by Mark seems to be the most revelant/important.

And as I mentioned, BB could lose most of the rough and the course would still be among the most difficult that most amateurs ever play — regardless of their skill level

Indeed the narrow fairways with brutal rough, just seems so unnecessary, and i question if this was ever the original design intent....

[Nick Ribeiro]

From where i sit on the sidelines, given what i know of the course from what I've read, heard, and seen in pictures, this quote by Mark seems to be the most revelant/important.

And as I mentioned, BB could lose most of the rough and the course would still be among the most difficult that most amateurs ever play — regardless of their skill level

Indeed the narrow fairways with brutal rough, just seems so unnecessary, and i question if this was ever the original design intent....

Everyone seems to refuse to accept the fact the fairways are wider than what the original creators intended, that is if they where only narrowed by 42% according to @farrowgolf and this is accurate. Advancements in equipment technology is a real thing folks, and the fairways were designed to be narrow, slightly more narrow when constructed then today when accounting for new equipment.


You need to choose either A) Make fairways wider for average players knowing you are going against what was originally intended, or B) Embrace the tough tradition of Tillie and possibly even narrow the fairways another 5%.


For those who are into restoration and against redesign, it would be nice to bring into the discussion some more evidence of what the fairways were when constructed, more accuracy stats of the equipment between then and now, and come up with some real suggestions of where the course should be and what the state can do to improve, if even possible.


This whole movement of take down all the trees and give me wider fairways takes away the driving game completely for anyone who hits the driver 275 yards and further. Maybe there is some who claim to like restoration but really just use it as an excuse to get easier courses but as technology continues to advance with no evidence of slow down, you all will be in the same boat sooner than later. Just drive the ball as far as you can to 30-50 yards from the green and because the fairways are so large and there are no trees you get a pitch from anywhere and everywhere including the holes your not supposed to be on...

[Sean_A]

Everyone seems to refuse to accept the fact the fairways are wider than what the original creators intended, that is if they where only narrowed by 42% according to @farrowgolf and this is accurate. Advancements in equipment technology is a real thing folks, and the fairways were designed to be narrow, slightly more narrow when constructed then today when accounting for new equipment.

What formula are you using to determine that the fairways play wider than originally intended?  Is there a formula to determine how deep the rough should be compared to pre-fairway watering?

Ciao

[Brian Finn]

Everyone seems to refuse to accept the fact the fairways are wider than what the original creators intended, that is if they where only narrowed by 42% according to @farrowgolf and this is accurate. Advancements in equipment technology is a real thing folks, and the fairways were designed to be narrow, slightly more narrow when constructed then today when accounting for new equipment.

On what are you basing the assertion that the fairways were intended to be very narrow?  Is there a specific quote or article that you can share?  Also, your projections regarding width at time of creation vs. width today seem off base.  Can you talk a little more about that?

[Nick Ribeiro]

Brian - My point was it seems courses look at a plan or photographs from time of construction and the easiest thing to do today is to just go back to exactly what was built. I think the original architect deserves a little more then that. If the architect designed a course with the player in mind scale must be added and taken away to replicate that exact intent. There is some math and construction that must be done to give the player today the same experience on a golf hole designed a century ago. Equipment has drastically changed and shouldn't be ignored.


If you go to the 2nd page on this thread I list 2 sites which did studies to come up with the conclusion the fairways may be too wide from original intent. The fairways as they sit today are only about 5% wider than what they should be if all math is correct, so the sources could very well be off slightly? Considering Rees has stated in multiple interviews Tillies intent is and always has been a priority at Bethpage, perhaps he already has this figured out and they are at the proper width? I donno but the guy did go to Yale...


As far as rough goes you bring up a very good question. I did not look into this or know if there is any information out there regarding this. I am sure this could be figured out with some testing of modern day rough with modern equipment and replicating pre irrigation rough and old equipment.

[Thomas Dai]

See below - details are from - https://twitter.com/farrowgolf?lang=en-gb - on @RyanFarrow Twitter a/c. Trust it's okay to share.


"As promised, here is an aerial comparison of Bethpage Black between 1953 & 2017. The golf course changed very little between the opening in the 1930's & 1953. Here are the numbers: Avg. Fairway Width: 1953 = 52 yds  Today = 30 yds Fairway Acreage: 1953 = 46ac   Today = 18.6ac"
[/size][/color]
[/size]
[/font][/color]

[/font][/color]

atb[/font][/color]

[Nick Ribeiro]

Thomas - I trust the study you provide is correct or very close, in my opinion anyway. So the question is how much more accurate is today's driver compared to back when originally constructed? Do you believe Tillie laid the course out with the current pro ability in mind? Everything I have read suggests he wanted a championship course and Bethpage was his PV. If we can agree the driver today overall is more than 42% more accurate and consistent then it was back then, we must narrow the fairways even more. How much is the question?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thomas - I trust the study you provide is correct or very close, in my opinion anyway. So the question is how much more accurate is today's driver compared to back when originally constructed? Do you believe Tillie laid the course out with the current pro ability in mind? Everything I have read suggests he wanted a championship course and Bethpage was his PV. If we can agree the driver today overall is more than 42% more accurate and consistent then it was back then, we must narrow the fairways even more. How much is the question?

You seem to believe differently than this article on the topic of how much credit Tillinghast deserves vs. Burbeck.
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/who-designed-bethpage-black

[Mark Fedeli]

Nick, using that logic, what do we do about specific playing options and decisions that the designer wanted available? In narrowing the fairways to 20 yards or less in order to give the modern pro a similar challenge to the designer's intent, is it okay to also lose his intended strategies?


Do you also think all of the greens should be shrunk by a similarly large percentage, and greenside bunkers moved accordingly? Do you think all of the fairway bunkers should be moved closer to the new more-narrow fairways so their original intent is preserved?


And should this be done on every course that professionals play a championship on? Just major venues? So Augusta is next, right? Or is there a different formula for Invitationals? Should every course that wants to add "championship" to its marketing materials be forced to follow suit?


Where does any of this end?


You asked a while back if it was only the narrow rough that I didn't like about Black. No, I also don't love that it has no half-par holes or short par 4s, and that it doesn't really call for much ground game or provide many features to play creative shots off of. I don't love how the slopes on 15 green have been softened, and I don't love the total lack of a charming, little par 3 — or the near-total lack of charming features in general. I think 18 is a silly hole that just keeps on getting worse. I like the trees on the 7 dogleg, but I think the trees on 1 are ridiculous and out of place.


And finally, I don't have a current handicap because I don't really keep score. I play matches against my friends and we work out the game on our own.

[Jeff Schley]

The fact that BB is a muni ramps the rating of this course a couple notches.  I really think public access golf courses that are historical and kept in good shape are rare and should be national landmarks. Not sure if BB is but it should be on the register of historic places at least.

[MCirba]

Nick, using that logic, what do we do about specific playing options and decisions that the designer wanted available? In narrowing the fairways to 20 yards or less in order to give the modern pro a similar challenge to the designer's intent, is it okay to also lose his intended strategies?


Do you also think all of the greens should be shrunk by a similarly large percentage, and greenside bunkers moved accordingly? Do you think all of the fairway bunkers should be moved closer to the new more-narrow fairways so their original intent is preserved?


And should this be done on every course that professionals play a championship on? Just major venues? So Augusta is next, right? Or is there a different formula for Invitationals? Should every course that wants to add "championship" to its marketing materials be forced to follow suit?


Where does any of this end?


You asked a while back if it was only the narrow rough that I didn't like about Black. No, I also don't love that it has no half-par holes or short par 4s, and that it doesn't really call for much ground game or provide many features to play creative shots off of. I don't love how the slopes on 15 green have been softened, and I don't love the total lack of a charming, little par 3 — or the near-total lack of charming features in general. I think 18 is a silly hole that just keeps on getting worse. I like the trees on the 7 dogleg, but I think the trees on 1 are ridiculous and out of place.


And finally, I don't have a current handicap because I don't really keep score. I play matches against my friends and we work out the game on our own.

Ok...at the risk of becoming caught in friendly fire I'm going to say these were really good examples. 

Meow.

[corey miller]

I know Nick did not like my comment that some of the straight holes are now doglegs because of mowing patterns but look at 15.  One could play straight at the hole originally along the left fairway area.  Now one must play more right effectively creating a dogleg though I suppose it adds extra yardage to the card?


If we accept that Tillie wanted this to be his PV why did he make the choices on the greens that he did?

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick, using that logic, what do we do about specific playing options and decisions that the designer wanted available? In narrowing the fairways to 20 yards or less in order to give the modern pro a similar challenge to the designer's intent, is it okay to also lose his intended strategies?
The options you speak of never existed. They exist now ONLY because of modern day equipment. For the life of me I do not understand why no one here can't acknowledge there is a difference between the driver players used back then and the driver players use today. Night and day, discussion needs to move towards exactly how much to determine original intent.


Do you also think all of the greens should be shrunk by a similarly large percentage, and greenside bunkers moved accordingly? I think the intent of the original designers should be considered. Picking up a set of old plans or photos and copying exact specs but you want them to roll 12 and use a modern day putter. Sorry that is clearly "bastardizing" the original intent. If greens are going to roll at speeds different from what was originally intended, then they need to be constructed to adapt modern speeds and equipment. Do you think all of the fairway bunkers should be moved closer to the new more-narrow fairways so their original intent is preserved? Fairway bunkers should be placed where intended from the shot played off the tee. Again, modern day equipment needs to be considered.


And should this be done on every course that professionals play a championship on? Just major venues? So Augusta is next, right? Or is there a different formula for Invitationals? Should every course that wants to add "championship" to its marketing materials be forced to follow suit? This would just be for clubs who care about preserving their properties and restoring their courses so they play the same way they played when constructed. If a course just wants to redesign by blowing out trees, widening fairways, and catering to the average golfer, that's fine also. Take the original architects name off the card and put the greens chairs name on it. Or just say course originally designed by Mr. Architect and redesigned for today's average player.


Where does any of this end? Never ends until advancements in the game stop which does not seem to be anytime soon. The reality is if nothing changes we will be hitting irons into Par 4s and playing them like par 3s pretty soon. There are guys out there that hit driving irons 300 plus yards today, and eventually the average player will also. Personally I am sick of thoughtless golf. The game where you stand up on every tee box and look 380 yards out to a green with sprawling fairways and no trees. The tree plans created by original architects are ignored, trees slaughtered across entire courses, and nothing left but driver off every tee with a variety of pitch shots for every second shot on every par 4 out there today. The tee game left for dead...


You asked a while back if it was only the narrow rough that I didn't like about Black. No, I also don't love that it has no half-par holes or short par 4s, and that it doesn't really call for much ground game or provide many features to play creative shots off of. I don't love how the slopes on 15 green have been softened, and I don't love the total lack of a charming, little par 3 — or the near-total lack of charming features in general. I think 18 is a silly hole that just keeps on getting worse. I like the trees on the 7 dogleg, but I think the trees on 1 are ridiculous and out of place. So now not only do you want wider fairways but you also want a half par hole or holes? How many do you want? Why stop there? Write a letter to the state of NY and tell them you want a full re route while your at it...


And finally, I don't have a current handicap because I don't really keep score. I play matches against my friends and we work out the game on our own.
This makes a lot of sense, you want Bethpage to become an open short course like the preserve at bandon? or the short course at Streamsong? Sorry bud, Bethpage has never been that and never will. It's been a championship course since its inception, not a short course, not a kids course, not a beginners course, and not a course for you to work up to the point of getting your game "handicap ready" .... READ THE SIGN BEFORE THE FIRST TEE!

[Kyle Harris]

This is bloody easy:


The only thing deep rough proves is that it requires strength to hit a golf ball from deep rough.


I can prove that on a driving range and it gets boring after about 20 seconds.

Why the $&#^ would you justify wasting 400 acres to prove that 18 times?

[Nick Ribeiro]

This is bloody easy:


The only thing deep rough proves is that it requires strength to hit a golf ball from deep rough.


I can prove that on a driving range and it gets boring after about 20 seconds.

Why the $&#^ would you justify wasting 400 acres to prove that 18 times?

Because it's one aspect of a championship course and a feature used to determine a champion. If you can't hit it out of the rough hit the gym. Rough has been part of the game for how long now?

[Kyle Harris]

This is bloody easy:


The only thing deep rough proves is that it requires strength to hit a golf ball from deep rough.


I can prove that on a driving range and it gets boring after about 20 seconds.

Why the $&#^ would you justify wasting 400 acres to prove that 18 times?

Because it's one aspect of a championship course and a feature used to determine a champion. If you can't hit it out of the rough hit the gym. Rough has been part of the game for how long now?

The only aspect of a championship course is that a championship is conducted upon it - we've yet to see a condition where a player puts together 4 consecutive rounds of 54.


The first championship was literally conducted as a result of the increase in popularity from the widening of corridors on the Old Course.

Rough is a part of the game. So is shotmaking and recovery.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Ok so Mark Fedeli would like wider fairways, a half par hole (preferably a half par 4 hole), and more options. If we can somehow many 5-9 of the holes a short course, even better. Erik "Chubbs" Barzeski (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zswD_2r3TQw) doesn't think its fair he has to hit a variety of shots off the tee, he wants wider fairways so he's not forced to test his game when it comes to hitting draws and fades, especially around the "gentle" 1st. And finally (for the moment) Kyle Harris would like shorter rough and wider fairways not necessarily because he wants more options like Mark, he just wants Bethpage to look more like the old course...


I am sure the state of NY is reading and taking notes as to what everyone would like. While we are at it does anyone else want anything? What about an ocean? with big waves? Some surfer chicks? and maybe a lobster roll shack at 9? Long island ice tea stands in the middle of every fairway? If we are going to "basterdize" Bethpage, lets all try to get what we want...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik "Chubbs" Barzeski doesn't think its fair he has to hit a variety of shots off the tee

I never said that, but hey, that hasn't stopped you yet.

BPB is boring. It's architecturally uninteresting. It asks the same two questions over and over and over again. It's tedious and blah.

And your insults have worn quite thin.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark,


Not to hijack your thread, but recently I spent time in Wilmington, NC and there I found what you might be looking for. Wilmington Municipal, IMO, is a far better golf course than Bethpage Black for the vast majority of golfers. The fairways are quite wide and there aren’t many places one could lose a ball or even spend much time looking for one.


Check it out if you are anywhere near Wilmington. It is a real muni experience.


That said, I really don’t have a problem with Bethpage. Appreciating golf architecture require travel. Lots of travel. So, when you make the effort you don’t want the course you are visiting to be like the last you have seen. It is a good thing that what Tillinghast did at Bethpage is so different than what Ross did at Wilmington.

[RichMacafee]

There is such a gulf between the amateur game and the pro game now, it's like they are two different sports.
Evaluating a golf course coming from both angles is bound to create huge disparities of opinion. Trinity Forest is a perfect example.
Brandel Chamblee makes sense on a lot of topics looking through the pro game lens IMO, but not so much looking through an 'average golfer' lens.
It's rare for players that could never break 90 on a course to love it and look at it through a pro lens, so well done Nick
 

[Nick Ribeiro]

Mark,


Not to hijack your thread, but recently I spent time in Wilmington, NC and there I found what you might be looking for. Wilmington Municipal, IMO, is a far better golf course than Bethpage Black for the vast majority of golfers. The fairways are quite wide and there aren’t many places one could lose a ball or even spend much time looking for one.


Check it out if you are anywhere near Wilmington. It is a real muni experience.


That said, I really don’t have a problem with Bethpage. Appreciating golf architecture require travel. Lots of travel. So, when you make the effort you don’t want the course you are visiting to be like the last you have seen. It is a good thing that what Tillinghast did at Bethpage is so different than what Ross did at Wilmington.

Don't worry about hijacking Mark's thread, in fact both Mark and Erik owe you a massive thank you.
Mark starts thread demanding wider fairways at any cost. Championship golf, majors, and no regard for original intent, Mark demands those wider fairways.
In comes Erik. He also wants wider fairways because the tee shots have angles he doesn't like requiring a wide variety of shots Erik should not be bothered with. In a successful attempt to one up Marks demand for wider fairways at any cost, Erik claims Bethpage is not a top 1000 course. He then brings Pasatiempo into the mix and concedes Bethpage is approx 500 spots better than outside the top 1000 but refuses to list any course outside the top 200 that is better than Bethpage. After caving to the pressure of making such a ludicrous statement he follows up with putting Bedford Springs in front of Bethpage.
Mark comes right back but not just with wider fairways, now he wants options all over the place, elimination of rough, replace a few holes with a short course or "playground", and at least one half par hole.
Kyle Harris suggests he'd like to see it replaced with a old course replica.
And then here you come Tim, hijacking the thread taking no prisoners claiming Wilmington is better than Bethpage. Not Willimgton CC, but Wilmington Municipal in NC....
At one point during this nonsense I was going to bring Torrey Pines into the conversation assuming most would agree its a ways behind Bethpage but still the #2 Muni in the country. Then this post. Wilmington Municipal Golf Course in NC is the #1 Muni in America.....
We have officially seen it all.....

[Mike Sweeney]

Dunlop White wrote about "shrinking fairways" years and years ago, and now he has implemented two renovations at his home clubs in North Carolina:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/the-shrinking-fairway/


I can't paste the text here, but Dunlop suggest that cost of fairway maintenance post war, and irrigation lines were a major factor in the "growth of rough" vs fairway.


With the PGA moving in front of the US Open on the calendar, it does seem like this is a repeat and maybe a replacement of the "boring rough" conversations around the US Open.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()