[Mark Fedeli]

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.

I’ll keep it in mind I guess. Honestly, I’m not sure if you’re replying to something I actually said, or if you’re replying to Nick’s largely incorrect summaries of what he thinks I want.


All I’ve said is that I wish Bethpage would return to its pre-renovation width, and that, having played it many many times, I believe that width would lead to a better, more fun course that would still be among the world’s most difficult for nearly every player on the planet. I suppose the most controversial thing I’ve said is that I care not at all about the pro game or playing the same course they’ve played, if the consequence is how Bethpage is currently presented.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik claims Bethpage is not a top 1000 course.

Never said that, and now I've pointed this out for about the fourth or fifth time.

He then brings Pasatiempo into the mix and concedes Bethpage is approx 500 spots better than outside the top 1000

Also never said that.

but refuses to list any course outside the top 200

Still batting 0.000 Nick.

I’ll keep it in mind I guess. Honestly, I’m not sure if you’re replying to something I actually said, or if you’re replying to Nick’s largely incorrect summaries of what he thinks I want.

Oy. Might be the only thing Nick is good at.

What did your post add to the conversation, Nick? Nothing. You failed to accurately repeat what others said, and you added nothing new or interesting of your own.

P.S. And yes, you could say the same about my post, but what it "adds" is to correct the blatant misrepresentation of someone else. It's a correction.

[Will Lozier]

I think this is a really interesting initial post - an opinion expressed with passion that will provoke all sorts of other, often opposite positions. It's too bad it has brought about such asinine behavior from one poster. Grow up Nick.

[jeffwarne]

Betpage Black the course is a good course(was a great course)-and becomes quite good for Majors given it had/has room to accomodate the length game the USGA told us wasn't happening(for 20 years).


It's the setup that sucks-which is 30% the fault of the USGA for originally reigning in the fairways neutering both "fairway" bunkers and strategic angles, to combat a distance problem it said for years didn't exist, and it's 70% the fault of the operators for maintaining those widths year in and year out.(making it a slow boring slog for everyday play)




Bethpage the complex, with 5 courses, is a really cool spot and kudos to New York State for providing such a great amenity

[V. Kmetz]

It's the setup that sucks-which is 30% the fault of the USGA for originally reigning in the fairways neutering both "fairway" bunkers and strategic angles, to combat a distance problem it said for years didn't exist, and it's 70% the fault of the operators for maintaining those widths year in and year out.(making it a slow boring slog for everyday play)

Bethpage the complex, with 5 courses, is a really cool spot and kudos to New York State for providing such a great amenity

On the money JW, what we locals/regulars to Bethpage still can't fathom is WHY the fairway lines were/are left in such narrowed condition after 2002...my recollection is being stunned upon further visits that the rough was taken down two clicks and the fairways widened one click...

[Bill Brightly]

I haven't been posting much lately but this thread has drawn me in...


To summarize my thoughts: As a low single digit handicap, I used to judge a course just like Nick but I've learned enough to think like Mark. I used to think that "7000 from the tips, lightning fast greens and penal rough" were three key elements to any "great track." It probably took about ten years hanging out on GCA, reading lots of books on architecture, and traveling to dozens of countries to play a wide variety of courses before my thinking truly evolved.


I've come to understand that "hard" does not mean "good" or "great." True options (line of play options, NOT 3 Wood or driver...) makes for fun. A truly great course will have eighteen "fun" holes, (coupled with all the other elements that BPB possesses such as elevation change, interesting greens, variety of shot demands, etc.)


So Mark is simply saying that BPB has the potential to be truly "great" but the mowing lines knock it down to only "good." It's hard to understand why that set Nick off and there is NO excuse for his personal attacks. Reminds me of Winston Churchill's notes in the margin of a speech he was about to give: "weak point, say it loudly!!!"


What bothers me most about Nick's rude ranting is that I believe his way of thinking has permeated many private clubs over the past 25 years. I also believe that low handicap golfers have a disproportionate influence at clubs. (Others think: "he is a scratch golfer, he must know more than I do about architecture, so I'll just be quiet.")  This combination meant that capital expenditures have largely gone towards making courses harder, not more fun for the members.


I'd like to think that since Nick is a newer GCA member, there is still plenty of time for his appreciation of golf course architecture to evolve, but I'm not holding my breath...

[Mark Fedeli]

#6, before and after:

[Tim Gallant]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

[Joe Bausch]

Photos (some crappy, some good) of BPB from July of 2007:

http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/BethpageBlack/

[Chris Mavros]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

Tim, you made some good points until you started with generalizing Rees Jones.  Not only is it incorrect, but you show your inherent inability to evaluate his work, which taints your analysis of Bethpage.  Quite frankly, it's this type of narrow minded thinking that always disappoints me.  Rees has plenty of courses that aren't artificial.  His work on classic courses is being changed because restoration is now the trend, while when he did most of the work being "reversed," it was not.   

[Tim Gallant]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

Tim, you made some good points until you started with generalizing Rees Jones.  Not only is it incorrect, but you show your inherent inability to evaluate his work, which taints your analysis of Bethpage.  Quite frankly, it's this type of narrow minded thinking that always disappoints me.  Rees has plenty of courses that aren't artificial.  His work on classic courses is being changed because restoration is now the trend, while when he did most of the work being "reversed," it was not.

Chris,


I wish I was stereotyping!


https://www.reesjonesinc.com/original-courses.php


There's legitimately not a golf course on that list I would actively make a special trip to see. Rees has never been associated with minimalistic design, and therefore, in my mind, it's not sustainable design.


Don't want to hijack the thread, but DM me. I'd love to hear a defense for Rees. Plenty of courses that aren't artificial? I'd love to see 5 original designs that aren't artificial.


I'm not buying the 'he was just following the brief'. That is worse. That he knew that what the courses were asking for was wrong and still went ahead anyways.

[Kalen Braley]

So i'm curious.


For those who may know, how accurate are Ryan's overlays in reply 87?  If they are even ballpark to what was originally there, I think its safe to say the current setup of BPB is bastardized.


P.S.  Still waiting for a good response to Kyle's excellent question about the utility of overly penal rough.  A few holes? Sure... But on every hole, again and again and again, seems beyond unnecessary....

[Mark Fedeli]

Kalen, they are accurate as fas as every old image I've seen. Essentially, if you look at modern aerials, the current outer edge of the rough, in most cases, is equivalent to the edge of the original fairways. See below.

#6, before and after:

Also, I think Mike Felton, earlier in the thread, posted one of the more interesting replies:

"I think wide fairways that give you choices in how to play the holes really just mean that you can open your shoulders and pick based on the shot that you happen to hit. After all, if you think of it as you have a choice whether to take the difficulty off the tee or on your approach, you can just aim for in between them and let your shot decide which way to do it. If you could actually pick whether you were going to play the hole one way or the other and do it, then you'd be good enough to play Black as it is laid out. If you can't, then I think to some extent you just want it to be easier."

There is definitely some truth to that, and I would love to hear what others think.

Where I don't think it applies is truly well-designed golf holes, like #6 at Bethpage above. The choice is clear (and used to be clearer): try to carry the bunkers with a big drive, or lay back safe of them with a shorter club. Only with good luck can you try for one, completely fail to execute, and wind up okay.

[Chris Mavros]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

Tim, you made some good points until you started with generalizing Rees Jones.  Not only is it incorrect, but you show your inherent inability to evaluate his work, which taints your analysis of Bethpage.  Quite frankly, it's this type of narrow minded thinking that always disappoints me.  Rees has plenty of courses that aren't artificial.  His work on classic courses is being changed because restoration is now the trend, while when he did most of the work being "reversed," it was not.

Chris,


I wish I was stereotyping!


https://www.reesjonesinc.com/original-courses.php


There's legitimately not a golf course on that list I would actively make a special trip to see. Rees has never been associated with minimalistic design, and therefore, in my mind, it's not sustainable design.


Don't want to hijack the thread, but DM me. I'd love to hear a defense for Rees. Plenty of courses that aren't artificial? I'd love to see 5 original designs that aren't artificial.


I'm not buying the 'he was just following the brief'. That is worse. That he knew that what the courses were asking for was wrong and still went ahead anyways.

More than happy to DM but am just finishing something that gets into this very issue for anyone to peruse my points. 


But the whole, "he should have protested and refused to take the job" argument isn't realistic.  Whether it was Bethpage or elsewhere, oftentimes Rees was brought in to renovate the courses and make them tournament relevant.  While that is a taboo concept nowadays (and he wasn't the only one doing this btw), back then trending design concepts were a lot different. 


As for Bethpage, the course is great for its bunkering (especially placement), the variety of heroic shots presented and challenge off the tee.  The course holds one's interest because of its penal and heroic qualities and yes, scale.  That's what makes it great and that's why it should be appreciated.  Even if the fairways were wider, it will never be the fun strategic course some claim is the only true sign of great design.  It's great for the other reasons stated.  We seem to be discussing rough for the most part and as I already stated, I don't believe the rough is kept severely long throughout the season.  It certainly wasn't when I played it.     

[Nick Ribeiro]

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

It's obvious to everyone but a few here. Unfortunately we live in a world where everyone needs a trophy and those who excel are forced to take a step back in fear the average will be offended. It's no different here. No one wants to acknowledge the difference in equipment between a hundred years ago and today or just how good the pros are today. They want courses to dumb themselves down to their level, even if it means "bastardizing" the original architects intents of championship challenge.They want so badly to live in fantasy where the pros really are not that far ahead of them, because like the pros they can par holes also, especially half par holes. The millennial generation, throwing a fit till they get what they want and there is no option for anyone better than they are...

[Nick Ribeiro]

#6, before and after:

A driver from a century ago over that bunker??? I only see one option off the tee... with modern technology I see 2 options on today's hole.

[Nick Ribeiro]

On the money JW, what we locals/regulars to Bethpage still can't fathom is WHY the fairway lines were/are left in such narrowed condition after 2002...my recollection is being stunned upon further visits that the rough was taken down two clicks and the fairways widened one click...

Because the State of NY and Rees Jones decided to preserve the original intent of the course while considering modern day technology. It's a fine restoration and for those that want different they offer 4 other course options.

[Mark Fedeli]

It was a 200-210 yard carry, Nick.

[Nick Ribeiro]

I haven't been posting much lately but this thread has drawn me in...


To summarize my thoughts: As a low single digit handicap, I used to judge a course just like Nick but I've learned enough to think like Mark. I used to think that "7000 from the tips, lightning fast greens and penal rough" were three key elements to any "great track." It probably took about ten years hanging out on GCA, reading lots of books on architecture, and traveling to dozens of countries to play a wide variety of courses before my thinking truly evolved.


I've come to understand that "hard" does not mean "good" or "great." True options (line of play options, NOT 3 Wood or driver...) makes for fun. A truly great course will have eighteen "fun" holes, (coupled with all the other elements that BPB possesses such as elevation change, interesting greens, variety of shot demands, etc.)


So Mark is simply saying that BPB has the potential to be truly "great" but the mowing lines knock it down to only "good." It's hard to understand why that set Nick off and there is NO excuse for his personal attacks. Reminds me of Winston Churchill's notes in the margin of a speech he was about to give: "weak point, say it loudly!!!"


What bothers me most about Nick's rude ranting is that I believe his way of thinking has permeated many private clubs over the past 25 years. I also believe that low handicap golfers have a disproportionate influence at clubs. (Others think: "he is a scratch golfer, he must know more than I do about architecture, so I'll just be quiet.")  This combination meant that capital expenditures have largely gone towards making courses harder, not more fun for the members.


I'd like to think that since Nick is a newer GCA member, there is still plenty of time for his appreciation of golf course architecture to evolve, but I'm not holding my breath...

How long can you hold your breath? You wont be convincing me anytime soon the course should go through a re design because a few want easier tee shots, wider fairways to catch errant drives, half par holes, and a St Andrews Old Course look. Considering it appears you've aged into a player that technology can no longer help and only want holes where you can run the ball up to the hole, I would suggest not holding your breath at all.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

No bias here at all.. Tim is 100% capable of a fair review of Bethpage Black. Someone did a good job teaching Tim on how to think. "Everyone knows the fairways should be wider" because why? Just because you say so? Because you want to hit driver off every tee without missing a fairway?

[Nick Ribeiro]

So i'm curious.


For those who may know, how accurate are Ryan's overlays in reply 87?  If they are even ballpark to what was originally there, I think its safe to say the current setup of BPB is bastardized. If you don't want to factor in modern equipment or original intent, sure. Bastardized seems to mean we don't get what we want around here, no wider fairways, no short grass, no st andrews on long island, and no half par holes...


P.S.  Still waiting for a good response to Kyle's excellent question about the utility of overly penal rough.  A few holes? Sure... But on every hole, again and again and again, seems beyond unnecessary.... Do you have any evidence suggesting its overly penal? Is it substantially harder to hit today's irons out of that rough then century old irons out of shorter rough? Would love to see any testing thats been done to confirm its overly penal.

[V. Kmetz]

On the money JW, what we locals/regulars to Bethpage still can't fathom is WHY the fairway lines were/are left in such narrowed condition after 2002...my recollection is being stunned upon further visits that the rough was taken down two clicks and the fairways widened one click...

Because the State of NY and Rees Jones decided to preserve the original intent of the course while considering modern day technology. It's a fine restoration and for those that want different they offer 4 other course options.

Nick, you've made it hard to support the valid points you have had, and I think you (and all of us to some extent) are way, way, way over-selling this "original intent" idea of NYSP and Tillie's as some demonic challenge out of the 5 courses...as far as I have ever cobbled together from the research is the notion that Tillie was only on-site for 2.5-3.5 weeks and any store of contemporaneous writings are lost forever... I'm not saying that a great designer doesn't do a lot off-site, but there is no hard record that Tillie thought of this the way Fownes thought of Oakmont, or Crump thought PV should be...as far as I recall there is only scant comment that the property permitted a Pine Valley- aesthetic of golf course...


And while PV was/is certainly intended as a rigorous, intimidating challenge... I think (I've only visited, not played, for a Crump Cup) we see that it has a lot more opportunities for fun and amusing shots for everyday play, and has a greater variety of "hole-types" (drivable/drive and pitch 4s, short pitch 3s, many ground game options) that are lacking at BB.


I further digress from your position when you insinuate that critique of BB along these lines is some mealy desire for general softening or feminization of the Black (or any venue), when the course would be rigorous (for almost of all us not pros) at 6800 yards, with no rough at all.


So in the main, I have/am in agreement with you; BB is a wonderful, special test that doesn't deserve some of the criticisms, its maintenance aesthetics should be drawing...you're right, IT IS INTENDED to be a challenge and a grind...and, you're right again that this presentation IS necessary to provoke top play for a top prize...but I think the preponderance of posters are right to say that a more liberal, less "championship" ideal for presentation of fairway and rough is due the 95% of the time the course isn;t used for a major championship...no loss of difficulty would be encountered, in fact a more liberal presentation might bright-line some of the items you and I agree are special about it to a broader class of golfer and individuals on this board.


And may I add, that the designer or GCA specialist who does find a way to present BB enjoyably to a brioader class of golfer and at the same time, worthy for a major championship of the world's best will have really achieved something that even if there's no provenance, I KNOW that Tillie and NYSP wanted by putting such a course in the municipal ranks.  This current iteration is only serving the games elite...not earnest golfers... for whom it can be a lost ball, pick it up, put me down for a 7x misery.

[V. Kmetz]

So i'm curious.


For those who may know, how accurate are Ryan's overlays in reply 87?  If they are even ballpark to what was originally there, I think its safe to say the current setup of BPB is bastardized. If you don't want to factor in modern equipment or original intent, sure. Bastardized seems to mean we don't get what we want around here, no wider fairways, no short grass, no st andrews on long island, and no half par holes...


P.S.  Still waiting for a good response to Kyle's excellent question about the utility of overly penal rough.  A few holes? Sure... But on every hole, again and again and again, seems beyond unnecessary.... Do you have any evidence suggesting its overly penal? Is it substantially harder to hit today's irons out of that rough then century old irons out of shorter rough? Would love to see any testing thats been done to confirm its overly penal.

Nick for God's sake, I've seen balls get lost on 12 and 13's rough less than 15 yards from 6 sets of eyes... and that was ina dry July when it should've started to bake out and wilt some... it's OVERLY PENAL!!!


If the pro tournaments didn;t have like 50 volunteers, spotters and officials per hole, do you know how long the rounds would take, and how high the scores would be?


C'mon man... why do we have to argue that the sky is blue in appearance?

[Nick Ribeiro]

On the money JW, what we locals/regulars to Bethpage still can't fathom is WHY the fairway lines were/are left in such narrowed condition after 2002...my recollection is being stunned upon further visits that the rough was taken down two clicks and the fairways widened one click...

Because the State of NY and Rees Jones decided to preserve the original intent of the course while considering modern day technology. It's a fine restoration and for those that want different they offer 4 other course options.

Nick, you've made it hard to support the valid points you have had, and I think you (and all of us to some extent) are way, way, way over-selling this "original intent" idea of NYSP and Tillie's as some demonic challenge out of the 5 courses...as far as I have ever cobbled together from the research is the notion that Tillie was only on-site for 2.5-3.5 weeks and any store of contemporaneous writings are lost forever... I'm not saying that a great designer doesn't do a lot off-site, but there is no hard record that Tillie thought of this the way Fownes thought of Oakmont, or Crump thought PV should be...as far as I recall there is only scant comment that the property permitted a Pine Valley- aesthetic of golf course...
I don't think we will ever really know how much time or involvement Tillie had here, and I wont argue there was other involvement. Its well documented architects played less of a roll in the actual work back then compared to today just because of travel and the inability of being in multiple places at the same time. I think there is enough evidence that Bethpage was created to be a championship design and to truly uphold the challenge modern technology must play a roll in the current set up of the course. That's the part everyone here seems to want to ignore.


And while PV was/is certainly intended as a rigorous, intimidating challenge... I think (I've only visited, not played, for a Crump Cup) we see that it has a lot more opportunities for fun and amusing shots for everyday play, and has a greater variety of "hole-types" (drivable/drive and pitch 4s, short pitch 3s, many ground game options) that are lacking at BB.
I've been fortunate to play both Oakmont and PV and IMO both are harder than Bethpage. Even considering Oakmont's unfair green speeds, PV is still harder than Oakmont especially for the average player IMO. Oakmont has the toughest greens by far but PV tests every aspect of the game and challenges the player with every shot. The trouble at PV is far more severe than any of the penal areas at Bethpage Black.


I further digress from your position when you insinuate that critique of BB along these lines is some mealy desire for general softening or feminization of the Black (or any venue), when the course would be rigorous (for almost of all us not pros) at 6800 yards, with no rough at all.
I never said it wouldn't still be hard with all the suggestions made. It would be easier for sure but it would still be hard. I just don't agree with changes simply because people want a certain look or feature they like at other courses. I don't in anyway agree with wider fairways simply for "fun factor" when there is nothing suggesting fun factor was considered when designing / constructing the course.


So in the main, I have/am in agreement with you; BB is a wonderful, special test that doesn't deserve some of the criticisms, its maintenance aesthetics should be drawing...you're right, IT IS INTENDED to be a challenge and a grind...and, you're right again that this presentation IS necessary to provoke top play for a top prize...but I think the preponderance of posters are right to say that a more liberal, less "championship" ideal for presentation of fairway and rough is due the 95% of the time the course isn;t used for a major championship...no loss of difficulty would be encountered, in fact a more liberal presentation might bright-line some of the items you and I agree are special about it to a broader class of golfer and individuals on this board.
When you start giving in to some peoples desires where does it end? Short courses, short grass, half par holes, and anything else one can come up with for his own selfish desires..

[Kalen Braley]

Nick,

You really should give VKs last couple posts a good read,  he's right on point.

 I'm not sure what your goal is, but a big part of GCA's creedo is playability, options, and challenging fun. So if that doesn't fit your mantra, I'm not going to say GCA isn't for you, but you will have a hard time finding many buyers on relentless, punishing, unnecessary rough that reduces a course to a brutal slog for 99.9% of players...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()