Bethpage Black is not a great course

[jeffwarne]

https://twitter.com/FarrowGolf/status/962040561103286273

Here's a nice overlay of before on top of now

This was mentioned, discussed, posted multiple times already. Any chance you found any information regarding the difference in equipment technology during the same time period?

How anyone can look at that comparison and declare the current Bethpage a "restoration" is beyond me.
The ball/equipment goes 15% plus farther so the fairways are REDUCED 40%?
Backwards thinking that may arrive at the same mythical winning score of 60 years ago, but in no way restores the intent or interest of the design, which is to test the elite player's strategy, choices and execution (rather than simply one dimensional execution) while providing an interesting and engaging layout for the New York public golfer of advanced ability.


I'm cool with lengthening to restore some semblance of scale-but shrinking fairways does the opposite.
Not sure why narrower fairways are required when modern pros hit less fairways than their predecessors, and widening the fairways brings MORE bunkers into play(now if only we could put some brownish "lived-in" gnarl back into them rather than the disgusting monochromatic bright green and ultra bright white)

[Michael Felton]

Looking at all these holes and thinking about the course as it is, if the fairways were wider, I doubt if it would change my strategy on any hole out there. All it would do is punish me less when I miss. Right now I think that 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 on the second shot and 18 all offer a strategic decision to be made. 4, you have a choice about whether to play safe or try to get home in 2 from the tee. Plenty of decisions to be made on the 2nd shot there. 5, even if you do open up the fairway left, you still have to hug the right bunker to have a reasonable chance of hitting the green. 6, you either hit driver over the bunker or play short to the right. 7 you have to pick how close to the trees you'll aim it. 9, do you try to carry the fairway bunker or play out to the right. 12 how much of the bunker do you want to take on, or do you just play out to the right. 13 for the second shot, do you try clear the fairway bunker or lay back of it. If you go for it and miss, you're in real trouble, but if you lay back, you either lay back at about 200 or you'll have a really wonky lie. There are a lot of holes out there where there isn't a whole lot of strategy. It's more of a hit it where you need to, but I don't think that would change if the fairways were wider.


As I alluded to before, I do think it would be interesting to see what would happen to the average score of the pros if they extended the 5th fairway all the way to the tree line on the left. They'd be tempted further left than they are now and then they'd have a really hard shot in. I think am scores would come down, but I'm not so sure with the pros, especially if it's fiery.


The one hole I do wish the fairway was wider is 15. It's such a hard hole even if you do hit the fairway. Missing the fairway reduces it to a pitch out and a pitch on. Hit the fairway and you get to have a crack at a very uphill, very challenging, lengthy iron shot. It's a really fun shot to try and hit and it's not duplicated virtually anywhere I can think of. You so rarely get to try it though because the fairway is so damn narrow. I also have a sneaking suspicion that my average score on that hole is higher if I hit the fairway than if I miss it. When I miss, I'm just going to make 5, or maybe a 4 if I get lucky. Occasionally a 6 if I make a complete pig's ear of the pitch, but not often. Hit the fairway though and don't quite get your second shot, then you're in those front bunkers. From those, 6 and 7 becomes definitely in my wheel house. If you widened it for the pros, their scores would definitely come down, but they're better from 160 or 170 than I am from 210. Funnily enough.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ridiculous concept of effective width of fairways? Are you arguing modern technology is no different than it was 100 years ago or you just think we should just not consider it because it goes against what makes some courses playable for your game?

Nick, you're an 8.5, no? It might be wise to stop with the "playable for your game" stuff.

You seem to be under the impression that modern equipment has made people longer AND more accurate. Quite a bit more accurate, in fact. Even though, maintaining the same accuracy (in degrees offline), a 300-yard drive goes further off-line than a 250-yard drive. Furthermore, Tillinghast likely didn't DESIGN the course at all, really. He may have suggested a few tweaks, but of the 15 days for which he was paid, he also likely consulted on the other courses. You've not responded to the 2002 Golf Digest article I posted earlier.

I'm not opposed to difficult, but unlike Oakmont, BPB is hard while also being almost completely uninteresting, just relentless. Driver or 3W into a narrow fairway, high long iron to a boring green. I agree with the earlier comparison to Oakmont (and I'm going to disagree that the green speeds at Oakmont are "unfair" - they're great) written by someone else.

And guys, BPB has plenty of half-par holes. Like 15… easily a 4.5-par.

[Michael Felton]

And guys, BPB has plenty of half-par holes. Like 15… easily a 4.5-par.

There are 2 or 3 3.5 holes as well, depending on where the tees are on the par threes.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Nick may be on to something here thou...

If there is one thing I just can't get enough of...its the exhilarating pitch out!  I mean no one wants to see the pros hit ridiculous bend it like beckham recovery shots, or a low burner that skirts under two branches and settles 15 feet from the hole...that's just boring.  I wanna see the pros and everyone else for that matter gouge out some major hay with breathe-taking 80 yard recovery shots back to the fairway.  And I wanna see it again and again and again!

I got a fever, and the only prescription is more Pitch-Outs!!

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick, am I correct that the accuracy studies you're quoting are talking about improved equipment performance via tests done by professionals in a controlled trackman environment? They are not tracking in-field results from a range of actual players, pro and amateur? Do we know how much more accurate the average player is now, if at all?


We do know how much less accurate Tour players are since 2000, though: almost 10%. So certainly you'll agree all fairways at Black should be expanded to 10% wider than what they were when they were renovated?


Source: https://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-pro-golf-has-changed-off-tee-1980-even-more-staggering-might-think

Did you even read the article? It clearly states tour average in 95 was 264 yards and in 2017 it was 293. The driver is 10% less accurate but flies how far today in 2019? Some tour pros hit driving irons well past 264 yards and are WAY more accurate then their driver was at 264 in 95... Nice try though... why do you refuse to do a little math? Give a decent argument for wider fairways, not just you want them and will throw a tantrum till you get them..

[Nick Ribeiro]

How anyone can look at that comparison and declare the current Bethpage a "restoration" is beyond me.
The ball/equipment goes 15% plus farther so the fairways are REDUCED 40%?

15% further 100 years later.... SMH.....

[Nick Ribeiro]

Ridiculous concept of effective width of fairways? Are you arguing modern technology is no different than it was 100 years ago or you just think we should just not consider it because it goes against what makes some courses playable for your game?

Nick, you're an 8.5, no? It might be wise to stop with the "playable for your game" stuff.
And no trouble at all with Bethpage Black, very enjoyable round.

You seem to be under the impression that modern equipment has made people longer AND more accurate. Quite a bit more accurate, in fact. Even though, maintaining the same accuracy (in degrees offline), a 300-yard drive goes further off-line than a 250-yard drive. Furthermore, Tillinghast likely didn't DESIGN the course at all, really. He may have suggested a few tweaks, but of the 15 days for which he was paid, he also likely consulted on the other courses. You've not responded to the 2002 Golf Digest article I posted earlier.
Agreed, with 300 goes further off line then 250 drive. Just had to explain that to OP. That's why fairways need to be narrower or courses need to start planning to go way over 8000 yards. Pros throw darts at 250 yards today, and use no where near driver. Glad your finally acknowledging modern equipment is far different then 100 years ago.

As far as the argument of Tillies involvement perhaps the article is correct? I've seen that debated, really not worth arguing over as no one truly knows but the intent is clear. The course was brutal 100 years ago, is brutal today, and should stay brutal in the future.

I'm not opposed to difficult, but unlike Oakmont, BPB is hard while also being almost completely uninteresting, just relentless. Driver or 3W into a narrow fairway, high long iron to a boring green. I agree with the earlier comparison to Oakmont (and I'm going to disagree that the green speeds at Oakmont are "unfair" - they're great) written by someone else.
Every time I have played Oakmont the greens have been faster than any other course I have played by far. Thats the way the members want them so that's fine. They are not trying to fool anyone in what the speeds were a century ago compared to today. Last few times I was there was in fall right before SWAT matches also which maybe faster than normal, I don't know but I doubt it.

And guys, BPB has plenty of half-par holes. Like 15… easily a 4.5-par.
I agree, just like the sign says before you step on the first tee. Suck it up or go play one of the other courses.

[Bill Brightly]

BPB, as it plays now, clearly belongs in a very small group of penal, US Open setups. Mark is simply saying it could be so much more, that's all.

Bethpage could be so much more? By running opposite direction of original intent, wide fairways, removing rough, firm conditions with open lanes directly to the hole? Oh and a half par hole and a St Andrews look...
Or do you mean by going off the only data that's been shared so far regarding modern equipment technology and narrowing the fairways another 5 yards restoring the original intent precisely and looking further into how long the rough should actually be by sharing study that shows the rough of a century ago with that equipment vs the equipment today and current rough?

Well, Nick, I won't choose paragraph #2 because it is absurd, not to mention in dire need of a comma. The architects' intent was never to demand straight on approach shots all over the course.


Paragraph #1 is closer but confused, so I'll have to help you clean it up.


Understanding the value of width is not an easy concept. I remember reading about it on GCA for years but I thought like you: wider is easier. Then I went to Australia and played Royal Melbourne. I probably smirked at 60 yard wide fairways a flailed away from the tee. I remember being in a couple of fairways, but in a completely wrong position with no real good play for the pin. I remember walking off that course saying: "Now I understand the importance of width!" Do yourself a favor and keep open the possibility that you might be wrong about wide fairways being easier by definition...


It would be wrong to put Bethpage Black's green complexes in the same category as RM West. But if you really look at the aerials, there is PLENTY of bunkering at BPB that you'd rather not carry, straight on approaches (from the narrow fairways) are clearly preferable. Especially if firm and fast fairways allowed the ball to roll even further offline.


Take a hole like 15. I played it last year and pushed my drive 5 yards into the rough. Theoretically, I could have reached the green with a 3 or 5 wood. It would have been a very risky shot and I probably would have ended up short in the bunker with a long, tough, uphill shot. But since my ball was buried in deep rough, I could only hit 9 iron then another 9 iron (and made the putt!) So the rough simply dumbed down the hole for me; the course setup took away options. Try to imagine if the fairway bowed out at 240 to 200 to the green (and I'd be fine if the fairway narrowed from that point forward from the tee.) We'd have a hole with more options, one the was more fun, one that maybe enticed me into doing something dumb and making a double. Not just a tough, boring slog of a hole.

[Mark Fedeli]

Nick, am I correct that the accuracy studies you're quoting are talking about improved equipment performance via tests done by professionals in a controlled trackman environment? They are not tracking in-field results from a range of actual players, pro and amateur? Do we know how much more accurate the average player is now, if at all?


We do know how much less accurate Tour players are since 2000, though: almost 10%. So certainly you'll agree all fairways at Black should be expanded to 10% wider than what they were when they were renovated?


Source: https://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-pro-golf-has-changed-off-tee-1980-even-more-staggering-might-think

Did you even read the article? It clearly states tour average in 95 was 264 yards and in 2017 it was 293. The driver is 10% less accurate but flies how far today in 2019? Some tour pros hit driving irons well past 264 yards and are WAY more accurate then their driver was at 264 in 95... Nice try though... why do you refuse to do a little math? Give a decent argument for wider fairways, not just you want them and will throw a tantrum till you get them..

Nick, I've given plenty of reasons for why I'd like to see the course made more fun and dynamic (not easier), with more angles and options, by adding back some of the original fairway width and removing some of overzealous bunkering. And you've given your reasons for your stance over and over. Let's just agree to disagree and you can knock off the personal attacks.


Or, do whatever you want, I don't care anymore. You've been thoroughly disrespectful and condescending at every turn, mostly to me, but essentially to anyone who even remotely disagrees with you. And through it all I haven't said one demeaning word to you. Yet still you continue. I've not criticized anyone who likes the course the way it is. That's great. I like it too. That's why I play it multiple times per month. It's a very very good course, and I enjoy hearing opposing viewpoints, and I can enjoy golf courses that aren't my total idyll.


So yeah, I'm done engaging with you and your bad faith arguments. Yours is the sort of online behavior I thought I came to this site to get away from. I guess you win. Congrats.


If anyone else wants to discuss this topic, I'm more than happy to converse.

[Kalen Braley]

Seems to me, if they wanted to determine who is the longest and straightest driver of the golf ball...with the tight and constrictive rough setup and all, they could just head down here.  Everyone could play at once, have some drinks, snacks, and laughs, and it'd be a helluva whole lot cheaper to rent one of these out for the weekend...

[Nick Ribeiro]

Well, Nick, I won't choose paragraph #2 because it is absurd, not to mention in dire need of a comma. The architects' intent was never to demand straight on approach shots all over the course.


Paragraph #1 is closer but confused, so I'll have to help you clean it up.


Understanding the value of width is not an easy concept. I remember reading about it on GCA for years but I thought like you: wider is easier. Then I went to Australia and played Royal Melbourne. I probably smirked at 60 yard wide fairways a flailed away from the tee. I remember being in a couple of fairways, but in a completely wrong position with no real good play for the pin. I remember walking off that course saying: "Now I understand the importance of width!" Do yourself a favor and keep open the possibility that you might be wrong about wide fairways being easier by definition...
I get the concept of width and understand why everyone likes it. It is without a doubt easier. Anything other than short grass there (especially US Open rough) is harder. The bigger issue is, take a look at what the PGA tour did to Trinity Forest this week. Which is plenty long! Total embarrassment for what is a good course. See, believe it or not I don't mind wide fairways with distance and never once said I didn't like it. I said I do not like when classics think they can pull the same thing off with mass tree slaughtering and I am left with driver pitch shot all day long. Thoughtless golf!


It would be wrong to put Bethpage Black's green complexes in the same category as RM West. But if you really look at the aerials, there is PLENTY of bunkering at BPB that you'd rather not carry, straight on approaches (from the narrow fairways) are clearly preferable. Especially if firm and fast fairways allowed the ball to roll even further offline.


Take a hole like 15. I played it last year and pushed my drive 5 yards into the rough. Theoretically, I could have reached the green with a 3 or 5 wood. It would have been a very risky shot and I probably would have ended up short in the bunker with a long, tough, uphill shot. But since my ball was buried in deep rough, I could only hit 9 iron then another 9 iron (and made the putt!) So the rough simply dumbed down the hole for me; the course setup took away options. Try to imagine if the fairway bowed out at 240 to 200 to the green (and I'd be fine if the fairway narrowed from that point forward from the tee.) We'd have a hole with more options, one the was more fun, one that maybe enticed me into doing something dumb and making a double. Not just a tough, boring slog of a hole.
Again, where does it end? You were ONLY 5 yards off so you should get a break? What if your 6 yards off? Does you then deserve to be penalized? When you hit a great shot to be 3 feet from the pin thats on the edge and end up in a bunker or water hazard do you complain about the green and pin you decided to take on? The water hazard or bunker should be moved? Then how far? where does it end? When you have a clear straight shot from tee to green but since the fairways are 80 yards wide its okay because the course is holding your hand through errant shots?

[Bill Brightly]

At no point did I criticize BPB because of how it plays for my game. This is also true for all the other posters with whom you are arguing. Rather, we are looking at how the mowing lines effect golfers as a whole.


Perhaps that's part of your problem, Nick. You look at a course through only your own eyes; only consider your own game. I'll grant that it takes some much deeper thought to consider how ALL players will enjoy a course. That requires a truly skilled eye. For a course to be truly great, it should be playable for golfers of many different levels, albeit from different tees.


I didn't bring up my tee shot on 15 to whine about my lie! I knew what I signed up for when I paid my greens fee. (I shot 81, so I'm still good enough to play really tough courses, but that is irrelevant.) I simply tried to explain how penal rough dumbs down a course and why you are on an island with your position. Again, I don't really expect you to grasp these concepts and I'm not sure why I'm wasting these keys strokes...

[Nick Ribeiro]

At no point did I criticize BPB because of how it plays for my game. This is also true for all the other posters with whom you are arguing. Rather, we are looking at how the mowing lines effect golfers as a whole.


Perhaps that's part of your problem, Nick. You look at a course through only your own eyes; only consider your own game. I'll grant that it takes some much deeper thought to consider how ALL players will enjoy a course. That requires a truly skilled eye. For a course to be truly great, it should be playable for golfers of many different levels, albeit from different tees.


I didn't bring up my tee shot on 15 to whine about my lie! I knew what I signed up for when I paid my greens fee. (I shot 81, so I'm still good enough to play really tough courses, but that is irrelevant.) I simply tried to explain how penal rough dumbs down a course and why you are on an island with your position. Again, I don't really expect you to grasp these concepts and I'm not sure why I'm wasting these keys strokes...

Another who refuses to read and accept the sign before the first tee. The course is not for all golfers, it can't be anymore clear. That is how I look at Bethpage, for the "highly skilled" golfers, as it has always been intended...

[Mark Fedeli]

To bring things back to the beginning...

When I started the thread, what I was hoping to see from those opposed to my position was an explanation of why they thought the fairways should be narrow, from a purely architectural standpoint (other than the need to challenge Tour pros). When discussing the greatest courses on earth, we don't grade on a curve. So Bethpage should not get any passes because Pine Valley doesn't host a Tour event.


Many of us have provided examples of certain angles or options that were lost on specific holes, but I wonder if there is a rebuttal about why the strategy and variety and dynamism of the course (for non-televised events) is enhanced because of the recent narrowing and added bunkering, and on which holes that occurs?


Because, if it can't be proven that the course now has more strategy or more variety or is more dynamic with narrow fairways, then I believe it is entirely reasonable to say the course is not currently great compared to other great courses who value those traits more. And if the defense of that concedes that Black just isn't meant to be especially dynamic, it's meant to accomplish certain brute challenges only, then we admit that the claims that it is a bit too one-dimensional have some basis of truth. And thus, is ripe for questioning of the high esteem of which it's largely held.

[Bill Brightly]

Mark, I think the course fills one important role: it provides all of us the opportunity to play a brutally hard course that hosts US Open and truly experience what pro golfers have to deal with once per year That is worth something.


At the same time, it presents a great topic for discussion about what makes a course truly great. I've come to understand that the overwhelming percentage of posters on GCA.COM know their stuff; they know that "hard does not make great."  So BPB also represents a course set up for today's pros and elite amateurs. Something to be studied but not emulated.

[Mark Fedeli]

Mark, I think the course fills one important role: it provides all of us the opportunity to play a brutally hard course that hosts US Open and truly experience what pro golfers have to deal with once per year That is worth something.


At the same time, it presents a great topic for discussion about what makes a course truly great. I've come to understand that the overwhelming percentage of posters on GCA.COM know their stuff; they know that "hard does not make great."  So BPB also represents a course set up for today's pros and elite amateurs. Something to be studied but not emulated.

True. It's a shame it has to be a theme park, but alas, I made my peace with it long ago. Can't wait until these interlopers head back to their Florida mansions so I can get back on.

[Mike Schott]

I thought this community embraced history, architecture, the classic architects, the properties they built, and the intent of how they were supposed to be played. Unfortunately some here feel like classics should just be redesigned to suit THEIR game. Sad.

I feel like I am reading through a Trump Twitter rant!

    Fake news!

[Nick Ribeiro]

To bring things back to the beginning...

When I started the thread, what I was hoping to see from those opposed to my position was an explanation of why they thought the fairways should be narrow, from a purely architectural standpoint (other than the need to challenge Tour pros). When discussing the greatest courses on earth, we don't grade on a curve. So Bethpage should not get any passes because Pine Valley doesn't host a Tour event.


Many of us have provided examples of certain angles or options that were lost on specific holes, but I wonder if there is a rebuttal about why the strategy and variety and dynamism of the course (for non-televised events) is enhanced because of the recent narrowing and added bunkering, and on which holes that occurs?


Because, if it can't be proven that the course now has more strategy or more variety or is more dynamic with narrow fairways, then I believe it is entirely reasonable to say the course is not currently great compared to other great courses who value those traits more. And if the defense of that concedes that Black just isn't meant to be especially dynamic, it's meant to accomplish certain brute challenges only, then we admit that the claims that it is a bit too one-dimensional have some basis of truth. And thus, is ripe for questioning of the high esteem of which it's largely held.

Mark,

Have you played PV? What does PV not hosting a tourney have anything to do with it? PV is harder than Bethpage Black for amatuers. They are similar in alot of ways which I tried to explain earlier but will explain a few hole by hole for you assuming you havent been there.

Hole 1
BB - Par 4 430yd - Dog leg right with trees on the right and rough on both sides.
PV - Par 4 421yd - Dog leg right tree lined on both sides with sand up along the right side of the hole and a forced carry over sand off the tee.

Hole 2
BB - Par 4 389yd - Dog leg left up hill the whole way with bunkers in front
PV - Par 4 368yd - Boasts hardest par 4 in world under 400 yards. Church pews up both sides with an uphill blind approach and a sea of bunkers in front

Hole 3
BB - Par 3 230 yd - Bunkers short and right, short grass in front allows for a run up shot
PV - Par 3 198 yd - Island green around sand, all carry, if pin is in back left flat out brutal, green becomes way small back there

Hole 4
BB - Par 5 517 yd - A 3 shot hole only 18 yards longer than the par 4 4th at PV. As long as you don't try to play it as a par 4 and get brave its a fairly easy hole.
PV - Par 4 499 yd - Forced carry tee shot, bunkers across fairway in middle of hole, green is easier to run shots up to as it should be given distance of hole.

Hole 5
BB - Par 4 478 yd  - Beast of a hole, dog leg right with bunkers on right, pretty much forced carry over those bunkers because if you go left you have to play a draw into the green. Approach is long and requires you to fly it to the green.
PV - Par 3 238 yd - In discussion fo hardest par 3 in country. No options, hit it to the green or death.

I could go on but I feel this is enough for you to get the point. IF hard is not great (Bill) then you are saying PV is not great either. I encourage you to go hole by hole on google maps with both courses, it's no where near the same experience as playing it but seeing it on maps should give you an idea of why BOTH are great.

Even better would be to watch these 2 fly overs at the same time hole by hole
PV - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAlbmd5UdzA
BB - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Lh45FnvWw


I think you will see why this thread has gotten so out of control with bias and maybe you will learn to appreciate Bethpage for what it is, a GREAT championship design in its own way but still has many similarities to the other GREATS

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Another who refuses to read and accept the sign before the first tee. The course is not for all golfers, it can't be anymore clear. That is how I look at Bethpage, for the "highly skilled" golfers, as it has always been intended...

Plenty of courses could have a sign like that on the first tee - Oakmont and Pine Valley for example - while not being as boring or dull architecturally as the current iteration of BPB. While offering more options, more angles, more lines.

THAT is one of the main points everyone but you keeps making (and that you keep missing).

[corey miller]

And what is the definition of a "highly skilled" golfer?  I would probably say it was well into "+" territory but if others think otherwise it would go a long way to better understanding the "golfers as athletes" thread. 


I would also add (and I am a little afraid with Nick lurking)  that Pine Valley for "ME" is hard because of original design intent and Bethpage is "more hard and less fun" because of maintenance decisions rather than design intent.  I do not agree that changes in maintenance (fairway width, rough length, green speed) are components of preserving design intent but again that is an opinion.


and though I have played few of Rees original designs I did have to endure his boorish behavior at a MGA function and I have seen the hack work he has done (regardless of what the mandate was) on many classic era courses in the Metro area. 


I do know that there is a lot of phoniness that goes into how "renovation/restoration" is presented to a membership (I participated in this myself) but think we must take Rees at his word and note that he lists Bethpage as a Restoration.


[size=78%]https://www.reesjonesinc.com/golf-course-restoration.php[/size]

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Another who refuses to read and accept the sign before the first tee. The course is not for all golfers, it can't be anymore clear. That is how I look at Bethpage, for the "highly skilled" golfers, as it has always been intended...

Plenty of courses could have a sign like that on the first tee - Oakmont and Pine Valley for example - while not being as boring or dull architecturally as the current iteration of BPB.

THAT is one of the main point everyone but you keeps making (and that you keep missing).

Well this week is certainly generating some discussion- nice to see Golf Club Atlas is still alive.


Why does Bethpage generate so much attention? And why is it so negative? What is this ignorant focus on the fans?


___________


Erik, I wonder how much golf you've played at the park?


Bethpage Black is part of the bigger picture for those that call Bethpage home; like myself, family and friends have for many years. The park has incredible VARIETY- now the Black might not have the VARIETY that The Old Course, or Friars Head offers, but thats why there is the Green, Blue, Yellow, and Red course. We moved around those and were inspired day in and day out by each respectively.


Bethpage Black dull? Maybe for a beater...


Over the course of 3 rounds in the New York State Open last year here are some highlights-


First hole-
Driver, PW
Second hole-
5 Wood, 8 iron
Third hole-
6 iron
Fourth Hole
Driver, 3 iron, Wedge
Fifth Hole
Driver, Gap Wedge (smoked down wind)
Sixth Hole-
Smoked pefect 5 wood, Gap Wedge
7th Hole
Driver, 3 iron, 58 degree
8th Hole
Flighted 7 iron front hole location
Full 6 back hole location
9th Hole-
Driver, 9 iron
Driver, 7 iron (tee all the way back)
10th Hole-
Driver, 6 irons DAY 1
11th Hole
Driver, PW
12th Hole
Driver, 3 iron
13th Hole
Driver, 4 iron, 58 degree
14th Hole
PW- front hole location
8iron- BACK RIGHT hole location
15th Hole
Driver, 5 wood
Driver, GW, GW
Driver, 6 iron
16th Hole
Driver, 8 iron
17th Hole
6 Iron
18th Hole
5 wood, 8iron


All while traversing a wonderfully moving parkland routing with consistent change in direction....how you could say the Black is boring is beyond me.


The USGA tightened the corridors for 2002 US Open and the park kept them- so yes its tight in the Landing Area's....and the aesthetic is awful in places- the bunkers need to look like the cross bunker on 5 and 7..its not hard, or like the RED.


Would the Black be a better play with widening? Yes- for sure. But maybe if the current equipment didn't make driving the ball such a joke the course set ups wouldn't have to be so penal off the tee- because you can't fake it around the Black- and I see that as ok over the course of a calendar year that offer ANGC or the OLD COURSE.

Maybe the greatness of New York is too much for people to handle, the energy, and they feel compelled to bring some negative dialogue...like Geoff Shackelford did to start the week. I thought Geoff's take on everything from the PGA of America, to weather, to the course, to the fans, to NY hosting too many events to be extremely myopic.


There is a reason why tournaments are played in the New York Metro areas-  IT WORKS.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Bethpage Black is part of the bigger picture for those that call Bethpage home; like myself, family and friends have for many years. The park has incredible VARIETY- now the Black might not have the VARIETY that The Old Course, or Friars Head offers, but thats why there is the Green, Blue, Yellow, and Red course. We moved around those and were inspired day in and day out by each respectively.

There is a reason why tournaments are played in the New York Metro areas-  IT WORKS.

Very good point and another widely used criteria for ranking, VARIETY. We should be able to have variety in our golf courses. I'll say it for the millionth time -
To mimic the shot played from the tee 100 years ago with modern day equipment the hole must be longer and more narrow to compensate for modern day distance and accuracy. Rees has done a fantastic job with that at Bethpage Black which is why its called a RESTORATION. If the same shot does not exist on off the tee as it did when constructed the work done should be labeled a redesign.
Now if anyone wants to just come out and say they don't care about original intent and just want what they want I am totally cool with that. Mark has basically done all but say that. But you can't have it both ways. Wider fairways, half par holes, eliminating rough is all redesign work and you can't then say in next breath you care about preserving history.

[corey miller]

I know we have a few that champion Rees glorious RESTORATION of the black course which I am to believe a function of his "restoring" difficulty? 


It appears that Nick may be a champion for his work on classic courses but Rees also seems to consider it a "remodel"?
What's up with that?


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

[Kalen Braley]

Hilarious Corey, great find!


And to the previous comment about "IT WORKS"... i'm sure big events want to go to NY for all the sparkling personalities and energy, and certainly not for monetary or marketing reasons or corporate hob-knobbing and networking otherwise...