[Tim Martin]

How far would widening the mowing lines, thin out and/or step cuts of rough and reclaiming some runoffs or short grass around green entrances as Tom Doak suggested go to satisfying those that are presently disillusioned with the golf course? In general terms what else would be required?

"The most famous characteristic of the Black is its punishing nature, and this was very much the original design intent."  Thomas Dunne"

It was Burbeck's idea to develop one of these (Bethpage) layouts along lines which were to be severe to a marked degree.  It was his ambition to have something which might compare with Pine Valley as a great test..."  AW Tillinghast

Do you care at all about history? Or no, just want it easier also?

Nick-I didn’t take the other side of the argument in that post or any other contained in this thread. My question was to the original poster and those that have lined up on the same side of the argument as to whether from their perspective the aforementioned changes and/or others would sway their opinion of BPB. Finally in their opinion could it achieve “greatness” or was it never great to begin with.

You guys are not arguing about Bethpage, you are just arguing about the meaning of the word "great".


Some believe a course that only the best players can get around is better than others.  Some believe it is worse.

I think with a thread that is titled “Bethpage Is Not A Great Course” and the original poster conceding in the first paragraph that “it is merely very very good” that someone should in fact define it. The latest Golf Magazine Top 100 World has BPB on its list. Golf Digest has it in its Top 100 U.S. list. GolfWeek has it in its Top 100 Classic list. It got a 7 in the original Confidential Guide from an October 1990 visit. I don’t know if that has changed in the new version. Finally it received a pretty effusive write up from Ran in 2003 and subsequent to all the work done to prepare for the first U.S. Open. It doesn’t surprise me that this thread has endured for as many pages as it has as there’s a lot to talk about.

[Bill Brightly]

I think 7 on the Doak scale is about right:


7.An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

Possibly an 8, but definitely not a 9 or 10. So it cannot be called great.

8. One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8s in some places and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout


9. An outstanding course, certainly one of the best in the world, with no weaknesses in regard to condition, length or poor holes. You should see this course sometime in your life.

10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven't seen all the courses in this category, you don't know how good golf architecture can get. Call your travel agent immediately.

[Kalen Braley]

Isn't Torrey Pines South also on those lists?  And Firestone? And Whistling Straits??

Don't confuse Rater "Play where the pros play" homerism for quality....


P.S.  I would think great should be 8-10s on the DS...

[Tom_Doak]

I think 7 on the Doak scale is about right:


7.An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

Possibly an 8, but definitely not a 9 or 10. So it cannot be called great.

8. One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8s in some places and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout


9. An outstanding course, certainly one of the best in the world, with no weaknesses in regard to condition, length or poor holes. You should see this course sometime in your life.

10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven't seen all the courses in this category, you don't know how good golf architecture can get. Call your travel agent immediately.

Bill:


You might have noticed that the word "great" does not appear anywhere in the descriptions for the Doak Scale.  For many golfers, a 7 would qualify as great.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill:


You might have noticed that the word "great" does not appear anywhere in the descriptions for the Doak Scale.  For many golfers, a 7 would qualify as great.

I did notice that, Tom. And looking at your scale again reminded me how much I hate the phrase "great track" or even "great course." It is far too simple, far too expansive. It begs the question: "what is a great course?" and falls short when the people in the discussion have different definitions.


I was going to list my guidelines (great set of greens, variety of strategic options throughout the course, risk reward options, nice elevation changes, excellent walking course, attractive views, proximity to a body  water, ideally salt water, etc.) Or my favorite shorthand version: do I want to run from the 18th green to the first tee? Bethpage checks of a some of these, but not not enough for me to call it a great course.


Maybe we simply need the other posters to place BPB on your scale and this thread will end on page 11. 

[Nick Ribeiro]

I think with a thread that is titled “Bethpage Is Not A Great Course” and the original poster conceding in the first paragraph that “it is merely very very good” that someone should in fact define it. The latest Golf Magazine Top 100 World has BPB on its list. Golf Digest has it in its Top 100 U.S. list. GolfWeek has it in its Top 100 Classic list. It got a 7 in the original Confidential Guide from an October 1990 visit. I don’t know if that has changed in the new version. Finally it received a pretty effusive write up from Ran in 2003 and subsequent to all the work done to prepare for the first U.S. Open. It doesn’t surprise me that this thread has endured for as many pages as it has as there’s a lot to talk about.



Tim - You noticed that loathsome title as well? The original poster was obviously looking for attention with the opening post and title. Very easy to call him out, very surprised how many sided with him or tried. I think if the course was in 1 or 2 lists but then ranked far differently on others or not at all, you then have a debate. It's really tough to come on to a site like this (especially for the world to see) and start such a ridiculous thread going against essentially what the entire golf world believes which is Bethpage Black is a great course. It's taken us 11 pages for some of the smart ones to realize what they are up against and claim "great" a relative term, which it is in everyone's defense. If "great" is top 5% or 10% or whatever it is of all golf courses, then Bethpage is easily great. If someone wants to make the claim that great is maybe anything inside the top 5% of golf courses but anything right outside of 5% is only "very very good" then that's fine but be prepared to say something along the lines of, Bethpage is not a top 1000 course. There are somewhere around 35,000 golf courses in the world. If "great" does not belong inside of 5% where does it start?

[Nick Ribeiro]

Bill:


You might have noticed that the word "great" does not appear anywhere in the descriptions for the Doak Scale.  For many golfers, a 7 would qualify as great.

I did notice that, Tom. And looking at your scale again reminded me how much I hate the phrase "great track" or even "great course." It is far too simple, far too expansive. It begs the question: "what is a great course?" and falls short when the people in the discussion have different definitions.


I was going to list my guidelines (great set of greens, variety of strategic options throughout the course, risk reward options, nice elevation changes, excellent walking course, attractive views, proximity to a body  water, ideally salt water, etc.) Or my favorite shorthand version: do I want to run from the 18th green to the first tee? Bethpage checks of a some of these, but not not enough for me to call it a great course.


Maybe we simply need the other posters to place BPB on your scale and this thread will end on page 11. 

Very easy - the debate is somewhere between 9 and 10. Then we will actually look like we know what we are talking about to the outside world 

[Mark Fedeli]

Arguing over the thread title is pure distraction. Argue instead over the details of the course, like the 15th hole.


In its current presentation, it fights against everything that I've learned makes for a fun, strategic, dynamic, and truly great golf hole.


A 430-480 yard par-4 with a fully-guarded green that plays almost 40 feet uphill does not also need 23-24 yard wide fairways lined with thick, deep rough.


The approach shot on 15 is iconic. The long carry up to that green is what makes the hole so special. It's the best that golf has to offer — being able to pull it off in regulation is the type of golf experience amateurs think about forever. To put so much demand instead on the pin-point accuracy of the drive (when wayward drives punish themselves well enough), robs many players of the hole's true greatness in a disappointing and artificial way. No one who hits that fairway feels a fraction of the satisfaction they feel upon hitting the green. They simply feel relief that the real fun hasn't been ruined.


If the only defense is that it's a theme park for the pro experience, that's fine, and valid, but also leaves little room for any further nuanced discussion about the architecture. Because, then, every decision made with the pros in mind becomes its own justification and becomes, in theory, above reproach. The point of the thread was to discuss the differences before and after, not make wholesale excuses for one or the other, and certainly not to sling insults and slander at anyone we don't agree with.

[James Reader]

I think with a thread that is titled “Bethpage Is Not A Great Course” and the original poster conceding in the first paragraph that “it is merely very very good” that someone should in fact define it. The latest Golf Magazine Top 100 World has BPB on its list. Golf Digest has it in its Top 100 U.S. list. GolfWeek has it in its Top 100 Classic list. It got a 7 in the original Confidential Guide from an October 1990 visit. I don’t know if that has changed in the new version. Finally it received a pretty effusive write up from Ran in 2003 and subsequent to all the work done to prepare for the first U.S. Open. It doesn’t surprise me that this thread has endured for as many pages as it has as there’s a lot to talk about.



Tim - You noticed that loathsome title as well? The original poster was obviously looking for attention with the opening post and title. Very easy to call him out, very surprised how many sided with him or tried. I think if the course was in 1 or 2 lists but then ranked far differently on others or not at all, you then have a debate. It's really tough to come on to a site like this (especially for the world to see) and start such a ridiculous thread going against essentially what the entire golf world believes which is Bethpage Black is a great course. It's taken us 11 pages for some of the smart ones to realize what they are up against and claim "great" a relative term, which it is in everyone's defense. If "great" is top 5% or 10% or whatever it is of all golf courses, then Bethpage is easily great. If someone wants to make the claim that great is maybe anything inside the top 5% of golf courses but anything right outside of 5% is only "very very good" then that's fine but be prepared to say something along the lines of, Bethpage is not a top 1000 course. There are somewhere around 35,000 golf courses in the world. If "great" does not belong inside of 5% where does it start?

There have been some critical comments on Twitter from non-GCA members about this thread (and the word loathsome was introduced earlier as well) but it’s not been the title, or the underlying premise, that’s been the subject in either case!

[Tom_Doak]

There have been some critical comments on Twitter from non-GCA members about this thread (and the word loathsome was introduced earlier as well) but it’s not been the title, or the underlying premise, that’s been the subject in either case!

I wish the President would concentrate on his day job.   

[Nick Ribeiro]

Outsiders are most critical over the unfair biased statements that sometimes happen here. How do you think the outsiders view the stance of we should all ignore the original posters title about the course not being great but lets all jump all over the definition of great starting on page 10 when we start to realize the world really does think it's great and we need to alter the consensus of what great is to save face.... This thread has over 6,000 views...
I'll be the one to inform the outsiders that this community really isn't as bad as the Original Poster makes us look with his click bait offensive title.

[Buck Wolter]

There have been some critical comments on Twitter from non-GCA members about this thread (and the word loathsome was introduced earlier as well) but it’s not been the title, or the underlying premise, that’s been the subject in either case!

I wish the President would concentrate on his day job.   

You'd be good at twitter

[Bill Brightly]

Outsiders are most critical over the unfair biased statements that sometimes happen here. How do you think the outsiders view the stance of we should all ignore the original posters title about the course not being great but lets all jump all over the definition of great starting on page 10 when we start to realize the world really does think it's great and we need to alter the consensus of what great is to save face.... This thread has over 6,000 views...
I'll be the one to inform the outsiders that this community really isn't as bad as the Original Poster makes us look with his click bait offensive title.

Nick, the last thing the GCA.COM community needs is YOU representing us to outsiders... (I think your earlier offensive personal attacks on others have been deleted by the moderator, so that's a relief...)


Why don't you tell us what makes Bethpage Black a great golf course in YOUR opinion, and not refer to  magazine rankings?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'll be the one to inform the outsiders that this community really isn't as bad as the Original Poster makes us look with his click bait offensive title.

Oh my. You're delusional.

I second what Bill just posted.

[Terry Lavin]

I'll be the one to inform the outsiders that this community really isn't as bad as the Original Poster makes us look with his click bait offensive title.

Oh my. You're delusional.

Birds of a feather mock together.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Birds of a feather mock together.

Great contribution as always, Terry. Your first post in this topic. Cool.

[Terry Lavin]

Birds of a feather mock together.

Great contribution as always, Terry.

So says he who throws nothing but shade and self-promotion. You and Nick should drink shots of bile together.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So says he who throws nothing but shade and self-promotion. You and Nick should drink shots of bile together.

Whatever you say man. Sheesh.

[Terry Lavin]

So says he who throws nothing but shade and self-promotion. You and Nick should drink shots of bile together.

Whatever you say man. Sheesh.

Go say it on Shack with the other eleven guys who post there. You’re the king of anti-social media hereabouts.

[Michael Felton]

Arguing over the thread title is pure distraction. Argue instead over the details of the course, like the 15th hole.


In its current presentation, it fights against everything that I've learned makes for a fun, strategic, dynamic, and truly great golf hole.


A 430-480 yard par-4 with a fully-guarded green that plays almost 40 feet uphill does not also need 23-24 yard wide fairways lined with thick, deep rough.


The approach shot on 15 is iconic. The long carry up to that green is what makes the hole so special. It's the best that golf has to offer — being able to pull it off in regulation is the type of golf experience amateurs think about forever. To put so much demand instead on the pin-point accuracy of the drive (when wayward drives punish themselves well enough), robs many players of the hole's true greatness in a disappointing and artificial way. No one who hits that fairway feels a fraction of the satisfaction they feel upon hitting the green. They simply feel relief that the real fun hasn't been ruined.

Morning Mark


One question for you - let's suppose that the fairway on 15 were 40 yards wide instead of 24 or whatever it is. How would it become strategic? I agree with everything else you say. That hole above virtually any other I can think of doesn't need a narrow fairway. I'd much prefer playing it and it would be more fun if the fairway was wider, but I don't believe it would be more strategic. To me, the strategic hole there is number 6. You either lay back to the top of the hill with a long iron or you hit driver over the bunker and try hit the fairway at the bottom. You take a risk because there is endless trouble down there, but you get the reward of the flick with a wedge if you succeed. That hole could have more strategy to it if the fairway up top was wider I agree. I don't think 15 would change much if the fairway was wider other than that you'd have more chances to go for the green rather than dinking it to the end of the fairway.

[Mark Fedeli]

Arguing over the thread title is pure distraction. Argue instead over the details of the course, like the 15th hole.


In its current presentation, it fights against everything that I've learned makes for a fun, strategic, dynamic, and truly great golf hole.


A 430-480 yard par-4 with a fully-guarded green that plays almost 40 feet uphill does not also need 23-24 yard wide fairways lined with thick, deep rough.


The approach shot on 15 is iconic. The long carry up to that green is what makes the hole so special. It's the best that golf has to offer — being able to pull it off in regulation is the type of golf experience amateurs think about forever. To put so much demand instead on the pin-point accuracy of the drive (when wayward drives punish themselves well enough), robs many players of the hole's true greatness in a disappointing and artificial way. No one who hits that fairway feels a fraction of the satisfaction they feel upon hitting the green. They simply feel relief that the real fun hasn't been ruined.

Morning Mark


One question for you - let's suppose that the fairway on 15 were 40 yards wide instead of 24 or whatever it is. How would it become strategic? I agree with everything else you say. That hole above virtually any other I can think of doesn't need a narrow fairway. I'd much prefer playing it and it would be more fun if the fairway was wider, but I don't believe it would be more strategic. To me, the strategic hole there is number 6. You either lay back to the top of the hill with a long iron or you hit driver over the bunker and try hit the fairway at the bottom. You take a risk because there is endless trouble down there, but you get the reward of the flick with a wedge if you succeed. That hole could have more strategy to it if the fairway up top was wider I agree. I don't think 15 would change much if the fairway was wider other than that you'd have more chances to go for the green rather than dinking it to the end of the fairway.

That's a great point. It wouldn't be much more strategic outside of, say, truly choosing to favor the left side of the fairway in order to cut the corner and some of the distance. That's not nothing, but you are correct, it's not the boldest decision. Or, perhaps, giving more people the chance to go for it also gives more people the chance to choose not to go for it, making a strategic decision in that manner as opposed to having no choice from the rough. Again, not the starkest of terms, but more than the current allows.

[Kyle Harris]

Arguing over the thread title is pure distraction. Argue instead over the details of the course, like the 15th hole.


In its current presentation, it fights against everything that I've learned makes for a fun, strategic, dynamic, and truly great golf hole.


A 430-480 yard par-4 with a fully-guarded green that plays almost 40 feet uphill does not also need 23-24 yard wide fairways lined with thick, deep rough.


The approach shot on 15 is iconic. The long carry up to that green is what makes the hole so special. It's the best that golf has to offer — being able to pull it off in regulation is the type of golf experience amateurs think about forever. To put so much demand instead on the pin-point accuracy of the drive (when wayward drives punish themselves well enough), robs many players of the hole's true greatness in a disappointing and artificial way. No one who hits that fairway feels a fraction of the satisfaction they feel upon hitting the green. They simply feel relief that the real fun hasn't been ruined.

Morning Mark


One question for you - let's suppose that the fairway on 15 were 40 yards wide instead of 24 or whatever it is. How would it become strategic? I agree with everything else you say. That hole above virtually any other I can think of doesn't need a narrow fairway. I'd much prefer playing it and it would be more fun if the fairway was wider, but I don't believe it would be more strategic. To me, the strategic hole there is number 6. You either lay back to the top of the hill with a long iron or you hit driver over the bunker and try hit the fairway at the bottom. You take a risk because there is endless trouble down there, but you get the reward of the flick with a wedge if you succeed. That hole could have more strategy to it if the fairway up top was wider I agree. I don't think 15 would change much if the fairway was wider other than that you'd have more chances to go for the green rather than dinking it to the end of the fairway.

That's a great point. It wouldn't be much more strategic outside of, say, truly choosing to favor the left side of the fairway in order to cut the corner and some of the distance. That's not nothing, but you are correct, it's not the boldest decision. Or, perhaps, giving more people the chance to go for it also gives more people the chance to choose not to go for it, making a strategic decision in that manner as opposed to having no choice from the rough. Again, not the starkest of terms, but more than the current allows.

Less so since they softened it, but the further right off the tee on #15 you get, the more you are hitting a shot against the cross-slope of the green.

[MCirba]

I'm not sure what's wrong with the title?

If someone believes that Bethpage is not a great course and posts their OPINION under their own name why is that an issue?   

Nevermind...please...no need to respond.   

It sounds to me that the comments are more about the presentation and setup of the course, but of course, that is by definition a big part of the playability (or not) of the course today.   A horse is a horse, of course of course. 

[Joe Bausch]

Was the addition of green space at 11 of BPB an expansion of the green or recaptured green area?

[Mike Sweeney]

Was the addition of green space at 11 of BPB an expansion of the green or recaptured green area?

Those two things are not mutually exclusive!


While 10 and 11 have the same corridors, those two holes probably look the most different in the pre/post renovation era.


I doubt Rees did much research, from a GCA.com perspective, on BB before the USGA renovation. It needed lots of work and the "renovation" era had not really started, I think.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()