Bethpage Black Setup

[Tim Martin]

For all the critics of Bethpage’s setup how would you test the best players in the world and still stay true to the so called “design intent”? You have to do better than just “who cares what the winning score is”? Thanks.

[Kyle Harris]

For all the critics of Bethpage’s setup how would you test the best players in the world and still stay true to the so called “design intent”? You have to do better than just “who cares what the winning score is”? Thanks.

Force them to hit precise shots from uneven lies at a variety of distances.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Tim - Kudos, you bring up a dangerous topic around here. We will see how the scoring goes at Bethpage to determine whether set up is too hard, too easy, or just right. Personally, I think the argument of "I don't care what they score" is a blatant disregard for intent. IMO we have seen these pros (and now some amateurs) destroy these courses with wide fairways and no trees. I am not saying it was a bad idea a decade ago, I am saying advancement in equipment have made it unplayable for pros today and soon amateurs. Personally I would like to see pros win tournaments with the same scores they did when the venue was designed. It's no fun watching half a field chase 54.

Kyle - Have you been to Trinity Forest? Lots of uneven lies in those fairways. I have not been but the course looks like a course I would enjoy and not even from the back tees. I think you make a case for amatuers (right now but maybe not in the near future) and obviously uneven lie is harder for a pro as well, but not nearly enough.

[Kalen Braley]

Nick,


He did say precise shots required off varied lies.  I think ANGC is a much better example over Trinity forest where the penalty of being out of position is far more severe...

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick,


He did say precise shots required off varied lies.  I think ANGC is a much better example over Trinity forest where the penalty of being out of position is far more severe...

Whoa, big time moving of dirt... Elevation changes at ANGC are way big which def contribute greatly towards those varied lies. Not sure many clubs can afford the mass redesign your suggesting...
Can you elaborate?

[Kyle Harris]

Challenge and difficulty do not rule out success. The question posed was how to test the best players in the world.

You can either accept that the best players in the world are capable of acing the test or you can present them with Kobayashi Maru.

The counter question is:


How does a player pass your examination?

[Kalen Braley]

Nick,


He did say precise shots required off varied lies.  I think ANGC is a much better example over Trinity forest where the penalty of being out of position is far more severe...

Whoa, big time moving of dirt... Elevation changes at ANGC are way big which def contribute greatly towards those varied lies. Not sure many clubs can afford the mass redesign your suggesting...
Can you elaborate?

Nick,

I have no idea how you made that jump.  I never advocated every course should be or attempt to be ANGC, only that its a good example of a course where precise shots are required off varied lies.

And its probably not coincidence that two other excellent examples Oakmont and Pine Valley also have a fair amount of elevation differential. 

And given BPB fits this category as well it seems a shame so much of that interesting terrain is covered with one dimensional rough....

[Peter Flory]

These Bleacher Report betting segments are brutal. 

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick,


He did say precise shots required off varied lies.  I think ANGC is a much better example over Trinity forest where the penalty of being out of position is far more severe...

Whoa, big time moving of dirt... Elevation changes at ANGC are way big which def contribute greatly towards those varied lies. Not sure many clubs can afford the mass redesign your suggesting...
Can you elaborate?

Nick,

I have no idea how you made that jump.  I never advocated every course should be or attempt to be ANGC, only that its a good example of a course where precise shots are required off varied lies.

And its probably not coincidence that two other excellent examples Oakmont and Pine Valley also have a fair amount of elevation differential. 

And given BPB fits this category as well it seems a shame so much of that interesting terrain is covered with one dimensional rough....

You are listing clubs that essentially have unlimited funds to make any amount of significant change they want. They also sink massive budgets into statistical analyses to make changes to specific areas that make the course harder for the pros during tourney time. It's no secret that the amount of money and resources ANGC puts into course changes on an annual basis is not affordable for most clubs. Would you agree the level of change and resources required to copy Oakmont / ANGC is unreasonable?


If ANGC is only an example, how would other courses obtain the same level of precise shots from varied lies without the money or resources ANGC has?

[Kalen Braley]

Nick,

Go back and re-read the OP, and Kyle's response.  Tim asked a very specific question about how do you test the best players in the world?  Not how do you test the average muni Joes.

99.99% of the worlds golf courses don't need to be a PV, or Oakmont, or a BPB, because the Pros will never play em in competition.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick,

Go back and re-read the OP, and Kyle's response.  Tim asked a very specific question about how do you test the best players in the world?  Not how do you test the average muni Joes.

99.99% of the worlds golf courses don't need to be a PV, or Oakmont, or a BPB, because the Pros will never play em in competition.

Correct, His answer was force them to hit shots off uneven lies.
My response was that didnt fair well at Trinity Forest
Then you used ANGC as an example of a place that would do this far better than Trinity Forest.
Then I reminded you of the difference in elevation change between ANGC and Trinity Forest or most courses.


Let's stay on topic so this thread doesn't turn into the last one.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Challenge and difficulty do not rule out success. The question posed was how to test the best players in the world.

You can either accept that the best players in the world are capable of acing the test or you can present them with Kobayashi Maru.

The counter question is:


How does a player pass your examination?

Kyle, I don't have an answer but I do have an open mind. I must admit I feel its a disappointing start to the PGA Championship due to the fact I would like to see a final score of a major close to what the final score would have been when course was designed. Brooks is killing it. The fairways are not narrow enough and the course is not penal enough with today's conditions.


I didn't get the opportunity to respond regarding the flat or subtle greens at Bethpage in the last thread. They maintain the original undulations but are subtle due to required green speeds to test today's pros. It is my belief amateurs are catching up to pros rapidly in certain areas like distance and accuracy. Going forward we may see a new trend of narrow fairways, harder bunkers, thicker rough, and greens that are similar to the way they were long ago but not as intended as they will also need to be fast to keep up with current pros and better amateurs.


As far as adding width to Bethpage. It appears this would do nothing for the bombers but maybe make it even easier. I do think it could help the guys outside the top 20 maintain a closer distance to the guys inside the top 20, but we are then going to have lower scores throughout the field and a course that doesn't present a challenge anywhere near what it did a century ago.

[Tom_Doak]

Why do you equate "testing the best players" with a higher winning score?


One of the things I did not expect Brooks Koepka to emphasize in Houston was uneven lies . . . he noted that an uneven lie in the rough is hard to control, and if you combine that with some trouble around the green, even the best player might have to think defensively for a change.


Of course, Memorial Park in Houston is a very flat piece of property, so this has been tough to implement for that specific project - we've tried to sneak in a few bits where we can, but I will definitely think about this factor more in the future.

[Pat Burke]

IMO
The height the best players hit it now is staggering.  Trying to create angles is more difficult simply due to these players abilities to hit shots ridiculously high.


What needs to be challenged more if we are looking to challenge these guys is a far more precise requirement on distance control.  Shallow greens and angles that challenge a players ability to  or just hit it high, but the correct distance.  Giving room to them just allows players to hit it 20-30 past a hole, and they can handle that pretty confidently on perfect greens with their putting abilities.


Twelve at Augusta is a prime example.  Slight angle from front right to front left.  Same on the back  numbers,puts a short approach right in a lot of players heads.


17 approach on old course plays very shallow with the road and bunker, and for a longish approach needs to be played with a lot of precision


Width for “angles” very often means bombs away to get a shorter club and more height, negating that subtlety for many of the best players.


Width for the actual players paying for everything and fun angles is great, and as a non bomber, I love it.....but strictly looking at these guys, putting an absolute premium on distance control on approaches would be my thing to challenge them

[JMEvensky]

Pat, thanks for taking the time to type that. On this topic, your opinion is more equal than others'.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:


I don’t disagree with what you are saying, especially as to how high these players hit their iron shots.  (Brooks K might as well be dropping his ball out of a helicopter.)


But, your recommendations are precisely the type of greens Jack Nicklaus used to build, which were downright demoralizing for golfers with handicaps of 5 or higher.

[Michael Felton]

I would think that the course that tests the best players the best way would be the course that the best players fare well at. ANGC's leaderboard this year was a who's who of contemporary golf, so in that respect I'd say that ANGC does something right. Will be interesting to see how BPB does this week on that basis. I'd say it's off to not a bad start.

I don't think it particularly matters what the winning score is, although if it's much below -15, then I think it's getting towards being a putting contest and comes down to who has the hottest putter that week. These guys are absolute freaks though. Scary how good they are.

[David Druzisky]

Depending on the site and property, whatever you can do to keep them thinking and uncomfortable.  Varying yardage day to day with consideration to fairway hazards and such, uneven ground/lies, optional routes etc off the tee.  But green and green complex design is where it's at.  Similar to Augusta, segregated pin areas that require approach shot accuracy.  This of course then can translate back to the fairway options.


Unfortunately a lot of these old great courses might just not have those traits to exploit in set-up for a major championship and the governing body therefore turns to the usual tightening up the fairways, growing up the rough and firming and speeding up the green.  But you know all that.


A few new courses have been designed lately with championship golf in mind including Erin Hills.  Did they get it right there?
Now Schaupeters work at TPC Colorado will be interesting to see in action.

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately a lot of these old great courses might just not have those traits to exploit in set-up for a major championship and the governing body therefore turns to the usual tightening up the fairways, growing up the rough and firming and speeding up the green.  But you know all that.

They do all of that regardless of whether the course needs it, or not.

[Mike Sweeney]

IMO
The height the best players hit it now is staggering.  Trying to create angles is more difficult simply due to these players abilities to hit shots ridiculously high.

Pat,


I saw this post earlier and now I "get it". Rory and Jason Day just hit draws over the bunker on #16 with a right side pin GUARDED BY THE BUNKER. Obviously I have bunted, chipped, and other into that green, but there is NO CHANCE that I am hitting a draw over that bunker! And I can hit draws


Thanks for posting here, and if appropriate, I would love to hear your thoughts on Greg Norman's distance versus Brooks Koepka's distance in their respective eras.

[Sean_A]

For all the critics of Bethpage’s setup how would you test the best players in the world and still stay true to the so called “design intent”? You have to do better than just “who cares what the winning score is”? Thanks.

I reckon using the original penal designs (ie Oakmont etc) which have carried on being so is probably the only way to stay true to the design intent. A truly strategic design (which I am thinking are very rare for a touring pro) relies heavily on weather (windy and dry) to provide the zip for a strategic design.  Fortunately, this luck of the draw weather on a good strategic course is an almost certain guarantee for a lot of cool shots to be hit...in other words, entertainment. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat, thanks for taking the time to type that. On this topic, your opinion is more equal than others'.

Yes.
And with Tom's response (which, when it comes to gca, is also more equal than others') it brought several things to mind:
1. As per the 12th at Augusta & the 17th at the Old, architects know how to do it and it can be done; they just have to choose/figure out how to do it more often than not, and much more often than the alternative 'testing approaches' the Nick seems to be espousing for BB -- which, IMHO, have the troubling drawbacks of being tedious and unattractive and unimaginative.
2. I take it as a truth that, as Tom says, what Pat described are the 'kinds of greens that Nicklaus built', and that they were too hard for anyone above a 5 handicap. But: was the 'problem' in those instances the conception or the execution? Has it become conventional wisdom now that those kinds of greens/designs are flawed not only in practice but in theory? Has the baby been thrown out with the bath water in the name of keeping the retail golfer comfortable?
3. The better the class of golfer being tested the more finely graded & subtle the test must be; they are all "A" students, and so what truly tests -- and differentiates them from -- the "A+" student is hard to figure out. But I think one difference is that the A+ student knows, in his heart of hearts, and is confident that he is that one special one. So, yes: test distance control -- but, so as to test confidence, make the penalty for not controlling distance perfectly so severe (st least on occasion) that only the A+ student will 'self identify'.
And now, after this brief commercial interruption, it's back to Pat....

[Nick Ribeiro]

Why do you equate "testing the best players" with a higher winning score?


One of the things I did not expect Brooks Koepka to emphasize in Houston was uneven lies . . . he noted that an uneven lie in the rough is hard to control, and if you combine that with some trouble around the green, even the best player might have to think defensively for a change.


Of course, Memorial Park in Houston is a very flat piece of property, so this has been tough to implement for that specific project - we've tried to sneak in a few bits where we can, but I will definitely think about this factor more in the future.

Tom - I don't necessarily equate testing the best players with the highest score, however I don't want to see -20s in any event let alone majors. I know some guys will argue they don't care if the winner shoots in the -30s but its just not traditional golf at that point.


I will admit I was disappointed with the way Brooks just breezed right through the round today. He made it look beyond easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-OYp9AGdgE
He did miss a few greens and fairways but recovered with ease. Particularly on #1 I really thought he was in trouble after a terrible drive way off which should have been in the worst rough Bethpage had to offer. He recovered to a few feet which left me wondering if the rough is even penalizing? I didnt get to see full coverage, just the Brooks onslaught.


I will also say it was obvious the greens did not challenge him. When I was there I particularly liked the greens as they were fast and did break "subtly" but they are obviously not enough for tour pros.


Finally I find it interesting that Brooks noted an uneven lie in the rough is tough to control. Does Bethpage need to narrow the fairways even more at certain lengths to prevent players from shooting these scores?


I guess to be fair if you take Brooks & Lee off the board I would have said the course played as it should for a major. It's just ironic the conversation on here has been a back and forth about it being just hard or too hard and for Brooks it was set up awfully easy.


Four days to go, I hope the course has some teeth to show...

[Bill Brightly]

Nice thread, Tim. 


You've been around here long enough to know that discussing golf course architecture and the pro game is a fruitless exercise but I'll try to answer answer your question. (Do you make a habit of throwing a package of firecrackers in a movie theater, then exiting the building?) 


Given modern equipment and the athletes that are now playing at the highest level, it is impossible to be faithful to the original architect's intent, especially if the archy is an ODG. You know this.  The ODGs would be shocked and sadden by drivers that carry 300+ yards and 7 irons that carry 180-190. His design philosophy went out the window with the Pro V1 and the 460cc driver. You know this, too.


Assuming no space restrictions, we could add 1000 yards to the classic courses and play the pro tournaments from 8200-8500 yards. That might force the pros to hit approach shots as envision by the architect. (But the ODG could never envision the swing speed, height of shot, and backspin that today's pros can generate.) Since that is not an option, we are left with choking the fairways, adding penal rough, throwing the architect's intent out the window, and praying that these dreadful changes are removed as soon as the pros vacate the premises. But you already knew that, too.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nice thread, Tim. 


You've been around here long enough to know that discussing golf course architecture and the pro game is a fruitless exercise but I'll try to answer answer your question. (Do you make a habit of throwing a package of firecrackers in a movie theater, then exiting the building?)   
Why is discussing the pro game a fruitless exercise? You sure like to tell us how others here think, is this your way of telling us what we can and can't discuss? How about an open mind and some civility?


Given modern equipment and the athletes that are now playing at the highest level, it is impossible to be faithful to the original architect's intent, especially if the archy is an ODG. You know this.  The ODGs would be shocked and sadden by drivers that carry 300+ yards and 7 irons that carry 180-190. His design philosophy went out the window with the Pro V1 and the 460cc driver. You know this, too.
Has it been proven it is impossible to be faithful to the original intent? I seem to believe its a matter of math. I could be wrong but I don't understand why we can not replicate the same situation for the player today with modern equipment that the player had when the course originated? I would love to know who (besides you) deemed this impossible, case closed. Hey, maybe its something we can all work on together?


Assuming no space restrictions, we could add 1000 yards to the classic courses and play the pro tournaments from 8200-8500 yards. That might force the pros to hit approach shots as envision by the architect. (But the ODG could never envision the swing speed, height of shot, and backspin that today's pros can generate.) Since that is not an option, we are left with choking the fairways, adding penal rough, throwing the architect's intent out the window, and praying that these dreadful changes are removed as soon as the pros vacate the premises. But you already knew that, too.
Again, telling Tim what he does and does not know? If we can force the pros to hit approach shots as envisioned by the architect, why cant we replicate tee shots? An engineer once told me, we can do anything its just a matter of time, math, and money. Let's leave the bridge 2.0 thread behind us and move towards positive discussion, are we all allowed to do that?