[wsmorrison]

In a letter from Toomey and Flynn, Contracting Engineers dated August 6, 1930 to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Howard Toomey writes about the implementation of plans to finish the golf course since the 12 new Flynn holes were completed.  

"We herewith propose to build on your property at Southampton, Long Island, New York, as per Mr. William S. Flynn's specifications and plan #156, four new Greens #10-11-17-18 [present 1,2,8,9], rebuild and plant #12 [present 3]and #16 [present 7] Greens, five new tees #10-11-12-17-18 [present 1,2,3,8,9], twenty one new Fairway Bunkers, rebuild seven Fairway Bunkers 4 on #12 [present 3] and 3 on #16 [present 7], all old bunkers to be filled in as directed, two Sand Wastes and two new Fairways."

The acceptance by Lucien H. Tyng, President of the Club when he signed and returned the letter to Toomey and Flynn strongly supports that Flynn did redesign the 7th green.  Tom Paul and I believe this was done and that this green is far better suited to the Flynn tee to the left of the currently used Macdonald/Raynor tee.  In fact, if it were moved over a bit more to the left, as Tom theorized, it may have made the hole more playable even under the extreme conditions on Sunday.

Flynn retained the fairways on present 3rd and 9th but rebuilt the greens.  The present par 3 2nd and 7th do not have fairways; the new fairways are on present 1st and 8th.  The 2nd green, as we surmised was changed by Flynn from the back end of a par 5 to a par 3.

The fees for Flynn's work in 1930 to finish the course renovation was:

$1350 for each green when graded
$450 for each green when planted
$650 each for rebuilding the current 3rd and 7th
$500 for each tee when graded
$150 for each tee when planted
$900 for each new Fairway when completed
$500 for each Fairway Bunker
$300 for each rebuilt Fairway Bunker
$100 each for old Fairway Bunkers filled
$1000 for each sand waste completed

[LenBum]

While clearing the course over the past 4 years Mark Michaud came across a tee box left of the current 7th tee box. I do believe he brought up the idea to the greens committee of incorporating it back into the hole. Nothing was done. This was a good 3 years ago.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Fascinating info., as always, Wayne.

Reference to "sand wastes" at Shinnecock Hills is very interesting. They're clearly seen in the old aerials of the course in Shackelford's book, and elsewhere.

Of course, these days, "sand wastes" incite thoughts of Pete Dye. That said, I tend to think that very early in his career (early 1960s), Pete Dye did a little more historical research than he lets out, or is given credit for these days.

In other words, he was certainly the first golf architect in many, many years to truly absorb the brilliance of the old courses. Not just the classic links, but also courses like Shinnecock and Pinehurst. Pete Dye started the renaissance going on today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Do you and Tom feel that the club will restore and use the Flynn tee on # 7 to play to the Flynn green on # 7 for general membership play ?  And if so, how soon, and if not, why not ?

[rgkeller]

And the use of the Flynn tee to the left of the tee used at the Open should end anyone from characterizing the seventh as a "redan."

[TEPaul]

I was aware of the old obsoleted tee to the left of the present tee on #7 years ago--way before I got interested in golf course architecture or got involved with Wayne to write the Flynn book. But the irony is I always thought that old tee was the tee from the former course (Macd/Raynor course). Now it appears from the Flynn plans that it was the Flynn tee and the tee being used is the Macd/Raynor tee. I have no idea why the club did that but now that they realize that perhaps it'll be a no-brainer to restore the Flynn tee. After looking at it the other day I did say on here that a mere 7-10 steps left on this particular hole makes a world of difference in approach angle and playability, and certainly after what we just saw on this hole during the Open. I was talking to Mark Michaud out there just on Friday and he mentioned that he thought many of the tees of Shinnecock are a certain distance off various greens but this one was so close (the Macd/Raynor tee) to make him wonder. I thought that was a very interesting observation. Obviously that's probably why the club planted the privet hedge that was recently removed!

[TEPaul]

rgkeller;

The tee to the left will actually make the hole play a little more in the redan style. The green and green-end looks and plays like a couple of other Flynn "redan" style holes including how HVGC's #3 was built and how #7 at Philly C.C. was built and plays. All three holes have a similar quick fairway upslope at green front which is hard to use for a run-up but possible.

[Mark_Fine]

Is the approach more functional from that tee?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I wouldn't really think so but the point is the green is probably exponentially more functional to hit and hold from as little as 7-10 steps to the left. My advice to Shinnecock would be to restore the Flynn tee and add as much to the left side of it as possible as well. Only problem is there's a maintenance road just to the left of it but obviously they could probably swing that out and away from it some in that area too. After that all they have to worry about is not getting too close to the line of play coming out of the tees on #4.

This constant argument on here about whether holes like this are redans or not has gotten to the point of ridiculousness, in my opinion. That's not the point. These Flynn redan style holes are all over the place and they just are what they are! Many of them just don't have the same kind of approach area bounce-in or run-up as some of the Macd/Raynor ones such as NGLA's #4! So what? They were never supposed to be exact copies only copies of a basic concept and it's clear to see that most of Flynn's were intended to have their green fronts hit by the approach, not necessarily the approach areas in front which is obviously more upsloped on many of them. Flynn was later and his entire approach to many of these things was a bit more aerially oriented anyway than some of the older redan holes. I'm just not sure why it takes people so long to understand that obvious evolutionary fact or the fact that there can be obvious and intended differences! Merion East's #3 has alway been called "redanish" in concept and design too. Does that hole have any bounce-in or runup design to the approach before the green? Of course not!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Personally, I really don't care if it is called a Redan, or if it is a Redan or not.  I'm just trying to decide how good the golf hole is!  #7 has always been my least favorite hole on the golf course and I'm trying to determine if moving the tee would make it that much better.  Angle of play is critical on  most golf holes (especially the good ones) and this may be an example of that.  However, in the case of #7, I'm still not convinced moving the tee makes it a great hole but it is hard to judge without getting back out there to see it.  
Mark  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

If you don't think Shinnecock's #7 is a very good hole I'd seriously doubt moving the tee 7-10 steps to the left would make you think the hole is a great one---architecture doesn't exactly work quite like that. There's no question that on some holes moving a tee sideways slightly makes a big difference and on some holes moving the tee sideways slightly makes no real difference at all. This hole, for obvoius reasons, is very much the former---I can assure you of that. Moving that tee left even that slight amount simply changes the angle of an approach shot from one that's more of a bolster effect rather than the sort of glancing blow that it is from the old Macdonald/Raynor tee. And obviously when the greenspeed and particularly the green surface firmness gets ratcheted up it changes things for incoming shots exponentially at a glancing angle!

[wsmorrison]

Len,

Maybe the green committee will take notice of the empirical results of the play on 7 and consider the matter of reopening the Flynn tee.  It is a bit odd that the Flynn tee was obsoleted but it was demonstrated during Open week that the tee ought to be returned to use, and as Tom Paul states, even extended to the left a bit more--given current championship maintenance practices.  

So, Pat, I'm not sure what the club thinks ought to be done, but a number of people who have educated ideas on the subject think it an improvement to use the Flynn tee.  This makes particularly good sense now that it can be proved to a greater degree that it is a Flynn green.

Jeff,

Flynn's use of sand wastes at Shinnecock Hills, Atlantic City, Indian Creek, and a number of other courses not always seaside (Denver CC plans that were not implemented for example) were natural appearing hazards inspired by the work at Pine Valley.  Interesting point about the emergence of sandy wastes in Pete Dye's work many years later.

Mark,

I am in complete agreement with Tom Paul regarding my reaction to the way a number of folks on this website view the Flynn redan style as expressed at Shinnecock and also found at Huntingdon Valley and Philadelphia Country.  Again, to compare these to more typical redans is not completely fair; Flynn's holes are an evolutionary progression with a greater emphasis on an aerial approach.  It is a simple concept, but as Tom points out, seemingly lost on so many.  To contrast the lack of options (as it is typically used on this site) compared to NGLA redan or other redan holes of the National School is fine but the Flynn holes were not designed with the same intent.  Do they work as they were intended is a fair question.  I think they do so in a wonderful fashion.  It is reasonable for a critic to decide if they like the hole or not.  Mark, you don't seem all that enamored with how the hole plays.  Just keep in mind it is not playing as intended...yet.  Also, it doesn't have to be a great hole to merit its place on a great golf course.  It is a specific test and only one of eighteen.  On its own, I think the hole to be very demanding (nothing wrong with that on a championship course) and quite good.  As part of the whole examination of golf at Shinnecock Hills, the hole is an excellent one.

[TEPaul]

Mark Michaud, the Shinnecock super, mentioned he spent a good deal of time on the weekend out at #7 watching shots come in and he really didn't see any shots brought in there with a fade or cut, which it's pretty obvious to see is the shot that's called for against that right to left sloping green. There's not much question at all that Flynn very much got into what we refer to as "shot testing" on some of his real championship designs and this is obviously the case with this hole.

The idea was a really good player should have a whole array of shots at his disposal and in Flynn's case the architect just might be out to "TEST" that varied array of shots! Of course that might be something misunderstood on this website where everything must be ultra multi-optional to be any good.

Well, unfortunately Flynn didn't always feel exactly that way about his architecture and the concept of some of it. The multi-optional part on some of his holes included what happened if you decided to "chicken out" with the required "shot test". If you did that on a hole like this redan, such as purposely playing for the ball to end up on the front approach or perhaps going long and chipping back, there was the intended expectation of probably dropping only one shot instead of perhaps dropping more than one if you went for the "shot test" and completely failed it! All this is just part of some of the "thought processes" the architect can invoke with temptations on a really demanding championships course and hole!  

I thought those guys are supposed to be so good! What the hell is the matter with then then? Can't they hit a simple fade or cut from 185-198 yards up into the prevailing wind into a "peice of cake" green like that? Or is Lanny right when he says most of them "just ain't got the guts"?

Mark actually said a number of them were firing draws in there! Now that's really dumb!!    

[Willie_Dow]

Hey Wayne & Tom -

You guys are right on here!

Manufacture your game, fade vs draw, the learning curve has been a minor factor in our conversations.  

My feeling is that golf courses are being built without concern for the old way of playing the game.  Know the shot that will manufacture the outcome!

Straight down the fairway is OUTTA HERE!

Willie

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

Right you are.  I am shocked what Mark Michaud reported to Tom that a number of the pros that are so good hit the wrong shots into the green (draw rather than a fade or cut).  I didn't watch all of the tournament, but I can't recall any of the announcers mentioning the wrong shot shapes being played into the green.  It seems that a number of the golfers failed the shot test and the scoring reflected the high demands of the architecture and its maintenance and the ability of the field to devise the right strategy and execute it.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
I presume replant translates to resurface....how did Flynn redesign the 7th green?

[Mark_Fine]

I recognize it is a very tough hole; that is understood.  But what is it about it that would make you want to build one like that on your own golf course?

Doesn't it surprise anyone to think that 120 or so of the best players in the world played that hole and None of them figured out how to play it after spending a whole week there    I guess I find that odd.  

[Mark_Fine]

I might add Pat Mucci once stated something like, "The pros don't worry about options, they figure out very quickly the best way to play a hole and that is the route they take".  I also believe there are a few guys on the tour that happen to know how to hit a fade.  

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Toomey's letter states "rebuild and plant #12 [present 3]and #16 [present 7]."   My interpretation (brackets are mine) is that rebuild means to build a new green and replant means to put grass seed or stolons on the new surface.  We're not sure how he redesigned the green but it stands to reason that the new tee was required due to the changed characteristics of the new green.  Pre-existing ground photos of the hole before 1930 may surface and give us a clue as to the nature of the Macdonald/Raynor green and the Flynn changes.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Maybe the pressures of the championship, the wind, and knowing how difficult the hole was made it difficult for even the best to execute the proper shot even if they did figure it out.  I'll take Mark Michaud's word (from Tom Paul) that a number of the pros he saw failed to plan and/or execute a proper strategy.  I know these guys are good (their ads keep telling us) and of course most can hit a fade but something strange was going on.  Perhaps they didn't adapt to the changing conditions well enough.

[Mark_Fine]

Who knows Wayne.  It was strange.  Do you know the history behind the names of the holes?  How long has this hole been called the Redan?  Was that Flynn's name for the hole or not?

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
I agree with you...how did Flynn alter the old Redan green?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

The hole was known as the redan from the Macdonald/Raynor course built in the teens. This latest evidence that Toomey and Flynn apparently charged to "rebuild and replant" the green in 1930-1931 must mean something though. I was talking to Wayne on the phone today and we agreed that it's probably reasonable to assume that at some point a photo of the old Macdonald/Raynor green (Shinnecock's #14) will resurface and then we can definitely tell if anything was done to redesign the green by Flynn in 1930- 1931. There's no question the green is basically in the same place and there's little question Flynn basically redesigned the green-side bunkers. We know that because Flynn drew those Macdonald/Raynor bunkers on that hole on an earlier topo before he worked on that hole. Those bunkers looked remarkabley similar to enormous "Biarritz" coffin bunkers on either side of that old 14th hole. If you start to think about it carefully it really doesn't look to me like that green out there right now could "tie in" very well to two enormous Biarritz style coffin bunkers on either side of that green but who really knows?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Neither Wayne nor I know how Flynn redesigned that green or even if he did but the cost evidence produced on here would sort of indicate it's likely to assume he might have. When they say "rebuild" a green and list a pretty good cost for doing that what do you suppose they meant? On most of Flynn's courses we have his hole by hole design drawings which would clearly indicate what he did with any particular green but not in the case of Shinnecock. All we have on that courses is a number of "whole course" topo design iterations.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'm not sure what they meant. It could be they altered the contours, it could be they altered the green mechanically to match the 'modern' method of contructing the new greens, maybe both, maybe something else. I don't know. Perhaps an architect familar with constructions costs could figure it out...$500 to build a fairway bunker vs $650 to rebuild a green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()