News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« on: June 22, 2004, 10:38:18 PM »
The more I look at Shinnecock's first hole the more I admire it. Sometimes the simplest things in golf course architecture properly applied can work wonders. From that high tee with the full force of the various winds the angle that fairway sits at and follows in relation to the tee and the tee shot is frankly stunningly brilliant, in my opinion. In a real sense it's basically a perfect cape like carry depending on club selection and shot shape.

Did any of you know the right fairway bunker that some of the pros carried over is probably in the exact same place as the old left greenside bunker of the old first green? Did any of you happened to notice Els's opening tee shot on Sunday in the high fescue just to the right of that bunker? Els landed just about on that old first green!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2004, 11:02:26 PM »
Tom,

That is an excellent hole, although at its Open width it is a very hard driving hole if you don't hit a natural fade.   A draw can hit just over the rough on the right and wind up in the rough on the left.

That pin on Sunday was something else.  That one was probably tougher than number 7.

TEPaul

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2004, 06:29:19 AM »
TomD:

You're absolutely right about the Open narrowed fairway on this hole. I watched about the last five groups tee off on Sunday and in my recollection Goosen was the only one who actually managed to keep his drive in the fairway and in ideal position to go at this green.

This particular hole got me thinking how the course would've played with it's normal fairway widths under those super firm conditions "through the green" and on the greens because #1, particularly on the left side, may have been the best example on the course. So many tee shots that otherwise would've been in the normal width fairway on the left just reached the darker rough on the left. Obviously if a ball just got in that rough left it took any temptation at all to try to come near the left side of that green (over the bunker) out of consideration.

The dark green fairway rough (second cut) was where the normal width fairways were taken in from---and in the fall will be taken back out! I just think it would've been very interesting to see how those tee shots to the normal fairway width on the left would've been played by those guys if it's been kept fairway. They would've been in fairway but out of position with probably nothing more than a wedge or SW from a very difficult position to that left/long pin. It would've been interesting to see how much it would've tempted them. Coming out of rough from that angle definitely did not tempt a single one of them! Would being in fairway there have tempted some of them?

Anyway, this is probably the best example of how and why the narrowed Open fairway lines removed a really nuancy strategic ramificaton of an excellent hole.

I do understand, though, that those fairway lines are prepared a year in advance and had it rained much during Open week softening up the course the players would've been firing right at that left pin if that left out of position area was fairway!

By the way I thought the pin positions at the Open on Sunday were really good!
« Last Edit: June 23, 2004, 06:32:25 AM by TEPaul »

NAF

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2004, 07:07:52 AM »
The 1st at Shinnecock is definitely a hole that has continued to teach me a lesson..With the prevailing Southwesterly I've still ended up in the left rough several time despite playing a fade and I realized it does have something to do with the tee box orientation which is lost upon many who tee it up for the first time.  The drive almost is cape like, tempting you to try and cut off as much as possible and maybe have 30 yards in like Daniel Chopra.  

David Toms in a little known quote in the NY press was NOT a fan of the first.  He had a very shocking comment when he said (paraphrase), "as great as this course is, there are some holes that belong on a local muni like the first--the tee box puts you 150 yards off line, someone should take care of
that."  Now it took me a few times to realize this effect when playing Shinny but he is a pro and this should be of NO concern. Perhaps as Tom Doak said, he didnt like the pin placements on the hole.

I like David Toms but this sent him way back in my estimation.  I'm not sure of one thing you could do to make #1 a better hole.. It would be in my top 10 for opening holes in the world.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2004, 07:08:15 AM by Noel Freeman »

TEPaul

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2004, 07:16:49 AM »
Noel:

That's an interesting remark by Toms. It disappoints me too. The expected necessity to line up every player perfectly and architecturally with the direction of the entire tee box is a ridiculous thing to expect and to say. I don't know how many times I've seen a player like Daley lining up at almost a 45 degree angle on various holes simply because he is so long. It was funny though to watch all those pros tee off on #1 as almost all of them, particularly the ones using driver where lined up about 45 degrees right on that tee box and the tee markers.

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2004, 09:30:49 AM »
TP, The word "sleeper" is an interesting choice. FLW was known to have stated how most people are asleep during their lives. Even if he only used the line, to pick-up ballerinas, there is some truth in it, from my experience. Heck, the awareness needed to golf optimally, is a rare quality. But a quality, that I think can be learned.

 TOTB, In formulating some kind of generalization, I've found The BWT basically has two distinct categories or factions. Those who want to think out there, and those that don't.

 The very firmness, of the canvas all week @ SHGC, seemed to call on the thought-maker, as well as the shot-maker. IMO there's no better justification for the bounce and roll.

Goosen showed, on just that one pitch, to the front of the green, on the front nine, that he was thinking out there. The significance of that process, was just as you predicted. Albeit, likely lost on those in constant REM.

If a 150 yard mis-lead, is going to get Toms to make a statement like that, only exemplifies which faction he fits.

The perfect swings, digitally manufactured, do little in the way of promoting creativity in the pro game. Look at the way the boys played number seven, off the tee. Not one (that I saw) played the tee shot on Sunday with any creativity. It seemed more like hit a high fade and hope. Maybe it's their aerial assualt designed weaponry? Or, that the course of golf over the last 70 years has promoted the slumber, Tom's apparent position, advocates.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2004, 09:31:37 AM by Adam Clayman »

Matt_Ward

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2004, 09:46:46 AM »
I like the 1st as well but if there's a sleeper on Shinnecock but proved to be as tough as nails despite it's length being only 370 yards it was the "lucky" 13th.

This hole simply befuddled the top players as they simply underestimated the nature of this glorious hole. I saw players play a range of tee shots with different clubs and many were simply not able to properly gauge the approach.

Credit Mickelson and Goosen for the strategic manner they played the hole -- Phil with a delightful birdie and Goosen with a heroic par.

Much is quite rightly made of Shinnecock's back nine -- but the 13th is usually forgotten between the glorious trio of 10-12 and the superb Thom's Elbow 14th hole all the way to the closing hole.

#13 is a gem that I won't ever forget.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2004, 09:59:36 AM »
Goosen made 11 one putts and shot one over; that is great putting but to me it is not thinking his way around the course.   When a course plays as Shinnecock did on Sunday sometimes it is a bounce here or there which makes the difference between winning and losing; that is what makes golf great and exciting to watch.  

JDoyle

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2004, 12:28:52 PM »
Tom Paul,

I quite agree with your first post.  I have never played a more "inviting" first hole.  When you stand on that tee there is a gravitational pull that is drawing you down on the fairway and into the body of the course and the rolling land.  An awesome beginning.

Gary_Smith

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2004, 01:59:49 PM »
What would you fellows think of moving the tee up front on #1 in order to make it drivable?


 

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2004, 02:17:05 PM »
Gary -- From what I saw, no matter where you put the tee on #1, the green wasn't going to be driveable -- if your definition is holding the green with your tee shot. Most of the players couldn't hold the green with flop wedges and bump-and-run chips, so holding it with a driver would be next to a miracle.

I actually liked the fact that they had to invent a 40-yard shot if they chose to hit driver on #1.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Gary_Smith

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2004, 02:32:20 PM »
Rick,

I wasn't talking about flying the drive all the way to the green. My thought was maybe to move the tee up more towards the front of that long tee box + opening up the right side of the fairway more, (along the line Els took when he pushed his teeball) thus allowing the possibility of landing short and running the ball onto the green. It would be interesting to see a player behind in the final round get aggressive from the get go, shades of Palmer at Cherry Hills.

Maybe one of Shinny's other shortish par 4s would work better as a drivable hole.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2004, 02:39:48 PM »
With the pin back left I was astonished that anybody risked driving into the left-hand rough.  Can these guys no longer work the ball a) because they don't need to; or b) because the technology won't let them?  

They simply underestimated the hole.  The play was down the right-hand side, even in the rough, then one less club played toward the front-right edge of the green followed by a good lag putt kept short of the hole.  

MIke
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

TEPaul

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2004, 09:37:09 PM »
"Goosen made 11 one putts and shot one over; that is great putting but to me it is not thinking his way around the course."

Jerry:

How do you think Retief Goosen got himself into postion on those exceedingly firm and fast greens to make most of those one putts?

TEPaul

Re:Shinnecock's "sleeper" hole
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2004, 09:43:16 PM »
Gary:

As far as making the 1st hole driveable by bringing the tees forward---as Crump said to Colt's idea on PVGC's #2--"NO GOOD". The tees on Shinnecock's 1st are perfectly placed to tempt the good pro driver to negotiate those last right-side fairway bunkers both in distance and direction! Moving the tees up would take that ultra-important factor out of the equation. Look at Els--he hit driver and missed just a tad in both distance and direction, and look what it resulted in! It's a perfect example of---"So close and yet so far!" Basically that's what really good architectural temptation is all about, in my opinion!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back