[John_Lovito]

Just heard from a friend that the following changes are being made to Shinnecock in preparation for the 2004 US Open:

#3) Construction of a new Open tee box that will add about 40 yards and stretch the hole to around 490 yards

#4&5) Adding about 40 yards to each

#8) The short par 4 will be stretched about 25 yards

#11) the green is being enlarged in the back, right.

The new tee boxes will be for the Open only, not for member play.

[TEPaul]

John Lovito mentioned;

"The new tee boxes will be for the Open only, not for member play."

I take that to mean one of two things. In the US Open/Shinnecock contract the USGA has decreed that after they and the US Open leaves Shinnecock no member can ever play from one of "their" (the USGA's) teeboxes. Or else when the USGA and the Open leaves Shinnecock the USGA is taking their teeboxes with them.

If whomever builds those new teeboxes for the USGA props them up in the air as they're wont to do for things like visibility, Shinnecock should choose the second option of telling the USGA to take their teeboxes with them and make it look like they were never there.

I think the USGA is hoping to put Shinnecock on an Open rota and so next time there the USGA can bring their teeboxes back with them and put them just where they want them.

God knows William Flynn designed in plenty of "elasticity" on that course. The only one that sort of confuses me is adding 40 yds to #3. I can't see where they can do that without getting sort of cumbersome with #2 green.

It would also appear that Shinnecock does not really want an "Open Doctor" to mess around with their golf course for the 2004 Open. So I suppose that means neither TomF nor Rees will be working that Open.

But if not maybe once the Open is over the USGA can let Rees and NGLA borrow those tee boxes for the forseeable future so NGLA can get some more tee length on their course. Tell Pat Mucci about this too, because now moving MacDonald's Gate and the driveway to get more tee-length on #18 will be cheaper since NGLA can just borrow one of the USGA's teeboxes. That would help the USGA too since they wouldn't have to store their teeboxes somewhere nearby for a number of years or worse yet truck them all the way back to Far Hills NJ.

[Mike_Cirba]

The good news is that the work on the new tees seems very "low profile", and in keeping with the overall look and scheme of the originals.  In some cases, like the 5th, they are assuredly necessary given the length of the touring pros.

One "preparation" that seemed totally unnecessary to our group was the new sod faces on a number of originally ragged looking, steep-faced bunkers, such as those on 11 & 15.  To me, they seemed to be the USGA's precaution against "ruling" situations as to whether a ball was really in or out of a hazard, because they add little else and somewhat detract from the original naturally "weathered" look.

Here's what the bunkers on 11 looked like "before".  I don't have a good pic of "after", but the front walls are now uniform grass, with none of the sand "blending" one sees here.  

[John_McMillan]

I take that to mean one of two things. In the US Open/Shinnecock contract the USGA has decreed that after they and the US Open leaves Shinnecock no member can ever play from one of "their" (the USGA's) teeboxes. Or else when the USGA and the Open leaves Shinnecock the USGA is taking their teeboxes with them.

The third possibility is that the Shinnecock has chosen to limit play from these tees.  Could it be a pace of play issue where the course wants to keep middle and high handicappers from clogging up the course playing from "where Tiger plays?"  

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
That is within the realm of possibility as portable tee boxes sporting real grass are available.  

[Howard Toomey]

Brad Klein is consulting on this project isn't he? Maybe he could tell us what the scoop is. Or perhaps we'll have to wait to read the review in Golfweek.

[Matt_Ward]

Maybe someone can explain to me the "shortcomings" of Shinnecock from what took place at the two previous Opens in 1986 and 1995.

If I recall correctly the professionals had their work cut for them.

I do agree tweaking some of the holes may be helpful -- adding a bit more distance at the 5th is just one example. However, since Shinnecock Hills is already my #1 course in the world I just have to wonder how much more must be done to "improve" such a weak layout?

Having a back right pin placement on #11 is fine, however, I do agree with Mike -- as long as the new tees are placed in a manner that ties together the "look and scheme" of the course. However, let's not forget the wind can alter many a thing (witness the 1st round in '86) and I just hope that Tom Meeks and company show a bit more flexibility to tee placement if major inclement weather strikes. I want an Open champion crowned because of skil not because tee times had him playing earlier or later to a course that was set-up in stone (witness Bethpage's second round on that horrendous Friday).

I just hope the USGA doesn't apply such a "cosmetic overhaul" that the raw appeal of Shinnecock is changed (see Mike C's comments on #11). I would like the course to appear as natural as it always has. My only major issue with the USGA when the Open was played at Bethpage Black was the desire to "beautify" the course. The ragged natural appeal of the Black and Shinnecock is what makes playing there so fun and rewarding.

[Gene Greco]

Matt,

    My sentiments exactly. Was horrified when I saw what "beautification" was done to Bethpage Black in preparation for the Open.

     Unfortunately, this same "sprucing up" was done to those once incredibly intimidating bunkers fronting #11 at Shinnecock. They don't look natural, are not consistent with the look and feel of the rest of the golf course and are more likely to be found at a CCFAD.

    If this is your #1 course in the world (not a bad choice!) you will be more disappointed than I was upon stepping onto the 11th tee. It truly seemed to me at the time that nothing is sacred anymore.

[Matt_Ward]

Gene --

I plan on seeing Shinnecock sometime in '03 and I hope my eyes do not come upon such "upgrades." Shinnecock has served two previous Opens very well and does not need "wholesale" changes.

A tweak here or there (i.e. lengthening the 4th and 5th is fine but must the eighth also be lengthened?) is fine, however, if the "look" of SH is modified / compromised then one of the key aspects of the course will be lost. Why does one have to change the appearance of the bunkers at #11 -- do we really need to have some form of "standard" that takes away the uncompromising misfortune of those who might just plug into the side of the bunkers at this great short par-3 -- arguably one of the 2-3 finest in all of American golf!

I would only hope the USGA will heed the words of its own Executive Director who decried the desire to make the Black so uniform and attractive. The Black and SH should always be presented in its original wild and wooly style. The mental imagery is what makes playing both of these courses so utterly special and enriching.

Shinnecock Hills has clearly demonstrated its championship colors with two prevous Opens. I agree with Mike C -- extending tees that blend into the naturalness of the course is acceptable -- making cosmetic changes to a natural beauty needs careful and deliberate thought. I can't wait to return and see the things that have been mentioned.

[TEPaul]

I'm also sorry to see that the USGA (or the club?) wants to clean up and re-sod the rugged looking edges and faces of Shinnecock's bunkering where sand is exposed or appears to bleed into the grassy areas of the bunker surrounds.

I really can't understand why the USGA would be so concerned about rulings of whether balls are in the bunkering or not. My God, how many rules officials does the USGA roll out for their premier tournament--The United States Open?

Obviously, a ton of qualified rules officials! Just let them do their jobs and make the rulings, if necessary--it really isn't the type of ruling that's very difficult to determine if a ball is in the bunker or not, and that way they can leave the bunkers the way they are! But somehow it seems like they'll go the other way and define and prettify the grassy areas of Shinnecock's rugged bunker surrounds.

Just like those portable Open back tees that Shinnecock can tell the USGA to take with them when they pull out of town after the Open, maybe Shinnecock can also tell the USGA to take their "prettified" and highly defined bunker surround sod back to Far Hills with them too! And while they're at it to put Shinnecock's rugged sand bleeding bunker surrounds back just the way they found them when the USGA's traveling circus pulls out of town!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()