[Mike Hendren]

Thank you Lou for addressing the issue and not falling into the logistical abyss which is rapidly becoming overcrowded on my original thread.

You said:  
"Am I the only one who questions the suitability of Sand Hills as an Open venue from a playability standpoint?  Will the "best golfer" really be identified?  Or will it be the guy who gets the most breaks and avoids lost balls and rabbit holes?  I remember our host finding such a depression to the right of the fantastic 17th hole, and hadn't he picked the ball up after several shots, he might still be there.  There are so many places where a drop is not an option, that walking back to the tee or the position of the previous shot would make an already slow tournament reach glacial proportions.  On a windy day, my fear is that the play would be punched irons, chipping, and putting.  I guess that I like the driver and bold play too much."

I see it just the other way - a wide open golf course where the big boys can rip it.  Can you imagine Eldrick's ball flight off the first tee?  How about Ernie's turbo-boosted drive off the 13th?  Or Daly's hang time off the 16th tee?

The occasional varmint hole pales in comparison to water hazards, OB, knee-high rough or even rock outcroppings - none of which prevails at Sand Hills  As poor a player as I am I don't recall losing many balls at Sand Hills, or hitting into any rabbit holes or getting any bad bounces.  

Huckster keeps mentioning the green complexes but I don't seem to recall the majority of them defending par that well.  

Anyone who knows me knows how I revere Sand Hills, but I'm not sure it is a great tournament venue, though I could care less.

Mike

[THuckaby2]

If this is the general take, then we should never hold a British Open.  This same critique could be given to every Open venue over there.

As it is, I do think the greens at Sand Hills could help very well to defend par.  Not so much due to the contours but more so because they could be made to be rock-hard and lightning fast such that it would get plenty tough.  How did par get defended so well at Pinehurst #2?  By this combined with the difficulty in the surrounds there... well obviously the surrounds aren't as difficult or pronounced at Sand Hills as they are at Pinehurst, but there are difficulties enough to give the big boys enough trouble.

And as for places they could rip it, well... I say GREAT!  I would love to see some drivers in our US Open some day.  Get ready for an iron-fest this week... as it seemingly always is...

TH

[THuckaby2]

PS - in terms of protecting par, hopefully an enlightened USGA willing to take the bold step of bringing our Open to the greatest course on the planet would have moved beyond such concerns... But just in case that still matters, here's all they need to do:

#5 - add a back tee somewhere at 430-470 range, making this not a certain wedge to the green...

#7 - get a tee back at about 300-330, keeping the temptation to drive the green but not making it so easy to do, with the tee set each day based on that day's wind direction.  Lots of room to do that.

#14 - move up to 499 or do whatever it takes to just call it a par 4.

That's it!  The rest holds up just fine.  Assume firm and fast and rock-hard greens and they won't shoot four 66's, even in light wind.  Get normal heavy wind and par 70 holds up just fine, thank you.  And hell, even if someone does shoot four 66's, that's "only" -16.  Opens have been won at THE OLD COURSE with scores lower than that....

TH

[Lou_Duran]

My recollection of the greens and surrounds is that they would protect par quite well.  This is particularly true if they are firm and fast.

I am not advocating a wide open course which encourages flaying away.  Instead, I like a course where driving with length AND accuracy is amply rewarded, and where being just marginally off is not a death sentence.  I will disclose that the Masters is generally my favorite of the Majors.

I do not have enough experience at Sand Hills to say unequivocally that it is not a US Open course.  It seemed to me that in some cases, the closer to the mown areas one hit the ball, the more difficult the lie (perhaps due to the migration of irrigation and fertilizer).  The notion that a shot should be rewarded or penalized in most (but not all) cases proportionally with how well if was executed is among my design principles.  In this sense, "fairness" is an important part of the equation, though imperfection and quirk are not mutually exclusive within this definition.

High, wispy rough around ample mown areas on windy link courses do not bother me.  Carnoustie, if my memory serves me, had narrowed their fairways considerably and watered and fertilized their rough.  The resulting hay fields with Twiggy like playing areas did not, in my opinion, produce very exciting play or a worthy "champion golfer".

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

That is all well-said and I understand it all and agree with it.

And I still think Sand Hills would work very well as a US Open site, that par would be protected as much as it needs to be, and that as fine of a champion golfer would be determined as ever is at the Open overseas.

I believe length and accuracy are rewarded at Sand Hills, as is another key element: THINKING.  It's also pretty darn wide, such that the death that does occur in the high rough occurs only very far from the fairways (in terms of how these golfers play anyway).

It would be fun to see.  Of course it's all moot, but oh well, dare to dream.

TH

[Tony_Chapman]

My recollection of the greens and surrounds is that they would protect par quite well.  This is particularly true if they are firm and fast.

I am not advocating a wide open course which encourages flaying away.  Instead, I like a course where driving with length AND accuracy is amply rewarded, and where being just marginally off is not a death sentence.  I will disclose that the Masters is generally my favorite of the Majors.

Lou - I have only played SandHills once, but it is my recollection that you can't just "flay away" at the ball. This may not be true, but I think that in order to truly score at SH, you need to be in the correct spot on the fairway. Am I wrong?

Certainly a particulary angle to a particular pin in going to be rewarded at Sand Hills.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

Not to confuse the issue, but I see The Honors as being a solid 4 shots harder than Sand Hills with an infinitely greater opportunity of an "X" for us average guys.  Other than at the 13th did you ever "pucker up" at Sand Hills?

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Hell yes I puckered up, on all of these:

tee shot on 1
tee shot on 2
approach on 4
all shots on 7
tee shot on 10
tee shot on 11
pitch shot into 14
all shots on 16
17
both shots on 18

And that's just off the top of my head.

I found Sand Hills to be quite a difficult golf course from the back tees.  Unfortunately it has no course rating - Mr. Youngscap preferring not to get such - so we can't determine this with any objectivity.  Sure there are more difficult courses - but I never figured being the hardest course in the country is what makes a great US Open course.  If that's the standard, then we need to bring it to the horrid course known as The Ranch in San Jose, CA... or Koolau in Hawaii....

The whole thing for me is make the very few changes I suggest, and it's a great test for the world's best golfers.

Perhaps you disagree - that's fine!  I could be underestimating them - these guys are good after all.  I just don't see them going way low, not with firm and fast conditions and rock-hard greens, as would be the setup... like it is normally!

TH

ps - watch Shinnecock this week.  Having played both of these, each NOT in Open conditions but tough enough, I would say if Shinnecock is a 76.0 rating (I just made that up, I don't know what it is, but it's damn tough from the back tees) then Sand Hills is a 74.5.  So six shots easier over four days... I believe we can live with that, given what the scores are likely to be at Shinnecock...

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

What were your scores at Sand Hills?

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

That's a long time ago.  I played very well those couple days, damn near as well as I can play.  I know I shot a few mid-70s scores from the middle tees... I believe we only ventured to the back tees twice, and my scores were one around 80 and one substantially higher than that.  

So based on that, it's a difficult course, but certainly not the MOST difficult in the land.  I'd put Shinnecock up in that realm for sure.  My one foray there, I played hideously, wielding a broken driver and making a snowman on 11, and came in with 89.

So I believe my performance justifies the relative difficulty between these two!

The point remains I don't see the pros tearing up Sand Hills.  Remember that they don't make Xs.  Hazards and high rough to be carried, or placed way off target, mean nothing to these guys.  What makes them struggle is either narrowed down fairways and very high close-in rough (as at most US Open set ups), or extreme firm and fast conditions with difficult greens (as at Pinehurst #2).  I just continue to believe that without much changes at all, Sand Hills would be tough enough, falling under the latter side.  Give it a lot of wind and it's hello Carnoustie numbers.

Which is kinda how damn near every British Open goes... What's wrong with having a USOpen like that?  Seems to me a certain someone is rather enraptured with The Old Course... par ain't exactly protected there... or will you now contend that said storied home of golf is not an appropriate venue for that championship?

TH

ps - thank you LOU, btw?  Who else stuck to the topic and reminded the others of your caveat in that other thread?  Iam so ignored...  

[Lou_Duran]

Tony,

SH is NOT a course where one hits away with impunity from the tee.  This is particularly true when the wind blows and the course is firm.  The terrain and native vegetation is just too penal, as it is at Kiawah-Ocean and probably at Prairie Dunes.

Mike Hendren,

I shot identical scores of 40-42-82 on both rounds in the same day.  During the a.m. round, the wind was blowing about 5-10 mph, and the heat wasn't bad.  We played holes #2 from the second back markers (418), and #4 (449).  While I didn't play with Mr. Huckaby, we matched cards and, as I recall, I had to buy him a couple of beers.

In the p.m. round, the wind was blowing 10 - 15 from the N, NE, and my notes show that we played the back tees including #2 at 458 and #4 at 485.  This time young Thomas and I did go mano-a-mano, and he closed me out rather easily on the 15th or 16th hole.  SH being such a special place, that buying him several cold beers and consuming them on Ben's porch was actually quite enjoyable.

In as far as a-- puckering holes at SH, it would be simpler for me to list those on which I was comfortable.  Maybe #14?  #s 3 and #13 are two of the scariest par 3s I've seen.   #13 is one of the few holes where being long is the safest/easier play.  God forbid that the wind gets up into the mid 20s mph or above.

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

Suffice to say that what I recall is that I had one of the great golf experiences of my life during our visit there.  That 36-hole day when you were there, well... you can see my recollection regarding my exact scores is shaky at best!  I wish I had the scorecards... idiot me I don't know where I put them.  

That round with you from the back tees in the pm has to be about as well as I can possibly play, and I also played pretty darn well in the am also.  I know I am weakening my case for Sand Hills being a worthy test though if I can shoot in the 70s from the back tees - as I must have that round - but darn it, I did play well and back then I was a semi-legitimate 3 handicap...

The other day I played, the success was not as great, as I recall.  I sure think I had one round way into the mid-high 80s.

But who knows....

In any case, I am right with you re the puckering quotient - it truly is easier to list those where one doesn't than those where one does.  I also found most of the pitch shots to be among the scariest... shots from tight lies to tight places just scare the crap out of me.  Reading Robert's take on Westchester, it seems the pros don't relish those either.

TH

ps - the way you describe buying me a beer at Ben's Porch is how I felt paying you some shekels at Cypress and more recently at LACC... we do have matches at some quality places, such that the result is acceptable either way!  

[Lou_Duran]

Tom,

The day we played, SH did not show its teeth.  The wind was little over a zephyr, and the temperature was not all that bad (Mike Cirba might disagree).  I went out and did a riding/walking tour of some holes the following morning prior to leaving the property, and the conditions were much more difficult.  Under US Open conditions and with a bit of wind, I would have had a challenging time breaking 90; 100 with lots of wind.  I don't think that SH would have a problem with resistance to scoring.  With heavy wind, the course would play more like some of its British Isles cousins.  I do wonder if the bunkering is not significantly more difficult than what one finds over the Pond.  You have a lot more experience there; what do you think?

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

Oh hell yes, we played it in pretty benign conditions.  That's been my assumption all along here though, to judge it based on benign conditions.  If it gets really windy, good lord, it could ugly score-wise - as it does in British Opens when they have foul weather!

I just kinda think it would be like most of those Open courses - but not to the extent it gets at The Old Course.  That is, sub-par scores (but no way -18 like sometimes wins at TOC) in benign weather, even or higher in bad weather (in this case, high winds).

As for bunkering relative to courses in the UK and Ireland, well... I'd say it's pretty equal on the difficulty meter.  Yes, those courses have nothing like some of the massive blowouts at Sand Hills... but Sand Hills has nothing like some of the revetted, deeper than two Wilt Chamberlains stuff you find over there, nor does it have any deep little pots.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()