News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Greg Holland

  • Karma: +0/-0
Oakland Hills
« on: January 25, 2003, 05:50:30 PM »
I have never played this course.  However, after studying Ross' original layout and the current version, I have a hard time seeing any "improvement" by RTJ.  In particular, the original 6th and 7th looked really good, but the new ones look average.  Did RTJ do anything other than pinch in the fairways in the landing area?  Anyone played the course and have any comments?  Has there been any thought of restoring the Ross course?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2003, 12:46:00 AM »
Greg,
       Robert Trent Jones' work at Oakland Hills was substantial, but interestingly, he was privy to a planned redesign by Donald Ross. Ross drew up plans to relocate the fairway bunkering to better suite the modern game, but sadly Ross' died three years before the open was played, thus the selection of RTJ. Jones utilized the plans, but made additions of his own. Ross had envisioned heavier fairway bunkering, but where he called for it on one side of the fairway, Jones bunkered both sides! He did however, directly follow some of Ross' ideas like moving the 2nd tee left to make it a more pronounced dogleg. Ross had planned on enlarging the putting surfaces, but Jones preferred to add bunkers. The greens were barely redesigned, apparently Jones was quite impressed. In sum, Jones added 66 new bunkers to replace the many he filled in, shortened the course by 110 yds., and the lowered the par from 72 to 70.

Tyler Kearns
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Nick_Ficorelli

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2003, 09:24:43 AM »
Worse news of all:
Art Hills has been hired to ready for the Ryder Cup.
 :o :o
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2003, 09:28:05 AM »
Nick:

Sure wish they would bring in a Ross-restoration expert, don't you?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Nick_Ficorelli

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2003, 09:38:14 AM »
Some restoration archie could have a profitable little cottage industry : "We undo the work of Arthur Hills,no mistakes to large."  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

guest

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2003, 07:01:05 PM »
just started reading this board.  what is it that you don't like about arthur hills' work?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Anthony Nysse

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2003, 08:02:08 AM »
Guest,
  What is there to like about bunkers that a filled with perfect white sand and have neatly mainicured edges? I thought that this was a monster, not a Barbie doll.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Mingay

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2003, 03:08:41 PM »
I was at Oakland Hills earlier this year, watching the final match of US Amateur. The winner, Ricky Barnes, was driving the ball so far, it blew my mind. Thanks to high-tech clubs and balls, and weightlifters turned golfers, like Barnes, Oakland Hills South is not the same "monster" Mr. Hogan brought to its knees in 1951. Oh well.

Oakland Hills South occupies a wonderful piece of property for golf. Not to hilly, not to flat. And Ross took complete advantage of it. Whereas much has changed at since the course was originally opened for play in 1916 (I think), no one has been able to improve on Ross' original routing.

However, today, the course has an awkward look about it. Principally because the ultra narrow strips of fairway at every hole contrast the inherent expansiveness of the property.

There's also a bunch of goofy, non-indigenous trees throughout the course -- evergreens. crabs, and willows -- that should be cut.

I have to agree re: the bunkers as well. During the US Amateur they appeared very stale. They're perfectly edged, awkward in shape -- with fancy little capes and bays everywhere -- and filled with glaring white sand.

Moreover, the locations of some are absurd. Like at the long par 4 5th, where a bunker (or two) is built up with fill material on the back side of a ridge crossing the fairway -- you know, to "trap" long hitters who push their tee shots ever so slightly. It's the most unnatural location for a bunker imaginable. Outrageous in fact. If I recall correctly, you can see remnants of an old Ross bunker on the "right" side of the same ridge, facing the tee.    

As I wrote in Paul Daley's book, Oakland Hills has secured a place in the game's history. But it's certainly not the ideal in golf course architecture any longer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »