Courses IŽd love to see host the U.S. Open -- impossible dream?

[wsmorrison]

That is an interesting question, Kyle.  Because the C nine is so difficult (the highest rating in the district I believe) I lean towards having that as the finishing 9.  The club has always had a strong men's and ladies' golf program.  The A and B nines were meant to be the ladies' championship 18 and the B and C the men's championship 18.  I know HVCC's B-9 is a wonderful finish and requires more of the tee shot (L to R shaping required) as opposed to C-9 long slog up the hill.  But both greens are very demanding and I think it would be fine with a B-C progression.  The repetitive nature of the A nine (dictated by the property) would be nice to avoid in a major championship.  I think the C-9 tee should be brought further up the hill just below C-3 tee making the approach longer and more difficult to find the correct portion of the difficult green.

But now that I think about it, having the quirk early in the round (C-2 and C-7) might be better to remove some of the controversy.  The finishing holes on both B and C nines are outstanding.  The B nine would make quite a championship finish with 15, 17 and 18 being very high demand holes and 16 pressure packed as a hole you better birdie or you'll lose nearly a stroke to the field.

[Adam_Messix]

Wayne & Kyle--

As much as I do like the C nine at HVCC, you would have to finish on B because of gallery/grandstand issues.  The 9th green on C is in a grove of trees at the top of a steep hill while 9-B has plenty of room for grandstands and the like.  As Wayne said, I think the way that routing works would make for an exciting finish.  

It would be interesting to see how a USGA would set up a hole like 2-C.  Do they narrow the fairway at all (hope not) or do they grow rough on the other side of the creek to prevent any chance of cutting the corner.  Wayne makes a good point about 6-C, even though I like the hole as is.  The green complex is out of character with the rest of the property.  

[JESII]

Wayne and Kyle,

You would be surprised how difficult #16 plays down the stretch of a tournament when the greens are quick and at least a little firm. Many, many more bogeys than birdies, albeit generally only amateur competitions. There is really alot going on on that green, especially when considering your stance in the fairway.

My two cents, the repetitiveness of the A-nine (and relative ease as compared to the C) might be less of an issue than the fact that on B-C almost every hole slopes left to right. Not B5 and not C7 or C8.

On the A nine when it is firm your driving game is really challenged.

To compare the two, I would look at it like this; the par 5 on the A nine is slightly better than the par 5 on C, the long par 3 on A (#3) is significantly better than the same on C (#4), and the shorter par 3 on A (#5) is significantly better than C #6. Of the par 4's, on C two of them need work done which leaves them as unknowns but I can't see the group being that much better than those on A so as to make up for the 3's and 5's. Again, just my two cents but I think the A and B are and can be a phenomenal test if the proper preparations are made.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim,

Sounds like we may be going the way of a composite course...

Frankly, I like A 6-9 as a good close to nine holes of golf. Not sure how that could be used, if at all.

[Tony_Chapman]

I find it hard to believe that on a list of impossible dreams, nobody mentioned Sand Hills.

Thank god somebody has their head on straight. This is the one for me too!!

[Craig Van Egmond]

Honestly,  Sand Hills (never actually been there myself, only lived vicarously thru others) is one of several courses I never want to see the USGA have anything to do with.

I really don't see hosting the US Open as a good thing anymore, I don't understand why any membership would want to subject themselve to it. (I know its a prestige thing)

Let the USGA/PGA/TPC build their own damn courses and stay the heck off the good ones.

[tlavin]

LA North has enough course for an Open, but they'd have to chop down about a thousand trees to satisfy the USGA, IMHO.  Personally, I'd love to see it happen.  It is a terrific course with some great views and some intriguing holes that would get the commentators talking about the design of the course, much like they've started doing at Riviera and Pinehurst.

[Brian_Gracely]

I find it hard to believe that on a list of impossible dreams, nobody mentioned Sand Hills.

Thank god somebody has their head on straight. This is the one for me too!!

Wash your mouth out with soap!!  Now go to the blackboard and write 1000 times, "I will not suggest that the best golf in my home state be ruined!!"  

First you guys stop running the option and now all sorts of crazy things are being considered in Cornhusker land.....

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

We'll have lots to talk about on Wednesday!  I spoke with Ran earlier today and he wonders why talk of the C nine subordinates many views of the strength of the A nine.  He loves the A nine.  

I do too but I have to admit I feel so strongly that the left sides of the 2nd and 3rd greens need to be restored back to the Flynn fall-offs that I sometimes think harsher than I should of the A nine.  I strongly recommend that the build-ups on the left be removed heightening the shot demands to those greens.  Then you bring about the possiblity of hitting a long high fade into these greens off a draw lie.  As of now the high demand is to hit a straight ball over the bunker short of the green that will move left upon hitting on the green.  Now the shot stays on the greens aided by the raised left portions.

I like the returned bunkers at the base of the hill on A-9 from a visual perspective.  What do you think was the design implication of these bunkers?

I'd like to see the original bunker scheme on B-9 returned; that is restore some of the bunkers at the turn that were removed.  I think there were 7 originally.  It would have an even more dramatic look.

I may be in the minority but I do really like the C nine, environmental impact and all.  I am glad it was rebuilt even though there were some modern day compromises.

Some food for thought:

Trim the tops of some of the corner trees on C-2 and create fairway on the green side of the creek to tempt longer hitters to cut the corner.

Return the bunker strategy of the original C-6 par 3 green.

Create fairway on the far side of the second creek, especially on the left to tempt high brawn/low brow players to use driver.  I think it is an interesting hole as is (it was clearly better in the original version) and find nothing wrong with having to hit onto an island fairway under different conditions.  The island is rather large.  I know the line of play is many degrees off the original, but what about adding sand back into the hollow on the left of the green?

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

Was that hollow on C7 ever filled with sand?

I think that some of the A greens are a bit one-dimensional. I'd go out there trying to put a hole on the right side, for example, and find myself only finding a flat part in the middle of the green. Slowly walking off the right of the green until I'm there. This happens most prominently on A2, A3, and A6. Similar thing in reverse happens on A5.

There is a neat place on the back right of the second green that is pinnable. Jim, if you played on Saturday, that's where I put it.

As for the bunkering on C6, for some reason, there is a bunker very short and right of the green. How was this green redesigned or was it somewhat based on the original?

[PThomas]

who knows....maybe the 200th US Open will be at S Hills, because by that time there might be enough "infrastructure" out there with all the new courses that will have been built in the area in the past century

[Wayne_Kozun]

What about Cypress Point or Spyglass Hill?

[Phil Benedict]

A US Open set up at Augusta is a no brainer.  Just set it up like the Masters and make 13 and 15 par fours.  The USGA converts par fives to par fours everywhere else, so why not.  Pretty easy to protect par.  At the Masters, winning score is usually in the 8-12 under range.  As a par 70 (like every other US Open course), scores would be par to minus 4, without changing the set up at all.  The best part is how the players would bitch about it.

[JESII]

Jim,

I spoke with Ran earlier today and he wonders why talk of the C nine subordinates many views of the strength of the A nine.  He loves the A nine. I agree with Ran. For now I prefer it to the C-nine although that could be amended over time with some adjustments to the C. There is no question as to the difficulty of the C-nine (probably 2-3 strokes over the A-nine) but that is not the deciding factor for me.[/color]

I do too but I have to admit I feel so strongly that the left sides of the 2nd and 3rd greens need to be restored back to the Flynn fall-offs that I sometimes think harsher than I should of the A nine.  I strongly recommend that the build-ups on the left be removed heightening the shot demands to those greens.  Then you bring about the possiblity of hitting a long high fade into these greens off a draw lie.  As of now the high demand is to hit a straight ball over the bunker short of the green that will move left upon hitting on the green.  Now the shot stays on the greens aided by the raised left portions. No question those changes would improve the shot value of those holes. I would fully support that decision if it were on the table. Question though, are the current greens that much worse than some of the tee shots on the C-nine so as to make that your preferrence?[/color]

I like the returned bunkers at the base of the hill on A-9 from a visual perspective.  What do you think was the design implication of these bunkers? Decision making for the higher handicapper or the player that drives into a spot of trouble. Virtually never come into play for a tournament player. Too penal in today's design age because of who they impact.[/color]

I'd like to see the original bunker scheme on B-9 returned; that is restore some of the bunkers at the turn that were removed.  I think there were 7 originally.  It would have an even more dramatic look. There are a couple of minor adjustments that could make this hole one of the very best closing holes in all of golf and those bunkers are high on the list. I am a believer in substance combining with sizzle to maximize the quality of a hole. A bit more length will create the substance and those bunkers would add some sizzle. Don't take the term sizzle the wrong way, it's just that very few if any players in the State Ams or Lynnewood Halls we have hosted play out of those bunkers, but they surely add to the visual intimidation of the hole.[/color]

I may be in the minority but I do really like the C nine, environmental impact and all.  I am glad it was rebuilt even though there were some modern day compromises.

Some food for thought:

Trim the tops of some of the corner trees on C-2 and create fairway on the green side of the creek to tempt longer hitters to cut the corner. How about removing all of the trees on the fairway side of the creek?[/color]

Return the bunker strategy of the original C-6 par 3 green. How about building an entirely new hole from a lower spot to the left (closer to A9) to a green along the creek further right from todays?[/color]

Create fairway on the far side of the second creek, especially on the left to tempt high brawn/low brow players to use driver.  I think it is an interesting hole as is (it was clearly better in the original version) and find nothing wrong with having to hit onto an island fairway under different conditions.  The island is rather large.  I know the line of play is many degrees off the original, but what about adding sand back into the hollow on the left of the green?

[wsmorrison]

I like your thinking, Jim.  There's a lot to consider.  You'll have to show me what you're thinking of for a different C-6.  If the tee isn't too far from C-5, it sounds good.  I look forward to seeing the site you propose.  Agreed that all the trees on the near side of the creek on C-2 should come out.  I'm surprised that is considered an environmentally sensitive area given that structure (electric co. station?) in there.  But then again, I've heard there's some turtle or salamander or something in there that makes it so sensitive.

What time are we meeting on Wed?  10:30 or so?

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

I believe it is a pump house for the sewer line that was cut across there in the eighties.

Why the desire to remove the trees? Temptation? Look at the green from the tee?

[Dale_McCallon]

Kingsley Club--and make them use hickories.