[Jordan Wall]

The formula for major championships is simple.  Make a course as hard as you can (pretty much) and hope that nobody shoots really low (an example being shinnecock and olympic club).  Some courses are pretty challenging anyways, such as Oakmont and say, Winged Foot, but even on those courses some players score around even par or so.  People are always talking about making courses longer and tougher.  Well, what if you put a major championship (especially a US Open ) at a course that plays less then 6900 yards, say Spyglass Hill.  It is the hardest course on the tour and it is not really anything extra tricked up for the tournament.  It averaged something like 73.6 for the pros.  Now picture that course in US Open conditions or PGA conditions.  If the USGA really wanted to challenge the players, why not choose Spyglass?  It is less famed then it's neighbor Pebble, but it is a lot harder.  Would Spyglass be a good site for a major??  Would the USGA be happy choosing Spyglass as a major venue??  Comments, opinions???

Happy Holidays ,

JW

[Tom Huckaby]

There's one very big reason why the USGA won't hold an Open at Spyglass:  it's right next door to one of their more successful Open sites.  If they were to do so, they'd have to take away a year from Pebble.  Throw in Olympic, and well we are blessed with too many Opens here in NorCal as it is.  Then you add in the one set for Torrey, and well... the last thing the USGA is looking for is another California site.

That's not to say that Spyglass couldn't hold up score-wise - hell results from the AT&T show enough there, and they don't play it even close to fully-fanged.

One other thing:  though Spyglass is certainly generally a stroke or two tougher than Pebble, well... it's also a LOT less dramatic.  Somehow I can't get as excited about a major coming down to 17 and 18 at Spyglass in the same universe as the drama of 17 and 18 at Pebble.  Then you throw in the lack of tradition, lack of history - as compared to Pebble - and well....

As much as I do love Spyglass - and I do - there remain a whole hell of a lot more reasons NOT to have an Open there then there are to do so.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Jordan, This idea has been bandied about recently, but mostly as a stop gap for the Co. due to fears of Pebble's obsolescence. A preposterous premise if ever there was one.

Lefties recent Course record notwithstanding, Spy has everything one needs for an Open. Save for it's own decent clubhouse. The greens are most of the challenge, but with some maintenance tweaking she can be set up for a brutal penal test.

I still think the smaller greens at pebble are optimal, the only thing that isnt', are the calm June conditions.

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

If any major were to go to Spyglass, it'd be the PGA. Frankly, the PGA could have a nice niche playing some of the more well-regarded modern designs and leave the classics to US Open.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:  have some really declared Pebble obsolete?

I can't see that.  You hit it right on the nosey - the small greens (combined with firm and fast + high rough set up) will keep the scores from ever going too low there.

Kyle gives an interesting thought though - PGA.  It is intriguing.  But would they settle for such an obvious poor stepchild?  How many would view a PGA there as anything but a "we can't get Pebble so we settle for this" event?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

You bring up an unfortunate point with the PGA... trying too hard to be the US Open.

I, for one, like the PGA at such venues at Sahalee and Valhalla. Spyglass would fit that niche quite nicely.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, I dont know about declared, but with so much corporate redundancy, it isnt shocking they would consider contingencies.

[Jordan Wall]

I've always had the idea that PGA's are on longer courses, and Spyglass is just 6860 from tips.  I think even par would be pushing it too ...I dont know if ANYONE could score better then par at Spyglass with 6-inch rough and super fast and firm greens...ie-us open conditions

[Dennis_Harwood]

Agree with Tom-- Ain't gonna happen--

Not that Spyglass could not handle it, rather that its not going to look as good on TV as Pebble, the USGA does not want to give up the history and recognition of Pebble plus a couple additional important negatives--

Crowd movement and staging will be a lot more difficult at Spyglass-- The holes are much more widely seperated and the most spectatular holes are the opening, not the closing, holes-- There are not goimg to be areas for crowds on the closing holes--

Plus Pebble has the Corp Tents and staging areas down pat--Spyglass would take a little neighborhood rearranging to make it happen

AND, most important of all-- Both courses have the same owner-- The Pebble Beach Company has lots of housing units to keep filled all year at Pebble (none at Spyglass although its only a couple of miles away) and it can get higher prices if those are at the "US OPEN" course, with that $600+ a night price tag giving you a view over the spectatular 18th you see every 10 years on TV during the Open--

The Pebble Beach Company is not going to confuse its product identification.

[Jordan Wall]

Dennis,

There is a simple solution about the best holes being on the front...switch the nines for the tourney

[Tom Huckaby]

Dennis puts the final nail in this coffin.  It's an intriguing idea for sure in terms of us finding out how the big boys would do on a made-to-be-tough Spyglass, but there are just so many reasons not to do it, it just will never happen.

But Kyle's PGA idea remains intriguing.  I just think that while creating their own niche is a good idea, there have to be better places to do so than a mile or so from one of the more famous US Open sites in this country.  

Adam - I'm gonna go with Dennis.  As much as one might not be happy with TPBC, I just can't see them taking this drastic of a measure.  But who knows....

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Dennis,

There is a simple solution about the best holes being on the front...switch the nines for the tourney

That still leaves you with a few less than dramatic golf holes at the end.  The current 8 is a good hole, but current 6-7-9 are really no great shakes.  They're not BAD, mind you, but they don't compare to the drama up the coast a bit.  

[Dennis_Harwood]

Dennis,

There is a simple solution about the best holes being on the front...switch the nines for the tourney

That will not help-- The spectatular holes are 1-5-- 6-18 are in the pine forest with no view of the ocean or dunes-

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Can't be much worse than holding it on one of the more famous US Open sites in the country. Oakmont and Baltusrol among them.  

[Jordan Wall]

Sorry guys, I think it would be WAY better then having the US Open at Torrey Pines.  Plus wouldnt it be fun to see a course under 6900 yards actually beat the pros.  They would be scratching there heads wondering what happened

[Tom Huckaby]

Jordan - as for it being better than holding it at Torrey, that gets into a LOT of other issues I'm just gonna leave alone.  The point here isn't that it wouldn't be fun to watch - it surely would - just that there remain a lot of very practical reasons that it's not going to happen.

And Kyle, good point.  But I think this is more like having a PGA at Olympic Ocean course, you know?

TH

[Jordan Wall]

Well Tom (and everyone else), I have three things here...

In 2009, I think, the PGA will be at Kiawah Island...do you think that course will provide more challenge then Spyglass, and do you think the PGA of America will really stretch the course to 7800 yards?

And secondly, dont you guys think the same old sites for majors are boring?  I personally think it is quite boring to have the same courses in the majors.  I think that the courses all provide the same challenge, especially length, while Spyglass does not have the length challenge but rather the 'overall' challenge.  I think Spyglass would provide a good site for a major and it might surprise people by how well it would work for for a major.

Abd thirdly, are there any other future major sites you guys would like to have that have not been used??

[JESII]

Jordan,

Re: your second point, what factors of the "overall" challenge will Spyglass have that Shinnecock, Oakmont, Winged Foot etc...do not?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jordan - I think US Open sites just need to have "enough" challenge.  Yes, it will suck if that means stretching a course to 7800 yards or more, and that time may come.  But it's not hear yet.  All of the courses JES mentions do just fine at around 7000 yards.

As for the same old sites being boring, well enjoy Torrey.    Seriously, I think it rotates around enough so that it never gets stale - and they do tend to throw in an outlier like Torrey every decade or so.  That's enough for me.

As for other major sites, well if we include the PGA, man there are tons - some more practical than others.  For example I'd love to see a major at Bandon, but I can't see the infrastructure holding up.  The list is a long one though.  

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan - as for it being better than holding it at Torrey, that gets into a LOT of other issues I'm just gonna leave alone.  The point here isn't that it wouldn't be fun to watch - it surely would - just that there remain a lot of very practical reasons that it's not going to happen.

And Kyle, good point.  But I think this is more like having a PGA at Olympic Ocean course, you know?

TH

Tom,

I'm picking up what you're putting down. :-)

However, the PGA of America needs to realize that it cannot and will never have a PGA as big as the US Open. Frankly, what's wrong with playing second fiddle to the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE COUNTRY. At least, then, there will be something to look forward to than US Open Lite in August.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle, that is a very good point - it would be better for them if they did try to carve their own niche and they do have an air of US Open Lite when they use places like Baltusrol.

I just have to believe there have to be better places than Spyglass to make this niche.  How about somewhere in Hawaii?  Not that would be cool.  Or screw the infrastructure and do Bandon?

They are complying with your request using Whistling Straits...

A few more like that would be a great idea.

TH

[Jordan Wall]

How bout variety of holes and elevation...oakmont does have elevation but spyglass has more then shinnecock and winged foot and many others.  plus on the first few holes there will be lots of wind but once the players get into the holes with trees the wind all of a sudden lessens and slows down which will throw the players.  I dont know, but in regular conditions would shinnecock, oakmont, winged foot and others have a 73.6 stroke average? ?

[JESII]

Jordan,

I think one thing alot of these guys have said (albeit between the lines) is that outside the ropes decisions play at least as much of a role as inside the ropes decisions when selecting a site for these majors today. In that light, how could either of the two organizing bodies really pick Spyglass over Pebble and Olympic at any time? Not only are they both great courses that have proved they stand up in majors, but the USGA and PGA know the logistics will work.

[Jordan Wall]

im just sayin it would be nice not to have the same courses all the time, and maybe a 'new age' of courses would be best suited for majors...

[JESII]

Are there any courses out there that could handle a major that are not on the current rotations?

I think the one you mentioned (Kiawah) will be pretty good. It'll certainly increase the variety of course style used at the PGA, so that's a good thing.

Whistling Straits just got on the list and looks likely to stay. The PGA seems your best bet at increased variety and they seem to be doing a hell of a job if you ask me.

Does anyone know how to get a list of PGA courses for the last 10 or 15 years as well as the future sights?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()