Forget the rough and the tourney, what did you think of the course?

[George Pazin]

Anyone care to comment on the course outside of the setup?

Considering the pre tournament comments about the deforrestation program, I was a bit surprised at how many trees there were. It must have been truly claustrophobic before.

Is the land for Winged Foot East similar?

[John Foley]

George,

I was there Thursday & Friday and saw every inch of the course I could looking at the features.

The two things that stood out in my mind we're how flat the fairways we're (and I don't mean that there wasn't some movement, there are some uphills & downhills but there was a definete lack of seroius internal contours. Other than the ridge on 12 & the downslope area on 15, I don;t remember a signifcant feauture in the fairways.) and how much the greens we're pushed up. It would seem that a tremndous amount of fill was needed to build them up across the whole course and I couldn't figure out where it came from?

The 1st and 18th greens we're truly amazing. The back left pin on 18 looked ridiculously tough, but did not appear to play so. You really can't get a feeling for that false front w/out seeing it. It would be a sin to change that 1st green. A few others had some great internal contours also especially # 4 & 8.

I liked the 6th as a drivable par 4. I saw Holmes & Hend take a rip at it on Friday and neither fairwed well from the rough. I liked that Sunday pin position to tempt the players.

The par 3's really stood out. 3 looked brutal (not sure if they ever used the back tee, Sat perhaps?) W/ it's length and deep bunkers. 7 looked neat & imposing, but appeared to play easier than expected. #13 was probably my least favorite, but #10 was world class. Spent a lot of time watching tee balls & putts from there. I loved how the largeness of the green and the fairways somehow tempted people to think it was a little easier than it actually was. Easily one of the best 3's I've ever seen.

The routing of the West course was very good w/ direction change & topography change. What I'm trying to come up w/ is why did Tilly route the courses together? I expected to have a little more seperation of the two courses, but they we're very inter-twined.

[John Kirk]

I have played the course once, in late May last year.  I have commented a few times here that it wasn't my kind of course.  It's a pretty flat piece of ground, with houses bordering the courses, with built up greens that are somewhat repetitive.  The fairways were fairly narrow when I played, and I only hit one fairway all day long.

This spring, the beautiful pictures of the course, both here and in golf magazines, were starting to change my opinion.  It looks fabulous.  However, I thought the tournament was less interesting to watch than  the typical U.S. Open.  It was depressing, too.  Geoff Oglivy survived, and the big story was the horrifying collapse of Mickelson and Montgomerie.  It wasn't a fun tournament; it was a brutal one.

To answer your specific question, the playing corridors are plenty wide.  The trees aren't that close to the fairways.

This course would be great fun for us regular guys if they widened the fairway from an average 30 yards or so to a generous 50-60 yards.  It's a wonderful place, but for my tastes it's more difficult than fun.

Last comment.   I thought Winged Foot, with the numerous doglegs that seemed to turn at 275 yards or so, was "Tiger-proofed" as well as any course.  I thought it favored a medium length draw rather strongly.

 

[George Pazin]

Thanks, John and John for the thoughtful reports, and Bill for the added insight.

What I'm trying to come up w/ is why did Tilly route the courses together? I expected to have a little more seperation of the two courses, but they we're very inter-twined.

This is a very interesting observation. I wonder if someone with more knowledge of the course could expand on it.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

George-

  In three words, I liked it.  Attended the Tuesday practice rounds, getting to meet Mike Sweeney in the process   and his son Dylan.  Cool!  

  Firstly, I have not played WFW or WFE.  From my prior, relatively limited experience with Tillinghast courses, specifically Bethpage, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Cricket, I would place it high on the list.  No need to rank them, they're all good.  Prior to going in, many had told me the scale is "big", and I concur.  Big contours, big greens, big bunkers.  Many of the holes run parallel with a few exceptions, but I didn't feel the course was necessarily boring; as compared to some other "U.S. Open" courses I know pretty well.  Off the tee, it's obvious what you have to do; hit the fairway with a shaped tee shot.  I do concur with Ward about a "slide" tee shot rather than a sharp one--the angles aren't necessarily severe, but they are there, and the penalty for missing fairways seemed steep.  Same with the greens.  

I liked how there appeared to be an "ebb and flow" to the course--much like many other great courses--starting out with a few ballbreakers, easing up a little (comparatively speaking) and then applying the pressure again.  Great finish from 13 on!  

It just seemed like a very hard golf course, but one that would make you a better player, by playing it frequently.  Very much an aerial-shot course.   I won't go as far as to say the land was "bland", it is what it is.  Ridgewood has a very good use of land, as do the Bethpage courses.  

[ed_getka]

From what I saw of the back nine of WFW last fall, I thought the course looked hard, but not as impossible as I had always envisioned it to be. Seeing well-played shots coming into those holes this week and watching them take slopes this way and that was very cool. Certainly not an easy course, or even much fun, but as Doug said regular play there would certainly make you a better golfer (or convince you to give up the game ). I liked the course, but it's probably way to much for my game.

[tlavin]

It looked pretty good on television.  It looked so impeccably maintained that some of the overhead shots looked more like computer animation than actual photography.

I will say that it didn't look like there was too much in the way of elevation changes, but tv flattens that out pretty much.  In terms of design, from television viewing, it did look like some of the holes were repetitive, but the greens looked magnificent.  I'd love to play it some day.  If I did, I'm sure I would look back to the pro tees and shudder.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

This year's Open demonstrated that the "golf world is falling apart" theory that many GCA alarmists make for all the new technology was quickly dispelled with how WF / West performed for this year's event.

The Tillie design is well done because it requires players to work the ball off the tee -- at 30-45 degree angles. You cannot simply fire away and launch because with the exception of the 9th hole -- the bulk of the par-4's to turn in one manner or the other.

In addition, you have greensites that are well done and will not permit indifferent iron play or even half-ass recoveries that too often the world's best can achieve with impunity.

Winged Foot / West may not be everyone's cup of tea but from the standpoint of identifying what is top quality golf the totality of what you find there is indeed well done and merits a future return for a sixth US Open in the near future.

[Rick Shefchik]

Matt --

If that's the case, do you think the narrow fairways and deep rough were unnecessary? It sounds as though you believe the architectural features of WFW would have allowed it to defend itself with less penal conditioning.

I enjoyed the tournament, and I'm not one to bash the USGA for tough set-ups, but is WFW tough enough under normal playing conditions to produce a winner at, say, -5?

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

I do agree that the idea of very narrow fairways and heavy rough needs to be re-evaluated. The qualities of the Tillie design at both of the courses at Winged Foot are there for anyone to see.

If you want to see a layout that balances power and accurary -- look at the leaderboard to prove my point -- you can see how a Jeff Sluman could shoot a final round 69 and he is far from being a long hitter. Winged Foot / West is the prototype on how to test the world's best players without going the route you see with Augusta.

Even when Davis Love III fired a four-round total of 269 with the '97 PGA I don't believe that undercut Winged Foot / West as it served to highlight the considerable talent Love has but far too often has failed to provide on a consistent basis.

Rick -- WF / West has enough intrinsic qualities and does not need the help of any outside group to make the course stronger through the inclusion of over-the-top additions.

[Phil Benedict]

This year's Open demonstrated that the "golf world is falling apart" theory that many GCA alarmists make for all the new technology was quickly dispelled with how WF / West performed for this year's event.

Interesting how the 18th is still a really tough hole at 450 yards, which is not particularly long by today's standards.  It ruined Harrington on Saturday and of course we all know what happened on Sunday.  Drive and a mid-to-short iron for most pros.  Pressure obviously accentuated the difficulty.