Oakland Hills-Whats the Story?

[Sean_A]

Everytime one of these US Open threads comes up Oakland Hills gets slapped.  Why?  Is it not just as penal as most every Open course?  Don't the greens roll at diabolical pace?  Aren't the greens fiendishly contoured?  Isn't the rough stupid high and thick?  Doesn't the land go up and down?  Isn't the clubhouse a mcmansion?  Aren't many of the members the cream of the town?  Doesn't it usually have a torrential rain during or close to the time of the Open?  Didn't Doak give it a 9?  Despite outhosting practically every other club in the country, what makes people think Oakland Hills isn't worthy?

Ciao

[PThomas]

fwiw, someone once wrote, I can't remember who, that the three most dificult/challenging sets of greens in the US are O Hills, Augusta's, and Oakmont's

[Phil Benedict]

Is Oakland Hills a bit of an architectural hybrid now?  Some Ross, some RTJ etc.

[redanman]

"Is Oakland Hills a bit of an architectural hybrid now?  Some Ross, some RTJ etc."

Certainly close to the "truths" I have been told. Tell you more in about 6 weeks.

I understand the greens, too have been changed and the bunkering is mostly an RTJ re-do as had been A-mink, but there they didn't futz with the greens.

[Chris_Clouser]

Sean,

It all comes back to the fact that some people think it was a tragic day when RTJ changed the course that Ross built.  Even though they never played the course before that happened, they just can't accept the possibility that RTJ may have imporved on what Ross originally did.  That's it.  No other reason.  Just old fashioned deification of the ODGs and the mindset that everything they created must be better than anything that RTJ or the other architects of his era could have ever done.  

Personally, I thought it was the most difficult course I have ever played.  Would I play it again if given the chance?  Yes.  Would I like to play it every day?  No.  Was it my favorite course?  No.  Would it be in my personal top 10 ever played?  Yes.  Should it get the treatment it gets on this site?  No.

It is simply one of the best courses of that style in the country.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill V hit the topic head on. You have a combo mix of RTJ bunkers and Ross greens. It's time to blend everything together.

On a personal note -- I like the course and see it beyond the likes of Oak Hill / East but a clear few steps behind the likes of Oakmont and the very elite few.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Hold the phone amigo.

I never opined that courses such as Olympia Fields, Medinah, Congressional, Oak Hill / East, Baltusrol and Hazeltine National were better than Oakland Hills / South. You must have me confused with someone else.

In regards to the other courses you mentioned I see WF / West as being superior to OH -- I see TCC and Bethpage Black as being very close to each other in overall qualities.

In regards to the top tier places -- Shinnecock, Oakmont, and Pebble -- they are tour de force layouts and a good few steps ahead of the Detroit-are based course IMHO.

One other thing -- you surmise much from having gleaned impressions from TV viewing. Mine are a bit different -- I've played them and seen firsthand the various championships hosted at these locales for well over 20 years.

I dont' disagree that OH / South would be a worthy Midwest site for future Open events. That's up to the USGA to decide. Give credit to the PGA of America in making sure the key events they host have been played there. Frankly, if I was the Europeans I would petition the PGA to have the Ryder Cup return there as soon as can be.

In regards to what is "lacking" -- I don't view the RTJ bunkering style as working in concert with the Ross presentation -- you have no argument from me on the overall green contours. I also agree w Tom Doak when he mentioned in "Confidential Guide" how the famed 16th is truly overrated. It's a fine hole but people went overboard (including Dan Jenkins in SI years ago) about how it was an all-18 USA type hole.

Couple of other points -- the 2nd is a drab par-5. I also see the finishing hole as being a bit over-the-top. The fairway turns right but the landing area banks a bit to the left to the opposite located fairway bunkers -- ask Tom Lehman about the 72nd hole tee shot he played when he lost the Open to Steve Jones. The shot he hit was superb but the resulting kick ended his chances.

[David Stamm]

Everytime one of these US Open threads comes up Oakland Hills gets slapped.  Why?  Is it not just as penal as most every Open course?  Don't the greens roll at diabolical pace?  Aren't the greens fiendishly contoured?  Isn't the rough stupid high and thick?  Doesn't the land go up and down?  Isn't the clubhouse a mcmansion?  Aren't many of the members the cream of the town?  Doesn't it usually have a torrential rain during or close to the time of the Open?  Didn't Doak give it a 9?  Despite outhosting practically every other club in the country, what makes people think Oakland Hills isn't worthy?

Ciao

Sean, if I may, I never slapped Oakland Hills or the quality of it in my thread. I simply think that they have chosen to align themselves with the PGA and the USGA doesn't like to hold the Open at a course that has been used by the PGA so close in timing to the Open, that's all. I think Oakland Hills would make a rock solid mid-west rota course.

[Neil_Crafter]

Sean
I understand it was Johnny Miller who stated that Oakland Hills, Augusta and Oakmont are the three most difficult sets of putting greens in the USA, I recall hearing him say that during the Ryder Cup telecast. I visited Oakland Hills in 2004 for the Ryder Cup and was blown away by the difficulty of the greens that I could see as a spectator. The course is surprisingly open and the trees generally set well back from the fairways. Rough was pretty thick but not to Oakmont levels for the Cup. All in all it impressed me. I understand RTJ's changes were mostly bunkering and he left the greens pretty much alone, except for extending a couple. I was told that Arthur Hills had been through to give the bunkers a makeover in the last few years prior the RC but have not had that confirmed.
cheers Neil

[michael j fay]

Oakland Hills is a very good venue. It has a Ross layout, lenghthen numerous times by numerous architects. It has a wonderful set of Ross greens that are surrounded by bunkering of RTJones.

The greens are not nearly as severe as those at Oakmont, ANGC, Crystal Downs or Brae Burn in Newton Mass. They are probably more severe than most other Ross courses by a factor of 50%. One of the reasons for the perception of severity is the closeness and sheer quantity of the RTJones bunkers. The Ross greens at OH are severely tilted from back to front. They were not built with rear bunkers sloping into the green in mind. Frankly, it is my experience that most Ross bunkers, although originally much deeper than we see today, were not as penal as those left by Jones on some Ross venues. I have spoken to a number of OH members who were around before the Jones work in '50. I was born in '49 so I cannot even guess whether the course was improved.

I have seen Aronimink in the Jones formation and in the restored form by Ron Prichard. Personally, I prefer the restored course. Many of the Jones bunkers were more helpful to a player than hurtful, the roughs are just so much more difficult than the fairway bunkering. Most of the Jones bunkers were significantly more shallow than normal Ross bunkers.

As fo the members of OH that were there before Jones, there is only one consensus. That is Oakland Hills was great course then and it is a great course now. I would concur.

[Jeff_Mingay]

michael,

You're right, most of the greens at Oakland Hills-South are pitched back-to-front. But my favourite is the fall-away fourteenth. What a neat green that is... bascially set on grade, falling away from the approach, with those "wing" plateaux.