News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Andrew Roberts

Oakland Hills
« on: August 21, 2002, 10:52:14 PM »
Today I watched the first day of matchplay at the US Amateur from Oakland Hills on ESPN.

First of all I have never played the course, but the bunkers were absolutely horrifying to look at.  Many, but not all looked to be round flat ovals.  The bunker in the middle of the fairway at 15, one of the four behind the 16th green and there was also one that was just short of the 17th.  The most obnoxious part of these bunkers was the white sand.  What a tacky look for such a classic course?

The greens also looked to be quite large for a championship venue.  Are they?

Johnny Miller said that the greens were some of the hardest he has putted.  Up there with Oakmont and Augusta.   Are they anything like what Ross designed or were they also re-designed just like the bunkers by RTJ.

Johnny Miller also said that the rough was as high and as thick as it was 6 years ago for the Open.  Personally I thought the rough looked shorter than the main cut of rough this year at Bethpage.  

Was he pulling my leg or is the rough the same height, and has the USGA tried to grow the rough higher at the Open since 1996?  

Has Rees done any work at Oakland Hills?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2002, 02:59:13 AM »
Rees hasn't touched Oakland Hills and the world would come to an end if he did. The greens are huge and have a ton of roll to them. They were all re-done by RTJ for the '51 OPEN
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Patrick Hitt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2002, 03:26:24 AM »
Anthony,
I believe that the greens are still essentially Ross. I think RTJ's work was bunkering and the pond on 16. He may have added some pin positions on a few greens, but the rolls are Ross (I think).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2002, 04:45:42 AM »
I played both of the Oakland Hills courses last month and I
walked away really, really IMPRESSED.

The North course is very good, but the South is awesome.

It is a BIG golf course, although the scorecard yardage doesn't look all that difficult (par 70, about 7,080 yards).  But it plays big and the greens are very difficult.
« 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

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2002, 04:54:48 AM »
Every single bunker on the course, save one, is RTJ
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

A_Clay_Man

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2002, 05:24:03 AM »
My impressions from the TV were similar about the Augusta-like white sand. The pond looked totally out of place, certainly not Ross. And without any ground level shots, the only thing that looked like a Ross course was the interior green contours.

After reading that quote from Hootie, on another thread, about accuracy off the tee, I find myself perplexed but mostly sad. :'(

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

John Bernhardt

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2002, 09:24:18 AM »
It is a big course. It is funny the Machrihanish is also a big course at 6300 yards. Please keep Rees away!!! I liked the look and feel of the course and the green complexes.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Henry_W

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2002, 09:54:36 AM »
I always thought the pond on #16 was Robert Trent Jones creation until I saw the photo on page 126 of Geoff Shackelford's Golden Age of Golf Course Design, which clearly shows the pond as Ross' work.  Note, however, the change in bunkering.  Page 124 has Ross' course map, which makes an interesting reference when realizing how much Robert Trent Jones changed the bunkering and character of the course for the '51 Open.  I think it is correct that all or most of the bunkers can be attributed to Jones.  Brad Klein's Ross biography also has an interesting section on Oakland Hills starting on p. 288.

I played the course when I was in high school and was amazed at the contour of the greens -- these are Ross greens, not Jones greens (except for perhaps 3 & 7).  What I find amazing is how Ross could create such variety in his greens.  Oakland Hills greens are just the opposite of Pinehurst #2's turtlebacked greens, they are low in the middle and high at the edges and corners creating a 'gull-winged' effect. The excellent greens are clearly the most interesting part of the golf course. Back then, I thought they were much more severely contoured and difficult than Crystal Downs greens, but subsequent reading indicates that was a youthful misperception.  Anyone have a take on this?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2002, 12:00:46 PM »
As of 2:57 P.M. EDT, this course was officially designed by RTJ, according to Johnny Miller.  >:(

I don't care how good a golfer he is/was, Johnny isn't nearly as smart as he thinks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

M.W. Burrows

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2002, 01:14:03 PM »
I believe Art Hills is the current consulting architect.  I know he added some pin placements back in the early '90s in preparation for the '96 Open.  He has also been doing treework consulting on the South and a few things on the North course as well.  I think he may have added a pond on the North or may add one.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ginger_Beer

Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2002, 01:28:43 PM »
Did RTJ bunker 17?

That uphill forced carry makes me want to hurl.  Wouldn't it be much more interesting if the left side was open?  That way, those who didn't take on the right front bunkers would have to put from that nasty swale on the left.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2002, 07:00:21 PM »
Here's a little piece regarding the architectural evolution of Oakland Hills that has so far been absent from the discussion. As Donald Ross grew older, he saw the way the game of golf was changing, and to respond, made plans to relocate the fairway bunkers at Oakland Hills. Unfortunately, Ross died in 1948, never carrying out the plans he had envisioned. The result, Robert Trent Jones was called in, was given access to Ross' plans and incorporated many of his bunkers. The problem, he didn't know where to stop, over bunkering the course into a penal scheme that virtually eliminated options. Here's what Ron Whitten had to say in the June 1996 issue of Golf Digest;
      "...Jones wasn't the club's original choice to rework the course. Donald Ross himself had a prepared hole-by-hole revision of Oakland Hills after the war. On it, he had proposed relocating bunkers out to the 230-250 yard range, the same general areas that Trent wanted...Trent not only knew of those plans, he used them. A set is still in Trent's office, showing where he red-penciled additional revisions atop those of Ross. He followed some of Ross' proposals, such as moving the 2nd tee to the left to make it a more pronounced dogleg par 5. But where Ross had wanted to heavily bunker one side of a hole, Trent heavily bunkered both. Trent didn't expand the greens into larger, more generous surfaces the way Ross had envisioned. Instead, he surrounded most of them with even more bunkers to make them impenetrable to all but high, arching approach shots. The greens themselves were barely touched. Jones admired the way Ross had contoured Oakland Hills' greens. The older Trent got, the more he raved about those greens. In his 1988 autobiography, he was positively gushy about them: "Uniquely his and uniquely great", he called them, "Ross' great greens, with their crowns, swales, terraces and slopes, were large enough and needed little revamping, except for the installation of a tongue area here and there".

If only we could get rid of those extra bunkers!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick Hitt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2002, 02:31:28 AM »
Caught Johnny Miller yesterday talking about how the course was designed by RTJ "no matter what anyone says" because he came in and changed all the bunkering. I guess the greens and the routing don't count.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakland Hills
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2002, 03:35:29 AM »
Patrick:

We need to bring Johnny Miller here to GCA and "edjakate" him, eh?
« 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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back