Hazeltine as a major host

[TEPaul]

Jeff Lewis:

I'd have to concur with some of the others about your estimation and analysis of the PGA tournament for the reasons you seem to be using. You seem to rationalize that something must be wrong with a tournament or its course if a known big name doesn't win!

For some reason you seem unable to detect some really good and exciting championship golf because of the particular name of the golfer who played that great golf and shot that score and won!

It fascinates me that you appear to think that if it had been a big name like an Els, Mickelson, Duval, Singh, who'd hit exactly the same shots and shot the same score that Rich Beem did, then things would be OK with the tournament (which might also validate the golf course) because of that.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing a golf course or it's architecture but don't do it just because a really good last round that was shot by the winner with the best in the world, among other champions, breathing down his neck happened to be a guy called Beem instead of Woods or some of the other known super stars or champions.

Good golf is just that good golf--it really doesn't matter what the name of the guy who shot it is with 98 out of the top 100 in the world in the field.

And don't forget, every champion and every great golfer has to start somewhere--they too have to have that first win, just like a "fluke" does!

Just look at the exciting golf that was played yesterday, by all those in contention including Woods and the winner, who definitely took it to all of them! It was some exciting golf unless of course you just don't think it was. It was some pretty exciting golf to me and the name of the winner does not affect or change that!

[Jeff_Lewis]

I thought the golf course looked like a loser from what I saw on television from the beginning. Nothing about that leaderboard dissuaded me from that opinion. Of course, as has been said on GCA SO OFTEN, I haven't played the course. But without question I do subscribe to the great courses produce great winners over time notion. No doubt.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

"...a course that produces great winners..."

And what is a great winner, Jeff? Is it a golfer who played some great golf period (with other greats in on the hunt) or is it a golfer who played great golf who happened to have a great name in golf before he played that great golf in a championship and won it?

[John_Conley]

Which begs the question...

is Payne Stewart a worthy champion?  If not, then Pinehurst #2 must also be a lousy venue.  Ditto Kemper Lakes.

You can take this argument to the extreme, which actually has a name in Latin that translates to "Reduction to the Absurd".  You can argue that Pebble Beach is a great venue because Tiger won the U.S. Open (and Tom Watson and Jack Nicklaus), but then you are left to justify that Tom Kite is also a great player.  He won a ton on Tour and has a sole major, which makes him sound like Davis Love, Fred Couples, and Justin Leonard - who comprise part of the group that has drawn so much criticism for not standing up to Tiger.

[Bruceski]

I think we need to realize that Rich Beem is a great golfer. Winning THREE times on the Tour is no fluke. The guy showed a hell of a lot of composure yesterday, and clearly has what it takes. I couldn't believe how well he hit driver, and how well he was putting. His second shot on 11 was nothing short of "all time great". Meanwhile, Tiger's bringing down the house on EVERY hole ahead of Beem from 15 onward -- and the guy is unfazed. Under that pressure, Floppy McChokelson would have been hacking, duck-hooking, and 3-putting by the 16th hole.

As long as he doesn't drink himself into a coma this week celebrating I predict Beem will win a bunch more regular Tour events before he's 35. Will he win another Major? Maybe not, but he clearly is no Paul Lawrie.

[BV]

Gotta give props to Beem.  HE just gets out there and hits the shots and lives with the results.

Nice to see a guy make up his mind and pulls the friggin' trigger!


I have a hard time watching ANYONE play ponderously and ploddingly, even if it is NGLA, Shinnecock, Royal Dornoch or the Old Course!

[JakaB]

Would just one person please say why this course is top 100 architecturally...if its in Chicago its no better than Butler National...if its in San Diego its no better than Torrey Pines...Its not top 25 in New Jersey...Its not top 25 in Philly.  Me of all people just wanting to know why after at least two weeks of discussion about everything except the architecture nobody except homers will defend the course..should be reason enough to know something is lacking.   I'm getting me some Jim Beam and seeing a movie before I have to read anymore about who won...like that matters.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Jaka,

I don't hear anyone defending the course that strongly. Not even the homers like John C or myself. There is nothing really architecturally great about Hazeltine. I agree with RJ's assessement that it is long, brutish, but makes for decent tournament golf.

[TEPaul]

Jakab:

You're right we should be talking about the architecture of Hazeltine. I've never seen the place in person but you're asking the wrong guy if it deserves to be in the top 100 because I have zero idea what those rating people on those magazine panels are thinking or doing.

Would it be in my top 100? Nope. Hard to tell the details or architecture on TV but those bunkers aren't hard to tell. The boring and bland look of those things alone would knock an otherwise nice and challenging course out of my top 100.

But you don't want to talk or think about who won on the course or how--like you don't think that matters?

Do you think that the Minneapolis papers should say on Monday after the final round the next time they have a major there:

"The 2012 US Open Championship is over, the golf course was a star, great strategic architecture, very intense #16 signature hole, water everywhere, beautiful flowing clean-lined bunkers, course deserves to be in America's Top 25! Oh, incidentally, Woods won the tournament, again, (not that that matters)!

[CHrisB]

Will he win another Major? Maybe not, but he clearly is no Paul Lawrie.

Bruce,
Just what are you saying here?

Paul Lawrie has won 6 European Tour events (the latest a couple of weeks ago), shot 67 on Sunday in the Open at Carnoustie and then birdied 17 and 18 to win in the playoff, and then won 3.5 points in his first Ryder Cup, leading the European Team.

Sounds like you would want to be like Paul Lawrie to me.  

[George Pazin]

One thing I really liked about the course was the way two of the shorter par 4s, #10 (I think) & #16, played with water as a backdrop. 10 in particular seemed to play much tougher than the yardage would indicate. Most of the guys were hitting short irons in, but few seemed to hit them close.

-----------

Good lord, somebody wanted them to play 16 all the way back on Saturday? Just how cruel are you? Should they add a back tee for #17 Sawgrass, maybe at 175-190 yards, just so we can see more shots into the water?

-----------

I thought this was the most entertaining major of the year & that the USGA could learn from the setup & that definitely the Masters could learn from the course in general that length is not necessarily the be all & end all to combat today's big hitters. No 470+ yard par 4s & the course still held up pretty well. Too bad we didn't see it really firm & fast.

-----------

This course seemed much better than Torrey or Valhalla, upon cursory examination. Not the standard blast a driver, stick a wedge that we see week in & week out.

[Bruceski]

ChrisB,

You're right. Maybe I should say Jeff Sluman or Steve Elkington.

BTW, I don't agree that this was just another PGA Tour event. If that were the case, Mickelson would have won.

[John_Conley]

Would just one person please say why this course is top 100 architecturally...if its in Chicago its no better than Butler National...if its in San Diego its no better than Torrey Pines...Its not top 25 in New Jersey...Its not top 25 in Philly.  

Barney:

HOMERS defending the course?  If that's the case, it's only because we're the only ones who have seen it!  Minnesota is so under-appreciated architecturally that "we" have to speak up for it or another year will go by and GD will rate Golden Valley #20 in the state or whatever.  Everything I've said about Hazel has centered around #1 - the course is probably better than people think, and #2 - it is a very worthy tournament venue.

Probably not in the Top 25 in Philly?  I wouldn't think so, just as I don't consider its design Top 10 in Minnesota and reckon it wouldn't make Top 20 on Long Island or Top 10 in Westchester.  However, if you think that's the discussion we are having I'm better off not even sharing my views.  I don't know of one course in Philadelphia capable of hosting a men's professional Major.  (PGA, U.S. Open, Ryder Cup.)

The discussion is about "Hazeltine as a major host" and - to me - was never about comparing Hazeltine to any of America's Top 10 courses.

A quick look at other Major hosts shows the Belfry, the K Club, some place in Wales, Valhalla, Medinah, Baltusrol, Torrey Pines, Oakland Hills, etc...  I'm guessing Pinehurst, Oak Hill, Oakmont, Shinnecock, and a few others meet approval for the golf architecture, but I also think some of the mystique for some courses is gained BECAUSE they've hosted Majors.

Hazeltine hosted their first Open before it was worthy, but subsequent events held there have gone pretty well.  Not sure about the U.S. Open where Hollis Stacy won in the late 70s, but the Senior Open, NCAA Men's, U.S. Open in 1991, and this PGA.  (Now is the time for someone to say that it is a lousy venue because it produced such a poor ladies champion, despite the fact Miss Stacy won an amazing THREE Opens.   )

Which courses did Robert Trent Jones do that are better?  I've seen Spyglass Hill, and it definitely benefits from a great site - particularly for the first 5 holes.  Always made me wonder if a different routing wouldn't have worked better, but that's another discussion.  After SH, you have the Dunes, Hazeltine, and a few others of serious note.  I'm sure you and I agree that RTJ is not known for incredible design work compared to some of the Golden Agers and most prolific designers since.  But he was the undisputed King of a rather long era, from WWII until about 1970 when Pete Dye, George Fazio, and Dick Wilson finally were considered in the same league.

[John_Conley]

John...

Why would no.7 be best played as a 475 (or longer) yard par 4?  Here are some of my thoughts on the issue...

1.  There aren't enough lengthy par 4s on Hazeltine requiring a mid-iron.  The only exceptions are 12 and 18.
2.  From what I remember, the original no.7 was sort-of one of those dog-leg disasters.
3.  No.7 sort-of resembles no.6, just a par 5.
4.  I would eliminate the pond so that nos.6 and 7 don't look like twins.
5.  With no.7 as a par 4, there would be a good stretch concluding the front nine.  If no.15 were a par 4, then that stretch of holes would be quite something coming in.
6.  There is the chance of hitting a wedge at nos. 3, 5 and 6.  Another wedge at no.7 would be superfluous.  As a par 4, one could increase the balance of the course.
7.  The stroke average hovers near 4.75, my breaking point for when a par 5 probably no longer is challenging enough to remain a par 5.
8.  Lastly, the top guys need more par 4s to test their games, not pathetic and poorly designed par 5s.

Of course, the USPGA won't reduce either 7 or 15 to a par 4.  The USGA probably would do no.7, but probably not 15.  But, Hazeltine won't see the Open anytime soon...

Peter:

Thanks for the detailed response.  That is the kind of insight I think GCA could use more of.  

1- I don't know that I agree, but respect your opinion.  After all, the course is almost 7400 yards long!!  From memory, #1, #9, #12, and #18 are all "long" par 4s, but may not play that way for today's TOUR pro.  Since 1 and 9 run in almost opposite directions, I'd reckon one of those could meet your criteria.

3- The 6th is a dramatic dogleg L and the 7th goes R.  If I had to come up with knocks against Hazeltine, I'd probably start with the fact that most of the par 4s bend L, leaving little design balance.  Since the shot value for the tee shot is varied, I guess I find enough of a difference between the two holes.  You are correct that the Wedge into 7 would look like the 8i into 6 for those who lay up.

4- 6, 7, and 8 have small ponds by the green.  16 has the peninsula green into the lake and 17 has the stream on the L.  I don't think that is too much water.  (Whatever they have on 12 isn't in play for that field.)  I do see your point, however, and will think about it more to see if I agree.

5- It seems to me that you equate difficulty with greatness.  Don't kid yourself, the 7th would play easier if the tee was moved up as more could reach the green in two.

6- The players in question can hit Wedge just about everywhere these days!  To do what you just said you'd have to be aggressive over the R side of 5, hug a draw L on 6, and choose to lay back on 7.  Certainly someone ripping the tee shots you talk about could tempt the R side of 7 and gamble on their second shot.

7- Does this mean that a "good" hole should not have a scoring average between 4.5 and 4.75?  (The USGA seemed to have trouble with this question.  Played as a long par 4 from the ladies tee in the Senior Open but was a par 5 in 1991.) I don't penalize players for being good.  If they average 4 on a 525 yard par 5 I say more power to 'em.

8- Is #7 a poorly designed par 5?  I sure didn't think so the way players were forced to decide whether or not to tempt the green on their second shots.  The day Tig hit D-8i it was downwind, but he still had to cheat the corner with his teeshot.  I watched EVERY group lay up on the hole in 1991 when the wind was into them with a far L pin because it just wasn't worth the gamble.  I'd much rather watch players think about what they are doing than just blindly bash away.

Let's not forget that David Toms layed up on the 18th in the final round of the PGA last year with a similar approach.  I don't think it matters so much about yardages or par, but the challenges that await.  Playing it as short as 475 would probably result in very few or no layups.

Thanks for the thought provoking response.  I could make a good case Pro or Con, which probably means there is no right or wrong answer.

Lastly, does anyone see the similarities between Hazel and Bay Hill.  Some holes are very similar:
1 Bay Hill kind of like 2 and 10 Hazel.
4 Bay Hill kind of like 15 Hazel.
Approach to 8 Bay Hill like approach to 6 Hazel.
10 Bay Hill almost exactly like 5 Hazel.
12 Bay Hill like 11 Hazel.
16 Bay Hill like 7 Hazel with a wild green.
17 Bay Hill like 17 Hazel.
18 Bay Hill is treacherous like 16 Hazel.
Par 3s 2, 7, and 14 at Bay Hill similar to 4 and 13 Hazel.

BH is a little flatter and has a little more water.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Richards,

Getting back to your original questions,

How did that unknown guy, that fluke, who won the US OPEN at Oak Hill in the late 70's ever turn out ??

Was Oak Hill viewed differently in the interveining years between when he "choked his way home" and won the tournament, and years later when he was acknowledged as one of the greatest ball strikers and golfers to play the game.

Will time tell the same tale ?

Let's not be so harsh on Mr Beem, who played great against great adversaries.

Has anyone played the old and current Hazeltine ?

[John_Conley]

Pat:

I'm too young to have played it before the changes.  My dad played there a bunch and always talks about how hard old 16 and 17 were.  I know 17 was a short par 4, but for some reason it was darn near impossible.  I think it had something to do with trees in the way!

I know he always said the pros played the toughest holes from forward tees in the 1970 U.S. Open and he didn't think much of that.

JOHN

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

you said:
>How did that unknown guy, that fluke, who won the US
>OPEN at Oak Hill in the late 70's ever turn out ??

To what are you referring to here?
The only Oak Hill Opens anywhere near the '70's are the following:

1968- Lee Trevino
1989 - Curtis Strange

[Rick Shefchik]

Patrick:

I played the old Hazeltine just after the U.S. Open in 1970, when I was 18 and had more strength than sense (it's somewhat the opposite now), and I've played Hazeltine several times in the last few years.

Though I don't remember than much about the course in 1970, I do recall enjoying the short par-4 17th, an uphill dogleg right (man, there were a lot of sharp doglegs on the original course) on which even young dopes like me hit a long iron off the tee and a short iron into the green.

I agree with some of the observations on this thread about the way the course plays now: The bunkers are bland looking, though deep enough to be strategically important, and the similarity of 9 and 18 is unfortunate -- especially since the greens are so close together that players had to stop their putting routines until players on the adjoining green hit their putts, so as not to be startled in their takeaways by a loud roar from the surrounding grandstands.

But I strongly disagree with Jeff Lewis's assertion that Hazeltine has ZERO strategic interest. He must be overstating his opinion for effect, because players had second shot options on the par 5 Nos. 3 and 7, as well as tee shot options on the par 4 Nos. 5 and 6; tee shot options on the par 4 Nos. 10, 14 and 16, and second shot options on No. 11.

As for Barney's request for a reason why Hazeltine is a top 100 course, I believe it's necessary to define one's criteria. In the golf magazine ratings, there seem to be charm and aesthetic points given to courses that never have and never will host PGA tournaments, as well as difficulty points awarded to the big courses capable of testing the world's best players with length as well as strategy. To me, Hazeltine comfortably fits into the latter category.

Hazeltine is what it is; it can't be on Long Island, it can't be in New Jersey or Philadelphia and it can't be on the West Coast. It is never going to be played by many of the golf course raters or the posters on GCA. Seeing the course on TV does little for its reputation in the eyes of those who haven't played it, apparently; if TV adds 10 pounds to the way a person looks, it takes most of the contour away from a golf course. Number 1 is downhill, and to my eyes looks much like No. 1 at Southern Hills; Nos. 3 and 5 both have sharp dips in the fairways just beyond the point at which it's prudent to lay up; No. 6 slopes significantly downhill; 10 requires a very steep downhill second shot; 9 and 18 are both significant uphill holes.

One other thing to keep in mind: Minnesota may not be as windy as Texas or the British Isles, but 30-40 mph is nothing to scoff at, and those of us who play here get those conditions far more often than we get days like Sunday. I sat at the 8th tee Saturday morning and watched the top 36 players in the field play the 178-yard hole in 27 over par. It was dead into the wind, and it made a world of difference.

You  want great champions? If the wind had not blown Saturday at Muirfield or Saturday at Hazeltine, Tiger Woods would be holding all four trophies on the cover of Sports Illustrated this week. Nobody's knocking Muirfield.

[Robert_Walker]

Having been to 30 US and British Opens, I can say that Hazeltine is a Textbook venue for a Major. The course is plenty good enough, and the layout accomodates the gallery very well.

[TEPaul]

I certainly agree with RickS that it can be quite deceptive to really get a feel for the nuances of golf architecture looking at holes on TV. But from what I could see on TV a number of holes did look interesting.

Hazeltine is now forty years old. And the one thing that did draw back the course, in my opinion, was the look of those bunkers--the clean bland looking lines of the surrounds and bunker edges.

For those that know the course, and have always known it, were those bunkers always so bland to look at? The placements of the bunkering may be fine, it may be very good, and the depths may be demanding on some of them too, but did RTJ build the course originally with bunkers that looked that bland on the bunker edges and surrounds?

Imagine how horrible it would be to suggest changing an original RTJ course, the man who changed so many of everyone elses, athough I'm sure the course has been seriously redesigned in the intervening years, correct?

Would it by heretical or too much to ask to throw a bit more character into those bunker edges?--let the grass grow on the edges and maybe random them up a bit with some grassy jaggediness!

The overall shapes of some of them are what they are and they aren't the end of the world but they could be made to look better with a little character and detail, particularly since the rough grass surrounding them wasn't exactly cropped either!

Would that be too much to ask or the wrong thing to do architecturally? It probably wouldn't make the course play any different but it would make it look more like a top notch course to me!

[Robert_Walker]

I would characterize Hazeltine as "Machine-Age" design. RTJ design accomodates machines. The bunkers accomodate the riding bunker raking machines. The distance between the bunkers works for the mower drivers. Still, the facility is "textbook" for majors.
Also, the 9th and 18th greens are ideal for the 2 tee start, and for getting a bunch of people around the finishing hole.

[John_Conley]

Rick S.:

Post of the year, as far as I'm concerned.  (Okay, maybe the month.)  The line about the camera adding pounds is so true.  That's why I took umbrage with Barney's assertion the course was flat.  I knew right then he hadn't seen the course.

Robert Walker:

I think someone who has seen that many similar events in qualified to comment.  Your comparison of Hazeltine to other Major venues is in line with my views - I can't think of using a different measuring stick.  I don't think others are looking at this the same way.

[JakaB]

John,

I admit I may of been somewhat misguided in my opinion...I am most dissapointed that in the last year I have been so naive to not realize that the distance/technology issue has as much to do with attendance at Majors as anything.   After Bethpage and now Hazeltine the forces that be understand that a longer ball begats a bigger course that begats larger attendance capacity that begats huge profits.  A 7300 yd course makes the PGA/USGA more money than a classic 6700 yd course...they can't afford to control technology...and they knew it back when spalding first made the two piece ball.   Until attendance at Majors is capped at 10,000/day we will never see the distance issue resolved...mo money mo problems...Bethpage is a great course and Hazeltine provided a great championship...I love the long ball so I will find some contentment that things will never change.

[Robert_Walker]

Distance does not help pack in more people. Area does, and Hazeltine has plenty of area in the right places. No other major can fit as many people around the 18th green as Hazeltine.

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

You must have seen it said on here that more distance begets longer courses that begets bigger courses that begets more people that begets more revenue--it's been said and/or strongly alluded to for quite some time on here!

It may not have been mentioned as the sole overriding reason why things are going in the direction they are but it clearly has been mentioned as a possible explanation for why things aren't turning around and may not!

And I also think that Geoff Shackelford has alluded very well to the fact that even Tim Finchem who can see that although revenues may have increased from this progression that it might not continue to do so much longer!

Why? His (GeoffShac's) assumption or suggestion is that although these pros can play these new age super long courses that inherently they aren't all that interesting, certainly not as interesting as some of the older ones, and that after a while the viewing public is going to start to pick up on that and golf's interest and popularity might then begin to decline!

I don't know that Finchem truly feels that way or wholly so but I can see in some of the things he's said and done recently that he might or might be coming to understand that possiblity of decline in interest and popularity with this kind of progression.

Certainly another factor with a man like Finchem is to understand the inherent long term dangers of oveloading the professional schedules around the world and bombarding the public with too much golf--more golf than they can take, in other words.

Other sports have surely gone through that cycle or progression to their detriment!