Is torrey pines the worst course to host a US open in recent memory?

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

C'mon good buddy -- you can't be serious and believe the architecture dynamic at TP/S is beyond the likes of WF/W and BB.

Not even close.

TP/S was chosen for a whole host of reasons with the compelling architecture dimension being a good ways down the proverbial totem pole.

Lou you asked, "...do you think that there might be tens of thousands who believe that TPS is "an interesting, fun, thought-provoking, and memorable golf course"?  I wonder what percentage of golfers would be proud to call TPS home?"

The answer I would give is that Joe Sixpack doesn't give a flying hoot about compelling architecture and would love to tee it up on ANY course that has hosted a US Open. Joe Sixpack is only going by the fact that a facility has hosted the US Open and is likely unprepared and ill-equipped to comment on whether the course is one of national prominence besides the good fortune in hosting the most important championship in American golf.

Many would be proud to call TP/S home -- just as many are proud to call Dyker Beach in Brooklyn and Rancho Park in LA their home courses too.   

[DMoriarty]

Many would be proud to call TP/S home -- just as many are proud to call Dyker Beach in Brooklyn and Rancho Park in LA their home courses too.   

Come on, Matt.  No need to drag Rancho Park down.  It has a bit of character left in it.   Plus, when it comes to 6 hour rounds Torrey is a Johnny-Come-Lately compared to Rancho.   And Rancho did not need to spend 3.5 million dollars or stretch to 7700 yards to do it.

[Jay Flemma]

Even if it is, it's not really a fair comparison. It's a little like asking which of the Victoria's Secret angels is the ugliest.

Britt Carpenter...definitely:)

[mike_beene]

One thing is certain: TPS is the only US Open course with Beware of Rattlesnake signs.

[Jim Nugent]

In fact, at the expense of commiting GCA heresy and being excommunicated, I think Winged Foot West is the second most overrated course I have ever played (I would also place Firestone South right up there).

Lou, what is number one? 

Do you think TPS is a better course than WFW?  That's not what I picked up from your post. 

[Dave_Miller]

Is Olympic really that good?

Jeff
Do you mean Olympic or Olympia Fields?
Best
Dave

[Dave_Miller]

"Re: Is torrey pines the worst course to host a US open in recent memory?"


Oh, God no, not even close. The worst courses to host a US Open in recent memory in order of "worst" are:

Merion
Shinnecock
Pebble Beach
Pinehurst
Bethpage

All of them are just so old and old fashioned and basically out of date. Torrey Pines is far more modern and up to date.

Tommy:
Surely you  jest
Best
Dave

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is Olympic really that good?

Jeff
Do you mean Olympic or Olympia Fields?
Best
Dave

Dave,

I meant Olympic.  It has all the characteristics that many here hate - repetitive narrow fw, and add in cross slopes to the outside of the doglegs!  Greens are all small and similar, as well.  Throw in the list of winners - almost all underdogs - and you wonder if it ID's the best players.

[tlavin]

Torrey sure did look Bandon this morning on the Golf Channel.  They were using a camera angle that showed irregular shaped dunes.  I do not remember it being that beautiful.  I also like the commentary on how this is not the same course they play in the spring because of the "maintenance meld".

I can't wait for the poo poohers to get PO'ed when the media catches up with me in calling this the greatest US Open in modern times.

There's no question that Torrey Pines looks like a different golf course than when I played there in February 2003.  Jones' work surely had a beneficial effect on the difficulty and playability of the golf course.  The money that they spent on drainage and turf management is also apparent on television.  Finally, it is interesting to see the golf course in June as opposed to the normal time that they hold the Buick.  It is a much different environment.  Grass wise, it may play like Riviera on the cliffside.  Design-wise, there are way too many straight-away beastly long par 4's with girdle bunkers for my taste and the 18th hole reminds everybody that they're playing a muni.  Having said that, I have no doubt that Torrey Pines will be a fine television studio for this championship.

[Lou_Duran]

Matt Ward,

I don't think in terms like "the architecture dynamic at TP/S is beyond the likes of WF/W and BB".  I concede that both are architecturally superior primarily in the style of their major design features- bunkers and greens.  I like Bethpage Black much better than either (WFW and TPS).  My comments were made in the context of the frequent characterization on this site of TPS as an inferior course unworthy of the US Open.  I tend to agree with what appears to be the USGA's attitude in selecting sites: that architecture is not at the top of  your "proverbial totem pole".  If what many here have opined is correct- that the pros don't give a rat's rear end about architecture and strategy, and that they essentially play a game of precision aerial target golf- then, the USGA is totally justified in picking places like TPS to hold its major tournaments.

As to Joe Sixpack, they know what they like and thank God we still live in a country that allows a few personal choices.  I don't know about Dyker Beach or Rancho Park- I doubt that either gets much outside play at $150 a pop- but I think the golfers who play TPS generally enjoy the experience despite all the hassles they encounter to play the course.  But no doubt, all three courses have many golfers who are proud to call the place home.

Golf is a great game.  One of my companions when I played WF-East is the son of a member at WF, Pine Valley, Shinny, Merion, and two or three other famous clubs.  He grew up playing these wonderful courses and gave me the impression that it was no big deal.  No doubt that he would look down on TPS (he was not all that fond of WFW).  I guess what I am saying is that we all get accustomed to what we normally experience and consider it normal.  Maybe I don't raise the bar high enough because of what I've grown up with and I am overly impressed by the beautiful Pacific.  Perhaps you expect more because of both.

Jim Nugent,

East Lake is #1.  And no, I don't think TPS is a better course than WFW.  I would like to play WFW again to confirm my original impressions.  It is probably unfair to develop strong opinions from a single play.  Though East Lake is a fine course, it is not one that I think playing a second time would change my evaluation.

[Tim_Cronin]

By Sunday night (or Monday night), I think the answer will be yes. Hard but uninteresting all the way back. Is there any wonder Mike Davis is going to move tees around, just to make it interesting?
Until then, it's the 1970 version of Hazeltine. The update was great; the course looked fascinating during the Stewart-Simpson Open playoff, and when Beem hung on and won the PGA. But I remember vividly the 1970 Open won by Jacklin (mainly because the ol' homestead got color TV the week before) and it looked like every hole was a uphill dogleg to nowhere. As a kid, I knew nothing about the nuances of golf architecture, but I knew that was a snooze.
I can't speak to the 1965 version of Bellerive, but I played in Western Open (!) media day a few weeks ago and the layout is bedeviling. For regular folks like me, the front may be more difficult than the back.

[Jim Nugent]

Throw in the list of winners - almost all underdogs - and you wonder if it ID's the best players.

I think that's true of most U.S. Open courses though.  Take the last 3 U.S. Opens.   Each one held on a top-rated course.  Underdogs won them all.  Pretty sure that since 1960, lesser-ranked players have won the majority of U.S. Opens.   

Olympic had Billy Casper.  In every Open there, a top player was in it to the last hole.  Arnie, Hogan, Watson, Stewart. 

I admit I'm biased.  I went to the Tour Championship there in 1993 and 1994, and really fell for the course. 

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

You said, "Pretty sure that since 1960, lesser-ranked players have won the majority of U.S. Opens..."

Go to the official Open website and look up the past champions... I think you'll change your mind. Many, if not most, of those who were thought to be no-names when they won would later become multiple major winners...

That takes them beyond the "lesser-ranked" category, at least in my most humble opinion...   

[Jim Nugent]

Philip, I did what you suggested.  I had to make judgement calls on who is a great player and who is is lesser-ranked.  For the greats, I included the all-time legends, like Jack, Arnie, Tiger, Watson, Trevino.  Also players who were at or near the top of the game when they won.  Curtis Strange, Ray Floyd, Payne Stewart, Johnny Miller, Billy Casper are some examples. 

I did NOT include Andy North, Tom Kite, Scott Simpson, Cabrera, Campbell, Boros in the greats list. 

I came up with 23 wins for the greats.  25 for the lesser-ranked players.   Depending how you count, you might get different numbers. 

I think the Open is less about the course, and more about the setup.  If you judge courses by their winners, Torrey Pines is one of the all-time greats: Tiger and Phil usually come out on top.  Riviera, though, must suck: neither of the two greatest golfers of all time, Jack and Tiger, has ever won there.   

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

Let me go through each point you made.

Lou, TP/S got the Open because it logistically can handle the circus dimensions tied to the staging of the event. It also helps to be in the nation's 8th largest market with the 2ns largest market just up the Interstate. The quality of the course has come from the USGA's resourceful way in maximizing all the traditional elements tied to the playing of a US Open (e.g. narrow the fairways, lengthening holes, firming up fairways, etc, etc.

Candidly, TP/S is usualyl not rated among the best courses in either California or the nation because the architecture flies in the face of a site that could have intersected holes with the natural cliffs that are so close but have little or no connection to the architecture.

The USGA is "justified" in selecting TP/S because of one central dynamic ...

$$$$$$

Lou, when you mention where people would like to call home -- that depends upon the person and the level of interest they have in terms of overall course quality and the architectural dimension that's provided. Many people could give a rats *ss about who designed the course provided they have reasonable rates,the greens putt true and the pace of play is fairly consistent.

Lou, I cut my teeth on the muni's of golf. Some people were born on third base but believe in their mind they got their by hittign a triple. I'm not one of them. TP/S does cut a fine view but when you go below the surface level stuff there's really little in terms of architectural greatness. The course has been made to play hard and candidly such a desire to do such a thing could be replicated with just about any type of course.

The USGA knows that the SoCal market is one that cannot be ignored. TP/S is fortunate because all the other contenders for hosting such an event have been explored and likely ruled out.

[Phil Benedict]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Philly crowd, Cherry Hills was widely regarded as a marginally suitable site for the US Open prior to the 1960 Open, yet it produced one of the most memorable Opens of all time.  An Open is remembered for the competition much more than the course.  This could turn out to be a great Open, in which case the USGA will probably return, and why shouldn't they?

[Phil McDade]

Philip, I did what you suggested.  I had to make judgement calls on who is a great player and who is is lesser-ranked.  For the greats, I included the all-time legends, like Jack, Arnie, Tiger, Watson, Trevino.  Also players who were at or near the top of the game when they won.  Curtis Strange, Ray Floyd, Payne Stewart, Johnny Miller, Billy Casper are some examples. 

I did NOT include Andy North, Tom Kite, Scott Simpson, Cabrera, Campbell, Boros in the greats list. 

Boros, one of the great under-rated players of all time (and author of the very good teaching booklet "Swing Easy, Hit Hard") was a vastly superior player to Strange in majors. He was arguably as good or better than Stewart and Miller, and certainly could be included in a debate w/ Floyd and Casper.

Boros: 3 majors (2 US Opens, 1 PGA), 14 top-five finishes in majors (and this was someone who effectlively played three majors a year, because he didn't like to travel overseas for the British Open), top-10 finishes in the US Open beginning in 1950 and as late as 1973. He remains to this day the oldest player ever to win a major, taking the PGA in 1968 at the age of 48 at San Antonio's Pecan Valley. Boros had a game particularly suited for the US Open, and his record there is better and more consistent than Watson, Palmer, Miller, Casper, Floyd, and Trevino.

Strange: 2 majors (both US Opens), six top-5 finishes in majors (and went overseas for the British Open far more than Boros did), and had a competitive career in majors that essentially lasted about a decade.

[George Pazin]

I'll second Lou's request: I'd love to see someone with the knowledge dissect TPS.

Now I gotta go Google Britt Carpenter.

* Just did it - thanks for the laugh, Jay.

-----

Regarding the type of player who wins US Opens, I've always wondered if our definition of greatness would change at all if more PGA events were set up super tough like the Opens. I think guys like Janzen and North would look a heckuva lot better than they do now, though they probably wouldn't achieve true greatness status.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Q: How do you know if a course is boring, featureless and essentially without merit?
A: The pros say "its the fairest test we have seen".

[Phil Benedict]

The "fairness" comments by the pros is more about the set up than the architecture.

[jeffwarne]

It  looks pretty good to me
a little hair on those bunkers and suddenly they'd be "strategic"

[Adrian_Stiff]

Looks good to me too.

[Dan Kelly]

I remember vividly the 1970 Open won by Jacklin (mainly because the ol' homestead got color TV the week before) and it looked like every hole was a uphill dogleg to nowhere. As a kid, I knew nothing about the nuances of golf architecture, but I knew that was a snooze.

A 1970 color TV (or a 2008 HD TV) is no basis for judging a golf course.

There was nothing at all snooze-worthy about Hazeltine in 1970.

You might not have loved it, if you had played it -- but I did, and I did.

There were four uphill doglegs: No. 9 and No. 18 were both uphill dogleg-lefts. (They're now uphill and straight.) The par-5 11th was (and still is) uphill right. The 17th (short 4; long-iron off the tee; R.I.P. -- one of my favorite holes on the course) was uphill right.

The other doglegs:

No. 1 was downhill left. No. 2 was marginally downhill left. No. 5 was (and still is) flat right. No. 6 was (and still is) somewhat downhill left. No 7 was marginally downhill right. No. 10 was (and still is) sharply downhill left. The par-5 15th was flat left.

------------

Am I the only one here who played the pre-"improved" Hazeltine?

[Richard Choi]

Pretty funny quote from US Open Live Blog on ESPN.com...

1:48 p.m.: E-mail from Scott in Melville, N.Y.:

Played the Black last Saturday with a fellow from San Diego who was a walk-up. He's played Torrey Pines 100 times. After the front nine at Bethpage, he said, "This is a bunch of b------t. It's 50 times more difficult than Torrey," and then proceeded to walk off the course. To use one of today's catchphrases, he could kind of go, too. He had some game. With Torrey shaping up to what looks like could be a bunch of guys under par and maybe someone winning with an 8- or 10-under, next year could get ugly. Real ugly.

That's such a bunch of blanket. Or bait. Or Bart Bryant.