[Kevin_Reilly]

As an aside, I [Dr. Evil] lasered[/Dr. Evil] the distance from the back of the 8th tee to about the middle of the green and came up with 210-215 (depending on the target I sighted).

One overhead picture that shows a "whitish" green in the foreground...that green is a practice green up away from the course.

[JNC Lyon]

Isn't 3 already in the 220 range?  Why does Olympic need two par threes that require absurd long-iron shots when no one broke par at the last US Open played there?  As an Oak Hill member, it drives me crazy when these clubs make the same mistakes that our club made 30 years ago, all for one week? 

We have a par three on our West Course (non-championship course) that has played as a short iron par three since its inception.  Now, the board voted to build a new back tee making the hole play 195 yards.  For me, this is a 3-iron or hybrid, for the best club players it is a 4-5 iron.  The argument for the new tee is that the hole needs to be lengthened to play as it did in 1926.  The original yardage of the hole was around 130.  Did good players hit a 4-iron 130 yards in 1926? Absolutely not.  Remember, this isn't our championship course, and the hole comes after a 470 par four and a 420 uphill par four, both with wild greens.  This hole too has a very wild green.  Any shot more than 12 feet from any given hole location will most likely be on the wrong tier of the green or in a bunker.  No PGA Tour pros play it, ever.  The tee was put in for the two rounds per year in the club championship that are not played on the East Course.

My question is, why do clubs keep making these decisions to ruin their best holes for the sake of 0.1 % of the golfers who will play the course?  I thought this would stop after the Hinkle Tree fiasco, but it was only the beginning.  Something needs to be done before all of our great courses are destroyed, either from poor renovations or wasteful spending or both.

[Kevin_Reilly]

215 is from the way-back on that tee.  The hole will play shorter normally.

Also, #3 was a mid-iron in past opens and a 5-iron for more than a few in the 2007 Amateur...it is very downhill.  #8 will not be a long iron hole....not an "absurd long iron shot", whatever that might be.

[Jim Nugent]

I took some pics of the work on the 8th hole about a month ago.  Also includes a picture of the extended 6th tee and one picture shows the new 7th green in the background.

Olympic pics slideshow on Picasa

When I click on the link, it asks for a user name and password. 

[Tim Bert]

Is the Lake course extremely difficult from the normal member tees as well?  Does it play just as narrow if you are playing from somewhere in the 6300-6600 range (assuming one's distance off the tee is non-pro like?)

[Kevin_Reilly]

When I click on the link, it asks for a user name and password. 

Sorry -- I changed the original link -- let me know if it still requires a login.  Here is another try:

OC pics

[Jim Nugent]

Kevin, link works fine now.

What play is allowed on the course during this work? 

[Kevin_Reilly]

Open for play continually...temp greens on all.

[Matthew Rose]

"but two short par-3s just doesn't work in this day and age."

Wow, that's sure to invite controversy, if it hasn't already.

I'm not familiar with #8 much, but it always looked like a fairly non-descript hole to me, at least on television. Is it a fairly easy hole?

[Joel_Stewart]

My question is, why do clubs keep making these decisions to ruin their best holes for the sake of 0.1 % of the golfers who will play the course?  I thought this would stop after the Hinkle Tree fiasco, but it was only the beginning.  Something needs to be done before all of our great courses are destroyed, either from poor renovations or wasteful spending or both.

In this case it's to hold the US Open for 1 week in 2012.

There is no question that the greens needed to be rebuilt.  The club was almost in 100% agreement on this issue mainly because of the nemitode issue.

Changing #7 and #8 did not have the same consensus and was driven by a bad superintendent and an even worse architect.  The main reason that 7 was rebuilt is these two did not know how to rebuild this 3 teir green to USGA spec.   So as a result these two non members opted to change it to a 2 tier green and move the green back a whopping 14 yards.  Since this now moves the 7th green into the 8th fairway, they decided to swing the new tee for #8 over which meant they needed to change the 8th green.

So as a result you could lengthen #8 which was a short up hill par 3 so now 3 of the par 3's play uphill, blind and around the same length.  

This course is a case study of bad decisions, multiple bad green committee chairmen, an architect who is inexperienced and in way over his head and a superintendent who has no respect for classic architecture and chooses modern renovation over restoration.    

[JNC Lyon]

215 is from the way-back on that tee.  The hole will play shorter normally.

Also, #3 was a mid-iron in past opens and a 5-iron for more than a few in the 2007 Amateur...it is very downhill.  #8 will not be a long iron hole....not an "absurd long iron shot", whatever that might be.

A 5-iron is a long iron for me--nitpicking I guess.  Also 215 uphill is a long iron, no?  I think the shot is absurd because it is uphill, blind, and closed in front to a green designed for a short iron, unless they completely changed the green.  Great golf courses have an ebb and flow to them.  After the tough stretch at 2 through 6, Olympic was great because it let up for two birdie holes before another tough stretch.  Now, 7 is mangled and 8 is just another tough par three.  The resulting sequence might work for the USGA, who doesn't seem to care about variety or fun, but it lacks character and charm.

Joel Stewart,

I am really sorry to hear about all of these things at Olympic.  The problem is, architects and green chairs keep finding ways to ruin classic courses.  Why?  Olympic has been held in the highest standard for over 50 years in American golf--it is an American classic, along with courses like The Country Club, Merion, Oakmont, and Pebble Beach.  Why do people think that it is now time to change something that has been considered great for so long?  A US Open is no excuse for changing a golf course.  The Country Club is now too short and too small to host a Major, but this does not seem to bother the members, especially after the post-Ryder Cup devastation that the course experienced.

[Mike Benham]

Is the Lake course extremely difficult from the normal member tees as well?  Does it play just as narrow if you are playing from somewhere in the 6300-6600 range (assuming one's distance off the tee is non-pro like?)

A misconception about The Lake is the narrowness, except for 12, the trees don't come into play on your tee shot unless you hit it pretty wild.  From the back back back tees, there are a few more holes where you are coming out of a chute, but not nearly to the absurdness of 12.

For some golfers, the shorter the tees played, the more difficult the course can play as the doglegs and gentle bends in the fairway are more in play, make hitting driver off the tee the wrong choice.

[Kevin_Reilly]

The main reason that 7 was rebuilt is these two did not know how to rebuild this 3 teir green to USGA spec.

Come on Joel, you don't really believe that do you?  There was nothing about the contours of #7 that would make a USGA green difficult to do.  Further, that's a construction issue - what does the superintendent have to do with green construction on this project?

As it is, there was very little support among the membership for the three-tiered-out-of-character-green that was put in place in the early 70's. 

So as a result these two non members opted to change it to a 2 tier green and move the green back a whopping 14 yards.  Since this now moves the 7th green into the 8th fairway, they decided to swing the new tee for #8 over which meant they needed to change the 8th green.

So you believe that the decision to re-build #8 was a direct result of a decision to change #7 green from three to two tiers and lengthen it 14 yards?  Absolutely false.  The new back tee on #9 is directly the result of the lengthening of #7, but you've got the tail wagging the dog on the question of #8.

So as a result you could lengthen #8 which was a short up hill par 3 so now 3 of the par 3's play uphill, blind and around the same length.

Which holes aside from #8 are uphill?  You consider #13 and #15 as uphill holes?  #8 will now be less blind than before. 

"Around the same length" -- please clarify this for those "3 of the par 3's".

[Kevin_Reilly]

I think the shot is absurd because it is uphill, blind, and closed in front to a green designed for a short iron, unless they completely changed the green. 

The green will not be blind to the extent it was before.  The uphill grade will be similar.  It is not a small green, so it was not designed for a short iron.

[Jim Nugent]

Did membership go along with changing #7?  I was/am shocked at this decision, as I felt it was a truly great short par 4. 

[J_ Crisham]

Another amazing fact is how tough this course is with an abcense of fairway bunkers. I played here about 12 yrs ago but I don't recall seeing more than a couple. Anyone know how many they have?           Jack

[Mike Benham]

 Anyone know how many they have? 

Either 1 or 3, depending how you want to count them ...

[JNC Lyon]

I think the shot is absurd because it is uphill, blind, and closed in front to a green designed for a short iron, unless they completely changed the green. 

The green will not be blind to the extent it was before.  The uphill grade will be similar.  It is not a small green, so it was not designed for a short iron.

Just because the green isn't small does not mean it wasn't designed for a short iron.  Look at any MacDonald or Raynor short hole.  I agree that blind is not as much of a problem.  Again, when an architect like Mike Strantz lists the hole as one of his favorite short par threes, you know it should be kept as a short par three.

I generally object to lengthening short holes because it changes the nature of the hole.  Oakmont, it seems, lengthened its longer holes but left the short holes as short holes.  This does not change the flow of the golf course or the variety of shots demanded from the player.  However, the same cannot be said for the changes at Olympic.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Just because the green isn't small does not mean it wasn't designed for a short iron. 

OK, I'll ask -- what about this green, which isn't small or severely contoured, makes it "designed for a short iron".

Again, when an architect like Mike Strantz lists the hole as one of his favorite short par threes, you know it should be kept as a short par three.

I don't agree with the premise that an architect's view of a hole is infallible.  What did Strantz in particular like about the hole...the fact that it is slightly uphill with the clubhouse perched on a hill behind it?  Or the trees beside the green that catch an errant shot? 

However, the same cannot be said for the changes at Olympic.

Hole #6 is a short iron approach.  Hole #7 is either a punch wedge or a putt or bunker shot.  Hole #8, instead of being a 9-iron, will be a mid-iron (4-6) for top players.  Doesn't that improve the "variety of shots demanded from the player"?

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

You know what's also interesting, and it kind of echos "words" we hear from pros about having a course "right out in front of you", is that the better players I know (i.e. 4 to +2 handicaps) out at Olympic like they can see the green and now don't have a blind shot now on #8, while the others that are more of my ilk (8 hcp. to whatever) thought what we've had FOREVER was an interesting shot. 

I'm just wondering what the over/under in terms of year, that there will be another "meeting" to discuss restoring the course, especially those two holes, back to the original "design intent".  My money says 2024.  I've seen it before at another course close to my heart that thought they needed to toughen it for one 4-day tournament, and in the process lost part of its soul and finally decided to right the ship 15+ years later.

[Joel_Stewart]

[/quote]
I generally object to lengthening short holes because it changes the nature of the hole. 
[/quote]

The superintendent at Olympic must feel that you can hit driver on every par 4 or par 5 at Olympic except #18.  He has taken any thought process out of the drive on #2, #4, #5, #6, #9, #10, #12 by extending them all.  It remains to be seen what the shot selection will be on #7. 


Wayne:  My guess it will be around 2018 but who knows.  The members knew that #15 was never right and the patience on #18 finally expired after about 10 years.

[Anthony Butler]

My question is, why do clubs keep making these decisions to ruin their best holes for the sake of 0.1 % of the golfers who will play the course?  I thought this would stop after the Hinkle Tree fiasco, but it was only the beginning.  Something needs to be done before all of our great courses are destroyed, either from poor renovations or wasteful spending or both.

In this case it's to hold the US Open for 1 week in 2012.

There is no question that the greens needed to be rebuilt.  The club was almost in 100% agreement on this issue mainly because of the nemitode issue.

Changing #7 and #8 did not have the same consensus and was driven by a bad superintendent and an even worse architect.  The main reason that 7 was rebuilt is these two did not know how to rebuild this 3 teir green to USGA spec.   So as a result these two non members opted to change it to a 2 tier green and move the green back a whopping 14 yards.  Since this now moves the 7th green into the 8th fairway, they decided to swing the new tee for #8 over which meant they needed to change the 8th green.

So as a result you could lengthen #8 which was a short up hill par 3 so now 3 of the par 3's play uphill, blind and around the same length.  

This course is a case study of bad decisions, multiple bad green committee chairmen, an architect who is inexperienced and in way over his head and a superintendent who has no respect for classic architecture and chooses modern renovation over restoration.    

I can sort of understand why they might like to lengthen 7, but changing 8 seems like a stupid idea. IMHO that hole was one of the great short par 3s in golf along with 15th at Kingston Heath, 16th at CPC, 12th(?) on the Composite Course at RM. If you want to make this an 8iron to restore the 'shot' values, I'm fairly sure you could have taken the tee another 10-15 yds down the hill.

I can't see why you need to go to 7200 yds for the Open. OC will always play longer in the US Open due to air conditions in SF during the summer months.  It's hard to cut the doglegs too, due to the height of the trees and the reverse cant of the fairways. e.g. A draw on 12 and 17 will simply kill the ball and perhaps prevent it running into the right hand rough. But it won't gain you any significant distance.

The other thing that sounds like it needs a little more thought is putting MORE slope on a USGA spec bent green. It's going to be faster and firmer than the current set-up, so less slope would be needed on 18, not more. Correct?

[Joel_Stewart]

   
[/quote]

I can sort of understand why they might like to lengthen 7, but changing 8 seems like a stupid idea. [/quote]

They are not just lengthening 7, they are completely changing it.  One of the members brought George Pepers book to the members meeting citing #7 as one of the top 500 holes in the world (page 288) but the superintendent and architect didn't care.

Pepers write up said,

"This hole's length makes it almost irresistable for long hitters, who may be looking for birdies after the difficult holes 2 through 6. But as John Daly demonstrated in the 1998 US Open, be careful for what you wish for. Daly drove the green with a 3-wood in the second round en route to a two-putt birdie, then made 8 the next day after his drive found the trees." 

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Just because the green isn't small does not mean it wasn't designed for a short iron. 

OK, I'll ask -- what about this green, which isn't small or severely contoured, makes it "designed for a short iron".

Again, when an architect like Mike Strantz lists the hole as one of his favorite short par threes, you know it should be kept as a short par three.

I don't agree with the premise that an architect's view of a hole is infallible.  What did Strantz in particular like about the hole...the fact that it is slightly uphill with the clubhouse perched on a hill behind it?  Or the trees beside the green that catch an errant shot? 

I'm not sure why Strantz liked it, but personally I liked the fact that it was a blind shot.  And, because it's usually a short iron, there was an opportunity for everyone you're playing with to hit the green,  therefore it put pressure on the better players to hit better shots to have shorter putts... and that often times didn't quite work out that way.  I think this is always overlooked in terms of the context of a playing a match or a tournament.   

However, the same cannot be said for the changes at Olympic.

Hole #6 is a short iron approach.  Hole #7 is either a punch wedge or a putt or bunker shot.  Hole #8, instead of being a 9-iron, will be a mid-iron (4-6) for top players.  Doesn't that improve the "variety of shots demanded from the player"?

#6 is a short iron... really?  I'm not long off the tee, but I'm not that short.  And, I usually have to hit a 5 iron if i haven't hooked my tee shot into that ONE FAIRWAY bunker.  And, I have to disagree with you that lengthening the hole and creating a variety of tee shots will make this a better hole.  Harder hole, maybe, but not necessarily better.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Joel--how are they "completely changing it" aside from changing the gimmicky 3-tier green?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()