Cherry Hills gets 2012 U.S. Amateur

[John Blain]

For those who follow this stuff:

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_11645565

-John

[Tom_Doak]

I notice the Denver Post said the course is currently closed in order to LENGTHEN it. 

[Doug Wright]

I wonder what the second course will be for qualifying. Last time Cherry Hills held the US Amateur, the second course was Meridian GC (where Mickelson shot a bogey-free course record 64 to start his championship run). Will it be Colorado GC?

[Phil_the_Author]

While this is wonderful news for a grand course it also signals several major problems of which the average golfer is unaware.

First of all, as Tom pointed out, the course is being "lengthened" while at the same time the article states that the reason for doing so is that "some Cherry Hills members hoped the changes would help it attract the U.S. Open. "

Yet the same article states out, "That seems unlikely, not because of the course as much as the fact that the club doesn't have the physical space necessary to accommodate everything else that accompanies the Open, like television compounds and hospitality tents..."

One would ask then, why bother lengthening a wonderful course that already has the ability to challenge the greatest amateurs in the game?

The other part of the announcement that quietly alludes to major problems within the governing organization of golf in America is what WASN'T said.

Some, as am I, are aware that about three years ago the 2012 U.S. Amateur was offered to Bethpage. It was to be played on the Black and Red courses. What most are unaware of is WHY it didn't happen, and it comes down to the same problem that has cropped up at other venues... MONEY.

Bethpage simply could not afford to close the entire facility to golf for at least three, and probably more, weeks. The USGA would not reimburse them for the loss of revenues, a not insignificant thing as it involves 5 VERY active golf courses during the height of golfing season.

So now we have one great course that most likely won't host any more U.S. Opens because it can't provide the space for the USGA to make the money it needs/requires/wants (pick one or all) and one great facility because it can't afford to host the U.S. Amateur and so will most likely never have this privilege.

I see this as fulfillment of what my favorite author once wrote, "Logistics are the assassins of ideas."

The logistics of hosting the premiere events of golf in America, and among the handful of greatest in the world, are being held hostage by the logisitical problems caused by money.

How did we get so far away from the idea of a championship that tries to identify the greatest players in the game? In fact the better question is WHY did we?

At a moment in time where the ravaging effects of corporate greed is wreaking havoc in the lives of many, we can see the clear warning signs of the same thing about to happen in this simple game that many love.

How can it be saved?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

You may (or may not) know that my company has been doing the work at Cherry Hills.  I can assure you that the main goal of our work wasn't to lengthen it.  However, in Denver a 7,100-yard course plays to about 6,500 yards.  We put some more length into the course for the benefit of good club players (and leading amateurs), not for Tiger Woods.

To play equivalent to the 7500 yards of Torrey Pines at sea level, a course in Denver would have to be over 8000 yards long.  For that reason, I don't think the US Open is going to any course in Denver any time soon.  It will take a while for the Cherry Hills members to come to grips with that ... their US Open history is a cornerstone of their identity, just like Bethpage's.  Nevertheless we tried diligently to talk them out of some "silly tees" that STILL wouldn't make it long enough to attract the Open.

Often nowadays, the logistics argument is a way to dodge the Open question without the USGA just saying the course isn't strong enough ... or that the USGA has lost control of the ball ... or any number of other embarrassing truths.

As to money, it is always a factor nowadays, but I don't see how you can fault the USGA if Bethpage was offered the Amateur, and THEY decided not to take it because of the money.

[Doug Wright]

Nevertheless we tried diligently to talk them out of some "silly tees" that STILL wouldn't make it long enough to attract the Open.

Tom, did you succeed in talking them out of it?

[Tom_Doak]

Some, but not others.

At the end of the day, I won't argue tees to death unless they have a negative effect on some other hole.  A lot of silly tees wind up just being abandoned, and while I don't like the idea of spending money on something useless, it's the club's money.

For example, at Canterbury Bruce Hepner caved in to their committee on some back tees.  Supposedly those tees helped them get the U.S. Senior Open -- and yet the USGA people have decided not to utilize ANY of the new tees for the event.

[Kirk Gill]

To play equivalent to the 7500 yards of Torrey Pines at sea level, a course in Denver would have to be over 8000 yards long.  For that reason, I don't think the US Open is going to any course in Denver any time soon.

Interesting. Has any major yet been contested at over the 8,000 yard number? Inevitable, whether at altitude or not, yes? I'd guess that CH couldn't get there and would frankly hope not), but when a new course with Major aspirations is designed, is that number now always under discussion?

[Anthony_Nysse]

Phil:

You may (or may not) know that my company has been doing the work at Cherry Hills.  I can assure you that the main goal of our work wasn't to lengthen it.

  Tom,
   Isn't TDI International doing the earthmoving/finish work? I thought that Mark Hughes was suppose to be going up there when he finished at Colonial.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

[Wayne Freeman]

Kirk-  look for the first 8000 yard major to be played at Erin Hills.  I don't know what the exact yardage is at the very back tees  but I think it's way over that. 

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

Yes, TDI International did the irrigation and the finish work at Cherry Hills, as well as building any new tees.

My crew (directed by Eric Iverson) did all the re-shaping of the bunkers, and rebuilt three greens.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Likely I may have missed it on another thread but what holes specifically at Cherry Hills have been changed through your actions?

I can understand how the club might feel about not having a future US Open but it looks to me like the role of private clubs in hosting the USGA's main event will be moving more and more towards public facilities like BB, Torrey, Chamber Bay, et al.

Tom, you are quite correct -- to really test the world's best you would need to be close to or even over the 8,000 yard mark.

Antler Creek in Falcon was Colorado's first 8,000+ yard course and even then there are times when it will play relatively short when the strong players are really catching it off the tee.

Still, it would be fascinating to see a mountain time zone course host the event but there are only a few metro areas within the zone that have the advantage of a built-up population base.

[PCCraig]

Kirk-  look for the first 8000 yard major to be played at Erin Hills.  I don't know what the exact yardage is at the very back tees  but I think it's way over that. 

To play equivalent to the 7500 yards of Torrey Pines at sea level, a course in Denver would have to be over 8000 yards long.  For that reason, I don't think the US Open is going to any course in Denver any time soon.

Interesting. Has any major yet been contested at over the 8,000 yard number? Inevitable, whether at altitude or not, yes? I'd guess that CH couldn't get there and would frankly hope not), but when a new course with Major aspirations is designed, is that number now always under discussion?

I'm not sure it would be totally possible to have a major course played at over 8000 yards. This morning on the Golf Channel was a replay of the 1991 PGA at Crooked Stick which in 1991 played at 7300 yards (according to Jim Nanz). Today US Opens / PGA's are played on roughly 7500 yard courses, which doesn't seem like too much of a quantom leap.

With club and ball technology essentially to a stand still, players would have to becoming super duper strong in order to play a 8000 yard course in major conditions, especially at 500ft over sea level in Wisconsin.

Another venerable club which has hosted Opens, and has the 2013 US Am, TCC-Brookline, was also talking about making a few of the holes longer, noteably the (these are composite hole #'s) par-5 ninth (with a new tee back left behind the now 8th green) and the par-4 12th (with a new tee on the other side of the lake making it a true 610 yard par 5 with a green the size of the hood of a car). Otherwise I think the course will be left alone.

Maybe going back to another thread, instead of making the courses 8000 yards, wouldn't the best thing to make courses tough for the pros is to make the greens smaller a la Pebble Beach and TCC???

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Yes, I was aware that your company is doing the work at Cherry Hills and I really am looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

I really had two points that I was trying to make. The first is how we've gotten to a stage in the game where the deciding factor in choosing sites to host our national championships (and yes I know many would say we've been there for a while) is 95% and more money based. That should be of grave concern to all.

If the decision as to whether or not to use Merion were being made today it might very well not have happened for the logistical reasons that finances force themselves into the process.

The point with Bethpage was the same but from the opposite side of the financial spectrum.

How many more clubs will be able to host major championships and be asked to lose a great deal of money while doing so? How many can really afford to do so? Consider Bethpage. None of the courses could be open during the Amateur so all five course's revenues would be lost. If we take VERY conservative figures, say 50 foursomes per day per course, that equals 1,000 rounds a day. At three weeks minimum that equals 21,000 rounds. At an average of $70 per round (greens fee + electric/hand cart rental + driving range + half-way house + before and after beverages + pro shop), the revenues lost would be $1,470,000! And that is an ultra-conservative figure.

Now before one says that Bethpage with it's five courses is a special case, what about Torrey Pines and it's two courses? What about clubs such as Olympia Fields and Baltusrol, Winged Foot and other major private clubs with multiple courses?

Asking a golf club in these very difficult times to voluntarily lose out on a good deal of revenue simply to host the U.S. Amateur is not the easy decision that it had been for the club until now.

We've already seen money be an issue at Shinnecock and Winged Foot (in addition to other problems) and that was invovled in hosting the Open championship where the money is better for them.

These are not little issues in my mind. Our national championships need to be on the great golf courses of our land. That they can no longer go to many because of equipment issues that should have been faced long ago is terrible. Not to be able to do so because of money will do nothing but lessen the greatness of what should be the premier golf championships in the world. 

[PCCraig]

Tom,

Yes, I was aware that your company is doing the work at Cherry Hills and I really am looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

I really had two points that I was trying to make. The first is how we've gotten to a stage in the game where the deciding factor in choosing sites to host our national championships (and yes I know many would say we've been there for a while) is 95% and more money based. That should be of grave concern to all.

If the decision as to whether or not to use Merion were being made today it might very well not have happened for the logistical reasons that finances force themselves into the process.

The point with Bethpage was the same but from the opposite side of the financial spectrum.

How many more clubs will be able to host major championships and be asked to lose a great deal of money while doing so? How many can really afford to do so? Consider Bethpage. None of the courses could be open during the Amateur so all five course's revenues would be lost. If we take VERY conservative figures, say 50 foursomes per day per course, that equals 1,000 rounds a day. At three weeks minimum that equals 21,000 rounds. At an average of $70 per round (greens fee + electric/hand cart rental + driving range + half-way house + before and after beverages + pro shop), the revenues lost would be $1,470,000! And that is an ultra-conservative figure.

Now before one says that Bethpage with it's five courses is a special case, what about Torrey Pines and it's two courses? What about clubs such as Olympia Fields and Baltusrol, Winged Foot and other major private clubs with multiple courses?

Asking a golf club in these very difficult times to voluntarily lose out on a good deal of revenue simply to host the U.S. Amateur is not the easy decision that it had been for the club until now.

We've already seen money be an issue at Shinnecock and Winged Foot (in addition to other problems) and that was invovled in hosting the Open championship where the money is better for them.

These are not little issues in my mind. Our national championships need to be on the great golf courses of our land. That they can no longer go to many because of equipment issues that should have been faced long ago is terrible. Not to be able to do so because of money will do nothing but lessen the greatness of what should be the premier golf championships in the world. 

I think your conservative analysis works for public golf courses to an extent.

For private clubs I don't think the revenue format is the same, yes they would not have the same amount of rounds, however the only revenues they would realistically be loosing are guest fees. Considering food and pro shop would be rolling in dough.

However, I think the intangible value for either a private and (even more so) public courses for holding a major Am or Pro event is very great. For example, a course like bethpage or torrey pines holding an Open almost ensures that people will come play the course (and for more $) for at least the next 20 years. As for private clubs, like a OFCC, a major pro event is a huge membership driver. It gives their club huge exposure and ensures a membership waiting list.

So all in all, yes the club is hindered and this theory may not work towards a Merion type club, however the long term benefit would have to outweigh the short term costs.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You stated that, "For example, a course like bethpage or torrey pines holding an Open almost ensures that people will come play the course (and for more $) for at least the next 20 years..."

In this you are mistaken. The number of rounds at Bethpage and the Black have not gone up and have remained at extremely high levels now as they were BEFORE the Open.

There were many a day when one would find 4-6 hour waits for the Black on weekends at 7 in the morning!

Hosting the Open simply means more people outside the New York area want to play it... The numbers who do remain the same.

As far as it helping with membership drives for major clubs (I can't speak for Olympia Fields) I would imagine that Shinnecock, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, The Country Club, Merion and most other private clubs that have hosted the Open are in no need whatsoever for "membership drives."

[PCCraig]

Pat,

You stated that, "For example, a course like bethpage or torrey pines holding an Open almost ensures that people will come play the course (and for more $) for at least the next 20 years..."

In this you are mistaken. The number of rounds at Bethpage and the Black have not gone up and have remained at extremely high levels now as they were BEFORE the Open.

There were many a day when one would find 4-6 hour waits for the Black on weekends at 7 in the morning!

Hosting the Open simply means more people outside the New York area want to play it... The numbers who do remain the same.

As far as it helping with membership drives for major clubs (I can't speak for Olympia Fields) I would imagine that Shinnecock, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, The Country Club, Merion and most other private clubs that have hosted the Open are in no need whatsoever for "membership drives."

Philip-

I never stated that a high end club like Shinnecock, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, The Country Club, and Merion hold tournaments for membership drives. I would assume that all of the above do it for the pride of testing their courses and hosting the world for a weekend. (I stated in my first post that "this theory may not work towards a Merion type club.")

However for a club many clubs in the country, a major holds a promise to update their course and to have people from all over the country to see their course...either in person or on TV. So for a place like OFCC in CHI or East Lake in ATL, this can mean a great deal to the community, membership, and overall health of the club. That being said, if they have to add a couple back tees to make the people at the PGA or USGA happy...then go for it!

As for either Public or Resort courses...it can be a HUGE plus! The reason Whistling Straights can charge $300+ for a round and still pack players in is because they have and will host major tournaments. Bethpage may have already been a busy course before the Open, and is probably very busy. But even if the USGA decided to not bring the Open back, that 2002 US Open essentially ensures the course will survive and remain busy for many years to come as well as charge more to out-of-towners!

In the long run, if a USGA director came to me and said, if you spend $3MM renovating your course, including back tees, you will hold a US Open, to which we will pay you $500M to hold, and you will be ensured a full or close to full membership for the next 30 years I would say...heck yeah lets do it.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Your $500M figure to host the Open is more than a little bit off.

The USGA understands the prestige accorded with hosting the Open, and they factor that into the equation.  They certainly don't overpay the clubs involved.  Twenty years ago a club (or the head pro) would have made a killing on merchandise, but now that's controlled by the USGA also.

They also do things like asking a club to host an event where they DON'T make much money (like the Amateur) as a package deal with hosting the Open.

[PCCraig]

Pat:

Your $500M figure to host the Open is more than a little bit off.

The USGA understands the prestige accorded with hosting the Open, and they factor that into the equation.  They certainly don't overpay the clubs involved.  Twenty years ago a club (or the head pro) would have made a killing on merchandise, but now that's controlled by the USGA also.

They also do things like asking a club to host an event where they DON'T make much money (like the Amateur) as a package deal with hosting the Open.

Sorry Tom- The "M" in $500M is not millions...it's three 0's. So I was estimating that the USGA pays the host club $500,000. Is that closer?

When you couple the US Am with a US Open within a 5 year period...does that not make it worth it for a club to do? While the course may have changed for the worse over the last 10 years, Pinehurst #2 and the resort seems to be really banking on the prestige and increased attention involved in hosting the Open and Am.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I think it's way more than $500,000.

As for the double-header, I think most clubs are very happy with that trade-off, although some (like perhaps Shinnecock) might not want to give up their course twice in ten years ... and they know they don't have to.  I was surprised to hear Bethpage in that camp though.

The downside of the double-header is that it incentivizes the courses to leave their fairways at 25-30 yards wide for all the years in between.  Pinehurst is awful right now because of that, and Shinnecock was in the same limbo between 1995 and 2004 before they finally mowed it back out.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Would it be out of line to ask if, based upon the award, you are now being asked to do more &/or other work to the course than what had originally been planned?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

Mike Davis did get a copy of our plans for the course, and I believe the USGA had some input into the process before we even got involved.  It's possible that the USGA will ask for another tee or two, but I don't think it's likely, or they probably would have suggested it a year ago so it could be done as part of the current renovation work.

[Larry_Rodgers]

Tom,
Not to take anything away from TDI but as I recall TDI was a great participant to the construction and your site manager Eric Iverson is the best! Formost irrigation from Temecula California was the irrigation contractor and probably the only company on earth that could have completed the irrigation portion of the project. 4 months, 60,000 feet of HDPE mainline, 160,000' of 2" HDPE lateral piping and quite a few thousand sprinklers all with individual vale-in-head control. the first 6 weeks of irrigation the course was open for member play. I look forward to the spring reopenning and the Palmer Cup in June.

[JohnV]

Twenty years ago a club (or the head pro) would have made a killing on merchandise, but now that's controlled by the USGA also.

Thank Bob Ford at Oakmont for that.  He was the biggest money winner at the US Open one year due to figuring out that he could sell merchandise through the golf magazines.  It got the USGA to realize they should control the merchandise sales.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I don't think it was just Bob Ford ... the professionals at Oakland Hills and Olympic Club both retired from their jobs immediately after the 1980's US Opens they held, on unfriendly terms I believe.