2016 US Open to Oakmont

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tree elimination counts for something:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09157/975570-136.stm

[ed_getka]

I regretted not getting up there for the last Open, so now I have two shots at it in the next 7 years. Women's Open is there next year.

[Jay Flemma]

Outstanding news.

[Chuck Brown]

As I have discusssed with Jay, that news, if true, is a big disappointment to Oakland Hills, which had hoped to get the 2016 Open to celebrate the club's centennial, 1916-2016.

[Ron Csigo]

That's great news.  Having just played there recently, I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.

[Ken Fry]

I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.

Yes, because carnage, not outstanding ball striking or phenomenal course management, is so much fun to watch....

[John Blain]

I would be very surprised if Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Baltusrol, Whistling Straits or Medinah ever got another U.S. Open. I think the USGA looks at those clubs as PGA of America clubs.

With Oakmont locked in for 2016 look for them to go to Erin Hills in 2017, Torrey Pines in 2018, Bethpage in 2019 and, of course, Pebble Beach in 2020. If Shinnencock wants back in I think 2021 is a possibilty. I honestly believe that Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, Bethpage, Pinehurst and Oakmont are part of a permanent rotation. Winged Foot is out of the family after they turned down 2015. Who knows if they will ever get back in and I'm not really sure if they care to be back in...

-John

[Mark Pritchett]

Think Cog Hill is a possibility?  Interesting article in the new Links Magazine about CH.  It seems to fit the USGA direction of looking at public courses, has a midwest location, and of course the ubiquitous Rees renovation make it seem like a sure thing!

[Phil McDade]

Think Cog Hill is a possibility?  Interesting article in the new Links Magazine about CH.  It seems to fit the USGA direction of looking at public courses, has a midwest location, and of course the ubiquitous Rees renovation make it seem like a sure thing!

Mark:

I think the next US Open in the Midwest (not currently scheduled) will be at either Cog Hill or Erin Hills -- both courses have undergone extensive renovations to meet the needs of the USGA and the US Open, and both want it. Right now, I'd argue Erin Hills has a leg up on Cog Hill, because the USGA has already slotted the US AM for Erin Hills, in what most everyone here in Wisconsin views as the dry run for landing the US Open.

[Mark Pritchett]

Phil,

Perhaps a 2017 Open for EH and a early to mid 2020's Open for CH?

Mark

[Ron Csigo]

I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.

Yes, because carnage, not outstanding ball striking or phenomenal course management, is so much fun to watch....

I meant no disrespect to Oakmont, the US Open or the players that will be playing there.  I was thinking along these lines:

http://www.worldgolf.com/news/pga/us-open-2007-oakmont-preview-5537.htm

[Tim_Cronin]

Here's part of what Mike Davis of the USGA told me last month for a story on Cog Hill's renovation: "Cog Hill was not on the list prior to the redo. Now it's got to be considered very seriously. Several Midwest sites passed all the initial tests of being good enough, including Cog Hill and Olympia Fields."

He also mentioned Erin Hills, Oakland Hills and Inverness.

Davis added that the USGA will send their Open logistics team to Cog Hill in September for the Western Open (a.k.a. BMW) to see where everything could be situated for an Open. Presumably Championship Committee people, a subset of the Executive Committee, will also be dropping by. He said there was no decision on 2017 yet.

[Mike_Cirba]

That is simply awesome news.

CONGRATULATIONS to a club that's dedicated to preserving the best in the game.

[Ken Fry]

I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.

Yes, because carnage, not outstanding ball striking or phenomenal course management, is so much fun to watch....

I meant no disrespect to Oakmont, the US Open or the players that will be playing there.  I was thinking along these lines:

http://www.worldgolf.com/news/pga/us-open-2007-oakmont-preview-5537.htm

Ron,

Sorry for my sarcastic remark, but the reasoning in the article, the demand of some fans and the famous quote from Sandy Tatum, "we're not trying to embarrass the best players in the world, we're trying to identify them" has gotten old.

It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them.  Exciting golf is much more fun to watch.  A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.

Ken

[Ron Csigo]

Ken,

I agree with you.  Golf fans definitely enjoy watching the majors more so if the players have more opportunities to make birdies then struggling to make pars.  Ever since Shinnecock, I think the USGA has made a concerned effort to not let playing conditions get out of hand.  Last year, the graduated rough at Torrey Pines made the course difficult, yet playable.  There were still plenty of opportunities for birdies.  Like you said, Oakmont is a great course with plenty of architectural challenges so it does not require overgrown rough to make it difficult.  I look for another great champion to emerge.

Ron

[Jay Flemma]

Chuck, if I had my druthers, I would have BOTH OH and Oakmont in the US Open rota.  I certainly don't think that it's a mutually exclusive thing that if oakmont's in OH is out...they aren't located near each other.  But OH went down the road of the PGA of America to get both the ryder cup and PGA championship - and both were terrific - and like someone noticed before, in this day and age, it's tough to see courses being able to court both the usga and PGA at the same time...that being said I hope OH could do it successfully, as it totally deserves to host many more us opens.

[George Pazin]

It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them.  Exciting golf is much more fun to watch.  A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.

Ken

Please take this in the spirit intended (one of open debate), but I disagree with you completely. If you look at some of the more difficult, possibly contentiously so, US Open setups over the last 10 years, I think you will find they were almost uniformly won by the best golfer that weekend, and frequently it has been someone who is one of the best, period. For all the b@#$%ing and moaning about Shinney's setup, we saw 2 of the top 4 or 5 golfers at the time (and another in contention until that last round) slug it out. Likewise, Oakmont's latest gem featured 2 established stars and 1 rising majors star. Just because Tiger finished 2nd doesn't mean the luckier golfer won.

The extremely difficult setups cause the cream to rise to the top, imho, not the luckiest golfers. If anything, the (comparatively) plain setups week in and week out on the PGA Tour cause the luckiest golfer (as defined by the one had the most putts fall in) to win far more often than the best.

Just my $.02, maybe it's worth a thread of its own.

[Bill_McBride]

That's great news.  Having just played there recently, I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.

You thought that was carnage? 

Given the speed of the greens and depth of bunkering, I thought Oakmont was set up in 2007 to be as enjoyable a U.S. Open to watch as I can remember.

The old tournaments at Oakmont were a lot more painful to watch, with 6" rough and trees enclosing too many corridors.  2007 was a joy by comparison, IMO.

[Ken Fry]

It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them.  Exciting golf is much more fun to watch.  A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.

Ken

Please take this in the spirit intended (one of open debate), but I disagree with you completely. If you look at some of the more difficult, possibly contentiously so, US Open setups over the last 10 years, I think you will find they were almost uniformly won by the best golfer that weekend, and frequently it has been someone who is one of the best, period. For all the b@#$%ing and moaning about Shinney's setup, we saw 2 of the top 4 or 5 golfers at the time (and another in contention until that last round) slug it out. Likewise, Oakmont's latest gem featured 2 established stars and 1 rising majors star. Just because Tiger finished 2nd doesn't mean the luckier golfer won.

The extremely difficult setups cause the cream to rise to the top, imho, not the luckiest golfers. If anything, the (comparatively) plain setups week in and week out on the PGA Tour cause the luckiest golfer (as defined by the one had the most putts fall in) to win far more often than the best.

Just my $.02, maybe it's worth a thread of its own.

George,

Do you believe Oakmont to be a difficult course?  I sure as hell would.  Take Oakmont, add the fact the tournament being played is a major, an event most players agree will define their career, and let them play.  Why add ridiculous fairway width?  Why grow rough 6" deep?  Is the course and the circumstances not tough enough?  No one single tournament will identify the best player in the world, just the best player that week.

No PGA Tour event can measure up to a major if for no other reason the increased pressure.  Organizations like the R&A, USGA and PGA of America spend a lot of time choosing facilities to host these major championships, whatever reasoning they use.  Prepare the course and let them play.  A goofy setup produced Paul Lawrie beating Jean Van de Velde and Justin Leonard.  Torrey Pines produced one of the best U.S. Opens in history.  Let the players be the story, not course set up.

Ken

[Bill_McBride]

It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them.  Exciting golf is much more fun to watch.  A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.

Ken

Please take this in the spirit intended (one of open debate), but I disagree with you completely. If you look at some of the more difficult, possibly contentiously so, US Open setups over the last 10 years, I think you will find they were almost uniformly won by the best golfer that weekend, and frequently it has been someone who is one of the best, period. For all the b@#$%ing and moaning about Shinney's setup, we saw 2 of the top 4 or 5 golfers at the time (and another in contention until that last round) slug it out. Likewise, Oakmont's latest gem featured 2 established stars and 1 rising majors star. Just because Tiger finished 2nd doesn't mean the luckier golfer won.

The extremely difficult setups cause the cream to rise to the top, imho, not the luckiest golfers. If anything, the (comparatively) plain setups week in and week out on the PGA Tour cause the luckiest golfer (as defined by the one had the most putts fall in) to win far more often than the best.

Just my $.02, maybe it's worth a thread of its own.

George,

Do you believe Oakmont to be a difficult course?  I sure as hell would.  Take Oakmont, add the fact the tournament being played is a major, an event most players agree will define their career, and let them play.  Why add ridiculous fairway width?  Why grow rough 6" deep?  Is the course and the circumstances not tough enough?  No one single tournament will identify the best player in the world, just the best player that week.

No PGA Tour event can measure up to a major if for no other reason the increased pressure.  Organizations like the R&A, USGA and PGA of America spend a lot of time choosing facilities to host these major championships, whatever reasoning they use.  Prepare the course and let them play.  A goofy setup produced Paul Lawrie beating Jean Van de Velde and Justin Leonard.  Torrey Pines produced one of the best U.S. Opens in history.  Let the players be the story, not course set up.

Ken

"Let the players be the story, not course set up".

I agree, but the 2007 Oakmont and 2008 Torrey Pines set ups encourage this a lot more than the days of +6 at Winged Foot and other horrors, not to forget older Oakmont set ups.  I think Johnny Miller's 1973 final round 63 really encouraged the very difficult course set ups that followed. 

I think the players can be the story a lot more with recent Mike Davis set ups than the old days of single file Opens.

[Jay Flemma]

Why can't the USGA and PGA share venues?  For the life of me I don't see the sense in not letting Whistling Straits host an Open and oakmont a PGA...pinehurst host a PGA, oakland hills host an open...etc...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The driveable par4- the 14th- will not have the high roungh surrounding the green as before. Mike Davis has already confirmed this.

Jay,

The answer to your question is that competing interests are at stake. The USGA is looking for new public venues to some extent and the PGA is seeking to upgrade to more classic venues.

[Jay Flemma]

so like I said...US Open to whistling, PGA to Oakmont.

Oak Hill has done both plenty of times...although more recently PGA/ryder cup

[tlavin]

This is great news, even if it was expected news.  The Oakmont Open was another smashing success.  The golf course is a treasure and the work that has been done to bring it back to its original glory is simply spectacular.  It is a perfect Open golf course.

As for the Midwest speculation, I would venture that Cog Hill has a much better shot at getting the Open than Erin Hills.  Erin Hills is still too much of a work in progress, IMHO.  Cog Hill would be a most worthy site.  And I think they'll get it, unless Butler changes its male-only policy.  Butler would be a much better site and it is a vastly superior golf course to Cog Hill.  Having said that, the work that Rees Jones did has clearly elevated Cog Hill to Open-worthy status.

[Phil McDade]

Terry:

But Erin Hills will get the first real close-up evaluation by the USGA over Cog Hill when it hosts the US Amateur coming up. If EHills "passes" that test (similar perhaps to how Merion got back into the mix by hosting the US AM), I think they'll get the US Open before Cog Hill. Comments about a course's worthiness from strictly an architectural standpoint are a lesser concern these days, it seems, than in the past. Essentially the USGA seems to doing an "over-the-bar" evaluation of Open courses, and if they can pass that test (is it stern enough? can it test the best players without being ridiculously hard?), other considerations take over (logistics, regional distribution, willingness to host).

Jay:

WStraits is hosting two PGAs, one Ryder Cup, with the US Women's Open just down the road at Blackwolf Run, all within the next several years. I'm sure Herb Kohler would love a US Open, but the Wisconsin golfing well isn't that deep.