GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
What am I missing about Hazeltine that the PGA of America keeps seeing?
JR Potts:
I can't wait.
Jay Flemma:
Never mind fighting about medinah...check you're IM, we actually might have some cool things to talk about...
Jeff_Brauer:
I will also have to agree with Matt on this one! A perfect description that encapsulates the elusive "know it when you see it" ranking of a golf course somewhere below the top. I think we would have a consensus on this board, and really, even throughout golf.
I saw HazNat as a newly minted gca nut (all of age 15) at the US Open in 1970. We had friends in MN and they got us tourney tickets. I was interested in seeing an RTJ course, from his name, and because he personally responded to a snot nose kid interested in gca (me) the month before, with a very nice encouraging letter. I was shocked at the cornfield comments, but even just looking with my own eyes could see I wasn't as impressed with this big time tournament course as I was with the only other one I was familar with - oddly for this discussion, Medinah No. 3.
It just seemed that every hole had multiple fw bunkers on both sides of the landing areas and it was repititious. I hadn't even considered all the doglegs being bad at the time.
funny story - At the time, Trevino advertised Faultless golf balls, but rumors were that he played Titleist anyway. He hit one in the left rough on 7, right at my feet. Semi buried in the rough, I leaned over to see the label but it was facing down. I must have been looking longer than I thought, because before I knew it Trevino was standing over me saying, "Move back son, a 7 iron to the forehead is no kind of souvenir to take home from the US Open!"
I played it again a few years ago. I have to say I liked it a lot, a lot more than I thought I would. Rees did some nice things there, the trees had grown up, and actually, I learned a lot about how RTJ approached green contouring. In reality, many of the greens are tiered, but the tiers always swerve in and out, vary in hieght, and go at angles other than 90 degrees to the green edge. I figured out how he made those diabolical tournament greens and thought overall, they were fantastic.
While Rees did a lot of good there, I never liked 16 because I don't like water hazards on both sides of the fw. I thought the old arrangement was better, although old 17 had some problems. But, I think they also needed corporate tent room.
There are probably hundreds of courses that are similar in quality. Haznat has the advantage of the MSP location, being a stern test, the membership liking the tournaments, etc., that make it a great tournament course, even without technically great design. But, design is an opinion thing - not all designs can be tournment tough and architecturally interesting with options, etc. Sometimes, you give one to get the other, and this is what Haznat represents to me.
Short version again, Matt is right on, but its better than most give it credit for.
Jay Flemma:
Hey Jeff, good to see you! I'll call you soon...
Bruce Leland:
I have played Haz. Nat. numerous times in all of it's states of remodel / redesign. It has always reminded me of Medinah No. 3 in that both are extremely demanding brutish tests that are relentless from the first through the 18th. Interestingly enough, I will be at Hazeltine on Monday to break some tees with an old high school golf team mate.
I'm not a huge fan of the penal school of architecture thus not a huge fan of Haz. Nat. but it will be interesting to see this iteration of the course with the new bunkering and narrower fairways. I'm sure my opionion of the course will be unchanged after Monday but I am looking forward to it none-the-less. And I think that Matt is spot on with his assessment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version