News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JWinick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« on: August 19, 2009, 03:56:42 AM »
I'm curious to hear what you think of Hazeltine as a tournament site.  Certainly, it meets the difficulty requirements to test the greatest players in the world.  But, how does it stack up as a tournament site?  Is it currently the worst major site in the rotation? 


Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2009, 06:05:46 AM »
I think saying it meets the difficulty requirement is pretty weak. Virtually any course they would ever consider could make be made difficult enough with stupid length and ridiculous rough. I found the course very dull watching on TV. The greens seemed very bland. I can't really think of a hole that had good strategy.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2009, 06:31:38 AM »
No strategy?  Odd, in that many say that Tiger lost the tournament because of too conservative a strategy on Saturday at least.  And bland greens?  I have played Haznat and the greens are anything but bland.  Watching on TV, when I saw Yang having to putt up that steep tier on 17, I knew he might come up short - its that steep.  And, Tiger goes over to make sure he gets over that little internal contour Yang faced.  The green on 7 accepted the slingshot hook, so at least some shot patterns and strategies were created.   

Now, I am not saying its the greatest major course ever, or even one of the best.  It's visually bland, and lets' face it - what courses built after 1960 are going to be as accepted as a Golden age course for a major?  Whistling Straits, according to Ogilvy, and maybe a few others by Dye - Oak Tree, Crooked Stick, etc.  But, its building its own little history as a Tiger stopper and overcoming its maiden voyage in the tournament world.  It will probably stick around with the PGA, since MSP is a great place for an August major.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2009, 09:46:31 AM »
Read Jeff's reply, no need for mine.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 09:56:47 AM »
The title of this thread doesn't leave much room for nuance. Of course it's a good tournament site -- the USGA and PGA wouldn't have selected it four times if it weren't a good tournament site. The "rotation" is a shifting collection, so at any given time Hazeltine can rank higher or lower within it. Even if you think it's the worst major site, that's like being the worst Miss Universe contestant, or the worst Oscar nominee.

"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2009, 10:00:01 AM »
I really did hate the deep and thick rough around every green, made the golf very one-dimensional.  But Hazeltine can't be the worst course for a major so long as Valhalla is around!  It reminds me too much (based purely on the televised Ryder Cups and one PGA I've seen) of The Belfrey (which I've also only seen on TV).

There are some really good holes at Hazeltine, but it's repetitive, and I also hated the aerial views with the clusters of roundish bunkers all neatly set off from the fairways by rough.   When will another major have fairway bunkers with fairway-cut grass leading into them.

End of rant.

Dan_Callahan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2009, 10:10:57 AM »
I thought Hazeltine was great for a major. I loved that it was reasonably open with trees rarely coming into play. There really were very few sideways chips to get back to the fairway. It definitely looked like a course I would love to play every day, although not from 7,600 yards.

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 10:30:37 AM »
HazNat grew a little on me.  I think it's a great venue, but mediocre course.  Some holes are good, some are repetitive.  The lake is a good setting but we see it only twice, although we get plenty of vapid ponds ion the front.  Still being in Minnesota makes up for a lot.  The other golf is downright sublime - Minikahda, Interlachen, and White Bear are all better than HazNat and just a glorious day, no matter which you get the privilege of playing.  Plus, Minnesota nice is refreshing.  I see why people tolerate the winters there.

They did take down a few more trees at HazNat than the pix they sent me showed, but they need to take more down.  Plus I love how the wind howls!

I know Illinois is gonna yell, but after further review the play stands as called, Medinah is absolutely the worst, IMO.  I don't think anything comes close to being uglier, more poorly designed, and utterly lacking in charm.  Valhalla is better than Medinah.  Medicinal is a classic example of a Doak zero.

Angry Illini response in 3...2...1...
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2009, 10:39:37 AM »
It's pretty obviously both a great tournament site and a great major site.

I'm not qualified to say where the golf course "ranks" among major sites.

I do wish the PGA would give the course more of a latter-day USGA setup -- particularly firm greens, and more chipping areas around the greens instead of that nasty greenside jungle.

I didn't see much of the tournament (my wife and I were delivering our younger daughter to the golf coach at Illinois Wesleyan), but what I did see, and what I saw during the Monday practice round, was: manageable rough off the fairways; impossibly thick rough around the greens; not particularly firm and fast fairways; soft greens.

IMO, Hazeltine's virtues are best displayed when it's running fast from tee through green.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2009, 10:52:30 AM »
All I know is....

Based on the GCA.com premise, that a great course will produce an exciting result...then Hazeltine must be off the charts good with the thrilling finish that was provided us last weekend. 

Exhibit #1 would be Torrey Pines after last years finish.  I can't even count the number of threads/comments that claimed because TP and the setup provided such an awesome finish that the course must be top notch.  So logically it follows then that Hazeltine must also be in the same "great course" category, as well as Turnberry for the epic finish it provided as well.

Do we all agree??   ;D  ;)


Sean Eidson

Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2009, 11:00:06 AM »
My criteria for watching golf courses are similar to my criteria for playing courses.  I want to look forward to 5-6 holes during the round, yet enjoy every hole.  I want the course to be a character in the unfolding drama, not a part of the backdrop.

For example, and a hyperbolic one at that,  when Tiger hit his chip on 16 in the Masters, everyone who has ever seen the tournament knew it had a chance to go in the moment it started to trickle down the ridge.  The course was a character in the play.

Hazeltine just didn't do the same for me.  I can't name one hole, save for 12 and 14 that I was really looking forward to watching.  It just seemed so straight forward, predictable, and boring.

Surely a big part of that is familiarity.  I'm sure I will enjoy 18 at Hazeltine more the next time around because I saw Yang hit that amazing shot to win.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2009, 11:16:02 AM »
I thought anticipation was where Hazeltine made its greatest leap forward this year. When the PGA moved the tees up on 14 to make it drivable, they created a fantastic sequence on the back nine. I was a volunteer with the scoring committee this week, and had inside-the-ropes access, so on Friday I waited with great anticipation for Tiger and Padraig Harrington to reach 14. I was there when Tiger drove the green and nearly eagled the hole, while Harrington matched him with a birdie. I was just behind Harrington as he stood in a fairway bunker and waited for the green to clear on 15, then hit his monstrous 300-yard three-wood to 15 feet and just barely missed eagle, while Tiger hit his fairway wood through the green, nearly holed the chip and both walked off the hole with birdies. Then I accompanied them to the tee on the lakeside 16th, where tricky winds always make the tee shot a perilous adventure. Both hit good drives, both left themselves 18-footers, and Tiger drained the putt while Harrington just missed. It was a thrilling sequence of holes, and the best sustained action I've witnessed at a major tournament.

It nearly repeated itself Sunday when Yang eagled 14 with a great chip, both had great birdie chances at 15, and Yang nearly threw his lead away with an approach shot to 16 that was inches from kicking into the hazard. I know I'll be anticipating more decisive moments like these on that stretch of holes when the Ryder Cup comes to Hazeltine in 2016.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2009, 11:45:54 AM »
Rick:

Nice point about Ryder Cup match-play possibilities. Do you think 16 has enough reward in taking a risk there off the tee? Most players seemed to play it pretty conservatively -- fairway wood and not messing with an approach to the right side of the green (Yang notwithstanding...). I'm thinking of the 10th at Belfry, a really good risk-reward hole. 16 at Hazeltine seems ideally placed -- a hole where there's a good chance a lot of matches will be on the line, or still in play. Do you see anyone taking driver there, or the course set-up being changed at all to encourage that thought on the tee? For all the critics of Hazeltine, 16 has always struck me as a nervey kind of hole, a real b..t-puckerer.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2009, 11:56:53 AM »
Phil,

I didn't think 16 played to its full potential last week, primarily because the players never had to hit into a strong headwind. On Friday, the windiest day of the tournament, they had a crosswind from the left, which didn't seem to cause much trouble. They could aim at the creek down the left side of the fairway and let the wind carry the ball back to the fairway. Give them a 30 mph headwind -- a strong possibility in late September -- and 16 toughens up considerably.

The other possibility is to move the tees way up. I know it is unusual to set up a course with two driveable par fours in a three-hole stretch, but in a match-play situation I think it would be acceptable. It would be fantastic to see the pros tempted to drive the 16th green, with the lake bordering the entire right side of the hole and wrapping around the back of the green, and a creek guarding the left side of the fairway.

Will the PGA do that? I think at least one of the three days they might. I know that if they did, 14-15-16 would become a memorable stretch for most golf viewers. 
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2009, 12:10:20 PM »
Rick:

I seem to recall that kind of headwind at the first PGA at Hazeltine, in the third round, when Leonard hit a marvelous, punched 7-iron from something like 120 yds that got close to the flag. I think the PGA really moved the tees up that day, because they were worried too many players would simply be at the mercy of the wind and dump their tee shots in the lake. I think the idea of making that hole driveable at the Ryder Cup is a real good one -- par to me at a match-play tournament ought to take a back seat to creating holes that offer multiple ways of attack.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2009, 12:16:11 PM »
Phil,

I believe you're right about the Saturday round at the 2002 PGA. It was a brutal wind -- gusting close to 40 mph at times -- making 16 a real brute. The other hole that became a nightmare for the pros was 8, the 180-yard par 3 that played pretty easily for the pros last week (with the notable exception of Padraig Harrington). In 2002, they played it directly into that howling wind, and the hole won. I spent the morning there watching one-third of the players hit the green, one-third hit the water, and one-third bailing into the bunkers left of the green.

No fun for them, but great if you like watching train wrecks.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2009, 02:34:50 PM »
No strategy?  Odd, in that many say that Tiger lost the tournament because of too conservative a strategy on Saturday at least. 

He didn't decide to play prevent defense because of the strategy of the course. He did that solely because he thought he wouldn't be caught with a four shot lead entering the weekend and perhaps because he still didn't have enough confidence in the driver - contrast his strategy at Hazeltine where he changed a little for the weekend versus the strategy he employed at Royal Liverpool where he recognized that it was best for him to play short of all fairway bunkers and he did it the whole week. Granted I was watching on TV but I really didn't see alternative lines of play. Tiger was of the only players I saw lay up n 7. I never saw anybody lay up on 14 and I watched all of the weekend coverage. I never saw anyone pull driver on 16 to have just a sand wedge in. To me it seems that if all these guys are playing the holes the same way how much strategy is really involved? Two was one of the few holes where players either tried to cut the corner of the dogleg or lay up out to the right of the bunkers.

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2009, 02:39:09 PM »
All I know is....

Based on the GCA.com premise, that a great course will produce an exciting result...then Hazeltine must be off the charts good with the thrilling finish that was provided us last weekend. 

Exhibit #1 would be Torrey Pines after last years finish.  I can't even count the number of threads/comments that claimed because TP and the setup provided such an awesome finish that the course must be top notch.  So logically it follows then that Hazeltine must also be in the same "great course" category, as well as Turnberry for the epic finish it provided as well.

Do we all agree??   ;D  ;)



Wouldn't Hazeltine be twice as good as TP since it had the Beem-Tiger finish the last time the PGA was held there as well?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2009, 03:06:31 PM »
Steve,

If you are applying Lido competion hole, or golfclubatlas.com fantasy strategy to major championships, then yes, Haznat doesn't have any strategy.  But then, what other major course really does?  For that matter, at the pro level, how much is any strategy defined by a golfers confidence in his driver, for example, or game in general, as opposed to many, many routes of play?  Probably a lot.

For that matter, things like distance control, spin control, trajectory control, etc. are also strategy as much as lines of play.  Most courses that have hosted more than one event find that the players at that level quickly figure out the best line of play, at least by the second time its used as a venue.  I can recall there was a debate for years on how to best play the 18th at Firestone - a similar RTJ hole - and that had similarly narrow fw and bunkering.  Usually, at that level, the green contours dictate play more than the bunkers, trees, whatever.  They are THAT good.

If everyone went for 14, and no one took driver on 16, perhaps the course set up was a bit off. I don't really know.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2009, 03:32:36 PM »
All I know is....

Based on the GCA.com premise, that a great course will produce an exciting result...then Hazeltine must be off the charts good with the thrilling finish that was provided us last weekend. 

Exhibit #1 would be Torrey Pines after last years finish.  I can't even count the number of threads/comments that claimed because TP and the setup provided such an awesome finish that the course must be top notch.  So logically it follows then that Hazeltine must also be in the same "great course" category, as well as Turnberry for the epic finish it provided as well.

Do we all agree??   ;D  ;)



Wouldn't Hazeltine be twice as good as TP since it had the Beem-Tiger finish the last time the PGA was held there as well?

Steve,

Yes, yes, and double yes!!!    :D

Given this information we can clearly promote Hazeltine over such courses as Pebble and ANGC which only give us thrilling outcomes some of the time!!  I mean how good could Pebble really be given that Tiger turned it into a snooze-fest the last time the U.S. Open was played there!!   ;D  ;D

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2009, 07:42:46 PM »
HazNat grew a little on me. 

Jay, I guess I'm glad to hear.  What its defenders have pointed out is that people are led to believe it is just horrible and the truth is it is anything but.  Cypress Point?  No.  But nobody ever said it was.

JWinick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2009, 10:13:03 PM »
As someone who used to go to the Twin Cities once a month for the last five years, I think it's great to have a major in Minnesota.   I think the people of Minnesota love golf and will show up in strong numbers.  Logistic-wise, Hazeltine has everything you need in a tournament site, except for hotels nearby.   

However, I'm not even sure it's even in the top-5 in the area.   While Torrey Pines is dull in person, it makes great television.   I can't recall getting excited to see any of the holes at Hazeltine.   Valhalla is better on television....

Windsong Farms would be better....

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2009, 10:31:38 PM »
The greens seemed very bland.

I agree that the greensites looked pretty uninteresting, but it didn't seem like the greens themselves were that bland -- maybe it's just me, but it looked like a lot of guys had trouble putting them. 

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hazeltine - a good tournament site or the worst major site
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2009, 04:05:18 PM »
The greens seemed very bland.

I agree that the greensites looked pretty uninteresting, but it didn't seem like the greens themselves were that bland -- maybe it's just me, but it looked like a lot of guys had trouble putting them. 

the greens were a little better than I expected actually.  they had a little interior countouring.  They certainly didn't look like torrey's.  they weren't oakmont or WFW either, but they weren't flat.

I like 1,5,9,10,15,16...

I dont like 6,7,8.  bad stretch...too much water.

I guess we can park it in the middle of the pack in major venues.
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner