Erin Hills -- this year's model (pictorial essay circa 2010)

[Phil McDade]

Few modern courses have generated as much debate and controversy as Wisconsin’s Erin Hills. The course, northwest of Milwaukee, was awarded a USGA national tournament (the women’s public links championship) even before it opened in 2006. It has subsequently been awarded the U.S. Amateur for next year and, in 2017, the U.S. Open.

Heady stuff for a course that’s rarely had a whole season of play since it opened just a few years ago. It’s twice been closed for significant renovations, and only opened for the 2010 season in August.  On Sept. 1, Erin Hills hosted local qualifying for the U.S. Mid-Amateur Championship, providing the first test of the most recent changes at the course.

A number of threads on the GCA Discussion Board have focused on Erin Hills since it first opened. As the purpose of this thread is to show the latest changes to the course, these previous threads are worth reviewing to show some of the significant changes in the evolution of Erin Hills:

One of the first significant threads on Erin Hills from 2007, where Dan Moore gave it the moniker of “glacial links”:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29760.0/

A thread initiated by Paul Richards, with some good comments on the course from 2007:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29130.0/

Dan Moore’s thread from last year, with some very good comparison photos, highlighting the most recent changes to the course as of 2009:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40451.0/

In addition, the Erin Hills website has a very good slideshow that reveals the evolution of the course:
http://www.erinhills.com/documents/erin_hills_slide_show.pdf

Finally, the terrific Golf Architecture Pictures website has a tour of Erin Hills, with pictures taken not long after the course first opened, and before the significant changes made to many of the holes. This provides a very good and thorough look at what the course looked like initially, compared to the course as it currently stands.
http://www.golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/Wisconsin/Erin%20Hills/index.html

Critical to understanding the development of Erin Hills is the topography of this particular region of Wisconsin. Dan said it best in his “glacial links” thread: “Unlike the sand blown dunes of the seaside links, the terrain in the Kettle Moraine region of Wisconsin was formed by the convergence of the Green Bay and Lake Michigan glacial lobes which crunched and scrunched their way over the land leaving in their wake small to large deposits of glacial till and rock strewn ice.  The drumlins, kames, eskers, and kettles formed by these glacial movements are in abundant display throughout the course…The glacial character of the land forming this Glacial Links is one of the clearly distinctive aspects of Erin Hills and makes it unique among golf courses in my experience.”
(http://www.nps.gov/archive/iatr/expanded/history.htm)

The course (according to the scorecard) plays from the tips (black tees) at 7,820 yards (rating 77.9/slope 145); blue tees  -- 7,227 yards (75.2/139); green tees -- 6,712 yards (72.8/135); white tees -- 6,423 yards (71.5/131); and red tees  -- 5,123 yards (69.3/118). It should be noted that the course has tees on many holes longer than the black tees, with the possibility of stretching the course beyond 8,000 yards.

The understated entrance to the course.


On the long winding drive into Erin Hills, the land gives a hint of what the golfer will encounter on the course.


Erin Hills is set far away from any urban area, and the rural Wisconsin theme is carried throughout the course. Here’s the caddie shop/bag drop-off, similar to the dairy barns one encounters throughout the state.


The clubhouse and practice putting green. I thought many of the amenities of Erin Hills were done in an understated way – the pro shop is tasteful but quite small, and the “pub” is a small room , fireplace included, that’s filled with mismatched antique tables and chairs. I personally thought it quite appealing. The patio, to the right of the clubouse, is a new addition.


Hole No. 1 (par 5, 615/563/539/539)
A long, curving par 5 that plays around a wetlands that lines the entire left side of the hole. A large oak tree on the left side of the fairway has been cut down, ostensibly to give more players the option of going at the green in two shots.


The hole can be played from the tips at 637 yards; here’s the tee shot from the very back tees. The green sits just above the farthest-right blue umbrella, middle-left of picture.


Everything on #1 flows from the ridge on the right down to the wetlands left. Part of the ridge has been cut away from its original incarnation to make the hole less blind. In addition, this portion of the fairway appears to have been flattened since the course first opened, eliminating a hogsback feature.


The rugged bunkering that the golfer encounters at Erin Hills.


Those who stray right with their second shot here, in an attempt to avoid the wetlands, could end up in this bunker carved into a hillside overlooking the green.


The modest-sized green of the 1st; a left greenside bunker noted in an earlier thread by Dan Moore has been removed.


A run-off area on the backside of the green; the wetlands lie quite close to the left side and back of this green.


Hole No. 2 (par 4, 363/341/322/322)
The tee shot of the wonderfully odd 2nd hole; from tee to green, it’s nearly a straight line. But the design of the hole makes it anything but straightforward. The play here is filled with options: the simplest play is a fairway wood/iron to the fairway on a line to the left of the small tree near the path. A more aggressive line is a controlled fade aimed at the highest point of the mound left, with the potential of catching a speed slot on the other side. A super-aggressive play is a draw over the mound right, with the aiming point the left bunker; a successful play here could end up near the green.


Here’s where the safe play ends up; it’s a blind shot to the green.


The backside of the mound right, mown at fairway height.


A look at the backside of the mound left; those playing this shot from the tee need to avoid a narrow bunker that juts out into the fairway.


The tiny green of the 2nd, enlarged from its original postage-stamp size (about 50 percent bigger) at the request of the USGA. Everything falls away from this green, which is crowned.  A natural esker sits to the left of the 2nd green, making for a perfect runway tee used for the 3rd hole.


Three more looks at the 2nd green – from the left side…


 …from high atop the 3rd tee…


…and from the back.  A really neat hole – not difficult, but one that reveals to the golfer (much better than the 1st) the kind of terrain Erin Hills was built on, and how the course was routed in and around the glacial features.


Hole No. 3 (par 4, 498/451/422/422)
Here’s where Erin Hills can get U.S. Open-tough. An elevated tee reveals the demand of the opening shot – golfers must place their shots between wetlands and woods left and glacial mounding right filled with fierce bunkering.


A look back at the esker that serves as the 3rd tee, up above the 2nd green.


The fairway climbs gradually uphill; this is the first of what will be a repeating theme at Erin Hills – tee shots from elevated tees to a fairway below, with an uphill approach shot.


Fairway bunkers pinch the landing area, added to toughen up the hole.


A look back at the 3rd, with its two-tiered green (one of the larger ones on the course). This green was also expanded at the request of the USGA to be closer to the fronting bunkers. Note how the natural folds of the glacial mounds coming in from the left are incorporated into the fairway, increasing the chances of a golfer finding an uneven lie.


Hole No. 4 (par 4, 439/398/385/385)
A hole significantly redone since the course’s opening. This is the back tee of the 4th, set at a slight angle to the fairway. The 3rd and 4th holes both run due west, which can often be the prevailing wind in Wisconsin during the summer.


Near the fairway landing area, with a large centerline bunker dominating the fairway. For my tastes, I’d like to see the rough here cut back closer to the fescue – it would give the golfer a wider target off the tee, but increase the risk of a ball bounding off the fairway and into the hay. Such an outcome is less likely with 15 yards of rough to stop a ball.


The rugged centerline bunker; the 4th fairway has had drainage problems, evident here.


An irregular-shaped bunker fronting the 4th green.


A look at the 4th green, moved to atop this ridge line from its original location 30 yards closer to the fairway. This green was originally something of a punchbowl; now the approach is an aerial one to a green with a fall-away on the backside blind to the golfer on the fairway.  During the recent U.S, Mid-Am qualifying tournament, holes 3 and 4 played as the two of the four hardest holes on the course.


Hole No. 5 (493/439/362/362)
The fairway on this hole has been shifted left; from the way-back (U.S. Open) elevated tee, the shot is over a large area of native grass to a fairway that runs off to the left. The fairway of the 7th hole, which runs in the opposite direction of the 5th, can be seen to the left.


This, from the blue tees, gives a better sense of the changes here. The bunker on the right side of the fairway used to be a centerline bunker, with the player having the option to traverse the fairway left or right of the bunker. A well-hidden trap, just below the lone tree of the left of the fairway, threatens the golfer trying to chew off too much of the carry on this mini-Cape drive.


Another deep, trench-like bunker fronts the green here. This to me is perhaps the least-compelling hole on the front nine.


Hole No. 6 (par 3, 236/208/188/172)
The first par 3 on the course is a solid hole that plays uphill to a green with a false front. This hole has remained intact since the course first opened.


Two looks at the fearsome bunker for those who end up short right on their tee shot.



Hole No. 7 (par 5, 607/574/549/549)
One of the more dramatically changed parts of the course – this long par 5 covers some of the same terrain as the old Dell hole, a par 3 that was one of the favorites of original architect Ron Whitten. Few holes on the original course were as polarizing as the Dell; beloved by some, it was viewed as weak and gimmicky by several GCAers who played it when the course first opened. The tee shot is to a somewhat narrow ribbon of fairway that angles off to the left and toward a green benched near the top of a glacial mound.


The old Dell hole bell, used by golfers leaving the blind green to tell players on the tee they were moving off the green.


The uphill approach at the 7th; golfers going for the green in two risk landing their balls in the bunkers littering the last 50 yards of fairway left, right and center.


The approach to the green is steeper than it appears from 200 yards away in the fairway.


The green at the 7th was sited right at the edge of this natural fallaway to the right.


The 7th green, which has some significant contouring, and tilts (from the player’s perspective in the fairway) sharply from left to right.  This played as the toughest of the course’s par 5s during Mid-Am qualifying play, with only three birdies recorded and playing more than half-a-stroke over par.


Hole No. 8 (par 4, 487/439/411/359)
A nifty dogleg par 4; the tee shot is toward the ridge line coming off the glacial mound left and a large oak tree right.


One can see why those who envisioned a golf course here were excited about the land available; the large folds in the land reminded me a bit of what I found when first playing Machrihanish in Scotland.


The approach shot is to a wide but somewhat shallow green sited behind three bunkers.


The bomber could catch the backside the ridge line and see his ball end up here, which would lead to a short but dicey (and blind) pitch to the green.  This is another hole largely intact in its current form since the course opened.


Hole No. 9 (par 3, 165/150/143/138)
Originally a bye hole, the front nine now ends with this attractive par 3. Short from the tips at 165 yards, this hole plays downhill, at least a club less. The pros and top amateurs will likely take this on with wedges and 9-irons. The deep but narrow green features a big dip in between the second and third bunkers on the right side. This hole is also little changed since the course opened, but has now replaced the Dell hole as the second par 3 on the front nine.


The bunkering at the 9th is some of the meanest on the course.




Back nine to follow…

[Phil McDade]

Erin Hills cont'd (back nine):

Hole No. 10 (par 4, 504/476/450/427)
Another hole dramatically reworked from the original. Originally a par 5 that could be stretched to nearly 700 yards, it’s now a par 4 of 500+ yards from the tips. The outcome of the tee shot will be blind, as a small ridge line hides its outcome.


The golfer straying too far right with a tee shot will find either this massive kettle depression or, perhaps worse, a very deep fairway bunker.


Here’s a look at the fairway from behind the green – a tee shot that hugs the right side of the fairway will yield a longer drive, but those favoring the left will be rewarded with a somewhat easier approach, as bunkering protects the right front entrance of the green. The right-side fairway (from the golfer’s perspective on the tee) has been widened toward the large oak tree.


A look at the approach shot, and a closer look at the right-side bunkering.



The smallish, two-tiered green of the 10th. The original green here, a Biarritz, was 78 paces deep and located 100 yards beyond the current green site.  The 10th played as the second-hardest hole during Mid-Am qualifying play.


Hole No. 11 (par 4, 409/359/315/315)
The quite disconcerting tee shot of the 11th, apparently shortened from its original version, which had a tee listed at 472 yards. The hole now plays at just over 400 yards from the tips, although there appears to be plenty of room back of the current tees for additional yardage. The aiming point for the tee shot is slightly left of center, toward the bunker with the large mound in the middle of it.


Here’s a better look at what lies ahead from the white tees.  Uneven lies are likely to confront the golfer on this gathering fairway.


Approach shots on 11 will often be uphill and semi-blind.


The green has some nice slopes, but other than this fairway bunker right, there is not much that will trouble the golfer on the approach shot.  This hole played as the easiest one on the course during Mid-Am qualifying play.


Hole No. 12 (par 4, 466/432/388/388)
A wonderful hole that doesn’t look like much from the tee, but provides the golfer with plenty of challenge and a fun ride to boot.  The tee shot here is a controlled fade toward a saddle opening between two glacial mounds framing the fairway. This is a very nice piece of visual deception using the natural contours of the land and some physical features; the green here is on a line to the right of the grouping of taller trees middle-right in this picture.


The fairway past the mounds dives down into a valley, turns right and then twists left to a small green in the distance. This hole really takes advantage of the varied terrain found at Erin Hills. Three views of the fairway corridor.




A look back at the fairway of the 12th; the land here, from descriptions I’ve read, evokes thoughts of Machrie, on the Isle of Islay in Scotland, or the famously rambunctious links of Carne in northwestern Ireland.


The very small green of the 12th; a small but nasty bunker sits just right of the green, while thick fescue lies close to the left of the green.  This was the toughest hole during Mid-Am qualifying, playing nearly a full stroke over par.


Hole No. 13 (par 3, 215/193/170/170)
A pleasant but somewhat routine par 3, played downhill with runoffs on three sides and a large bunker lurking on the left. From numerous photos, this hole has changed less than any other at Erin Hills.


Hole No. 14 (par 5, 614/579/505/469)
A par 5 where the ambitious golfer can try to get home in two, depending on what tees are used for the day’s play. Here’s a picture near the landing area; the golfer has to contend with bunkers left and right of the fairway, along with two bunkers occupying prime real estate near the center of the fairway. The left center-fairway bunker (the one with the fingers of rough extending into the bunker) is a recent addition, making the easier path left on this par 5 noticeably tighter.


The line of charm toward the green in the distance, benched against the hillside, is interrupted by this natural glacial deposit. The mound lacked bunkers when the course first opened; they were added for the 2009 playing season, but have since been removed.


Here’s the green, a simple small two-tiered green with a steep fall-off right.


Hole No. 15 (par 4, 370/359/346/290)
A favorite of those who have played Erin Hills, the short par 4 combines wonderful use of the natural terrain to create an option-filled hole. The tee shot is from one of the highest points on the course. The play is toward the broad patch of fairway short of the bunkers to the right; a gambling shot left of the fairway bunkers; or even a try at the green. The last option seems particularly risky, as severe trouble lurks left of the green, along with a severe falloff right of the green.


Here’s the play short of all the trouble, leaving a short, uphill pitch to the green.


The 15th green, somewhat similar to the one found immediately preceding it at 14.


Hole No. 16 (par 3, 200/184/163/143)
An uphill tee shot to a green nestled against the side of a glacial mound. Bunkers frame the green, which is deep but not wide, and there is a deep depression fronting the green entrance. This is from the tips.


I actually prefer this tee (171 yards, according to the yardage marker), as the glacial mound hides a good portion of the green and would make a flag on the back (and even middle) portion of the green invisible. For perspective, the green extends as far back as a line extended down from the third large oak tree from the right.


A closer look at the green, which has two distinct tiers. Bunkers have been added to the left side of the green.


Hole no. 17 (par 4, 481/445/434/434)
Another hole significantly reworked; the back tee is offset from the fairway which runs through a natural valley. There has been considerable thinning of the trees that lined the top of the glacial hills along the right side of the fairway.


The natural rolling terrain of the 17th fairway; the green sits just to the left of the last of the four large trees on the right side of the fairway.


A closer look at the fairway; a natural esker, which comes down sharply from the middle-left of this picture, originally extended well into the fairway when the course first opened, creating a blind shot into the green for those who placed their drives on the left side of the fairway. (The Golf Course Pictures review of Erin Hills linked earlier has a particularly good picture of this esker.) Anyone I’ve talked to who saw the hole in its original form laments the loss of this feature.


Looking back at the fairway of the 17th, one of the more narrow ones at Erin Hills. This photo is taken right next to the denuded esker.


A look at the greensite of the 17th from the right-side hill above the green; even at 481 yards (playing from the tips, according to the scorecard), I’m not sure this hole will present that great of a challenge to top players.


Hole No. 18 (par 5, 660/637/620/539)
A winding, relatively flat hole in which the golfer has to negotiate bunkers that dot the left, right, and occasionally middle portions of the fairway. Here’s a look at the tee shot from the tips; a helping prevailing wind may mitigate some of the hole’s 660 yards.


From the left rough, near where a tee shot might end up, the fairway wraps around the small glacial mounds on the right, then tacks back to the left.


Two more looks at the S-shaped fairway.
 


A look at the 18th green from behind. Those challenging the green in two will have to deal with thick fescue fronting the green on the approach, middle-right of picture. Those taking the conventional three-shot route have to avoid a deep depression in front of the right entrance to the green.


A severe falloff on the left side of the green awaits those too bold with their 3rd shot, or offline with their second shot.


The clubhouse awaits…


….as does another nearby building for some rest and contemplation.


Concluding thoughts (having walked it extensively, but not played it):

-- This is wonderful land for a premier golf course, and the course has the feel of something simply laid out over the terrain, with tees, fairways and greens located in natural and obvious spots and corridors. The course retains its sense of quirk without being silly; it’s an unusual course, for something in the Midwest, but not so out of the ordinary that it lends itself to arbitrary or unintended outcomes. For my tastes, it has a more natural look to it than the other major Wisconsin championship course – Whistling Straits.
-- The course has a nice ebb and flow – holes where birdie is a real possibility (such as #11) are followed by tough holes like #12. Unlike many U.S. Open courses, one doesn’t get the sense that this will be a long slog of hard hole after hard hole; it seems to fit perfectly with the recent USGA thinking under Mike Davis that Open courses ought to present opportunities for birdies while still remaining a tough test.
-- There is a nice variety of holes – short, medium and long par 4s, and four quite varied par 3s. The par 5s can all be played very long; one hopes the USGA gears back at least one of them (#1 and #14 would be good candidates) to encourage some risk-and-reward play.
-- The viewing sightlines for a championship like the U.S. Open are outstanding; although one may quibble with that in factoring in a course’s worthiness as a U.S. Open site, it clearly is a consideration for the USGA, and Erin Hills fits the bill well. Golf can be a very difficult spectator sport on the ground; this course has numerous vantage points to watch play unfold on several holes.
-- It is an unusual course – heavily and severely bunkered, nearly treeless (in that trees will rarely if ever come into play for all but the wildest of shots), with severely contoured land. It will be interesting to see how it compares (and contrasts) with Chambers Bay, which gets the U.S. Open in 2015 and has some features similar to those found here.

Concerns:
-- I found the routing to be quite awkward; it’s as if the designers wanted to find 18 golf holes, and paid little attention to how the golfers got from one hole to the next. Maybe that’s immaterial, but I’ve always enjoyed courses in which the holes flow seamlessly (more or less), one to the next. There is an abruptness in the green-to-tee walks that can be quite confusing.
-- I question whether the course can truly play fast and firm, which is clearly the designers’ intent, given the fairway widths here and the length the course can play at. I was struck by how much of the course sits quite nearby substantial wetlands, which don’t drain very well (in fact, wetlands do just the opposite). Admittedly, the photos for this thread were taken the day after a 1-inch rainstorm hit the course the night before, but I’ve been to other Wisconsin courses that have drained much better than this did after similar rains. I think the course can play fast and firm, but to me, that seems largely dependent on a run of good luck (i.e., dry weather) prior to the championships to be played here next year and in 2017. That can certainly happen in Wisconsin, but the state can also experience sustained periods of wet weather (this past summer was the second-rainiest on record).
-- I wonder whether the course as currently configured can hold up to the world’s best players; the Amateur championship next year should provide a good test. To me, a bogey golfer on my good days, the course looks quite difficult and intimidating. But pros don’t look at courses like I do; they chase after flags and place their tee shots on fairways most of the time. The course’s chief defenses seem to be: its length; the severity of its bunkers; and terrain that has the potential to carry or kick balls into those bunkers and native grasses. But the fairways here are quite wide, and seemingly easy to hit for the best in the game, and few greens looked diabolical if pushed up to U.S. Open speeds. Players avoiding the bunkers and high native grasses (easier if the course doesn’t play fast) look like they could score well here.

[Matthew Sander]

Phil,

Thanks for posting this tour of Erin Hills. From first glance it looks pretty thorough and I'm going to enjoy going over it in more depth tonight after the kiddies go to bed. It is a course that we've heard so much about, but without playing it I've had a hard time creating a visual of its description in my mind...

[jonathan_becker]

Phil,

Thanks so much for doing this thread.  I've played each version of EH, but not the latest.  It's nice to see what's been done.

A few quick thoughts....

#1 looks great with the trees gone.

I liked the old centerline bunker on #5 and I'm sad to see it gone, but it's not the end of the world.

The new #10 looks great, but the old green was pretty fun and crazy.  The hole is probably better as a par 4 though.  The layup shot on the old #10 was fairly awkward.

#13....am I crazy or did there used to be a water on the hole?  I know you said that the hole has mostly been unchanged but I swear there used to be water off to the right.  Maybe I'm nuts.

The site is awesome, but the problem is that EH takes forever to play because it's so long and there are some definite spaces between holes.  I've never played it in under 4 hours and by the end you're pretty tired.  I'll go out on a limb here and say that no Chris Patton type is going to win the Am there next year.  The guy that wins will be in excellent shape as a 36 hole final will be about the battle of the fittest.

[Mike Wagner]

Phil,

Outstanding post!  Being out here every day, I'm watching it get better and better.  We are building more accommodations on top of the hill behind the first tee.  A "manor house" that will serve as additional dining and a players' locker room (for championship weeks) and 3 cottages - 4 bedroom + common room.  Should be an amazing addition for next year!

Thanks for the detailed hole by hole - wonderful tour!

Mike

[Mike Nuzzo]

Great pictures.
Thank you for sharing.

I'm confused by the picture of the first green that looks artificially built up.
Why would you try to move no dirt to build an entire golf course and then build up a fill pad to create a green?




A minimalistic approach may create the green pad but then tie in all the edges so it looked like it was there naturally.
(minimalism may require more work to look like less was done)

The bunkers look nice and irregular individually, and not as much collectively or further back with a broader perspective.

Cheers

[Jim Johnson]

Phil, thanks for all of this. Great tour.

Question: if your ball ends up in the native grasses, is it lost? It's looks pretty thick in a lot of your photos.
What would the average width of the fairways be, any idea?

JJ

P.S. Love the look of the 15th hole.

[Matthew Sander]

The scale of the course looks massive, and if that comes across in photos I imagine it is even more so in person. A couple of questions for anyone in the know (mind you, these are questions from one who has never been there - so just call me out if my interpretations of the photos are off the mark)...

1. The scale of the property would seem to lend itself to width in the fairways. Is this the case at EH? It can be tough to discern in the photos. I guess it is possible that with the USGA influence and the goal of being a US Open test, widths may have been tempered. What I don't think has been tempered is the thickness of the fescue. It doesn't look wispy, rather it looks to be almost a certain lost ball.

2. The course looks fairly difficult from tee to green on account of terrain and severe bunkering. However, at least from the photos (could be misleading) the greens look to be relatively tame. Again, is this the case? If so, does it detract from the course or do they make the course more playable? Also, if they are tame, were they that way prior to all of the renovations? After hearing so many complaints about Chambers Bay's greens following the US AM, these greens seem to be more "in the wheel-house" of the tour pros.

[Chris Flamion]

Phil

Great photo tour, as always.  Look forward to making it up there at some point.

Chris

[Matthew Sander]

Sorry Phil, after posting my questions I read a little further on your post and you addressed some of the questions I asked...

I too am interested in how EH and CB are both received regarding their US AM and US Open championships. They seem to be tied together in so many ways. They are both public (with comparable green fees if I'm not mistaken) and of similar age. In their infancy they've received plenty of time and attention from the USGA, and have the opportunity to be long term hosts for championships while being departures from what we have become used to as Open sites.

I would assume the significant differences are the turf and the green styles. Barring a historic midwest early summer drought, there is no way EH could ever be as F/F as CB was for the US AM. Also, we've heard countless complaints (not that I agree with them) about the wild greens at CB. While the USGA will probably address some of the complaints with CB's greens, I'm sure they don't want carbon copies at EH.

[Mike Wagner]

Matt & JJ,

The fairways are pretty wide - definitely negotiable.  The fescue is extremely thick right now (lost ball in most places) as it's second year fescue.  From what I understand, the entire course will be thin & wispy in two more years.  Apparently it's the natural growing process of fescue - comes in thick and you thin it out.

The greens are well designed IMO.  They aren't over the top - lots of long, gradual slopes.  There are a couple extreme spots that make placement a must (#'s 3 & 14).  All in all, they're great - they sort of equal out the distance factor required for the Am and Open type set ups.  

Mike

[Matthew Sander]

Mike,

Thanks for the response. It will be interesting to see the maturation of the fescue especially as it relates to the course's role as a public access facility.

I suspect you're right about the pairing of the greens with the tee to green length and difficulty. As long/difficult as I expect this  course can play (for US Open or daily play), a steady diet of severely contoured greens (while almost always interesting IMHO) would probably result in the criticism of "unfair" or "goofy" from the pros and the masses.

[RJ_Daley]

Phil, I must say that you just provided one of the very best photo, descriptive tours of a course that I can remember here on GCA.com.  We've had a few, and I'm not about rating courses or their reviews...    ... but I don't mind saying what I like.  I like your work.

This is also one of the longest scrolling pages I"ve ever seen.  It seems to scroll on forever on page one keeping all the photos and commentary by you together.  I think now to have a good discussion, the format of some other posters, with naming the course, and starting hole by hole stating as example, hole 1 commentary now in progress might suit the excellent detail you have provided. 

I hesitate to make any bold or definitive statements, because I only played the course twice in the previous iterations, that I wasn't thrilled about.  I can certainly see some of the dramatic changes in the photos, yet of course, playing it and trying out the shots you think you can make or hit a few as you think the design and your ability can achieve, is quite another matter.   This course is so complex, IMO, that a few plays just won't cover it.  But if we go hole by hole, I'm going to try to make some observations for whatever opinion and 2 year old memory is worth.  One of my original impressions was thinking of the term, architorture, which ironically I think Whitten origianally coined.  One of the times I played it was after a severe rain, very hot and humid, and it was sloggy soft, and the routing and climbs green to tees and spacing was architorture.  While I see some of the minor softening, it is still that long, and one still needs to go from green to high tees, and around wetland and fescue areas, etc.  As  one fellow said above an Amatuer, with a 36 hole final day, should it be 90* 90% might be a Kenny Venturei heat strokesort of day.  Well maybe not for the fllat bellies...

[RJ_Daley]

On hole 1, I am thrilled to see the tree gone, but moreso that slope that was rugged ground and rough, slanting down from a 2nd shot that makes it slightly over the old tree on an aggresive line but still just catching the top of the rugged slope and then bounding down left into almost certainty of the wet lands, effectively killing a round before the first green, and the hole lost ball thing, was bad.  Sure there is plenty of room wide right.  But, at over 600 yard tips, more wide long lines of play aren't what one might be looking for on an opening hole. Hitting into generally uphill on tee ball and second if you go way right doesn't shorten it up either.

But, that was then, this is now.  That softening of that slope, and taking out the tree (although the tree wasn't the prime problem as I say above) makes the length on an opening hole, at least plaitable.  But, buy that first hole, if a regular 12-15 capper has started from 6800 yards third from back tees already, it ought to be damn good second guessing to swallow pride and move up to the 6400s. 

That new green does seem smaller and different from my memory in your photo.  Can't say one way or other if I like it, without pitching one on, and putting it a bit. Unfortunately I often putt a bit too much anyway, with 3 or 4 jacks ... 


BTW, it is late and haven't tried to look up the Mid Am scores posted.  Do you know a link to the field scores?

[Rob Miller]

Phil,

Thanks.  Great post. 

I was unsure about the visual effect of losing the tree on the first, but the hole looks outstanding in the photos. 

[David Royer]

Phil, Great job.  You've done an excellent job in capturing both the magitude of the course and each hole.  Having played Wildhorse in July on a side trip from Ballyneal I was a curiuos to see the fairway to green compatibility on the fescue to bent versus feascue to feascue.  In August  I left EH with the opinion that the greens were well designed as it related to speed and scoring and complimented the course extremely well. I had never played the earlier versions of EH but left with the intent of coming back soon and recommending the trip to my friends.  As these latest changes mature I will watch 011 Am with anticipation on course set up. One other virtue of EH is sitting out by the firepits with a beverage of your choice watching the sunset over the golf course. The kettle moraine geology adds to views and the vistas.  Not quite Ballyneal at sunset but darn close.

[Mike Hendren]

Very nice thread.  I was fortunate to play Erin Hills with Dick Daley a few years ago and this course remains somewhat of a mystery to me.  The photographs on this thread are far more appealing than my memory.  What sticks out is that I (12 handicap) didn't lose a ball and only visited one bunker during the round.  This is inconsistent with the visual difficulty depicted in this thread.  Then again, we didn't play from the back markers.  My overall impression was the course, while bold, was a little clumsy in places, specifically the old
10th green and the shallow but wide Dell green (I generally love such holes but found the orientation of the green unappealing).  Generally, the changes look solid, though I did like the shallow punchbowl at the 4th.

The photographs suggest my opinion of the course might been a little harsh after a single play.

Mike

[PCCraig]

Fantastic post Phil…this was by far one of the most in depth and informative photo tours in recent memory on GCA. What is it about the Wisconsin GCAers and their great course tours 

I played Erin Hills for the first time about a month ago on a steamy August day. I had been meaning to get up there in the past but the course was always either closing or reports of terrible conditions kept me away. Obviously, the course is well documented here on GCA and elsewhere in the golf media and to be honest most of the reviews I read were more on the negative side. So when I finally did make the trek up there I can say I wasn’t expecting much, but ended up being pleasantly surprised.

As your report shows, the property really is fantastic and the scale of the course is gigantic and really cool. I agree with your statement that the routing is a little jumbled because from the look of it the architects were not too concerned about making it an easy walk and were just trying to find the 18 best places to put a golf hole. In my opinion the distances between holes, the fact that that distance was usually up and down steep hills, and the 90*+ weather made the course a pretty tough walk (and I walk 95% of my rounds). Because of the walk the round felt like half hike and half golf round but I kept finding myself saying after watching off each green “I wonder what’s next”…which I guess is a good thing?

I don’t know if it’s what they were going for, or if it’s a byproduct of all the renovations, but at first glance the conditions were pretty rough. The fairways are fescue, and like nearby Whistling Straits, the course is going through its fairway grow-in phase and hoping the grass takes. In the meantime the fairways were pretty shaggy, and at first I wasn’t crazy about it they quickly grew on me and gave the course a more natural feel. The course is also in a grow in phase for its long rough/fescue making the rough totally unplayable if your ball finds it. (It was a miracle that I played the entire round with one ball.) The opinion of my playing partners was a collective “this place needs to mature.”  

There are some very fun and neat holes at Erin Hills, particularly numbers 15, 2, 9, 12, 6 and 16 (in that order). I did like the mix of long and short par-4’s which made me feel like I wasn’t playing the same hole over and over again and kept me on my toes. I was also a big fan of the bunkering, which in many cases were just carved out of natural hillsides and really added to the landscape visually.

Along with the good, EH has its share of holes which I wasn’t a fan of, with numbers 1, 13, 14, 17 coming to mind immediately. I thought 1 was just not a great hole and a bit of a long slog to start the round. Sitting right next to the wetlands (swamp) the hole was seriously wet and balls were plugging on the hole even when the rest of the course was pretty dry. To me it was just three shots with little strategy to note. 13 I thought was an amazingly bad par-3 for a course where the other three were really solid, also set in a low lying swamp like area it just didn’t fit the course for me. 14 is supposed to be a risk reward hole, but to me (a 4 handicap) there was such a little reward for going for the green and just so much risk that I can’t imagine anyone except a PGA Tour pro with a 5 iron in his hands going for the green in two. When playing the hole as a 3 shot hole it is pretty forgettable. 17 is one of two holes, 10 being the other, that you could tell was totally redone and softened for the US Open…flat, straight, and a boring green is not a good combination.

I do think that Erin Hills would be more fun for a lower handicap golfer than someone with a 15+ handicap. Is that what we at GCA would call ideal? Of course not, but the course has so many forced carries, blind shots, uphill 2nd shots and pretty tough greens that most higher handicap golfers will find themselves miserable and playing a very long round.

We teed off at roughly 9am on a Saturday morning. It looks like they have been doing 15 min intervals to make sure that groups are not on top of each other all day. From all accounts it looks like the succeeded as we never saw the group ahead or behind us all day, and it was a full tee sheet. The bad news? It took us a little over 5 hours to play even though we didn’t wait for a single shot. Most of the extra time was used looking for lost balls from the two higher handicaps we were paired with. Made for a long round. By contrast my buddy and I played another course outside of Milwaukee that afternoon and we walked that in 2 hours and 45 min.

Overall Erin Hills has its issues and is in no way a perfect golf course. But I found myself enjoying it and its true uniqueness in an area of the country where unique golf is lacking in places. At $160/round, it’s not cheap, but when you compare that rate to a lot of the “blah” publics in Chicago and Cog Hill’s $150 price tag, I can’t imagine not heading up for a round or two a season. Erin Hills is also a great compliment to a Lawsonia weekend, which is maybe 45 min away.

[jonathan_becker]

Pat,

I always like hearing thoughts about a player's first trip around EH, thanks.  I like the place but it's definitely different.

Could you elaborate a little on why you think there is little reward in going for #14?  To me, it's the most "go" shot on the course.  Maybe it's just a difference in our playing styles, but I'm curious.  Thanks.

[John Kirk]

What a delightful post.  Thanks so much.

[Terry Lavin]

  Phil,

Thanks for the articulate commentary along with the terrific photography.  It makes it easy to see why the USGA would snub Dubs in favor of Erin Hills.  I had better make plans to get up there this season or next. 

[RJ_Daley]

Moving along to comments on the photos of #2hole, which seem very well oriented and having played the early version, is apparent where softening and green enlargement were done.  With Mike Hendren, I hit a drive up into the nearside fescue through the fairway on the upslope, where it was even higher to crest.  But, being blind to the green, really having no idea where it was and how small it was except previous warnings, and the backside considerably more native grass down the backside slope, well it was one of the goofiest holes then, I thought. 

I think the changes are definiteyly improvements, without eliminating the quirk.  Maybe the downside is that I assume that is a forecaddie giving aiming lines for both the left and right blind shots over the eskars, to the green.  So, that aspect isn't eliminated, yet the backside mowing to short grass seems to me to be a very needed improvement.  The enlarged green is also a given from the first turtles back.  Even at that, it does seem very small given its blind to where most normal golfers will play to it from.  I may be wrong, and the new backside of the left blind hill off the tee may get you to a position to see and know what shot and distance you must go for placement on or next to that small green.  But, I'm sure most will still hit less than driver into the valley short of the distant hillside bunkers and need the guy on the hill to give them a line.  I can still imagine that the very cautious golfer may hit iron off tee, wedge or some short iron up the valley knowingly going a bit left of the green, and go for the pitch up to near the pin for a one-putt.  But, best ams and pros should have length and ball control up the left blind side to get it close for the chip and putt., easy birdie.

[Mike Wagner]

Phil,

I'm sitting here with Ran's brother, John, and he was commenting on how outstanding your tour is.  By the way, John is now Erin Hills' Competitions Director. It's great having him here!

[RJ_Daley]

Phil,

I'm sitting here with Ran's brother, John, and he was commenting on how outstanding your tour is.  By the way, John is now Erin Hills' Competitions Director. It's great having him here!

Well then, could you gents tell us what the top of the field for the mid-am qualifier turned in for scores?      I'd imagine they didn't play it totally from the waybacks.  I remember when the course first opened there was a PR story about Steve Stricker giving it a go from 7800 and shooting ~77.  Have any notables taken it on from the tips in the new presentation, that you could reveal?  I am guessing that might be sort of delicate to answer, without the player giving permission to comment,  but I'm hoping not. 

Would it be fair to say that this is a bomb and gouge big hitters course, or a Zack Johnsonesque, always play the 5s as 3 shotters, and maybe even several of the par 4s, from the tips?

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

That's pretty cool -- isn't he the one featured in the GCA Machrihanish profile?

To all:

Thanks for the compliments -- I've learned quite a bit about the course from reading past threads, and talking to folks off-line, and it helped add to the thread.

A few responses...

Jonathan:

There is water on the 13th hole; it's built over some natural kettle ponds, and my angle for that shot wasn't great, as it was from the way-back tees. The pond is more evident from the closer tees, although I don't really think it should come into play for too many players.

From photos I've seen, I really liked that old centerline bunker on #5. Now the hole plays a little more traditionally, with bunker left and right and the golfer threading the tee shot between them. I did wonder, however, in looking at the old course photos whether that bunker of #5 truly played as a centerline bunker, as I'm not sure of the advantage of going right of the bunker. But, others who played it originally may have some thoughts. Maybe there was an advantage in coming at that green from the right side of the fairway.

Agree on the walk there -- even playing from, say, the 6,400 yard tees, EHills strikes me as a tough and long walk.

Mike Nuzzo:

I think that green on #1 has had the same "look" since its inception, in that it's pushed up from its surrounds. Whether it was built that way, I'm not sure. Mike Wagner might have details.

Jim:

As others have mentioned, the thick grass right now seems virtually unplayable, even if you do find your ball. I saw plenty of hunting parties during the Mid-Am qualifying, with players and caddies looking for lost balls in the hay. It's quite penal now, presumably less so as the course grows in.

I think the fairways offer plenty of width, although some have been pinched with bunkers on both sides (#3 is a good example), and some are narrow depending on the line one takes (#2, which is wide for a short short off the tee, but tightens with a gambling tee shot; #15 plays similarly). Some fairways also narrow toward the green -- notably #12, and the new #7). But 5, 8, 10, 11, among others, seem plenty wide -- quite wide, in fact, although I didn't step off any fairway widths. I think a big decision for the USGA will be how wide to keep fairways at the US Open.

I think the greens are pretty basic -- not as wild as some of what I saw on TV re. Chambers Bay (admittedly, TV's the worst place to judge greens), and I'm not even sure they are as contoured as what you'd find at Whistling Straits. #3 at EHillls looks like it could be a fun green, but the impression that stays with me is that a number of greens are fairly simple or greens with two distinct sections with a ridge running through the green -- 7, 10, 14, 15, 16 all seem to have this quality. I would think the greens here might elicit fewer complaints than those at CBay (not trying to say one is better than the other, but I didn't see anything at EH as adventerous re. greens as I did on TV re. CBay).

RJ:

Great minds think alike -- I thought long and hard about doing this one hole at a time, then decided against it, and in retrospect maybe should've done them in groupings of three or four. I don't have a lot of pics of some of the holes -- I tried to focus on holes that had been either changed a lot (like 1, 7 and 10), or those that I just thought were really neat holes (2 and 12, for me, especially).

Re. complexity -- Nice observations; I think some of the changes, from what I can tell, have been aimed at making the course a bit less complex, notably the changes at 5 and 17, which had interesting features (centerline bunker on 5, blind esker on 17) but led presumably to complexity.

Here's the link to the Mid-Am scores:

http://wsga.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/wsga10/event/wsga1041/contest/1/leaderboard.htm (click on "course stats" on the link and you can see how each hole played relative to par.)

The course was played from the blues, about 7,200 yards, and played long, as it had rained the night before. One round under par, and +2 advanced. Interestingly, I had talked with one of the players who advanced -- Scott Perry, from Peoria, IL -- right before he teed off, and he said he'd gotten in the day before and played a practice round, and said he "loved" the course. The power of positive thinking!

Re. #2 -- I really liked that hole, and it's the one I still recall most fondly from walking it a few weeks ago. Strange for the first-time and occasional player, but I'm guessing the Ams and pros will figure out one way to play it, and go from there. I saw lots of players take a healthy swing aimed over the left mound, which left them something to see on the approach into the green. The hole played as one of the easier ones on the course -- the average above-par score per hole was +.53, and the 2nd played .36 over par. It played as the third-easiest hole on the day at the Mid-Am qualifier.

David:

The scale of the place is pretty impressive. I don't know how many trees have been cut down, but I'm guessing it's in the thousands, which helps lend a sense of "bigness" to the place. It's got quite a few less trees than when it first opened.

Bogey:

I think you're right in your sense of the course being a bit clumsy -- I literally got lost on the front nine, thinking 17 was 5. Having walked Blue Mound not long before this, I can't imagine two courses feeling much different. I do think EHills is a very good course, with some truly outstanding holes, and can potentially be a very solid test for the best amateurs and eventually the pros. But the course has an awkwardness to it, particularly less-than-obvious green-to-tee walks.