Congressional

[Jay Flemma]

Great stuff guys.  Is there a time line that can sum up the evoluti0n of the 18 the boys will play for the Open?

Also, let's talk about the holes! 

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Doug: Maybe I wasn't clear - Weiskopf didn't say anything about the greens all the players did - I was just pointing out how even the big hitters back in 1976 were hitting longer irons into 14.  I don't know that Rees changed the greens but it was my understanding that he supervised the green rebuilding/resurfacing.  I remember at the 97 Open that they had installed some underground air systems - I saw them hook up something at the 10th which I believe removed excess moisture. 

A side note - I was a marshal at the 97 Open and on Sunday my job was to sit on the stone wall which forms the pond to the right of the now 11th green and show the players who hit it in the water where they crossed the hazard line - it was very cool.

Jerry,  I'm sorry, it's me that wasn't clear; I was noting that I have never heard a comment from Weiskopf, typically a very opinionated player and personality, about the surface of the greens.  Maybe it was because he won. 

[Jerry Kluger]

Doug: Here's an article I found about the 1995 Senior Open conditions.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-06-29/sports/9506290299_1_senior-open-pga-championship-roots

[Carl Rogers]

Is it possible to create a composite course better than either by themselves?

[Jay Flemma]

That is a fascinating question.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Doug: Here's an article I found about the 1995 Senior Open conditions.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-06-29/sports/9506290299_1_senior-open-pga-championship-roots

This was a major reason that Paul Latshaw, Sr was brought in. He was also work at Riviera at the same time. They ended up mower fairways with walk mowers for the US Open. Many of the best known Supts worked for Mr. L at Congo.

[Jay Flemma]

Had a great conversation with Doug today about the course.  Jerry K up next...anyone have any thoughts on the terrain.  It see3ms like the fairways actually have some tilt from side to side?  Or has that been homogenized by Rees?

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  Here is a video about the SubAir system put into the new greens at Congo.  It's a bit of an ad but there is good information here:

http://www.gcsaa.tv/view.php?id=167

  The work started almost immediately after the 09 AT&T

[Carl Nichols]

Had a great conversation with Doug today about the course.  Jerry K up next...anyone have any thoughts on the terrain.  It see3ms like the fairways actually have some tilt from side to side?  Or has that been homogenized by Rees?

Jay:
I don't know when Rees Jones first started doing work at Congressional, but I first played there about 10 years ago, and IMHO most of the fairways aren't particularly tilted.  I would say that 8 and 11, and perhaps 9, are the only fairways where you're likely to have a significantly sidehill lie.  You're more likely, I think, to have uphill or downhill lies. 

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

   I think Rees Jones started working on the course during the early 90's renovation that included the greens rebuild. 

[Jay Flemma]

Please let's go talk about this at the rees press release thread...I just got that in and it answers a lot of questions.

It also raises plenty as well...

[Jerry Kluger]

Jay: Could you post it or supply a link as many of us would like to know what it says.

[Andy Hughes]

Jerry or Carl or you other guys who play there some...would you say it's a fun or enjoyable course?  I have played Columbia and very much enjoyed it; interesting holes, fun shots, fully challenged but I did not feel beaten up.

I have been a spectator at Tiger's tournament at Congressional few times and it just seems like a tough, tough course.  I fully appreciate the challenge but is it fun and enjoyable to play? 

[Carl Nichols]

Andy:
I really enjoy playing there because it's a very good golf course with great facilities, etc., etc.  But although it has some holes that I consider fun, largely because they contain some severe contours in the greens/greensites -- I'm thinking of 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17 --  I would not characterize it as a really fun course. The changes that Jay posted on the other thread are interesting, because most of the 1989 changes seem like they may have made the course less fun than before....

[JMEvensky]

Andy:
I really enjoy playing there because it's a very good golf course with great facilities, etc., etc.  But although it has some holes that I consider fun, largely because they contain some severe contours in the greens/greensites -- I'm thinking of 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17 --  I would not characterize it as a really fun course. The changes that Jay posted on the other thread are interesting, because most of the 1989 changes seem like they may have made the course less fun than before....

Carl,was there ever any justification for the changes other than making it more attractive for a professional tournament?Does Congressional have a strong playing membership?

I'm just curious how a Board goes about selling a membership on changes that will probably make the golf course more (too?) difficult.

[Carl Nichols]

JM:
I really know nothing about the 1989 changes other than what the Rees Jones' press release, posted by Jay in the other thread, says.  My read of the press release is that some of the changes probably made the course harder, maybe even "fairer" as some use that term, but less fun.  I don't know that for sure, having never played Congressional until 1995.

As for your larger point, Congressional does have a pretty strong playing membership, and I also think they like having one course that's known as one of the harder courses in the country -- it's become almost part of the brand/ethos.

[JMEvensky]

JM:
I really know nothing about the 1989 changes other than what the Rees Jones' press release, posted by Jay in the other thread, says.  My read of the press release is that some of the changes probably made the course harder, maybe even "fairer" as some use that term, but less fun.  I don't know that for sure, having never played Congressional until 1995.

As for your larger point, Congressional does have a pretty strong playing membership, and I also think they like having one course that's known as one of the harder courses in the country -- it's become almost part of the brand/ethos.

Thanks.All I know of Congressional is what I've seen on TV.I don't think I even know anyone who's played it.

[Jerry Kluger]

Andy: Congressional is an experience that should not be missed but enjoyable is a tougher question.  The Blue course is usually very soft because the members want it really green so you have to accept the best tees for your game and the rough is usually thicker and longer than what most people are used to.  I haven't found many options when playing the course so strategy is limited. I guess my best summary would be another big parkland US Open course that will really impress your guests.

[Matt_Ward]

Give high grade for the facilities no doubt.

But as a top tier design ?

Not in this lifetime for me.

Never understood the fanfare attached to the place -- save for the location and the tie to the political heavyweights.

Just a long / tough slog for way too many people.

If anyone sees Congressional as a top 100 course then difficulty and repetitive shots are way too important for them.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Got to agree with Matt.  A test of length is it's one dimensional nature making Congo a day in day out slog.   Congo is one of the more over-rated of the Open classical designs.  It is hard but the TPC basically across the street is easily twice as hard as Congo.  JC

[Carl Rogers]

I guess I am in the extreme minority that liked the 97 Open with the par 3, 18th.  I thought it was a great for the fans and TV.

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

The par-4 (17th) which once again plays as the 18th is a fine hole -- it's the others !

For me -- Congressional is the east coast equivalent of Torrey Pines / South. Just a waste of land that could / should have been better.

If it were not in the nation's capital area the US Open would not be there -- plain and simple in my mind.

[Sam Morrow]

I guess I am in the extreme minority that liked the 97 Open with the par 3, 18th.  I thought it was a great for the fans and TV.

I thought the long par 4 was 18 in 97?

[Jerry Kluger]

Sam: In 97 the 18th was the par 3 - now to satisfy the USGA they reversed the 18th and made it #10 - mediocre hole and awful routing.  They should have done the composite like they did years ago for the Kemper and the PGA.

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

Agreed - maybe someone can explain to me how the place gets rated consistently in the top 100.

Along with Baltusrol Lower I see the DC layout as one of the most overrated layouts and totally lacking in any
design elements worthy of such stature.