[David Cronheim]

Thanks.  I'd agree that it's more fun than a lot of the traditional brutish championship courses.  The knock on it has been that perhaps A) they were a bit too fanatical about the "only moved a spoonful of dirt" on 14 (?) holes concept and B) that although laid out like a links both the severity of some of the greenside slopes and the maintenance meld available on southern Wisconsin clay prohibits a lot of ground game options typical of real links golf.

I didn't have a problem with how little dirt they moved. There are a few blind shots, but only one that you can't avoid with a well-placed shot - #2 tee shot.

Your critique on the upslopes around some of the greens is fair. There are a lot of hole where you must fly the ball on top. However, for me that added to the challenge/interest because you couldn't simply hack the ball up short and let it kick on every hole. Sometimes you had to fly it, sometimes you had to bounce it. That challenge was interesting I thought. Long, short, left, right - there was a "best" way to get it close to every hole and I thought that the level of creativity that evoked was memorable. It allows creativity normally reserved for short game shots and I loved that.

[George Pazin]

I'm going to agree with Mike Davis on this one. I think it's a fantastic course and I've played a number of courses on the current US Open "rota." I think EH is much more interesting than, for example, Congressional or Baltusrol.

For context, it might help to share which of the current Open courses you've played and which of the other top whatever you've played. Not trying to be mean, just trying to get a grasp of what you're saying.

You better hope the NY guys don't see what you said about Bethpage, or you might want to look over your shoulder...

[Howard Riefs]

I'm STUNNED it doesn't crack the top 100 on either GD or GM's lists.

EH is exempt from the GD list as one of the three original course architects, Ron Whitten, is the architecture editor at the magazine.

[Phil McDade]

Some course statistics from the two rounds of medal play that might be of interest (presumably Mr. Davis may look at the course stats as the USGA "tweaks" EH for the Open in six years):

-- EH averaged just over 75 strokes per round, +3. The front nine (37.891) played more than a half-stroke more difficult than the back nine (37.243).

-- The two easiest holes were #s 1 (the par 5 opener) and #11 (shown extensively during yesterday's Golf Channel coverage -- the mid-range par 4). Not terribly surprised by either hole; despite some of the wildly off-line tee shots in yesterday's playoff, #11 has a gathering fairway and a not-terribly-difficult green to negotiate; #1 played as the shortest of the course's par 5s in this set-up. One wonders if Davis might lengthen #1 to provide more of a challenge at the US Open; it played at 563 yds for the Amateur, but can be pushed back another 70-75 yards.

-- The two most difficult holes were #s 8 and 3 -- not surprised at #3, a 500-yard par 4 into the wind with fierce bunkering and a very good and challenging green. #8 was a bit of a surprise, playing nearly a full half-stroke over par, making it the most difficult hole on the course. But, if you don't catch the downslope on that fairway with the drive, you're left w/ a long approach off a potentially downhill lie to a green above you that's pretty shallow and bunkered in front. I guess I can see why it might be hard.

-- EH started off soft -- #s 1 and 2 were two of the four easiest holes on the course during stroke play -- then smacks you with #s 3 and 4, two of the four hardest holes on the course. An interesting ying and yang to start off the round. By and large, the front nine looks like the test you have to get through in order to keep your round in shape; only one of the six hardest holes on the course (#10, the one featured in yesterday's TV coverage -- a whopping 526-yd par 4) was on the back nine. In fact, once you get through hole #12, you've played 7 of the 9 toughest holes on the course, and all six of the most difficult.

-- The two short, gambling par 4s -- #2 and #15 (both set up at 370 yds or shorter, which is short for EH) -- played much differently. #2 played just slightly over par (4.016) as the fourth-easiest hole on the course; it yielded one eagle and 55 birdies, along with 48 bogeys and 7 double-bogeys. This, to me, is the mark of a very good short par 4 -- it yields under-par scores with good execution, but penalizes loose or poor play (note the under-par scores nearly exactly equaled the over-par scores). Golfers were far more careful, it seems, with #15 -- only 28 birdies, with 67 bogeys and 8 doubles (it played as the 8th-toughest hole during stroke play). The stats for the two holes reinforces my view that the green surrounds at #15 are too penalizing for the golfers to take on the risk-reward approach seemingly built into that hole; the risk-reward equation seems to work out much better on #2. Further justification for my view that #2 is one of the best holes at EH. (Paging Pat Craig. )

Stats here from the USGA: http://www.usga.org/ChampEventScore.aspx?id=17179869326&year=2011&type=coursestats

[David Cronheim]

I'm going to agree with Mike Davis on this one. I think it's a fantastic course and I've played a number of courses on the current US Open "rota." I think EH is much more interesting than, for example, Congressional or Baltusrol.

For context, it might help to share which of the current Open courses you've played and which of the other top whatever you've played. Not trying to be mean, just trying to get a grasp of what you're saying.

You better hope the NY guys don't see what you said about Bethpage, or you might want to look over your shoulder...

Haha it's ok, I'm from NJ. We're used to dealing with NY braggards. Bethpage is a good course, don't get me wrong, but it's wildly overrated simply because it's public, in my opinion.

To give some perspective, I've played the following US Open courses: Congressional, Baltusrol, Bethpage, Pinehurst, Erin Hills, and Onwentsia. I've played about 25 of the Top 100 US for Golf Digest/Magazine (Plainfield, Shoreacres, etc. etc.), so I consider myself to have seen a lot, but certainly not all and have a decent standard of comparison.

[Phil McDade]

Thanks.  I'd agree that it's more fun than a lot of the traditional brutish championship courses.  The knock on it has been that perhaps A) they were a bit too fanatical about the "only moved a spoonful of dirt" on 14 (?) holes concept and B) that although laid out like a links both the severity of some of the greenside slopes and the maintenance meld available on southern Wisconsin clay prohibits a lot of ground game options typical of real links golf.

Jud:

A few reactions:

-- I think you can make a pretty good argument that the USGA has directed several changes that have actually softened the no-dirt-moving ethos that was clearly how Lang and esp. Whitten originally envisioned the course. The denuded esker at #17, which led to the possibility of a blind approach into the green from the fairway, is one example; the green at #2 has clearly been expanded from when it first opened; a hogsback feature on #1 fairway has been flattened. I'm not saying it's a better course because of those changes; but I think the course was perhaps even more severe when it first opened in terms of its lay-of-the-land architecture.

-- The course does play -- or at least has here in August -- rather linksy in many respects: the ball runs out on those fescue fairways, and a lot of it is exposed, so with the kind of winds they had yesterday, you really have to take into account how the wind will impact shots. But, on the other hand, it's kind of an "up-down-up" course as David suggests -- lots of elevated tees to fairways down below (some of which have what I'd call a "gathering" element to them -- there are some semi-half-pipe fairways out there) to greens sitting up high. There aren't too many greens that can be approach in a running fashion there (#2 being a notable exception ).

-- One of my main concerns remains whether the USGA can replicate the kind of conditions they are finding right now -- I think the USGA and EHills folks must be overjoyed with the firmness and dry-ness of the course right now, but we've had a run of real dry weather for the better part of a month now. And Wisconsin is historically drier in August than in June -- maybe Davis can use his new powers at the USGA to move the US Open back to August.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, David.

Erin Hills is way up on my wish list, can't wait to see more of it this weekend.

Go JVB!

[David Cronheim]

Thanks, David.

Erin Hills is way up on my wish list, can't wait to see more of it this weekend.

Go JVB!

It's worth a trip. I'm fortunate that my girlfriend lived on the North Shore of Chicago at the time, so it was a quick hour and a half drive, but I think a Whistling Straights/Erin Hills trip would be great. I'd add on EH to a WS visit for a hell of a long weekend. The cottages are very cool as well. You really do feel like you're in Ireland.

[Jud_T]

David,

You seem fairly well travelled.  Would you personally rank EH above places like Pinehurst #2 and Shoreacres?  

Phil,

Fair enough.  I reserve judgement as I haven't played or seen (besides yesterday's coverage) the latest version of the course.  I played it several times in it's earliest incarnation.  And I do prefer it to Whistling Straights for reference.  But changes to appease the USGA such as increasing green sizes and eliminating blind shots may or may not be progress IMO...

[Phil McDade]

David,

You seem fairly well travelled.  Would you personally rank EH above places like Pinehurst #2 and Shoreacres?  

Phil,

Fair enough.  I reserve judgement as I haven't played or seen (besides yesterday's coverage) the latest version of the course.  I played it several times in it's earliest incarnation.  And I do prefer it to Whistling Straights for reference.  But changes to appease the USGA such as increasing green sizes and eliminating blind shots may or may not be progress IMO...

Jud:

I think there's a difference between, say, changing the slopes of greens at Merion East at the request of the USGA (awful, in my view) vs.  similar kinds of changes at EHills. For better or worse, EHills and their ilk are now the template for courses holding majors -- we'll see alot more of their kind than we will of the Merion's of the world hosting majors. And that means tweaking them at the behest of the blue coats.

[David Cronheim]

David,

You seem fairly well travelled.  Would you personally rank EH above places like Pinehurst #2 and Shoreacres?

This is where I had trouble deciding...I can't say it's better than those courses, but, frankly, I can't say it's worse. It's that good. I should mention that I haven't played the revamped #2, though. I cannot understand though why EH is outside the Top 100. It shouldn't be.

I happen to rank Shoreacres very high because I love Seth Raynor courses, so that might be a bit of my own bias. Shoreacres could never host a US Open, whereas EH will, so make of that what you want. Comparing those two is an apples to oranges problem...

[Terry Lavin]

Davis may just be right on this one.  He's saying that it may wind up being one of the great championship tests in golf.  In the USGA's argot, this means that Erin Hills has every chance to be a venue that will be viewed as a "great" site for an Amateur, a US Open of other national championships that it puts on.  I think it does.  It may not be an architectural masterpiece, but then again, not very many architectural masterpieces are appropriate hosts for the US Amateur or the US Open.  This course is long, but has enormous setup flexibility.  If the wind picks up, it can be incredibly demanding.  The greens look like they will handle excessive speeds just fine.  And the property is perhaps peerless in its ability to accommodate enormous amounts of spectators and its ability to provide those spectators unencumbered views on virtually every hole on the property.  If the USGA thought the first Bethpage Open was a grand slam, this site has every chance to equal or surpass it.

[Phil McDade]

Good opportunity right now to see some of the elasticity that Terry refers to -- par 4 #4, played at 450 yds for stroke play, set up today at 286 yds with the opportunity to drive the green. Uihlein and Fritelli just showed how the hole has a lot of teeth still at such short yardage. Coverage on the Golf Channel for the next 1-1/2 hours.

[Sven Nilsen]

Good opportunity right now to see some of the elasticity that Terry refers to -- par 4 #4, played at 450 yds for stroke play, set up today at 286 yds with the opportunity to drive the green. Uihlein and Fritelli just showed how the hole has a lot of teeth still at such short yardage. Coverage on the Golf Channel for the next 1-1/2 hours.

Playing 4 at just under 300 yds in match play is a fantastic concept.  Waiting to see the first guy lay up to wedge range off the tee, don't think its happened yet today.

[Phil McDade]

Good opportunity right now to see some of the elasticity that Terry refers to -- par 4 #4, played at 450 yds for stroke play, set up today at 286 yds with the opportunity to drive the green. Uihlein and Fritelli just showed how the hole has a lot of teeth still at such short yardage. Coverage on the Golf Channel for the next 1-1/2 hours.

Playing 4 at just under 300 yds in match play is a fantastic concept.  Waiting to see the first guy lay up to wedge range off the tee, don't think its happened yet today.

That's what happens when you only have one mid-am guy make match-play. Several folks butchering the hole via driver off the tee, when that pin to that green seems receptive to a wedge from the fairway.

[David Cronheim]

That is one downside - it seems like EH favors younger bombers tremendously. However, one would've expected more mid-ams to have a shot at making the field considering Blue Mound was only 6600 yds.

[David_Tepper]

Those interested in the perspectives on the courses and the event from a 52-year old in the qualifying field might want to check out Rand Haag's blog:

www.randyhaag.com

[David Cronheim]

Those interested in the perspectives on the courses and the event from a 52-year old in the qualifying field might want to check out Rand Haag's blog:

www.randyhaag.com

Great read - he has quite the CV.

[Phil McDade]

Mike Davis goes over the "tweaks" he envisions for Erin Hills for the US Open:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/128405428.html

[Jeff Tang]

Mike Davis goes over the "tweaks" he envisions for Erin Hills for the US Open:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/128405428.html

Phil, thanks for the link, pretty interesting.

Regarding play yesterday I was surprised to see the tee up on #4.  When I played EH last Fall the pin on 4 was over to the right and there wasn't much room there at all to keep the ball on the green.  A little short and the ball was coming back at you,  but it was also very easy to get it past the hole and roll off the back.  I wondered at the time when the hole was cut over there how it would play at the US Open when the greens would be really fast and thought it might be too severe especially for a hole that can play pretty long.  From TV yesterday it looked like this is the pin they were playing and they played the hole up at under 300 yards which would make that hole location much more accessible with a wedge.  Curious to see if they do the same at the US Open or if they'll use the hole at its full length when the hole is over there.

[PCCraig]

Mike Davis goes over the "tweaks" he envisions for Erin Hills for the US Open:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/128405428.html

Some interesting stuff in there:

On the first hole:

The back one, they can go ahead and bulldoze because we’ll never use it."

That's what they said about 7500 yard courses back in 2000!

On what I thought to be probably the weakest hole:

No. 8, par-4: "Surprised me. I was very concerned that 8 wouldn’t play right and it’s played great."

On 14:

No. 14, par-5: "There are going to be some big changes for the Open.

And on 16:

No. 16, par-3: "Has been a very pleasant surprise. I think that hole has played beautifully. We have a new tee that’s up a little bit to the left; when we have it there in match play it will be a partially blind shot where you just see the top of the flag. You don’t see the whole flagstick, which is kind of neat."

Overall, does Mike Davis play architect a little too much??

[Phil McDade]

Jeff:

That is a pretty severe pin position on #4 -- that's a new green (the original was a punchbowl some 30-40 yds closer to the tee) that sits on a small shelf, with a pretty sharp back-slope, and the green is not that deep, esp. on that right side (as the golfer is looking at it from the fairway). I hadn't thought of a short tee on #4, but looking back at some photo threads, the hole lends itself to that, because of that fronting central bunker and the upslope of the fairway leading up to the green. I would've liked to see whether any of the guys playing yesterday geared down and played it 5-iron/wedge; I'm not sure that's in their DNA. It's a bit less severe on the left side of that green, which is where they'll place the pin most days I'd think when the hole plays at its usual 450 yds.

Pat:

I hope to post some pics from some of the EHills threads that illustrate some of Davis' recommended changes. My initial thoughts: #3 had easily the coolest-looking green out there, but maybe it's too severe (it was changed at the behest of the USGA to tie it closer to the bunkers fronting the green); you'd have to watch it pretty closely for a few days to see the range of putts there. I like his thinking on #5, although if I read Davis correctly, he's talking about a back tee on the right side of the fairway, as opposed to the current one, which is high up on a hill on the left side of the fairway. Do they have the room for that? I really like this thinking on #16.

Yes, I think Davis tends to play more big-picture architect than Meeks, who seemed more concerned about conditions and set-up (rough, green speed, pin positions) than the architectural nuances of holes. But, I also think he feels a particular closeness to EHills on this issue; he's been involved in the changes here since the very beginning -- different than, say, Chambers Bay.

[David Cronheim]

I think some of Davis' tweaks are a bit over the top and nit-picky. I might argue that a sign of great course architecture is that there is an element of chaos in the design - not everything is perfectly engineered. Just as minimalist designers let the natural contours of the land dictate the layout (which are far from "perfect"), so too should an architect allow for some shots that are either "boring" or a little "bizarre." It's part of the fun. Davis seems hellbent on making every hole play as if it were the ONE best hole on the course. That's why they have 18 of them. Having one somewhat easy, straight tee shot isn't necessarily a bad thing.

We have a word for when every shot it "unique" - gimmicky.

[Phil McDade]

A solid recap of yesterday's play, including the terrific match between Cantlay and Henley that included a pitch-in from Cantlay on 17 to extend the match, and dueling eagle putts on the 19th hole to keep it going as well. A very good contest in the round of 32:

http://host.madison.com/sports/golf/article_1feee29e-cf4b-11e0-b457-001cc4c002e0.html

[David Cronheim]

A solid recap of yesterday's play, including the terrific match between Cantlay and Henley that included a pitch-in from Cantlay on 17 to extend the match, and dueling eagle putts on the 19th hole to keep it going as well. A very good contest in the round of 32:

http://host.madison.com/sports/golf/article_1feee29e-cf4b-11e0-b457-001cc4c002e0.html

Wow...that's incredible golf over a very difficult course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()