Interview with Bill Love - Olympic Club and more

[Dan King]

Jay Flemma writes:
We get it - you hate it.  But why do you have to spoil everyone else's fun?

Now that is funny.

Cheers,
Dan King

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
 --Groucho Marx

[JLahrman]

David Tepper writes:
Confession time: I don't think I've played Olympic Lake this century. I figure I have played the course around a dozen times, and I'm having trouble remembering much about the par-3s. I remember the first par-3 being a long one -- I don't remember it being blind. I remember the 8th and it being completely blind. I know there is one down by the lake, and I seem to recall parts of the green being blind.  I've been trying to remember the fourth, but it isn't coming to me.  Which of the four par-3s are you saying wasn't blind?  

I don't remember ever thinking there was excessive blind shots, but then I don't have the problem with blind shots others seem to have.

I'm not in the least bit concerned that Greg Norman didn't see his ace go in the hole. My guess is that it is a bigger deal to you than it was to Greg.

Cheers,
Dan King

Dan,

#3 is a downhill par-3. #13 and #15 are the two par 3s on the back nine and they are both down by the lake.

I've only played the course one time, and those two holes are probably the toughest for me to distinguish when I think back about the round. By my memory, they're both fairly flat, although blind in the sense that you can't see much of the putting surface from the tee.

[Dan King]

JLahrman writes:
I've only played the course one time, and those two holes are probably the toughest for me to distinguish when I think back about the round. By my memory, they're both fairly flat, although blind in the sense that you can't see much of the putting surface from the tee.

Thanks.  I think I'm doing the same thing, confusing 13 and 15.  I'm usually pretty good at remembering holes, as long as I start on the first. It was bothering me I couldn't remember both par-3s on a course I've played as many times as the Lake course.

Cheers,
Dan King

I can't exactly describe it, but as I looked at the putt, the hole looked as big as a wash tub, I suddenly became convinced I couldn't miss. All I tried to do was keep the sensation by not questioning it.
 --Jack Fleck (on the final round of the 1955 U.S. Open at Olympic Club, where he tied Ben Hogan, and went on to beat him in the playoff the next day)

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I find the old 8 to have been one of the weaker holes on the course. The new 8 is a better hole. Now the transition to the hole from 7 is nothing but bad work by the design team. The work on 7 was a significant change for the worse. The old 7 was one of the great green complexes and short par 4's in golf. I do not see where anyone would call Olympic Lake a Jones Sr course. There is and alway have been merit in Joel's feelings about how things are done at Olympic. I think it is not as bad or dramatic as he does but that does not take away from the points he is making. I am one who feels the USGA has had its time there and needs to move on. They do too much damage and demand too much time of the membership as well as make changes that harm the course more than help it and these changes take years to undo. Olympic  needs to say goodbye. We at Olympic do not need anymore US Opens till the USGA becomes easier to deal with for more than a select 50 of so members they take care of.  I feel very strongly the membership is treated very poorly during the US Open but well there are plenty of others who can speak up on that subject. Frankly speaking I think the USGA  makes life difficult for the staff from the Pro on down. I feel for these people who job to serve the membership is challenging in its own right. I tried to order a belt this week. Well the Proshop will be a corporate hospitality area during the Open so yet another few months to half a year of normal business are lost as well as the issues it creates for the team there to do their normal jobs, again for what the public sees as one week. I do feel Love et all did a good job on the green changes with only 12 being significantly different than before of the ones not meant for change. I still feel the key to the course and its greatness which no one can mess up are the reverse cantor fairways and the small green complexes set in locations which make for being below the hole so very critical.

[Joel_Stewart]

Let me address a few things.  Regarding Jim Nugents question, Olympic is in much better condition now than 10 years ago, What top golf course isn’t?  Advances in agronomy allow this.  I’m the first to admit that when the superintendent was first hired, the tree removal program and the fairway top dressing program worked wonders.  The fairway turf is in great condition.    Bill Love had nothing to do with this. It’s always been my argument that this superintendent knows how to grow grass.  He just has no respect for classic architecture or managing his employees among other things.  Furthermore he has absolutely no clue on the ground game thinking this game is strictly an aerial game.  With the type of contours Olympic has, this is completely misguided.

The greens are an entirely different story.  There is no questions the greens needed to be rebuilt.  Not one member opposed it.  What was redicioulous was they cored out sand to build USGA spec greens.  This was done at Bill Loves insistence and it’s my general opinion that because of Bills lack of knowledge and inexperience it’s the only way he knew.  Secondly, at the superintendent’s insistence they sodded the greens instead of seeding them.  Both of these added considerable extra cost.  The greens have never been perfect since the redo and are rock hard. 

Here is a photo of the new 7th after being sodded.  The fact is this was changed from a 3 level green to a 2 level green is because Bill Love and the superintendent didn’t know how to build the old contours at USGA spec.


Back to Jim Nugent’s question.  IMHO, the course is not as good architecturally as it use to be.  As I mention before, the course is a fraction of what it could be.  I suggest you look at some of the classic photos like the one I provided.  It’s funny yet sad that Bill Love was given 600 photos by the history committee and couldn’t figure out anything.  I personally had to take him and the superintendent to the 15th hole with photos and explain it to them.  Regarding Weiskopfs work, in all fairness, the green was surrounded by trees and was extremely small.  There were maybe 3 spots for a pin and very little light and air circulation.  Weiskopf did exactly what he was told.  Fast forward 20 years, all the trees have died and been taken out.  They rebuilt the green to take advantage of this. 

To Jay.  Of course it’s going to be a great US Open and I certainly don’t underestimate the golf course.  The course is set up to test the best players in the world.  The problem is what about after the US Open?  All the words you hear about Olympic, “it’s long and hard”,” a stern test”, “very difficult”, or from Mike Davis “the first 6 holes are the hardest opening holes in US Open history”, make it unplayable for almost everybody else, including 97% of the members and their guests.  The course has been modernized and prepped for the last 5 years, all for 1 week in June 2012. 

I’m not trying to spoil anything.  I’m just telling the story of the back room politics at this club and responding to your interview with Bill Love.  He’s a hired gun, a C rate architect with a mediocre career that nobody has ever heard of.  For that he is making a great amount of money for doing virtually nothing except carrying out the orders of the superintendent and now touting himself as a restoration architect.

[David_Tepper]

"As for your comments on the eighth, I understand you have a personal preference for visibility. Others liked the old hole. But aren't there larger questions at issue here other than just your personal preferences vs. someone else's?  According to Joel, there was never any sort of universal condemnation of the old hole by the membership.  Do you agree with this?  If so, why change the hole?  According to Joel, they moved the hole just so they could it longer for the Open.  Is this the case?  Assuming this is the case, does this make sense to you?   Does it make sense for a course to bulldoze an acceptable hole to enhance the scorecard for one tournament held at Olympic once a decade?"  

DMoriarity -

I don't think I said I had I had a "personal preference for visibility." I said that I thought 3 out of 4 blind par-3's on one golf course was possibly 1 or 2 too many.

Regarding lengthening the 7th hole by moving the green back and orienting the 8th hole to its current placement, I can assure you that these changes were most definitely not something drawn out of thin air by Love & Finlen. The possibility of making those changes has been contemplated at the OC for well over 20 years.

While the OC has hosted the US Open once every decade or so, in the past 9 years it has also hosted the USGA Juniors, the US Amateur and the California State Amateur. It may have hosted the Pacific Coast Amateur as well in this time frame. While the courses at the OC are played extensively by the members & their guests, the OC also has a tradition & heritage of providing a venue for championship golf events. Surely that merits some consideration in how the course has evolved over the years.

DT      

[Jay Flemma]

JLahrman writes:
I've only played the course one time, and those two holes are probably the toughest for me to distinguish when I think back about the round. By my memory, they're both fairly flat, although blind in the sense that you can't see much of the putting surface from the tee.

Thanks.  I think I'm doing the same thing, confusing 13 and 15.  I'm usually pretty good at remembering holes, as long as I start on the first. It was bothering me I couldn't remember both par-3s on a course I've played as many times as the Lake course.

Cheers,
Dan King

I can't exactly describe it, but as I looked at the putt, the hole looked as big as a wash tub, I suddenly became convinced I couldn't miss. All I tried to do was keep the sensation by not questioning it.
 --Jack Fleck (on the final round of the 1955 U.S. Open at Olympic Club, where he tied Ben Hogan, and went on to beat him in the playoff the next day)

Is there a child of five around? A child of five could do it...

[DMoriarty]

David,

Whoever it is who has a personal preference for visibility, I wonder about changing a hole on a old, critically acclaimed course absent strong condemnation from the membership as a whole.  Is Joel mistaken when he claims that this was NOT the case at Olympic?

You mention four our five other tournaments that Olympic has hosted over the past decade, other than the Open, and Olympic's history of hosting "championship tournaments," as if this justifies the changes.  I guess it is a question of priorities, but i have to wonder about the that tradeoff.

[Patrick Kiser]

I'm kind of in agreement with David Tepper that too much of a good thing is not necessarily ideal.  I like variety + blindness can be fun, but in moderation.  Just for discussion, if one of the par 3s had to be blind ... which one would be / would have been the better one to have blind?

I'm thinking given the routing and sequence of holes that an "easier blind" 8th or 15th would have been the better choices.

Why?

Because 1-6 is tough enough as it is and to bring some relief the 8th might be good timing.  Otherwise, the 15th before going into the back to back par 5s.

I swung by today and it's mind boggling to see the USGA work going on for the stands and tents.  BTW, the clubhouse interior really is something to be seen.  Wonderful Spanish Colonial Revival wooden beamed ceilings and quite nice overall.  Definitely impressive to see.

I have to say the Seth Raynor course and routing map is quite interesting.  I'm glad to see the club has preserved this and placed it on display within the locker room for members and guests.

[Matthew Mollica]

That Raynor plan is reeally something isn't it Pat. I could have looked at it for hours.
Great routing and direction change, and wonderful green shapes in particular.
 
MM

[Joey Chase]

I will be passing through the area in January, next year.  I was planning on walking the course if possible.  Is there any talk amongst the membership about returning any of the changed features to their pre-u.s. open state?  Is there no debate over the changes within the club, or is it just here?  Would the USGA not return if they hadn't agreed to the changes? 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Joel
If you replaced the word superintendent with the word industry would it read similarly?
On paper your super may be great, according to the industry.
You are fighting the industry, he is not.
Tough battle
Cheers

[Scott Stambaugh]

Joel
If you replaced the word superintendent with the word industry would it read similarly?
On paper your super may be great, according to the industry.
You are fighting the industry, he is not.
Tough battle
Cheers

Mike-

Interesting comment. Are you saying those of us in the industry have no respect for classic golf course architecture?  If so, I think you need to get out more.

Scott

[Tim Passalacqua]

Joey,

The only really big thing to change has been #8, obviously a huge one.  Tees have been added and mowing lines have changed a little bit.  One thing the membership will have to decide is to keep the new chipping areas added on 1, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17.  Olympic has a lot of pushup greens and the USGA is really bringing that feature out for the tournament.  The only real thing to change back would be #8 down the road, if the members decide it was a bad move.

[Joey Chase]

Joey,

The only really big thing to change has been #8, obviously a huge one.  Tees have been added and mowing lines have changed a little bit.  One thing the membership will have to decide is to keep the new chipping areas added on 1, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17.  Olympic has a lot of pushup greens and the USGA is really bringing that feature out for the tournament.  The only real thing to change back would be #8 down the road, if the members decide it was a bad move.

Really? Just the 8th?  It seems like they've done a fair bit more than that judging by the other posts on this thread alone.  I see they've changed the 7th green, added a new bunker to the 17th.  I know it's not like adding a new hole (the 8th), but I would consider these changes significant as well, no?  Again, I am looking from the outside in.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think 8 will stay there. It seems most like the new hole more than the old. I think the change at 7 will stay too even though it is bad to me. I do not see the usga changes to mowing lines and shaved areas staying for the most part. The course is hard enough as is without all these changes. 17 will be brutal for the membership. I do not see how you play the hole with the normal dampness factor. That right side will be a bear. The new trap is not going to stay from what I am hearing.

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel
If you replaced the word superintendent with the word industry would it read similarly?
On paper your super may be great, according to the industry.
You are fighting the industry, he is not.
Tough battle
Cheers

Not sure I fully I understand the question but I thought about posting a thread to see how much of a supers job is about the turf.  For the super at Olympic as I have said, he's great a growing grass.  What about the other aspects, dealing with vendors, boards, budgets, employees, equipment.

I have complete respect for superintendents, especially since I have observed Tom Bastis who is at the nearby Cal Club and was the national superintendent of the year last year.  Compared to Finlen, they are night and day.

[Joel_Stewart]

Is there any talk amongst the membership about returning any of the changed features to their pre-u.s. open state?  Is there no debate over the changes within the club, or is it just here?  Would the USGA not return if they hadn't agreed to the changes? 

There are not going to be any changes unless the superintendent wants the changes.  I did hear they are going to take out the tee on #16 which makes the hole close to 700 yards.

Not sure if anyone remembers but when they changed the 7th and 8th holes, the club had already signed the US Open contract.  Within the contract, states the club is not allowed to make any major changes without USGA approval.  Oops.  The club then has a series of calls to explain themselves and the USGA agreed.

Someday, and there are members who would like to see a true restoration you may see it.  It's completely puzzling because of the great success at LACC, Pinehurst, Cal Club, SFGC, Meadow Club, members know quality and understand it.  Olympic has gone the way of Medinah, Cog Hill and even the nearby Lake Merced golf club which allowed Rees to bulldoze a very historic site which Mackenzie had worked on.

Here is some real quality Bill Love work.  The walk from the 7th green to the 8th tee was maybe 25 yards.  Now it's 200 yards and this is the view.

[David_Tepper]

"Whoever it is who has a personal preference for visibility, I wonder about changing a hole on a old, critically acclaimed course absent strong condemnation from the membership as a whole.  Is Joel mistaken when he claims that this was NOT the case at Olympic?

You mention four our five other tournaments that Olympic has hosted over the past decade, other than the Open, and Olympic's history of hosting "championship tournaments," as if this justifies the changes.  I guess it is a question of priorities, but i have to wonder about the that tradeoff."

DMoriarty -

If changes at golf clubs were dependent on "strong condemnation" (or strong approval, for that matter), the odds are pretty slim that nothing at any club would ever change. Do you think the widely acclaimed tree-removal at Oakmont would have ever taken place if it was dependent on a consensus approval of the membership?  

It seems to me that, when one joins a golf club, one is (or should be) well aware of that club's history regarding changes to the course and its history regarding hosting prominent golf tournaments. Any golf club that hosts events for the best golfers in the country or in the world will be under some pressure over the years to keep their course "relevant" to players of that caliber.

No doubt in some ways such a golf course has, at times, to serve two masters. A member at such a club has to have confidence that the leadership of their club and the professional advisers they hire will make the best choices for all parties concerned. Otherwise, they should find another club to join.      

It should also be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, the lamented 7th hole on the Lake Course had been altered at least once since the RT Jones 1955 treatment of the course.

DT  
  

[David_Tepper]

Joey Chase -

Other than the change to the 8th hole and the new green on the 7th (which lengthens that hole by 15-20 yards), there have been no material changes whatsoever to the Lake Course. The new/temporary bunker in the lay-up area on #17 is of no real consequence.

The biggest change to the course over the past 5-10 years has been the substantial number of trees that have been removed. Personally, I would love to see another couple hundred taken out.

DT
 

[Patrick Kiser]

Joel,

Funny you should mention that small tee box on the 16th.  I saw it yesterday and we were told it will also double up as tee for ... the 11th.  Interesting...  I'm not sure how that's going to work during the US Open, but I'll be interested in seeing if it will affect the pace.  I was also told the tee would be dropped post tournament to restore ... pace of play.

One fellow teed it up from that tee box and bombed a long draw down the 16th with a short to mid iron remaining to the green.

...  I do not see the usga changes to mowing lines and shaved areas staying for the most part. The course is hard enough as is without all these changes.

Tiger,

On the said 16th, we could see the shortly mowed grass to the left of the green and I asked as well if there was any intention of keeping this post tournament ... the answer was no.  It's hard to tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but to me it seems it would provide members with some additional playability for the bump and run game.  My guess is it's likely a maintenance concern.

The biggest change to the course over the past 5-10 years has been the substantial number of trees that have been removed. Personally, I would love to see another couple hundred taken out.

DT

David,

I would agree about taking out more.  Granted, it's much better now plus I'm seeing some new plantings like in Joel's photo ... which I don't understand.  I wonder if there's a requirement to replace and not just remove.

I clearly noticed one can now see across from the 17th fairway to the 9th green and 10th hole.  A good thing I feel.

[DMoriarty]

David, 

From the outside it sounds like maybe the course is serving one master, not two.
 

No doubt in some ways such a golf course has, at times, to serve two masters. A member at such a club has to have confidence that the leadership of their club and the professional advisers they hire will make the best choices for all parties concerned. Otherwise, they should find another club to join.      

Have confidence in the leadership and the professional advisors, or find another club?   Seems a bit heavy handed, don't you think?

[DMoriarty]

If Love really wanted to leave his mark he should have gone with something like this . . .

[David_Tepper]

DMoriarty -

"From the outside it sounds like maybe the course is serving one master, not two."

That presumes the "sounds" you are hearing are an accurate account of what has transpired. Over 1,200 Olympic Club members are volunteering in the staging and operation of this year's U.S Open. I would view that as a strong indication that the club's membership supports hosting the tournament.  

"Have confidence in the leadership and the professional advisors, or find another club?   Seems a bit heavy handed, don't you think?"
 
How else do you want me to say it? When you join a club that has a history of hosting championship-level golf events (such as Olympic, Winged Foot, Baltustrol, Medinah, Riviera, Congressional, Oakmont, etc.) you have to expect such a club will continue to do so in the future. You also have to expect the courses at such clubs will change & evolve over time to remain relevant for that level of competition. Would you agree with that?

Some people enjoy the chance to play a major championship caliber golf course on a regular basis. Other people could care less and would not want to see their club bothered by all that hosting such events entails. Don't you think that people joining a golf club should be aware of what they should expect in this regard? Would you join a golf club if you did not have confidence in the decisions the leadership of the club has made over the years?  

DT      
  

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty -

"From the outside it sounds like maybe the course is serving one master, not two."

That presumes the "sounds" you are hearing are an accurate account of what has transpired.

I presume that Joel's account is accurate.    Are you saying it isn't?  Because while you obviously disagree with his opinion about what has happened, you don't seem to be disagreeing much with his account of what has transpired.

But maybe I am wrong about this?  What does Joel have wrong?  Was the new 8th not built with the Open in mind?  Was the 7th not changed with the same thing in mind?   Was the 7th green built to USGA specs even though it had been sand and the other greens are sand?  Is Joel mistaken when he says that the walk between holes was 25 yards and is now 200 yards?  Is his photo of the work inaccurate?   Was Joel wrong when he said that he was not aware any strong dislike of the old 8th among the members? 

"Have confidence in the leadership and the professional advisors, or find another club?   Seems a bit heavy handed, don't you think?"
 
How else do you want me to say it? When you join a club that has a history of hosting championship-level golf events (such as Olympic, Winged Foot, Baltustrol, Medinah, Riviera, Congressional, Oakmont, etc.) you have to expect such a club will continue to do so in the future. You also have to expect the courses at such clubs will change & evolve over time to remain relevant for that level of competition. Would you agree with that?

No. I wouldn't agree with any of this.  I think that the members of these clubs ought to take the opposite position.  These are some of the best courses in the world, and they ought not allow themselves to be bastardized because the USGA is afraid to stand up to the equipment manufacturers.