I thought I heard an announcer say that Oak Hill was the perfect course to host

[Sean_A]

Did Oak Hill identify the best player this week? Absolutely! Very happy to see Dufner win.

And what if Joe Bloggs would have won?  I can't get my head around the idea that a golf course identifies winners.  Its right there with "the course requires every club in the bag" as a way to say its great.  Neither make any sense.  

Lets hope OH is the final litmus test and that moving forward major tournament organizers will recognize that narrow courses create repetitive shots.  We already have half the shots as putts - usually not great viewing.  Mind you, until hardcore golfers tune out, things are harder to change.  What do they say the definition of insanity is?

Ciao

[Bill Gayne]

Muirfield provided a great champion and an exciting golf course. There is no trade-off here.

[Bill Gayne]

I would like to think a PGA site could only get better after Oak Hill but I'm not real hopeful. We've seen Valhalla a couple of times before.

Hopefully all the baba booey knuckleheads will stay at Oak Hill.

Dufnering will be replaced by the post victory ass grab on the PGA Tour and club championships everywhere.

Has Valhalla ever produced a tournament that wasn't excellent? I get that it may not be on the level of Pinehurst from the standpoint of an architecture nerd, but it has a lot of heroic shots that present some real drama in a pro tournament. I may be biased since I grew up less than a mile from the course, but I know I'll watch more than the 20 minutes I watched this year. Oak Hill is just so one-dimensional that it produced a horrendously boring tournament.

On a sample size of two it has produced Mark Brooks and Tiger Woods (the dual with Bob May was a classic).

[Sean_A]

Muirfield provided a great champion and an exciting golf course. There is no trade-off here.

How would Muirfield have been any different if they had a summer like the last  5 five, rather than a heat wave and drought

Jeff, I am no fan of Muirfield, but to equate OH with it is beyond the pale.  

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

Jeff, I am no fan of Muirfield, but to equate OH with it is beyond the pale.  

To demand that all major sites match up with another is also beyond the pale (sigh, I expect that I'll have to elaborate/defend that one.)

[Steve Lapper]

Trevino won a PGA at Tanglewood...does that make it a great course? Of course not!

Bending logic to credit a dull and un-inspirational hodgepodge of reckless redesign as great for crowning a winner who hit fairways and greens is ludicrous. Dufner outplayed everyone, most certainly, however Oak Hill's heavy rough and mindless tweaking shouldn't get a pass from anyone other than the pathetically clueless PGA tour.

[jeffwarne]

Muirfield provided a great champion and an exciting golf course. There is no trade-off here.

How would Muirfield have been any different if they had a summer like the last  5 five, rather than a heat wave and drought

Jeff, I am no fan of Muirfield, but to equate OH with it is beyond the pale.  

Ciao

Not comparing the courses, but rather the setups.
I don't see how Muirfield with 2 foot hay short, left, and right of every fairway is any different. (unless in a summer drought which is no longer UK normal)
I saw lots of recovery at Oak Hill this week, I saw very little when I played Muirfield, if the ball was found at all

[Jud_T]

It would be interesting to see whether courses we deem good design/presentation have any impact on ratings.  If you could control for the Tiger factor etc. and just see if people enjoy watching say Pinehurst or St. Andrews vs. Oak Hill or Valhalla.  Sounds like a Masters thesis for one of you promising communication/statistics majors.  Like the amateur event at Bandon vs. the same event at a lesser venue.  I can't believe the ratings were very good yesterday, although I'm sure they would have been if it had been Tiger, Phil and Rory duking it out down the stretch....

[Terry Lavin]

It would be interesting to see whether courses we deem good design/presentation have any impact on ratings.  If you could control for the Tiger factor etc. and just see if people enjoy watching say Pinehurst or St. Andrews vs. Oak Hill or Valhalla.  Sounds like a Masters thesis for one of you promising communication/statistics majors.  Like the amateur event at Bandon vs. the same event at a lesser venue.  I can't believe the ratings were very good yesterday, although I'm sure they would have been if it had been Tiger, Phil and Rory duking it out down the stretch....

One of the best majors in recent history was the US Open at Torrey Pines. Or the PGA at Valhalla with Tiger and Bob May. Great ratings. Less than stirring architecture. Call the next case.

[Jason Thurman]

Has Valhalla ever produced a tournament that wasn't excellent?

On a sample size of two it has produced Mark Brooks and Tiger Woods (the dual with Bob May was a classic).

That wasn't the question. Trevor Immelman won a Masters and Michael Campbell won at Pinehurst, so I'm personally convinced that anyone can get hot and win and it doesn't reflect much on the quality of the course.

Valhalla has hosted 5 high profile tournaments - the two PGAs, two Seniors, and the Ryder Cup. Regardless of the winner, 3 of the 4 medal tournaments went to a playoff and the other was a one-stroke victory. The Ryder Cup was a blast. I can't necessarily quantify how the architecture contributes to consistently excellent tournaments, and it's still a fairly small sample size. But still, there's an obvious trend toward exciting events at Valhalla.

[George Pazin]

Tough to get a feel for Oak Hill on any level when the conditions are so soft. Almost any course would look boring when played by the big boys under those conditions. In a way, it's surprising the scores weren't even lower. Can't say I have a burning desire to play the course, but I feel that way about most parkland major sites.

And that was no grab, just a little pat. The grab probably came later.

I favor those who call for immediate ejection of anyone yelling on the tee shots. I'd do what Jaka suggests, print it on the back of the tickets and toss a few people the first day. Shouldn't take long to sharply curtail the practice.

You'd think if you can figure out a way to track the ball, you could figure out a way to cut the mic feed immediately after impact.

[Andrew Buck]

It is nice to see ball striking and not putting win for a change.I am ok with the rough by the fairways, but the rough around the greens takes away one if golfs skills and makes the short game a crap shoot

I agree.  While it personally doesn't seem the style of course I'd like to play daily, it certainly rewarded ball striking.  Many majors are won on the greens, and that is fine as well, but I have no problem with the occasional test that overly rewards well hit ball (by penalizing those who don't).  

Then again, I just like watching and playing golf.

[Tim Pitner]

Has Valhalla ever produced a tournament that wasn't excellent?

On a sample size of two it has produced Mark Brooks and Tiger Woods (the dual with Bob May was a classic).

That wasn't the question. Trevor Immelman won a Masters and Michael Campbell won at Pinehurst, so I'm personally convinced that anyone can get hot and win and it doesn't reflect much on the quality of the course.

Jason,

Immelman and Campbell are poor examples for your point, in my view.  Immelman is a high quality player who has suffered from injuries.  Campbell is very enigmatic, but when on form, he's a great ball-striker (Johnny Miller was effusive in his praise of Campbell's highly efficient swing) and has won and contended in big events.  

I agree with the general point that you can't judge a course by who wins a given tournament, but trends can be telling--for examples, consider the quality of the winners at Muirfield and, on the other side of the coin, Beem and Yang both winning at Hazeltine.

[Andrew Buck]

I agree with the general point that you can't judge a course by who wins a given tournament, but trends can be telling--for examples, consider the quality of the winners at Muirfield and, on the other side of the coin, Beem and Yang both winning at Hazeltine.

While I agree with the sentiment, it really is just too hard to get a sample size outside of Augusta (and maybe a few that have hosted many.

Tiger could have easily won both PGA's at Hazeltine and then you'd be saying It's produced Tiger X2, Payne and Jacklin, not a bad list.

Muirfield wasn't far removed from having the list contain Roger Davis, John Cook and Stuart Appleby.  

[Chris DeNigris]

Last night was an all time low for me in major viewing. I very nearly turned it off.

Check out the venues for the next 5 years:
Valhalla
Whistling Straits - at least one course that will provide stimulation
Baltusrol lower
Quail Hollow
Bellerive Country club

They really are doing their best to cement the PGA's reputation as the least important major.

Brian,

If McIlroy was substituted for Stenson would you have turned it off?

Do you watch for the competition or for the architecture?  Would it have been more riveting (or reveting) for you to watch McDowell win the Open at Muirfield by 8 than to watch good ole Duff win in a nail biter at a good but less heralded course?

Of course the PGA is the least "important" major....that's never been in doubt.  How many of the upcoming venues have you visited or played?
That's a broad brush you wield.

[jeffwarne]

I favor those who call for immediate ejection of anyone yelling on the tee shots. I'd do what Jaka suggests, print it on the back of the tickets and toss a few people the first day. Shouldn't take long to sharply curtail the practice.

Augusta does it, and guess what-no knuckleheads yelling
Simple fix

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

One of the things that constantly amazes me about this site, is the reluctance of people to embrace all kinds of golf courses.
As if the firm and fast, or links style, or courses who have bulldozed out thousands of trees in the name of restoration is the only way to go.

That is not what golf is all about.
Embrace it all.
I have played and plan on playing tournaments over the past months at a variety of veues.
I decided a few years ago to be selective in my tournaments based on courses I enjoy playing..so from July to October I am playing at/or have played
Royal Birkdale, Secession, Austin Country Club ,Oak Hill and a couple to be decided.
All totally different courses, all very good tests of skill level and probably in my current form all going to kick my arse.
Yet I know I will enojoy each challenge equally, all aspects of my game will be bale to show their respective weaknessess and I will hit thenrange to try and improve.
My guess is that Duffner led alot of categories this week,
Top few in fairways, greens, putting, scrambling so a deserved winner.
Oak Hill is a stern test of ball striking.
I am okay with having to hit fairways and failure to do so being penal, that SHOULD  be a aprt of the game.
Putting should not be the primary reason for a winner IMO, that is something we see all too often.
A major where ball striking reigns supreme, I have no problem with that.

[Ronald Montesano]

1. Men's pro golf comes to Rochester once every ten years. That's when the knuckleheads come out. $8 a beer didn't lower their enthusiasm for beer. Many came from Bills training camp, right across the street at St. John Fisher college.

2. Augusta controls every aspect. There are zero public sales and all tickets are identified. Transgressor badges are identified and people lose them. It's like comparing private high schools with public ones...you cannot.

3. Guarantee that the knuckleheads never go to the LPGA championship in Rochester. As a result, they don't know how to behave.

4. The cyber patrol was very active. I saw cell phones being taken away when people were shooting images in unauthorized spaces.

[Terry Lavin]

Where's George Zimmerman when he's really needed?

[David Kelly]

I found it interesting - last week, tree-lined and tight Firestone had Tiger winning for the 8th time and by a big margin; this week, another tree-lined and tight course, but it produced a much different and more interesting result.  There's a lot of architecture at OH.

So if true what architectural features - present at Oak Hill but absent at Firestone - caused Tiger Woods to finish in the back of the pack at the PGA and produce a more interesting result than at Firestone?

[jeffwarne]

I found it interesting - last week, tree-lined and tight Firestone had Tiger winning for the 8th time and by a big margin; this week, another tree-lined and tight course, but it produced a much different and more interesting result.  There's a lot of architecture at OH.

So if true what architectural features - present at Oak Hill but absent at Firestone - caused Tiger Woods to finish in the back of the pack at the PGA and produce a more interesting result than at Firestone?

Brandell Chamblee can best answer that
Some pretty strong opinions on why Tiger went from pure to not this week

[Ed Homsey]

Sadly, there were nearly 30,000 well-behaved fans on the grounds of Oak Hill each day of last week, but because of a small number of jerks, the Rochester fans are labelled "the worst".  In fact, as a Rochester fan who has attended every major at Oak Hill, going back to 1980, and every LPGA event, going back to the '70s, I would argue that Rochester fans are infatuated with the game, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and very considerable of their fellow fans.  I am disappointed that there was not strict enforcement of the conduct rules spelled out in information published by the PGA and our local newspapers.  Certainly some of those Mobile Device Enforcement Policy folks could have located the offenders and kicked them out.  

As I interpret many of the comments on this site concerning the recent PGA Championship, most judged the level of interest generated by the event based on their view of the "architectural" character of Oak Hill.  In my opinion, that is absurd.  First of all, if your only source of information about Oak Hill is what you saw on television last week, you have no idea of the architectural character of the course.  Secondly, if your only interest in watching a golf tournament is to enjoy the architectural character of the course, you're missing the point of golf tournaments, in my view.  It's about the players and the level of skill they demonstrate.  It's about players dealing with the pressure of competition.  

Given the players who were high on the leaderboard at the PGA, I can't imagine any true fan of golf not having great fun watching the tournament.  Great drama, with a variety of storylines.

[Ted Sturges]

Interesting comments here about the course.  Agree with Brad Klein that I don't think there is one place on the golf course where a ball could actually roll into a fairway bunker.  The fairways are not where Ross would have laid them out (he would have designed to let the ball roll into the fairway bunkers), and many of the original Ross bunkers have been moved or rebuilt to look more modern.  When you add the butt ugly rock lined creeks that go through the property, you have a course that seems to have lost it's Ross identity altogether.  I got to thinking if you removed 1,000 trees (which clearly needs to be done), what would you have left?...a wide open course with non-functioning fairway bunkers and one of the ugliest creeks in golf (can you imagine Ray's Creek with rock linings?).  I know the course has a charming history, I just think the membership over the years has made decisions that have altered the course in a way that leaves it lacking an identity.  Think what a herculean task it would be to restore it. Not even sure that would be possible.  I'm surprised this course is still ranked as high as it is (Golf Mag has is 32 in the US).

TS

[RJ_Daley]

A question for the folks considering setup and general maintenance VS architecture.

What is the proper balance between allowing and choosing to present the course with extreme set up and maintenance hazards against extreme design in the ground hazards?

For instance; very narrow FWs at doglegs and LZs into extreme lush rough AND a tree infested corridor?  If the rough is a hazard both due to the narrow LZ and the lushness of it which extracts a penalty; is it also a good thing to have the added element of tree infestation to extract even more penalty, render impossible to even allow any chance of a brave and strong shot of recovery by a good and strong ball striker?  If the architecture uses a reverse camber slope of a ground feature as an architectural element due to routing or construction at a dog leg, is it just over the top to have both long rough where the well ball struck goes bounding into untenable rough and tree infestation?

The same with architecture vs maintenance meld as Joe Hancock points out where slope is designed into the green next to water, and shaved bank, and drop area of untenable rough on other side of water hazard.  

Folks ask if we watch the tournament for the architecture or the player drama.  Well, I assume on this site of people that come here all the time because it is an architecture discussion site, that architecture plays the predominant role in our interests to watch.  I enjoyed the demand on Duffner to hit the best shots off the tee, shaping them to FW corridors to offer a chance at green in reg or advantageous position to make par or heroic birdies, and the thin margin for error that existed with narrow FWs.  But to shrink that narrow margin to incredibly tough rough and tree infestation, to that extent becomes tedious and boring.  But, the set up, not the architecture played the dominant role in those outcomes IMHO.  That sort of set up mentality could be forced on a wide number of golf courses that have length and trees that aren't really architecturally significant.  For the wider world wide players and lovers of golf as a sport that they would regularly participate in as part of their recreational lifestyle it should be architecture over tricked up, set-up and maintenance.  

Maintenance meld means more than trickeration, IMHO.  It is a the intelligent balance of maintenance practices in consideration of architecture, and that is lost when they set up a course to be an extreme such as OH, for the purpose of frustration, and forced disaster of an unfortunate bounce.

The course I am most anxious to see (even though it is USGA v PGA administration) is Pinehurst after the C&C work.  Also, to get to see any changes from the men to ladies of that venue in the same championship year.  I just can't see them doing a triple wammy of set up including penalty for high rough, and tree lined corridors and narrowing down the FWs to untenable rough with pine needles and waste areas.  Sure, any sadistic monster can set it up like a torture chamber to produce player drama, and lawn dart golf; but is that what we want?  

[Steve Lapper]

Sadly, there were nearly 30,000 well-behaved fans on the grounds of Oak Hill each day of last week, but because of a small number of jerks, the Rochester fans are labelled "the worst".  In fact, as a Rochester fan who has attended every major at Oak Hill, going back to 1980, and every LPGA event, going back to the '70s, I would argue that Rochester fans are infatuated with the game, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and very considerable of their fellow fans.  I am disappointed that there was not strict enforcement of the conduct rules spelled out in information published by the PGA and our local newspapers.  Certainly some of those Mobile Device Enforcement Policy folks could have located the offenders and kicked them out.  

As I interpret many of the comments on this site concerning the recent PGA Championship, most judged the level of interest generated by the event based on their view of the "architectural" character of Oak Hill.  In my opinion, that is absurd.  First of all, if your only source of information about Oak Hill is what you saw on television last week, you have no idea of the architectural character of the course.  Secondly, if your only interest in watching a golf tournament is to enjoy the architectural character of the course, you're missing the point of golf tournaments, in my view.  It's about the players and the level of skill they demonstrate.  It's about players dealing with the pressure of competition.  

Given the players who were high on the leaderboard at the PGA, I can't imagine any true fan of golf not having great fun watching the tournament.  Great drama, with a variety of storylines.

Ed,

  If playing it 4X over the past decade and enjoying the architecture as much or more than the participants throw Lawn Jarts (thus excluding any factoring whatsoever for a ground component or strategic design) includes me in "having no idea, missing the point of golf tournaments" or makes me "absurd," sign me up as a charter member of such club. Excruciating rough, narrow LZs, overhanging trees, and bastardized design don't do much for my appreciating the best of the game...perhaps it works for you and others? If so, more power to ya!