[Ran Morrissett]

Opening a golf course in the modern age is tricky. Gone are the days when a course like Merion opened, then the powers-that-be studied where balls went and bunkered the course accordingly over a period of many years. Courses need to be PERFECT on day one these days, especially highly anticipated ones whereby the media is standing by to swoop in. Reputations within golf circles are difficult to alter later.
 
Yet, what if significant work (both above and below ground) doesn’t occur for 3-5 years after a course opens? Who keeps track of such things? The course is no longer the ‘new thing.’ Do such courses get a fair shake other than by those who return and see the work first hand? One great attribute of this Discussion Group (and it is double-edged to be sure!) is the immediate feedback it offers. Playing a course prompts people to post about it so the information in the DG is likely to be current. Regarding Erin Hills, the tenor of posts has markedly improved as the course matured and changed. Yes, the course opened too early from a conditioning point of view. Yes, there were some unconventional features. Yes, the owner at the time fussed with it too much. Yet, that’s all four plus year old stuff - a bit musty if you ask me! That’s not the course that I saw or the one that exists today. Today’s course is in ‘phenomenal’ shape based on what Dana Fry just told me from his visit last week and what I saw. No one would ever guess what four holes have been heavily altered/modified. After the construction of a new third green this fall, the 2017 US Open course will be set. Today’s course is the best of both worlds: it contains mystery yet can host big events.

I predict admiration will continue to build. Its inclusion in GOLF Magazine’s US Top 100 is now justified, with lots of upside too IMO. Of course, I may be biased because my brother John (and co-founder of GolfClubAtlas.com) works there as Competitions Director. Still, Ron Whitten’s enthusiasm was infectious when I spoke to him for two hours regarding this piece. Direct quotes from that conversation are laced throughout the profile. Ron has been at the vortex of golf course architecture for 30 plus years and you can tell just how much this place and his involvement means to him. He may even change his will so that his ashes are spread over this course instead of Sand Hills! I totally GET having that kind of passion for land this special. Same can be said for Jim Reinhart who is a minority owner and has been a guiding angel from the start. He gets to play a lot of nice (as in really nice) places and Erin Hills holds a special meaning to him unlike any other. And again for Dana Fry as well. When I spoke to Dana last week, he thinks his name will be most closely associated with this course over time because of its profile where the sky is the limit.
 
Conversely, one architect who thought the project would be his hasn’t had a kind word to say ever since! All views can be tainted. If you go there expecting to see putts that break six and eight feet, you will be let down. The challenge is balanced tee to green with no one aspect of the game emphasized at the expense of the other. As such, it is a great course for events and the USGA is to be praised for its decision to bring the 2017 U.S. Open to Erin Hills, a decidedly different type course for that championship.  While I will always consider Oakmont to be the ultimate Open venue, my mind still thinks “Winged Foot” when playing word association with “U.S. Open.”  Think how the great majority of U.S. Opens have been played on parkland courses with one long hole after another.  With its open look and feel, wild terrain, and tremendous variety, Erin Hills will offer quite a different look.  Also, consider the ebb and flow of the final ten holes, where guile and not brawn will prevail.  While the 10th and 17th are long  two-shotters, the other holes are well within everyone’s reach.  Furthermore, there are six changes in direction in those ten holes, a key feature for such an exposed site.  
 
In addition, I don’t think that the course favors any one type of player for the Open. Players can reasonably hit driver on at least ten holes (excluding 4, 11, 15, maybe 12) – how refreshing for a U.S. Open. While 7800 yards would seem to favor the long hitter, that distance is misleading because of the roll from the fine fescue fairways and so much of the distance is tied up in the three-shotters.  A golfer certainly will not last long while repeatedly finding the native areas or bunkers off the tee. Still, the corridors of mown grass are generous. The greens require attention but will not cause ulcers.  Therefore, the 2017 Open could see as many players as ever with a realistic chance to win.
 
Give Bob Lang tons of credit for assembling the large 650 plus acre parcel. Because of that, Erin Hills enjoys an almost unprecedented ability to handle infrastructure requirements required by all big events. Hurdzan, Fry and Whitten did their part by creating distinctive holes without over-manipulating the land. The new owner Andy Ziegler gets the ‘less is more’ philosophy that such a property deserves. The course now plays every bit as well as it photographs which simply wasn’t true prior to Ziegler’s involvement.
 

A late day view from the clubhouse.
 
Generations of future golfers will grow up with a different take on what US Opens mean than I did. As such, the influence that Erin Hills may yield in the future is impossible to bracket. Fortunately, it’s the brand of golf – long views, firm surfaces, rich in texture, alone in nature – that we can all get behind. Its emergence is timely and can show that fun golf and championship golf need not be mutually exclusive.

Cheers,

[Tom_Doak]

Conversely, one architect who thought the project would be his hasn’t had a kind word to say ever since! All views can be tainted.

Ran:

I think I've done a pretty good job holding my tongue about Erin Hills (pro or con) since it opened.  I only saw it once, when it was brand new, and there were some glaring issues with it.  Good for them, if those have been resolved.  Of course, I will still believe that it would have been a better course had we been chosen to design it, but what architect wouldn't?  No need to single me out.

Also influencing my thoughts on it was that the last time I talked about it with Ron Whitten, albeit a couple of years ago, he had all but disowned it for all of the changes they'd made after he left.  Interesting to hear how big a change of heart he's had.

[Jason Thurman]

This is perhaps the most excited I've ever been for a course profile on this site. I'm lamenting the meeting I have starting in 10 minutes that will stop me from finishing it in one sitting.

That's all I'll offer until I finish it. Thanks for this one, Ran.

[Thomas Dai]

Ran,
Thank you. Always a pleasure to read these course profiles. A nice touch to include the photo of the cross-section of the ground. I'm looking forward to viewing the 2017 US Open from E-H. Playing firm and fast for the championship would be great and from the photos you've posted the course certainly appears most interesting..
All the best

[Jim Colton]

From third hole: "Davis stressed the need to make sure that bunkers protrude well into fairways and the architects heeded that advice through construction."

I don't believe the bunkers referenced on the left side of 3 were added until late into the second iteration of the course.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Is it really an 8.1-mile walk? Is the stated pace of play really 4:45? None of these questions are addressed in the profile: does that mean the changes have put these issues to bed?

[Jim Colton]

Here is Google Earth images of the course, circa 2007 & 2011.

[Bart Bradley]

Mark:

I walked the course with the required caddy.  I am admittedly a devoted walker, often carrying my own bag.  I wasn't wearing a pedometer.  The walk did not seem brutal in any way.  It was a lovely experience.  I wasn't tired and would happily have gone around again if I had the time.  I think it is truly a very good modern golf course. 

If it was over 8 miles, it was a fun 8 miles...

Bart

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bart, it seems like this is one of those things that someone who knows the course could resolve using Google Earth's planimeter. Anyway, how quickly did you get around?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Bart,

I think the policy is that walking is required, but caddies are not.  

Ran,

Thank you for your thorough review.  I played the course a few weeks ago and enjoyed the day.  However, I think you’re kind in your review (or non-mention) of some of the flaws of the course.  On the first tee we were told—as the third group off—that the expected pace is 5 hours.  We were a group of four, with two excellent caddies who doubled.  None of us lingered over decisions or lost balls, and all were in play on most of the holes.  We never waited on golfers ahead and played in 4:45. To live up to Bart's challenge of playing it again, we might have required 10 hours.  So much like work it's deserving of overtime.

When we GCA nerds are told by management that a course will require 5 hours to play, and then it does require nearly that, I think we have an obligation to examine why, and examine whether the choices made by the architects and the quality of the holes justify such an extravagant expenditure of the golfers’ time.  Is it worth it?  You seem to think so, and I think for those of us who live nearby and have the chance to play a US Open course, and for those who want to observe how drumlins, eskers, kames and kettles can be turned into a golf course, it’s a must-see.  But others may disagree on whether, as designed at Erin Hills, the walk is worth the reward.

I think the issue is with the routing, to which you are very kind, hardly mentioning the long walks, often uphill, between greens and tees.  Right out of the gate, at #2, the golfer is asked to walk back, downhill, 75-100 yards depending on the tees you’re playing, and then trudge back uphill after the tee shot.  You mention the choices faced on the tee and the quirky green, all of which I know others around here are fans of but I am not, and call it “fun.”  It’s an interesting hole to be sure, but “fun” is not what I’m feeling with all that trudging around.  Based on the architect’s comments, it seems like he fell in love with that little knob that became the 2nd green and forced a hole in there.  Why not turn right off the 1st green and find a good hole over in that portion of the property? You can see from Jim Colton’s aerials posted above it's not utilized, even though it's all great terrain, we're told.  Better yet, why not start the course at the 11th tee (the highest elevation on the course?) and find a pleasant way to walk back toward the knob green at what is now the 2nd, with maybe fewer uphill treks from green to tee on the way.   Might be fun to play the knob green as a maddening drop-shot par 3.

Erin Hills has some fine par 4s, including 11, 15, 17, 3, 4, 5, and 8.  With the demise of the silly Dell hole, it has a terrific set of par 3s, including the all-world #6.  I would say it’s unfortunate that #10 has been dumbed down to a (relatively) mundane par 4, from what was once an intriguing par 5 with the Biarritz green.  The new number 7 (par 5) is fun, with a wide playing field up to a huge and challenging green.  I’m personally not sure about the par 5s #1 or #18—interesting again, but fun I’m not so sure.  I’d guess there are some better par 5s to be found in that terrain.

Hole #12 is a symbol to me of “what might have been” at Erin Hills.  As your pics show, it highlights the glacial terrain into which a unique, fun, and challenging golf hole has been fitted.  Starting with 11 and 12, the architects had a chance to build a phenomenal course with an awesome walk.   They might have done well to use Bill Coore, or a Wisconsin back-woodsman, to find the animal walking trails.  The course is pretty good, but could have been a lot better.

[Bart Bradley]

Mark:

I believe it took my group 4 hours and 20 minutes.  Not blistering by any standard.  But, I enjoyed the time.  Lots to see, intrigue and fun shots.  I wasn't that concerned about the pace.  I just kept walking and playing.  Again, I don't know the distance (I can just tell you that it didn't seem like a slog or a chore to me).

I started about 9am and then met John Morrissett for lunch just after 1...it was a nice day.

Bart

[Joe Bausch]

Really enjoyed the review, especially since I've played Erin Hills (once, May 2011).  I played with Bond and wife and our round took 4 hours and 4 minutes.

If you want still more pics of Erin Hills, go here:

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/ErinHills/

[Phil McDade]

The world's fastest golfer is (mostly) spot-on with his assessment of Erin Hills -- a collection of some really good holes that has an awkward and often walking-unfriendly routing (for a course that bans carts). In particular, he notes the potential loss of interesting holes in the triangle of land west of the 1st hole fairway, south of the 18th hole fairway, and east of the 5th hole green (which includes the NLE Dell hole, correctly assessed as silly). I walked that area extensively during the U.S. Amateur, and wondered how a different routing could've used some of the most interesting terrain at EH, now largely lost to transitions between tees and greens and carries off tees (e.g., the new par 5 7th).

Jim Colton's aerials also reveal some interesting developments in the maturation of4 EH. I'm mostly struck by the narrowing of fairway corridors -- EH still has plenty of width, but one can't help but wonder if the wide-(really wide) -open fairways originally envisioned have been scaled back at the behest of Davis and the USGA in preparation for the 2017 U.S. Open. In my view, EH ought to play really wide, and really fast-and-firm, with little-to-no rough, so that the penalty for missing a fairway is either penal bunkers or deep fescue. I hope that's the set-up mentality for 2017, but I'm a bit skeptical.

Note also in the aerials how some of the diminished fairway corridors lessens, in my view, some of the interest in holes. The 5th -- now a somewhat mundane par 4 -- originally had a centerline bunker that provided some interest in how to approach the tee shot. Now the play off the tee is somewhat one-dimensional, with the terrain benefitting the longer golfer, not necessarily the thoughtful one. Hole #8 has also lost some width, particularly a wide portion of the fairway right that's hidden off the tee and offers some advantages at going at the green on one of the course's tougher approach shots. And the quirky 15th has also lost some interest with reduced fairway along the right side.

It's still a really neat course -- played fast and firm, Ran accurately describes the uniqueness of seeing (and playing) such a bouncy-bounce course in the Midwest. The continued grow-in of fescue makes it all the more attractive.

As to the "mostly" comment above -- the walkback at #2 is worth it. It might be the best hole on the course, from the standpoint of bamboozling the golfer. The Amateurs a few years ago were befuddled about how to take it on -- the sign of very good design, in my book.

[Jason Thurman]

Why would it matter if a course lends itself to 4:40 minute rounds if those rounds don't involve waiting between shots? I can't imagine many people playing Erin Hills will be in a hurry to get off the golf course in, say, 2:30 so they can make their tee time at Milwaukee CC at 11. Personally, I enjoy being on the course as long as the weather is reasonably decent and I'm not waiting over shots.

Phil, have you played the course? I won't dismiss your opinion either way. I'm just interested to know. It's hard for me to imagine that the wider course in 2007 was a better one. From everything I've seen, it was really too wide with few hazards that were really in play in the driving zones. A certain amount of width is good, but too much becomes boring and overly accommodating. It's very hard to lose a ball out there in 2013, but it's also a compelling driving course with plenty of bunkers and fescue in play off the tee for errant shots.

Re: the 5th hole, I'll grant that it's not the most interesting tee shot on the course. But I'm not sure I'd say the terrain benefits the longer golfer. The green sets up very nicely for a shorter hitter to play something that bounces in from the left, while the front bunker and relative shallowness of the green requires precise distance control from the longer hitter. I agree with Ran's profile that it's a pleasantly subdued and uncluttered hole after two pretty rambunctious ones, and yet it's certainly also a stout one.

One thing that makes Erin Hills a great tournament course is its tremendous elasticity. It obviously has plenty of different teeing areas on each hole and mostly fairly large greens, which is a big part of that. But an unsung part of the course's elasticity is that it has wall-to-wall fescue (aside from the greens and a few of the "invasive" patches of ryes or similar blends mentioned in the profile). I doubt very much that they're scaling back fairway width in preparation for an Open that's still four years away. They'll be able to narrow fairways a month (week?) or two before the tournament if that's the intention. The impression we got from our caddie a few years ago is that the fairway lines are a bit fluid and can be wider or narrower within reason almost on a week-to-week basis. Still, even at the narrowest I've seen it, it has more than ample width.

[Josh Tarble]

Very nice profile of a course I can only describe as "bodacious!"  

I'm not exactly sure on the meaning, but I feel it fits extremely well in describing Erin Hills.

I walked and carried, starting in a torrential downpour, but had a very fun, challenging day at EH. If it's an 8 mile walk it's definitely the shortest 8 mile walk I've had.  I thought the course was extremely varied and truly challenged every facet of my game.  To me the stretch from 8 through 16 is as good of holes as I've played anywhere, with some absolutely terrific holes.

I do think a few of the holes are on the brute-ish side, but that's ok for a championship venue in my opinion.  The weak spots in my opinion are the par 5s and a few of the green to tee transitions.  1, 7 and 18 were pretty average and relatively one-dimensional, mainly because of their length.  There were multiple transitions I didn't care for, but I also enjoyed how they all weren't based on the back tees.

All in all a course I would gladly (and plan on) return to play.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

"Why would it matter if a course lends itself to 4:40 minute rounds if those rounds don't involve waiting between shots?"

Speaking hypothetically and not specifically to this course, such a metric would be as good an indicator as any of golf's major challenges. Such a pace of play implies large acreage and therefore costly maintenance. It also suggests fewer rounds can be fit into a day's play. Add it up and you have a time-consuming, expensive round of golf. Yep, exactly what the game needs!

Again, that's hypothetically.

FYI, I measured the walk at Erin Hills from the middle tees starting and ending at the practice green back of the clubhouse. It came out to about 5.5 miles. So not 8.1. BUT: as a benchmark I measured the walk for other top 100 courses of similar vintage. Erin Hills is 15-20 pct longer.

[William_G]

I like "bodacious" in describing Erin Hills.

I walked it with 3 other golf geeks with 2 caddies, and we all thought it was a hike.

Furthermore, for a fescue course, it is surprising/crazy that all greens are elevated and offer no bump and run opportunities  

My understanding is that the routing was originally laid out as a cart course, and thus the hikes between tees and greens were viewed as normal.

However as fescue was the turf, the cart plan failed.

Now with the 3rd owner, Erin Hills is walking only to preserve the fescue on a seasonal golf course (May-October), yet has the same routing of a cart course, LOL.  

Beautiful place, yet not a place where you are going walk 36 a day with ease.

Looks like Ran may have his rose colored lenses on in his assessment of EH.

Yet, my hopes for something other than another NE seasonal parkland US Open or PGA is very high.

thanks

thanks

[Michael George]

Played Erin Hills last week.  I would say that Ran's review is extremely accurate.  

The most special thing about the course certainly is the property.  It is rolling and picturesque and provides for great golf.  One view from the back of the clubhouse and you know that you are on a special site.  

It is a BIG golf course and there is not a weak hole on the course.  My favorites were #2 (a well designed Alps hole), #6 (a par 3 reminiscent of #13 at Sand Hills), #12 (my favorite par 4 over and then down and through the dunes that is in the conversation for best holes in US golf), #14 (a great risk/reward par 5 with a green framed into the back of a dune), #15 (a short par 4 with a raised green - really fun approach shot) and #17 (a long par 4 with large chipping area played down a shute framed by a dune to the right of the entire hole).  #18 is simply the biggest golf hole that I have ever played - each shot requires a lot of thought and a well struck shot or it is a loss of shot).

The walk is fairly long and up and down so it can be challenging for older golfers.  However, I thought that it was fine - just don't ask me to play 36 a day.  Play was between 4:30-4:45 hours for our groups but there was no waits on tees or approaches so it did not feel long.  Playing in the wind on a challenging golf course, it is going to take more time.  In fact, one of my longest rounds ever was my afternoon round at Old Macdonald in 30-40 mph winds.... and I loved that round too.

I do wish the course played with more width (the course is average width, but it could be really wide and still maintain its challenge).  I think this change would really enhance the "fun" factor of the golf course as there are places where the fescue just comes too close to the fairway and that fescue is extremely thick - causing lost balls or hack outs - which no resort golfer wants.  I thought that the USGA must want it this way for the US Open.  However, I understand that Mike Davis is actually considering widening the course to increase the ground game.  I think this would be an outstanding change and really make the place even more special.  

In sum, I really think that Erin Hills is a course that you must see at some point.  The clubhouse, accommodations, practice facilities, restaurant and service are incredibly good. Honestly, I could sit on the patio of the clubhouse with a drink all day long and enjoy that view.  Simply stated, it is a special place and one that will continue to grow in US golf and settle in the top 50 of US golf courses.

[Jason Thurman]

"Why would it matter if a course lends itself to 4:40 minute rounds if those rounds don't involve waiting between shots?"

Speaking hypothetically and not specifically to this course, such a metric would be as good an indicator as any of golf's major challenges. Such a pace of play implies large acreage and therefore costly maintenance. It also suggests fewer rounds can be fit into a day's play. Add it up and you have a time-consuming, expensive round of golf. Yep, exactly what the game needs!

I totally get what you're saying Mark. But at the same time, Erin Hills was designed to be a BIG course on a BIG property. Of course it covers a huge acreage. That's part of what makes it unique. Their maintenance is probably pretty costly, but what course that hosts a US Open has a low maintenance budget? As for fewer rounds fitting in a day, you're right. But then again, I don't think the goal of a course in Hartford was ever going to be to burn up the turnstiles. It's certainly expensive, but it costs less than the huge majority of courses that are currently in a major championship rota. I just think it's unfair to evaluate it in the same terms that we'd evaluate a local muni. Its intention is completely different.

William, I don't agree that the bump-and-run is dead at Erin Hills. A player can easily run the ball on at 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18. I've played the course with a 30+ handicap woman, and she thought the ground game was alive and well. Her only complaint was the long rough on the front of some of the bunkers, as she had a really hard time getting out of it. I think Erin Hills affords as many opportunities for running approaches as Lawsonia, if not more. Lawsonia, after all, has 18 push up greens and doesn't play nearly as firm and fast as Erin Hills on a consistent basis.

Erin Hills has a few real flaws. It might be too tough to play every day (though you wouldn't lose many balls and your handicap would travel REALLY well), and it's almost certainly too tough a walk to do every day. A few of the greens feel a bit mundane or formulaic. I don't want to sound like I think it's a perfect course, but I do think it gets criticized for a lot of things we ignore or even embrace with other courses, and I do think it's a disservice to evaluate it on the same terms that we'd evaluate a country club course or a municipal design. In terms of meeting the goals intended at course conception, Erin Hills has an almost unprecedented record of success despite some major missteps along the way, and I think it deserves credit for that.

[Jason Topp]

I've heard more divergent opinions about this course than any other.  Recent commentary, however, has trended positive. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jason,

The only thing I can note regarding Erin Hills is if indeed they are on their third owner that suggests economic difficulties. Could these difficulties owe to the cost and revenues allowed by design of the course? Could a design with a faster rated pace of play have contained characteristics that enabled management to lower costs and to increase rounds? Did the redesign enable lower costs or more rounds? I'm just asking questions; I don't know anything about this course. Maybe it had nothing to do with margins and more just plain revenue per round. Maybe golfers didn't like it enough to pay a premium. But I dunno. Not only do I know nothing about Erin Hills I don't even know anything about the golf industry and the costs / cost structure of golf courses.

[Howard Riefs]

Thanks, Ran, for an enjoyable course tour and recap of the never boring evolution of Erin Hills. It reminds me that I need to get back to the course, having only played it once in 2008 before many of the changes and then walked it in 2011 during the semifinal round of the US Am.  

I located the below course routing from Joe Bausch's tour (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48480) that should be helpful to those who aren't as familiar with it.

Phil McDade also did a very good course tour that's worth viewing: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45966.0.html  

The only thing I can note regarding Erin Hills is if indeed they are on their third owner that suggests economic difficulties.

*Only* two owners: Lang and then current owner Ziegler, who purchased it in 2009.

Here is the routing of EH.  The yellow dots represent where the tips are located, which stretches out to 7820 yards.  I played from the green tees at 6712 yards, and the diagram below tries to show where those tees are located.



Here is a link to the routing in a larger size:

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/erinhills/EH_routing.jpg

[Michael George]

The slower rounds are much more due to the fescue being 5 yards off the fairway (and looking for golf balls) then the routing.  If they give the course more width, rounds will be in line with other walking courses, like Bandon and Ballyneal.  That is why I was encouraged when I heard that the USGA may request added width to the course.

[William_G]

William, I don't agree that the bump-and-run is dead at Erin Hills. A player can easily run the ball on at 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18. I've played the course with a 30+ handicap woman, and she thought the ground game was alive and well. Her only complaint was the long rough on the front of some of the bunkers, as she had a really hard time getting out of it. I think Erin Hills affords as many opportunities for running approaches as Lawsonia, if not more. Lawsonia, after all, has 18 push up greens and doesn't play nearly as firm and fast as Erin Hills on a consistent basis.

Lawsonia is a much nicer walk.

There is no doubt that as a fescue course, the ground plays with your first shot's on par 3's and 2nd shots on par 4's and 5's is largely air game...it's just the wrong design/architecture for the site...it's a bummer given the beautiful site.  

[Terry Lavin]

I like Erin Hills much more than Whistling Straits. I think it will be a terrific site for the US Open.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()