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.