Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Steve_ Shaffer on June 06, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
-
Tree elimination counts for something:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09157/975570-136.stm
-
I regretted not getting up there for the last Open, so now I have two shots at it in the next 7 years. Women's Open is there next year.
-
Outstanding news.
-
As I have discusssed with Jay, that news, if true, is a big disappointment to Oakland Hills, which had hoped to get the 2016 Open to celebrate the club's centennial, 1916-2016.
-
That's great news. Having just played there recently, I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.
-
I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.
Yes, because carnage, not outstanding ball striking or phenomenal course management, is so much fun to watch....
-
I would be very surprised if Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Baltusrol, Whistling Straits or Medinah ever got another U.S. Open. I think the USGA looks at those clubs as PGA of America clubs.
With Oakmont locked in for 2016 look for them to go to Erin Hills in 2017, Torrey Pines in 2018, Bethpage in 2019 and, of course, Pebble Beach in 2020. If Shinnencock wants back in I think 2021 is a possibilty. I honestly believe that Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, Bethpage, Pinehurst and Oakmont are part of a permanent rotation. Winged Foot is out of the family after they turned down 2015. Who knows if they will ever get back in and I'm not really sure if they care to be back in...
-John
-
Think Cog Hill is a possibility? Interesting article in the new Links Magazine about CH. It seems to fit the USGA direction of looking at public courses, has a midwest location, and of course the ubiquitous Rees renovation make it seem like a sure thing!
-
Think Cog Hill is a possibility? Interesting article in the new Links Magazine about CH. It seems to fit the USGA direction of looking at public courses, has a midwest location, and of course the ubiquitous Rees renovation make it seem like a sure thing!
Mark:
I think the next US Open in the Midwest (not currently scheduled) will be at either Cog Hill or Erin Hills -- both courses have undergone extensive renovations to meet the needs of the USGA and the US Open, and both want it. Right now, I'd argue Erin Hills has a leg up on Cog Hill, because the USGA has already slotted the US AM for Erin Hills, in what most everyone here in Wisconsin views as the dry run for landing the US Open.
-
Phil,
Perhaps a 2017 Open for EH and a early to mid 2020's Open for CH?
Mark
-
I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.
Yes, because carnage, not outstanding ball striking or phenomenal course management, is so much fun to watch....
I meant no disrespect to Oakmont, the US Open or the players that will be playing there. I was thinking along these lines:
http://www.worldgolf.com/news/pga/us-open-2007-oakmont-preview-5537.htm
-
Here's part of what Mike Davis of the USGA told me last month for a story on Cog Hill's renovation: "Cog Hill was not on the list prior to the redo. Now it's got to be considered very seriously. Several Midwest sites passed all the initial tests of being good enough, including Cog Hill and Olympia Fields."
He also mentioned Erin Hills, Oakland Hills and Inverness.
Davis added that the USGA will send their Open logistics team to Cog Hill in September for the Western Open (a.k.a. BMW) to see where everything could be situated for an Open. Presumably Championship Committee people, a subset of the Executive Committee, will also be dropping by. He said there was no decision on 2017 yet.
-
That is simply awesome news.
CONGRATULATIONS to a club that's dedicated to preserving the best in the game.
-
I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.
Yes, because carnage, not outstanding ball striking or phenomenal course management, is so much fun to watch....
I meant no disrespect to Oakmont, the US Open or the players that will be playing there. I was thinking along these lines:
http://www.worldgolf.com/news/pga/us-open-2007-oakmont-preview-5537.htm
Ron,
Sorry for my sarcastic remark, but the reasoning in the article, the demand of some fans and the famous quote from Sandy Tatum, "we're not trying to embarrass the best players in the world, we're trying to identify them" has gotten old.
It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them. Exciting golf is much more fun to watch. A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.
Ken
-
Ken,
I agree with you. Golf fans definitely enjoy watching the majors more so if the players have more opportunities to make birdies then struggling to make pars. Ever since Shinnecock, I think the USGA has made a concerned effort to not let playing conditions get out of hand. Last year, the graduated rough at Torrey Pines made the course difficult, yet playable. There were still plenty of opportunities for birdies. Like you said, Oakmont is a great course with plenty of architectural challenges so it does not require overgrown rough to make it difficult. I look for another great champion to emerge.
Ron
-
Chuck, if I had my druthers, I would have BOTH OH and Oakmont in the US Open rota. I certainly don't think that it's a mutually exclusive thing that if oakmont's in OH is out...they aren't located near each other. But OH went down the road of the PGA of America to get both the ryder cup and PGA championship - and both were terrific - and like someone noticed before, in this day and age, it's tough to see courses being able to court both the usga and PGA at the same time...that being said I hope OH could do it successfully, as it totally deserves to host many more us opens.
-
It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them. Exciting golf is much more fun to watch. A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.
Ken
Please take this in the spirit intended (one of open debate), but I disagree with you completely. If you look at some of the more difficult, possibly contentiously so, US Open setups over the last 10 years, I think you will find they were almost uniformly won by the best golfer that weekend, and frequently it has been someone who is one of the best, period. For all the b@#$%ing and moaning about Shinney's setup, we saw 2 of the top 4 or 5 golfers at the time (and another in contention until that last round) slug it out. Likewise, Oakmont's latest gem featured 2 established stars and 1 rising majors star. Just because Tiger finished 2nd doesn't mean the luckier golfer won.
The extremely difficult setups cause the cream to rise to the top, imho, not the luckiest golfers. If anything, the (comparatively) plain setups week in and week out on the PGA Tour cause the luckiest golfer (as defined by the one had the most putts fall in) to win far more often than the best.
Just my $.02, maybe it's worth a thread of its own.
-
That's great news. Having just played there recently, I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.
You thought that was carnage?
Given the speed of the greens and depth of bunkering, I thought Oakmont was set up in 2007 to be as enjoyable a U.S. Open to watch as I can remember.
The old tournaments at Oakmont were a lot more painful to watch, with 6" rough and trees enclosing too many corridors. 2007 was a joy by comparison, IMO.
-
It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them. Exciting golf is much more fun to watch. A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.
Ken
Please take this in the spirit intended (one of open debate), but I disagree with you completely. If you look at some of the more difficult, possibly contentiously so, US Open setups over the last 10 years, I think you will find they were almost uniformly won by the best golfer that weekend, and frequently it has been someone who is one of the best, period. For all the b@#$%ing and moaning about Shinney's setup, we saw 2 of the top 4 or 5 golfers at the time (and another in contention until that last round) slug it out. Likewise, Oakmont's latest gem featured 2 established stars and 1 rising majors star. Just because Tiger finished 2nd doesn't mean the luckier golfer won.
The extremely difficult setups cause the cream to rise to the top, imho, not the luckiest golfers. If anything, the (comparatively) plain setups week in and week out on the PGA Tour cause the luckiest golfer (as defined by the one had the most putts fall in) to win far more often than the best.
Just my $.02, maybe it's worth a thread of its own.
George,
Do you believe Oakmont to be a difficult course? I sure as hell would. Take Oakmont, add the fact the tournament being played is a major, an event most players agree will define their career, and let them play. Why add ridiculous fairway width? Why grow rough 6" deep? Is the course and the circumstances not tough enough? No one single tournament will identify the best player in the world, just the best player that week.
No PGA Tour event can measure up to a major if for no other reason the increased pressure. Organizations like the R&A, USGA and PGA of America spend a lot of time choosing facilities to host these major championships, whatever reasoning they use. Prepare the course and let them play. A goofy setup produced Paul Lawrie beating Jean Van de Velde and Justin Leonard. Torrey Pines produced one of the best U.S. Opens in history. Let the players be the story, not course set up.
Ken
-
It's refreshing to see better set ups in the last couple U.S. Opens as opposed to those that proceeded them. Exciting golf is much more fun to watch. A great golf course with architectural challenges, as opposed to overgrown rough and tricked out concrete greens, has a better chance of identifying the best player in the world that week, not the luckiest.
Ken
Please take this in the spirit intended (one of open debate), but I disagree with you completely. If you look at some of the more difficult, possibly contentiously so, US Open setups over the last 10 years, I think you will find they were almost uniformly won by the best golfer that weekend, and frequently it has been someone who is one of the best, period. For all the b@#$%ing and moaning about Shinney's setup, we saw 2 of the top 4 or 5 golfers at the time (and another in contention until that last round) slug it out. Likewise, Oakmont's latest gem featured 2 established stars and 1 rising majors star. Just because Tiger finished 2nd doesn't mean the luckier golfer won.
The extremely difficult setups cause the cream to rise to the top, imho, not the luckiest golfers. If anything, the (comparatively) plain setups week in and week out on the PGA Tour cause the luckiest golfer (as defined by the one had the most putts fall in) to win far more often than the best.
Just my $.02, maybe it's worth a thread of its own.
George,
Do you believe Oakmont to be a difficult course? I sure as hell would. Take Oakmont, add the fact the tournament being played is a major, an event most players agree will define their career, and let them play. Why add ridiculous fairway width? Why grow rough 6" deep? Is the course and the circumstances not tough enough? No one single tournament will identify the best player in the world, just the best player that week.
No PGA Tour event can measure up to a major if for no other reason the increased pressure. Organizations like the R&A, USGA and PGA of America spend a lot of time choosing facilities to host these major championships, whatever reasoning they use. Prepare the course and let them play. A goofy setup produced Paul Lawrie beating Jean Van de Velde and Justin Leonard. Torrey Pines produced one of the best U.S. Opens in history. Let the players be the story, not course set up.
Ken
"Let the players be the story, not course set up".
I agree, but the 2007 Oakmont and 2008 Torrey Pines set ups encourage this a lot more than the days of +6 at Winged Foot and other horrors, not to forget older Oakmont set ups. I think Johnny Miller's 1973 final round 63 really encouraged the very difficult course set ups that followed.
I think the players can be the story a lot more with recent Mike Davis set ups than the old days of single file Opens.
-
Why can't the USGA and PGA share venues? For the life of me I don't see the sense in not letting Whistling Straits host an Open and oakmont a PGA...pinehurst host a PGA, oakland hills host an open...etc...
-
The driveable par4- the 14th- will not have the high roungh surrounding the green as before. Mike Davis has already confirmed this.
Jay,
The answer to your question is that competing interests are at stake. The USGA is looking for new public venues to some extent and the PGA is seeking to upgrade to more classic venues.
-
so like I said...US Open to whistling, PGA to Oakmont.
Oak Hill has done both plenty of times...although more recently PGA/ryder cup
-
This is great news, even if it was expected news. The Oakmont Open was another smashing success. The golf course is a treasure and the work that has been done to bring it back to its original glory is simply spectacular. It is a perfect Open golf course.
As for the Midwest speculation, I would venture that Cog Hill has a much better shot at getting the Open than Erin Hills. Erin Hills is still too much of a work in progress, IMHO. Cog Hill would be a most worthy site. And I think they'll get it, unless Butler changes its male-only policy. Butler would be a much better site and it is a vastly superior golf course to Cog Hill. Having said that, the work that Rees Jones did has clearly elevated Cog Hill to Open-worthy status.
-
Terry:
But Erin Hills will get the first real close-up evaluation by the USGA over Cog Hill when it hosts the US Amateur coming up. If EHills "passes" that test (similar perhaps to how Merion got back into the mix by hosting the US AM), I think they'll get the US Open before Cog Hill. Comments about a course's worthiness from strictly an architectural standpoint are a lesser concern these days, it seems, than in the past. Essentially the USGA seems to doing an "over-the-bar" evaluation of Open courses, and if they can pass that test (is it stern enough? can it test the best players without being ridiculously hard?), other considerations take over (logistics, regional distribution, willingness to host).
Jay:
WStraits is hosting two PGAs, one Ryder Cup, with the US Women's Open just down the road at Blackwolf Run, all within the next several years. I'm sure Herb Kohler would love a US Open, but the Wisconsin golfing well isn't that deep.
-
Terry:
But Erin Hills will get the first real close-up evaluation by the USGA over Cog Hill when it hosts the US Amateur coming up. If EHills "passes" that test (similar perhaps to how Merion got back into the mix by hosting the US AM), I think they'll get the US Open before Cog Hill. Comments about a course's worthiness from strictly an architectural standpoint are a lesser concern these days, it seems, than in the past. Essentially the USGA seems to doing an "over-the-bar" evaluation of Open courses, and if they can pass that test (is it stern enough? can it test the best players without being ridiculously hard?), other considerations take over (logistics, regional distribution, willingness to host).
Don't you think hosting the BMW Championship in the fall is a better "test" than an Amateur could be?
-
Terry:
But Erin Hills will get the first real close-up evaluation by the USGA over Cog Hill when it hosts the US Amateur coming up. If EHills "passes" that test (similar perhaps to how Merion got back into the mix by hosting the US AM), I think they'll get the US Open before Cog Hill. Comments about a course's worthiness from strictly an architectural standpoint are a lesser concern these days, it seems, than in the past. Essentially the USGA seems to doing an "over-the-bar" evaluation of Open courses, and if they can pass that test (is it stern enough? can it test the best players without being ridiculously hard?), other considerations take over (logistics, regional distribution, willingness to host).
Jay:
WStraits is hosting two PGAs, one Ryder Cup, with the US Women's Open just down the road at Blackwolf Run, all within the next several years. I'm sure Herb Kohler would love a US Open, but the Wisconsin golfing well isn't that deep.
Phil-
I think it would be neat to host an Open at Blackwolf Run...they did recently lengthen the course significantly. I know I'm probably dreaming but I think it gets a second billing to the views at WS, when really it is very interesting.
I agree that Cog Hill is now Open worthy, could and probably should host an Open...eventually. It seems as though all signs are pointing to an Open at Erin Hills for whatever reason, despite hearing little good things about the course from people I know that have been there.
-
Pat:
I'm curious about the attendance differential between the women's US Open and the men's. My recollection is that the River would have some difficulty handling the crowds associated with the men's tourney, in terms of getting people around the course. Plus WStraits is set up to handle a really big tourney, with the way Kohler put all of the tent areas up top, away from the lake, with the course fronting the lake.
-
George,
Do you believe Oakmont to be a difficult course? I sure as hell would. Take Oakmont, add the fact the tournament being played is a major, an event most players agree will define their career, and let them play. Why add ridiculous fairway width? Why grow rough 6" deep? Is the course and the circumstances not tough enough? No one single tournament will identify the best player in the world, just the best player that week.
No PGA Tour event can measure up to a major if for no other reason the increased pressure. Organizations like the R&A, USGA and PGA of America spend a lot of time choosing facilities to host these major championships, whatever reasoning they use. Prepare the course and let them play. A goofy setup produced Paul Lawrie beating Jean Van de Velde and Justin Leonard. Torrey Pines produced one of the best U.S. Opens in history. Let the players be the story, not course set up.
Ken
Just so we're clear, how would you characterize the '07 setup? Too difficult? Too narrow and too deep rough? You may find this hard to believe, but I (and I believe many others) think the '07 setup was eminently fair; it could have been much more difficult, simply by drying it out a little more.
I agree Carnoustie was goofy. I think TP's story is 10000% the story of the best golfer winning on one leg, the course was almost immaterial, other than if it were anywhere else, Tiger might not have played. I think 2007 Oakmont was fantastic, but then again, I think Shinny 04 and Sandwich 03 were great, too. Call me crazy, I think the toughest setups - not crazy ones like Carnoustie 99, but really challenging setups - are the best way to sift out the pretenders.
-
George,
Was the '07 set up fair? For the most part, yes. It was our first look at what Mike Davis envisions for his championship set ups. It had great variety. Where did it go over the line a little? Some areas of rough got out of hand. I make this comment independent of Mickelson's wrist issue and complaints about the rough. As was mentioned earlier, Oakmont is tough enough.
Ken
-
Okay, that works for me. Personally, I would love to see how Oakmont would play with less rough (in a dream world, no rough). I think the green complexes are sufficiently fantastic :) to give anyone a real challenge, but thick rough seems to be a pretty standard MO for the US Open, regardless of venue.
For all the crap that everyone loves to give the USGA, I think the US Open has been as good as any tournament over the last decade. There have been a couple hiccups (the 18th at Olympic in 98, the 7th at Shinny), but I believe that may happen if you push things to the edge, which is admittedly my preference... :) I think it's a little hypocritical for many to preach firm and fast, and then complain when things get a little too firm and fast. I'd rather see the occasional hiccup than the monotonous setups we see week in and week out on the PGA Tour.
-
Pat:
I'm curious about the attendance differential between the women's US Open and the men's. My recollection is that the River would have some difficulty handling the crowds associated with the men's tourney, in terms of getting people around the course. Plus WStraits is set up to handle a really big tourney, with the way Kohler put all of the tent areas up top, away from the lake, with the course fronting the lake.
Phil -
Like I said...I'm dreaming a bit :)
WS is by far the better "tournament" course of the two, but by using the US Women's open layout (Blackwolf Runs first 18), there are 18 very strong holes there. Perhaps its better suited for the US Women's Open "rota." (How come no one argues where they should hold the Women's events???) ;D
-
I thought the 2007 setup at Oakmont was eminently fair and a great venue for the Pros. As for the spectating aspect, it was more of a carnival atmosphere complete with hutksters at booths selling anything and everything associated with the word "golf."
You were herded to the outskirts of the action. Watching from fairways, due to the bunkering was difficult. 30 deep with people is not conducive to getting into the action of what's going on. I can still recall on a dreary Monday morning in 1983 watching Larry Nelson drop that incredible putt to beat Tom Watson in regulation. And I also recall Monty, Els, and Roberts battle up close and personal from playoff hole to playoff hole.
No way could you get that close in 2007. And if you chose to sit in the stands, fry like bacon, and never hear a roar, well, in 2016 I suggest you go, watch what you can for a couple of holes, have a beer or two in an air conditioned tent, and call it day.
-
No way could you get that close in 2007. And if you chose to sit in the stands, fry like bacon, and never hear a roar, well, in 2016 I suggest you go, watch what you can for a couple of holes, have a beer or two in an air conditioned tent, and call it day.
I'd suggest something a little different - go to practice days, catch Thurs Fri action, go super early on the weekends, and stay away from the leaders. Just observe the treasure that is Oakmont.
Then maybe head downtown and see if you can see one of the many Super Bowl or Cup trophies... :)
-
I was chatting today to a pro who played in the US Open in 2007 and who is a fixture on the European Tour. He expressed how much he enjoyed Oakmont, despite the difficulties. Of all the courses in the world it's one that fascinates me more than pretty much any other.
The stories about the speed of the greens are legendary, and if things work out according to plan I hope to experience them in about 3 weeks.
-
officially announced a couple days ago
Oakmont Country Club To Host 2016 U.S. Open
Far Hills, N.J. (June 17) - Oakmont (Pa.) Country Club has been selected by the United States Golf Association as the site of the 2016 U.S. Open Championship, marking a record ninth time the venerable layout will host the national championship. The dates of the championship are June 13-19.
Designed by Henry C. Fownes and opened in 1903, Oakmont Country Club has been the site of 14 previous USGA championships, the most recent in 2007 when Angel Cabrera held off Tiger Woods and Jim Furyk to win the U.S. Open. In 2010, the Pittsburgh-area club will be the site of the U.S. Women's Open, July 5-11.
"The USGA is extremely pleased to continue our long-standing relationship with Oakmont Country Club," said USGA President Jim Vernon. "As evident from the results of the 2007 championship, the course is a wonderful and complete test of golf. Equally important is the fact that since the early 1900s, Oakmont has been a proud supporter of the game. The USGA remains grateful that we have been invited back to conduct our 16th championship, which includes our recent visits in 2003 for the U.S. Amateur and in 2007 for the U.S. Open, as well as next year's U.S. Women's Open."
The nation's first golf course to be recognized as a National Historic Landmark, Oakmont has been the site of the crowning of these U.S. Open champions: Tommy Armour (1927); Sam Parks Jr. (1935); Ben Hogan (1953); Jack Nicklaus (1962); Johnny Miller (1973); Larry Nelson (1983); Ernie Els (1994) and Angel Cabrera (2007).
"We are honored that the USGA has accepted our invitation to return to our historic course for a record ninth U.S. Open Championship," said Oakmont Country Club President Bill Griffin. "We value our longtime relationship with the USGA and are looking forward to building on the success of the 2007 U.S. Open, which is regarded as one of the best in that storied championship's history."
In addition to hosting more U.S. Opens than any other venue, Oakmont has served as the site for six other USGA championships: the U.S. Amateur in 1919, 1925, 1938, 1969 and 2003, and the U.S. Women's Open in 1992.
Prior to 2016, the U.S. Open will be played at Pebble Beach (Calif.) Golf Links in 2010; Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, Md., in 2011; The Olympic Club in San Francisco, Calif., in 2012; Merion Golf Club in Ardmore, Pa., in 2013; Pinehurst Resort & Country Club in the Village of Pinehurst, N.C., in 2014; and Chambers Bay in University Place, Wash., in 2015.
-
Ok...who's excited for Congressional in 2011...raise your hands.
Can we just skip that year?
-
That's great news. Having just played there recently, I'm looking forward to the carnage like in '07.
You thought that was carnage?
Given the speed of the greens and depth of bunkering, I thought Oakmont was set up in 2007 to be as enjoyable a U.S. Open to watch as I can remember.
The old tournaments at Oakmont were a lot more painful to watch, with 6" rough and trees enclosing too many corridors. 2007 was a joy by comparison, IMO.
Bill,
Oddly, in those other Opens Oakmont got absolutely toasted, with a ton of folks under par the year Miller shot 63, Larry Nelson shooting 65-66 on a weekend (sort of), etc. etc.