Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Joel_Stewart on April 02, 2003, 02:20:10 PM
-
Lots of changes in the Golf Digest Top 100 but the biggest surprise I saw was the move of Oak Hill moving from #23 to #10.
I've never played Oak Hill but when you look at the numbers it's puzzling. The point total went from 61.81 to 66.3 which is huge........
In more detail they increased in just about every catagory, adding the following points from 2001.
1.2 conditioning
1.09 tradition
.43 aesthetics
.36 memorability
.32 design variety
.32 resistance to scoring
.20 shot values
Since I follow this fairly carefully I really have to ask how a course built in 1925 can increase that much in design variety and tradition. Furthermore, how does it become harder in 2 years to rate the increase in resistance to scoring and shot values? Does anyone know anything about Oak Hill?
-
Joel, my understanding is that the folks at Oak Hill did a lot of tree removal, which probably improved both shot values and conditioning. As for the tradition improvement...ya got me!
-
Joel:
Oak Hill / East is a solid and unrelenting test of golf. The layout is clearly not pure Donald Ross since the Fazio family (George & Tom) were involved with a few changes prior to, I believe, was the '80 PGA. The original 5th and 6th holes were altered. I also believe that additional changes were made to a few holes ont he back side -- nmely the par-3 16th hole. What's interesting is that in 1989 during the US Open there were four hole-in-ones at the 6th on just one day.
The course is a virtual forest on many holes and given the movement away from tree clogged layouts Oak Hill / East still hues the desire to be the repetitive "down the middle" type course.
The greens have plenty of nice contours in spots and the degree of demands have been strengthened with the upcoming PGA coming to Rochester this summer.
Oak Hill / East is a tenacious and demanding course. Is it capable of being in the top ten listing. No -- I don't see how. It's pedigree is clearly solid and its connection to major championships should be respected, but the intrinsic qualities one would assume for any top ten candidate is lacking in my opinion.
What's even more amazing is that not only did Oak Hill / East crack the top ten, but it bested NGLA as the #3 course in the Empire State. I would love to hear from those who truly believe that Oak Hill / East merits such lofty standing. In my mind the course is the equivalent of Baltusrol / Lower and one would never contemplate the Lower to be a top ten course.
-
I have never played Oak Hill #10, but I played golf last summer with a Irish friend in Ireland who attends every Ryder Cup. He had a real passion for Oak Hill, and felt that it was much more of a "golf club" than The Country Club (# 11). It would actually be interesting to see a Top 25 US list as rated by foreigners.
-
I just returned from Oak Hill and what a great golf course.
It is without a doubt the hradest course I have ever played.
The tee shot angles are very demanding, the course plays very long and the greens were bone hard with a green speed of 13+
Very fair, not tricked up and in wonderful shape.
The fairways were immaculate, the greens running wonderfully but wow what a tough test.
The clubhouse is stunning and regal and the membership so very happy to have us there competing, I only have very positive memories of the place.
From a purely architectural standpoint, I would like to have seen it before Fazio made changes.I have a sneaky feeling I would have prefred it then, a couple of polaces he did some work, you can clearly tell and the course"look" is challenged by his changes.
That been said what he did is very challenging, just not sure it really fits 100%.
-
It's been 11 years for me, but I left there feeling like it was absolutely awesome. Maybe not top 10 (where is it now?), but one of the very best courses for a tournament you could play.
-
What a coincidence. I just finished playing the East course a few hours ago. It is REALLY impressive. Not sure exactly where I'd place it among the best I've played. I'll need to percolate on that one for a bit. But its pretty high up there. Much higher than I would have expected. I took a bunch of pictures that I will try and post at some point.
Michael, I agree that the course is very tough. But I didn't feel the length or green speeds were as daunting a task as finding the fairway off the tee. Its hard enough to hit any piece of the short grass much less on the preferred angle of approach. I'd say it is the most challenging course off the tee that I have played. Just curious, what did you see that you thought was Fazio work that didn't fit?
Ed
-
Ed & Micheal,
Conditions can't be better than this past week here in Rochester. We've had little to no rain after a very soggy summer and beautiful sunny weather. Played a few local places and F&F was in full force.
As for the original jump comments from Joel & Jeff in the thread, I beleive it was due to changes / upgrades made prior to the PGA in '03. Some tree & bunker work really .
As for the fazio holes, 5 & 6 are pretty evident. The interesting thing is by themselves those holes are good holes, it's that they just don't fit very well with the rest.
-
John, in hindsight, I see what you mean about 5 and 6. They do have a different look from the other holes. And you are right about the conditions. They were absolutely perfect at both Oak Hill and Monroe (even though we had a frost delay there yesterday morning).
-
Ed and Michael,
It is good to hear that you both enjoyed the East Course. It is certainly an unbelievable test of golf, particularly off the tee. Ross' routing, which is intact except for the Fazio holes, makes great use of the terrain. One faces a good variety of approach shots and green complexes as a result.
With the course firm and the greens at 13, the course will be probably as tough as it played for the Senior PGA Championship. Because Oak Hill is a long course but not necessarily a 'big' course, firm and fast conditions make it very difficult to find the fairways and greens. At the same time, it adds a lot of variety and interest to the approach shots (particularly on a hole like 10 or 17), and forces the golfer to have complete control off the tee.
I would be interested to hear what you think of the 13th green, particularly if the pin is back of the center of the green. There was some grumbling that the green is too steep for a PGA tournament. Personally, I think the green is steep, but it is far from the most severe green I have ever seen and is far from unfair. I think the reason the pros make so many putts is because they putt on flat greens. Take a look at how many putts the pros missed at the Senior PGA from inside of 6 feet. Eventual winner Jay Haas missed two or three from that range in the final round. The greens are not flat, and they require you to stay below the hole at all costs.
As for the Fazio changes, they basically destroyed four of the most unique and character-filled holes on the course. The new greens are monstrosities and have no place on the golf course. For me, they detract greatly from the overall appeal of the course. 5 is an acceptable par four, although it needs tree trimming off the tee. 6 is a very awkward par three that disrupts the original flow of the routing. 15 is a poor par three. 18 is a brute and a neat hole, but the green is too shallow for the hole of its length.
I hope both of you get an opportunity to play the West Course. It is a good test of its own, although it is a very easy driving course to contrast with the East Course. It has great land and an unbelievable set of Ross green (17 wild originals). It edges out the East as my favorite course in the Rochester area.
Thanks for the great praise of the course. It is good to hear appreciation of Oak Hill from the GCA crowd.
-
JNC, we had a front pin position today on #13, which was tough since it was hard to stay below the hole. But the member we played with hit his approach to the back of the green and managed to lag his putt down the proper distance, albeit a bit off line. So based on my single play, I would be hard pressed to call the slope unfair. Regardless, #13 is a GREAT hole, perhaps my favorite on the course.
I don't have any problem with #5, although I agree they could lose a few trees off the tee. But that's hardly the only spot on the course where you could make that statement. I actually thought the 5th green was outstanding. And I liked 6 better than 15. As for #18, I think the green appears shallower than it actually is because of the uphill nature of the approach. At the end of the day, it is a ballbusting finish for championship play. I have no problem with that.
I did not get to play the West course, but a couple of other guys in my group did. While they certainly sung its praises, neither preferred it to the East. But maybe that is the inevitable difference in perspective of out of town visitors vs. those that play more regularly.
Ed
-
JNC, we had a front pin position today on #13, which was tough since it was hard to stay below the hole. But the member we played with hit his approach to the back of the green and managed to lag his putt down the proper distance, albeit a bit off line. So based on my single play, I would be hard pressed to call the slope unfair. Regardless, #13 is a GREAT hole, perhaps my favorite on the course.
I don't have any problem with #5, although I agree they could lose a few trees off the tee. But that's hardly the only spot on the course where you could make that statement. I actually thought the 5th green was outstanding. And I liked 6 better than 15. As for #18, I think the green appears shallower than it actually is because of the of the uphill nature of the approach. At the end of the day, it is a ballbusting finish for championship play. I have no problem with that.
I did not get to play the West course, but a couple of other guys in my group did. While they certainly sung its praises, neither preferred it to the East. But maybe that is the inevitable difference in perspective of out of town visitors vs. those that play more regularly.
Ed
Interesting comments about the Fazio holes. 6 is, in my mind, preferable to 15. From my mind, 18 is too shallow. The green is 20 paces deep, usually very firm, and has no run-up option. Any club over a 6-iron will have a very difficult time holding the green. The old green, which was 40 yards over the swale and closer to the clubhouse, had great run-up options and still provided a difficult finish.
I'm glad to hear you loved 13. It garners much of its fanfare from its length and the Hill of Fame surrounding the green. Additionally, many lament the fact that the creek forces a lay-up tee shot for the better player. However, the second shot has great strategy, where challenging the right fairway bunkers (placed in their present position by RTJ) yields the best approach to the green. The green sits in a beautiful, natural bowl and forces the player to keep his wits about him if he wishes to make a par. This is a par five that has defended itself well for 80+ years, and it will continue to do so for a long time.
I'm not surprised to hear the comments on the West. The East Course has a wow factor that the West does not. It takes several rounds to appreciate Ross' routing and selection of green sites on the West. The strategy on the West is also much more subtle because the course is so wide open.
-
Upon seeing the changes prior to the '80 PGA, Tom Weiskopf said: "I'm going to start an organization called the 'Classic Golf Course Preservation Society'. Members get to carry loaded guns in case they see anybody touching a Donald Ross course".
That might speak for the quality of Mr. Fazio's changes... ???
-
13 GREEN TOO STEEP
Not on your life, what a great hole, one of the best par 5's I have ever played. ripe in strategy and positional play .
I agree with the views on numbers 5/6 and 15,especially number 6 with the artificial rock like borders of the lake.
I understand they are essentail for erosion but the look simply does not fit a course from the Ross era and to me spoils the overall look of the golf course.
It is such a great course though.
I did indeed play the West course and loved it...very very challenging green complexes..and clearly more "untouched" by modern hands than its Eastern counterpart.
-
I played in the medal play portion of the 1998 Amateur at Oak Hill with a guy named Herb Stevens...9 years earlier Herb was caddying regularly on the Tour and caddied for one of the four guys that made a hole-in-one on #6 at the US Open that year/day. Pin was in the same spot in 1998 and Herb made a hole-in-one...pretty amazing really.
-
Jim...
That is an amazing US Open moment with all of those holes in one...nowadays a different tee has changed the angle of approach for the hole, I fear not for the better...but all in the name of length!
I do nt want anybody to think I am criticising the golf course when I wonder about the Fazio induced changes, I just dont think they are at all Ross like, still results in very challenging golf holes, and as such do not let the course down in qulaity, just in apperance from a traditional point of view.
I think my facvourite hole is number 2, all be it a little spoiled by the addition of a "longer" tee which makes the original design for the tee shot p[lay differently.
A wonderful small green, with an awesome protection from the front bunker...super hole...super course.
-
Oak Hill East is indeed a wonderful course. It's resistance to scoring number has to be among the highest of any ranked course.
The West course tends to get overlooked, however. To echo JNC Lyon's comments above, the West is a delight and should not be missed. While RTJ and the Fazio's made numerous changes to East over the years, there is still a lot of Ross on the West. Interestingly, I have heard from a prominent member at Oak Hill that scoring averages in tournaments are about the same on East and West. Which is both surprising and refreshing.
Bob
-
My original post was in 2003. Since then the Golf Digest rating has really bounced around.
In the 2005-2006 ranking it moved down to 27th. It then moved up slightly to #25 in the 2007 - 2008 ranking. Then another huge move up, to #11 in 2009.
-
Joel:
OH/East is a tough unrelenting layout -- fortunately, a number of trees have been eliminated but in my mind it's not the 11th best course in the USA.
Likely the ratings were right when it was in the neighborhood of 25-35 and even then I believe that's being generous. OH/East reminds me of Baltusrol / Lower -- benefits immensely from having hosted prior majors but from a straightforward architectural perspective I find little in either that merits compelling architecture of the highest order.
-
Matt, what exactly do you mean when you say a course lacks "compelling architecture"? I have seen you use this phrase frequently but rarely with meaningful details about what you think isn't up to snuff.
As it relates to Oak Hill East, if you had said that the course has too many trees, I couldn't really argue. If you said that the fairways are too narrow, the rough too high and that it is generally maintained too tough for your tastes, while I might disagree I can certainly understand that perspective. But lacking "compelling architecture"? I just don't see that. Its on a really nice piece of land and the natural features on that land (hills, ridges, hollows, creeks) are used well. I found the course to be far more strategic than I expected because the consequences for failing to correctly navagate your way around could be so harsh. Almost all fairways had a preferred angle of attack notwithstanding their narrowness. Bunkers were extremely well placed to impact play. And the greens? Well, they are terrific. A wonderful mix of subtle breaks perfect for firm and fast conditions and appropriately in tune with the overall demands of the course. In short, very little eye candy and lots of substance. While I might not differ with your ultimate view of where Oak Hill East should be placed in the rankings, I would never characterize the course as short on architectural merit.
By the way, no need to point out that you have me beat by whatever barometer you want to use to convey authority. I am confident that my experience doesn't match yours on all counts.
Ed
-
Matt, what exactly do you mean when you say a course lacks "compelling architecture"? I have seen you use this phrase frequently but rarely with meaningful details about what you think isn't up to snuff.
As it relates to Oak Hill East, if you had said that the course has too many trees, I couldn't really argue. If you said that the fairways are too narrow, the rough too high and that it is generally maintained too tough for your tastes, while I might disagree I can certainly understand that perspective. But lacking "compelling architecture"? I just don't see that. Its on a really nice piece of land and the natural features on that land (hills, ridges, hollows, creeks) are used well. I found the course to be far more strategic than I expected because the consequences for failing to correctly navagate your way around could be so harsh. Almost all fairways had a preferred angle of attack notwithstanding their narrowness. Bunkers were extremely well placed to impact play. And the greens? Well, they are terrific. A wonderful mix of subtle breaks perfect for firm and fast conditions and appropriately in tune with the overall demands of the course. In short, very little eye candy and lots of substance. While I might not differ with your ultimate view of where Oak Hill East should be placed in the rankings, I would never characterize the course as short on architectural merit.
Ed
Ed,
This post pretty much encapsulates my feelings about the East Course at Oak Hill. The trees detract from what could be an all-world layout (because of the superior land), but there is still great architecture and strategy to be had.
-
Ed:
Good points raised and fair questions asked.
Oak Hill / East is a long and unrelenting layout that accentuates straight tee shots to the max with little real deviation from a design perspective. I don't doubt it can weed out the mediocre or shabby players and it's roster of champions is quite impressive -- Middlecoff, Trevino, Nicklaus -- with the lone exception being Micheel.
One has to aslk the question -- why the need to change the course? Was it done because people were upset that an unknown (at that time) in Trevino fired four (4) consecutive rounds in the '60's -- something no one had ever done prior?
The architecture is indeed impacted by the profusion of trees -- the desire to keep fairways fairly narrow -- and the choking nature of the rough. I agree with JNC Lyon -- some good tree cutting and a general move towards opening things up in several areas would help immensely.
The TF design changes did not ADD to the course -- they simply subtracted from it. I don't see the property as "all world" as JNC has suggsted -- I save such a distinction for another NY layout -- called Shinnecock Hills as one clear example. Yet, even if Oak Hill carried out the changes the course, for me at least, would still be in the range of a top 50 layout -- but more towards the rear of the line than the front.
If you want a really compelling golf hole -- check out the short uphill par-4 14th -- people rave about the long slog at #13 but #14 is simply a gem of a hole that requires a whole slew of options and strategic choices.
Ed, the concluding holes are more about bone crushing length than anything else. Yes, there are a number of strong holes and the sum total of what is there is quite good -- exceptional in spots -- but not of the nature for me at least of being so bulletproof that it can reap a #11 position as Digest states.
One last thing -- Ed, I never said the course doesn't have merit -- it simply doesn't convey consistent compelling architecture of the highest of high levels that you see with the top 15 courses in the USA.
-
Ed:
Good points raised and fair questions asked.
Oak Hill / East is a long and unrelenting layout that accentuates straight tee shots to the max with little real deviation from a design perspective. I don't doubt it can weed out the mediocre or shabby players and it's roster of champions is quite impressive -- Middlecoff, Trevino, Nicklaus -- with the lone exception being Micheel.
One has to aslk the question -- why the need to change the course? Was it done because people were upset that an unknown (at that time) in Trevino fired four (4) consecutive rounds in the '60's -- something no one had ever done prior?
The architecture is indeed impacted by the profusion of trees -- the desire to keep fairways fairly narrow -- and the choking nature of the rough. I agree with JNC Lyon -- some good tree cutting and a general move towards opening things up in several areas would help immensely.
The TF design changes did not ADD to the course -- they simply subtracted from it. I don't see the property as "all world" as JNC has suggsted -- I save such a distinction for another NY layout -- called Shinnecock Hills as one clear example. Yet, even if Oak Hill carried out the changes the course, for me at least, would still be in the range of a top 50 layout -- but more towards the rear of the line than the front.
If you want a really compelling golf hole -- check out the short uphill par-4 14th -- people rave about the long slog at #13 but #14 is simply a gem of a hole that requires a whole slew of options and strategic choices.
Ed, the concluding holes are more about bone crushing length than anything else. Yes, there are a number of strong holes and the sum total of what is there is quite good -- exceptional in spots -- but not of the nature for me at least of being so bulletproof that it can reap a #11 position as Digest states.
One last thing -- Ed, I never said the course doesn't have merit -- it simply doesn't convey consistent compelling architecture of the highest of high levels that you see with the top 15 courses in the USA.
Matt,
You ask a very good question about Oak Hill's need to change the course. There are several possible answers, but the two that are put forward are:
1) The old Ross holes were not spectator friendly. 15's plateau green (to the left of the present green) was flush against the boundary line and fell off on three sides, meaning that the par three at the critical stage of the round was virtually shut off to spectators. The green was moved down the hill to its present, gallery-geared locale. Of course, Ross never built the green down there because it is low-lying and drains poorly. The stone wall in the pond will need to be rebuilt continuously, otherwise, the green will fall into the water! 5 and 6 was also a congested area that was solved by a temporary par three between the present 4th and 5th holes. This holes actually flows well with the routing, but it is bland and unexciting and has been out of play for several years. The new Fazio holes create more gallery space at 5 and 6, but both the greens and the creek have required reconstruction since the Fazio redo because of flooding issues.
2) Oak Hill was told that it would not host another major unless it made the course more difficult. Whether the changes actually made the course more difficult is debatable. Jack Nicklaus was five shots better in the 1980 PGA Championship post-changes than he was at the 1968 US Open pre-changes. Lee Trevino and Nicklaus were the only players to break par in the 1968 Open.
Personally, I don't think either explanation can justify the Fazio changes. The first reason really scares me, especially with the current talk about the 13th green. However, I get the sense that people do not want to mess with the greens after the Fazio changes.
As the nature of Oak Hill's property, I do not really understand the comparison to Shinnecock Hills. These are two completely different types of golf courses on two completely different kinds of property. Oak Hill's property is in no way comparable to Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes or Pebble Beach. Oak Hill's land is, however, as good as you could for in a parkland course. After watching the Walker Cup at Merion (a classic parkland layout), I will say that while Merion (East) is certainly a better golf course, Oak Hill (East) possesses the better land. The creek winds perfectly through the property to allow for variety in hole routing. But more importantly, the property is a perfect combination of broad, sweeping hills and compact micro-features.
This combination of big and small contours is best exemplified by the par-five 13th. The tee shot runs gracefully downhill to the creek and then ascends gradually but surely up to the green. In the last 100 yards of the hole, the fairway winds into a bowl that is created by two ridges that taper off from the main hill of the club. The green is eventually set perfectly at the end of the bowl. This is a superb location for a green site directly below the clubhouse, and it is perfect spot for spectators at all times, be a major championship or a routine Saturday afternoon.
This hole is not, as you say, "a long slog." A slog is hole that requires a player to blast away until he reaches the green. In contrast, the 13th on the East Course requires a great deal of thought on every single shot. I review the tradeoffs of all three shots on 13 in my post above.
As to the finishing stretch, I agree to a certain extent that is about bonecrushing length, particularly at the 18th. There is even a move afoot to lengthen the 440-yard 16th, as if two 500-yard par fours to finish were not enough. However, this characterization misrepresents the nature of the 17th hole. The penultimate hole on the East Course is half-par hole in the true sense of the word: it plays as a 4 some of the time and a 5 at other times. The hole must be regarded in this light. Furthermore, the hole contains one of the very best greens on the property. It is of the double plateau variety, and there is nothing more satisfying than hitting a three-wood approach from the crest of the hill in the landing area and watching the ball chase towards a flag on the back tier.
Oak Hill East is far from bulletproof. You are definitely correct about that. However, one should not underestimate the greatness of the long holes like 13 or 17. They are about much more than pure length, and they are reason why the East Course outpaces courses that are have much more in overall yardage.
-
JNC:
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I like Oak Hill / East but understand that changes can often go forward -- for any major site that believes it MUST change in order to stay within the rota of top dog courses for such big time events.
Let me respond to each point you mentioned ...
I played the old 15th and while it wasn't TPC-user friendly type stuff the character of the hole -- that's the key word missing with the "new" hole via TF and crew. The new par-3 is a pro-forma been there / seen that type hole that could be anywhere course USA. It sticks out in a big time way.
I don't doubt the congestion from the old 5th and 6th -- but even Trevino and Nicklaus himself have questioned what was given up and what was provided with the TF efforts. The course is simply hi-jacked between two different styles -- for that reason the overall flow and in my mind -- the nature of the totality of the architecture is compromised in a major and serious way. Let me also point out that TF did a similar thing with Inverness and the result there is equally an issue.
You also mentioned flooding issues -- the front nine and the early portion of the inner half are prone to major wet areas. I was there in '89 for the US Open and if it wasn't for local neighboring fire companies that event would not have concluded.
I am well aware of the USGA's push for more demands -- credit P.J. Boatwright for that brainstorm. I agree with his contention that the 18th at Medinah #3 needed to go -- but OH/East was served well by what it had. If the course had simply stuck to its guns the need to change could have blown over -- credit the fans in and around the Rochester area for their love of the game and no doubt the USGA / PGA would have been foolish to send the course under the bus for future events of the highest caliber.
Let me point out that when Ross built greens -- especially those with back-to-front slopes -- in his time the grades could work when greens stimped at say 6-8. But when you get tri-cuts and mega rollings you get ultra fast speeds and the contours of his era cannot handle the autobahn speeds you see now. There's two (2) simple solutions -- either slow the greens down or either raise the front of some greens or lower the rear areas.
Let me clarify my inclusion of Shinnecock Hills -- you stated that Oak Hill / East "could be an all-world layout." Candidly, from where I sit -- even with the elimination of the trees, widening the fairways and more suitable rough heights -- the nature of what is there would remain -- part of the anchor hanging around the club's neck is what TF has fashioned there. I simply mentioned Shinnecock Hills to give you an example of what I would consider to be an "all world" layout.
From the strict standpoint of parkland courses -- Oak Hill / East is a fine layout -- but when held against the likes of an Oakmont, Winged Foot / West, Oakland Hills / South, to name three quick ones, I don't see the course being of that consistency to what the aforementioned courses provide.
You say OH / East has the "better land" than Merion. Really? Merion / East is cramped on what -- 110 acres -- maybe someone can provide the exact acreage -- but what you get for such a tiny portion is tuly remarkable - the character of the Pennsy course changes from one section to the other and the sheer range of the holes is vastly superior to what is seen at OH/ East in my mind. When you speak about "micro" changes -- Merion has a slew of them in so many different and compelling ways.
Let me also address the par-5 13th -- I don't disagree about the gallery benefit -- but the creek cut-off forces a routine lay-back and as a result you get a hole that requires a set of three fairly rudimentary shots for the top players. No doubt when the fairways are pinched tightly a misplay on any of the first three can prove demanding. I also agree about the greensite and what it provides but frankly there are far better long par-5's of that type that are played in the high caliber air of professional golf. Compare the 16th at Firestone / South to OH/ East's 13th and the range of shot diversity / score possibilities rests more so, in my mind, with the RTJ creation in Akron.
JNC, I can understand your defense of OH -- given your close connection -- but the 13th is a slog in my mind. The players are not going to get there in two blows -- so you get the predictable three-shot scenario over and over again. If you want to see another high quality long par-5 hole look at the 17th at Baltusrol / Lower (save for the silly single tree that players had to contend with on the tee shot for the '05 PGA). The hole features a chain-reaction cross bunker which elevates the elements of shotmaking as soon you hit the tee and continues until you reach the green.
Let me also address the finishing stretch -- the existing 16th is a fine hole. Unfortunately, for the world's best it's a nothing hole because it's driver / short iron. Clearly, the membership and those who want to "beef up" the place would see added distance as the saving grace. In my mind, when a course goes the route of added distance it's a clear admission something was wrong with the hole when in actuality the existing 16th is a fine hole and allows those who play it well to make a down-the-stretch birdie as, if memory serves, what Curtis Strange did in '89 in the final round.
The long uphill 17th makes little sense to me. The turning point is choked down to such a degree that you need to hit a hard cut off the tee and simply hope against hope you can fit it in to the narrowest area available. I don't doubt the qualities of the green but the added length has simply played into the hands of just the strongest of the strongest. That's the problem with simply overdosing on the distance side of things -- pronouncing a former three shot hole into a two-shot one doesn't always work. See the uphill par-5 turned par-4 17th at Olympic's Lake to be another clear example. You don't make the hole better -- you simply make it impossible for anyone who can't bust the tee shot in a big time way -- aka, Bubba Watson, Hank Kuehne types, et al.
The 18th is also another testament to fix what wasn't broken -- the hole that the pros played in '89 and at the '95 Ryder Cup Matches was just fine. There was sufficient length but not the inane thing one saw with the recent PGA Championship there. Why not just push the tee back another 50 yards to accomplish the goal of having just about no one get to the target in regulation?
JNC, Oak Hill has lived off the laurels of major championships and I salute the great fans of the Rochester, NY area for their devoiton to the game. And for the good sense in having such a fine gentleman like Craig Harmon as the club's head pro. But, frankly, OH/East reminds me of the standing that Baltusrol / Lower has garnered over the years.
The original Ross layout at OH/East was not broken -- it worked well -- very well. It identified Cary Middlecoff -- it brought to America's attention the likes of Lee Trevino. The ying / yang of styles there now is what fails in my mind. Let us not confuse difficulty and extended length as the primary means in keeping OH / East among the nation's best overall designed layouts. Consistency in the presentation through the architecture is needed for me to place such a layout among the elite of elites. The Digest panel's elevation of OH/ East to #11 is a good bit padded in my mind. I like plenty of the holes at the course and my comments are not meant to beat up the course but to simply provide some sort of context on where the layout should reside when compared and contrasted with other courses of equal or greater standing. Like I said -- I'd likely include it in my personal top 50 in the USA -- but more towards the very rear than the very front. Just one man's thoughts.
-
The last few posts have been so interesting to read.
The holes doscussed, notably5/6 and 15 are the exact holes that in my opinion spoil the course.
The Fazio chnages/additions do nothing positive in mu opinion..they stick out like sore thumbs and break up the natural flow of the golf course, they create a made made look onto a golf course that exemplifies natural flow and routing.
That been said, I love the course, just wish I couls have played it when the original holes existed.
Number 15 looks like it was a great hole....?
-
Michael:
The issue for the former 15th hole was not that it was "great" as you suggest -- but that it fit into what was there and what was intended. You are right on target -- the course is spoiled through the involvements of holes that have been plucked from a design board and then MADE to fit into a layout in which they stick out noticeably.
Let me be clear - even if the former 15th and the nature of the course in the middle of the front nine were somehow brought back to its former self -- I see Oak Hill as a next tier layout just below those of the stellar ones I mentioned previously.
Oak Hill / East has seen fit to make a pact with the devil -- as other top tier layouts believe they must -- the very nature of its core architecture and the manner by which it first made its mark -- should not be so easily jettisoned and thrown away simply for the benefit of a one week event or the ego status that certain people have when holding such events on home turf.
Oak Hill / East was accurately assigned, in my mind, by Doak when he gave the course a seven (7) in CG. For a layout to get to a #11 status, as Digest awarded the course in its most recent ratings, would require a layout that is nearly top-to-bottom vintage stuff -- no real glaring gaps or weaknesses, in all senses of the word a tour de force presentation. The consistency of the architecture is a big part of that equation -- but even if the facility returned to those past inclusions, the nature of just how great other courses are in the USA cannot be lightly mentioned - especially those that are fairly new that have come onto the scene recently. Oak Hill / East has benefited from the glare / spotlight of major championship play but for me the course engenders not deep love for the architecture but for the manner by which it can sort out the pretenders for any major title. The former for me is what demands the greater concern -- the latter is of lesser importance. At Oak Hill -- the reverse, in my mind, seems to have been the driving force behind what has happened to the East Course there.
-
Matt and Michael:
Regarding the Fazio changes, I agree that they have done very little good other than attract more major championships. The 15th hole is certainly the worst of the Fazio par threes. It has no options, strategy, or decision-making. It only requires the player to fire away with a mid-iron and hope for the best. The green is the worst of the four Fazio creations and is, like I said, falling into the water. It now requires a grueling walk up to the 16th tee. It is no wonder why Ross never built the green there. My father played the old 15th hole numerous times as a lad, and he remembers it as a great par three from both the original tee short right of the 14th green and the new tee directly to the right of the 14th green.
5 is, in my mind, not a great a hole, but it still presents a certain amount of strategy and interest. 6, while not as bad as 15, absolutely obliterates any sense of flow in the routing. The golfer has to make a round trip of over 300 yards to play a par three that is 175 yards at its maximum. Furthermore, the hole continues on the east-west plain of the front nine holes rather than playing into a crosswind as the original sixth did. The original 6th was a very cool uphill par three in a classic Ross style.
Matt, what do you see as the glaring weaknesses of the East Course outside of the trees and the Fazio holes (which everyone seems to focus on)? The land, as I have said earlier, is absolutely phenomenal. To continue with the comparison to Merion, Oak Hill is blessed because it possesses BOTH the micro features that are so rich at Merion and the great sweeping elevation changes. This allowed Ross, the greatest golf course router of all time, to create a set of holes that are both grand and quaint at the same time. Merion has great variety in the character of the land and the look of the golf holes. But, ultimately, Merion's land features are mostly of the micro variety. Oak Hill certainly does not match up to Oakmont or Winged Foot in the realm of parkland courses--I never stated such, but the routing and property at Oak Hill can certainly compete with those two venerable layouts, no?
Matt, I understand your objections to the tee shot on the 17th. The landing area is significantly overtreed, and it amounts to a hit-and-hope proposition for all but the very best ballstrikers. However, I think you are missing the half-par nature of the hole and the tradeoffs between the grueling tee shot and the thrilling second shot. The hole is only a driver-wedge hole for the very longest hitters, meaning that it still holds its intrigue for most good players. A 4 at 17 feels like a birdie, but a 5 feels like a bogey. Two good shots can yield a 3 or even, as it did for Jay Haas, a 2. The key to the hole's interest is the downhill second shot. If you can hold off the tee, you will be rewarded with a very fun approach shot where the terrain gives the player to hit a running second shot into the green and leave a very good chance at 4. From the 460 yardage, I have a hit a 225 tee shot to the top of the hill and then a 235 3-wood onto the back edge. The hole is much more than a straight uphill death march of a par four.
I still fail to see the 13th as a "long slog." Why must all par fives be reachable in two shots? This like saying that all par fours that are not drivable are uninteresting because they only present "two-shot" scenarios. The demands on the three shots do not result simply from narrow fairways. The second shot is tilted significantly from right to left away from the right fairway bunkers. This means that the player has to hit a very good second shot to reach a good position for the third shot. Otherwise, the golfer will face one of three scenarios. One, he will have a difficult fairway bunker shot. Two, he will be on the left side and close to the green, but he will have to shape his approach to hit the green. Three, he will lay back into the flat short of the bunkers and face an uphill, semi-blind mid-iron approach. While the last is undoubtedly the best of the three options, each will make it very difficult for the golfer to control his approach shot into a green where position is at a premium. Thus, the second shot dares the golfer to challenge the land and the bunkering to gain an advantage. Greg Norman did this successfully at the 2008 Senior PGA Championship. In the final round, Norman hit a very strong 3-wood second over the bunkers and into the bowled fairway some 25 yards short of the green. He had a straightforward up and down for birdie, and it vaulted him into the thick of contest down the home stretch. However, if Norman had failed to execute perfectly on either his perfect 3-wood tee shot (which found a flat lie at the end of the right side of the fairway) or the long second, he would have likely made a five or worse.
The 13th is not only interesting for the longer hitters. As a good player who only drives in the 230-250 range, I will face similar tradeoffs on my second shot at the 13th. No matter how far you hit the ball, you will face decisions at 13 due to the contours of the land, the creek, the bunkering, and, most importantly, the fantastic greensite. The 13th is refreshing because it has stood up against technology, is not reachable in two, yet still presents great variety and options. I will take 13th any day over a 530 par five that the top players reach with a drive and a 5-iron.
Like I said before, the Fazio holes are of great detriment to the overall layout, as are the trees that encroach on playing angles. However, the layout uses the land given in beautiful fashion. The terrain alone creates a tremendous amount of strategy on holes 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Finally, the Ross greens exude understated elegance and challenge without being unnatural, unduly severe, or visually intimidating. For me, it is the 18 green complexes at Oak Hill East that provide the primary challenge to the best players in the world. They may not have the steep grades or wild undulations of Oakmont or Winged Foot, but they will continually frustrate the player who places his shots incorrectly on and around the greens.
-
JNC:
Let me give you the Cliffs notes version of my take on Oak Hill / East -- I think GD and its panelists has the place way too high. Simple as that. I have provided the rationale before so retyping similar points does really little.
Look, I don't doubt your love for the place but the connection to the club does have an impact -- right?
I also don't doubt the nature of the terrain there but take Oak Hill / East and the land Plainfield CC (NJ) occupies. The former is very good -- the latter is even better yet the layout in the Garden State is lucky to sniff a big time mention -- no doubt, the hosting of championships -- just like having a nearby ocean -- adds a number of rating points to the equation.
JNC, the issue for me is that no course can get that high a rating as the East has recently achieved via Digest with the gaps previously mentioned. The TF holes are a major pimple on a wonderful canvass. They cannot be ignored -- they need to be seen for what has happened there. The club, years ago under certain folks, decided that the allure of major championship play was a top priority -- more so than preserving what Ross originally envisioned. When you make a pact with the Devil -- you get what you seek -- you also lose a good part of your inner soul and the TF holes do that to me.
Try to realize I have never said that Oak Hill / East is not worthy of play or considerable attention. It is still among my personal top 100 USA courses but it's not near the front of the line as Digest would have people believe -- in fact, I would be hard pressed to place it among my top ten in all of NY State -- not as a demotion to Oak Hill / East but the grandeur and stellar nature of the depth of key courses within The Empire State.
p.s. The 13th is not reachable in two blows because of the forced lay-back top players have to make and the naturally softer tyrf conditions that are generally present. Remove the creek situation and have firmer turf and the big boys -- albeit only a handful -- will get there in two blows. Like I said before -- long at OH/East's 13th and compare to other long par-5's still in major event play today -- RTJ often gets little plaudits here but his 16th at Firestone South is still one of the very finest of its kind. Ditto what Tillinghast did with the 17th at Baltusrol / Lower.
In regards to the 17th we shall agree to disagree. The lengthening aspect of the hole flies in the face of the turning point you need to overcome. It's been unduly lengthened to add difficulty -- not to add compelling architecture. Great long par-4's put a premium on driving the ball to target areas that can be reasonably accessed when properly played -- I don't see the 17th at Oak Hill / East being that way for the drive demands presented. I do concur with you on the nature of the green contours -- they are well done and one of the best at the club. The issue would be to allow the hole to play a reasonable length without resorting to draconian measure -- those are what exists now in my mind but I can certainly respect your take.
-
Matt,
Have you ever listed your top 100? With the amount of courses you have played, it would certainly be interesting to see.
-
Matt:
I would agree that Oak Hill is too high on the Golf Digest list. The Fazio holes and the trees make the #11 ranking very distorted. I just think these two factors should not distracted from the great architecture that is on the ground at the East Course.
I agree also that 17 plays better at 460 than at 495. However, building a tee at 495 was positive for a couple of reasons:
First, it simply lengthened a long hole and preserved rather than destroyed the nature of the hole. Recently, the club built a back tee on the 4th hole of West Course. The hole was designed and should play as a short par three at a maximum of 140 yards. However, the new tee extends the hole to 190, which for me is a solid three iron. This tee destroys the nature of the hole, but the one on 17 East does not.
Second, the construction of the new tee forced the club to clear out what was formerly a jungle behind the 17th tee. The new look is worlds better and improves the visual elements of both the 16th hole on the East Course and the 14th hole on the West Course.
The new tee may compromise the challenge of the tee shot for a shorter hitter, but then again anyone who is not a scratch golfer should not be playing from the back tees!
The creek on 13 is what it is. You say that the removal of the creek would create, in and of itself, a reachable par five. That is true. However, the creek is inexorably interrelated to the land and contours that make the hole so fascinating. Thus, your scenario of 13th hole without the creek is implausible and counterproductive to understanding the strategy and challenge of the existing golf hole.
Overall, I think we agree on many aspects of the golf course, particularly the negative impact of the trees and the Fazios (from my understanding, it was actually George Fazio who was responsible for the changes. I've seen his informal notes on what he wanted to do to every hole, and it is seriously scary). I would love to see a course like Plainfield, especially since it occupies similar land to Oak Hill East and has actually undertaken some restoration of the original Ross plan. Oak Hill would benefit from learning from their example.
Matt, I agree with Sean: I would be interested to see your personal top 100.
-
JNC and Matt...
Okay..first of all..surely the whole point of number 13 is that you have a startegic hole with teh creek and the superb bunker placements for the second shot...who on hell says that all par fives should be reachable, isnt that why they are par fives?
the hole is far from a long slog because it is so strategic, I liken it to number 15 at Pine Valley..gives you choices on where you lay up..take a gamble and you are within 100 yards play safe maybe 140...that is good planning to me.
The creek is there and should be for the benefit of the hole.....
Number 17...the new tee is the only one I have ever played, so that is the only hole I know...and shit what a tough hole.
I agree the hole palys as a par 4.5...which is fine, but the landing area does need some clearing uo tree wise...other tahn that spot, I did not find the course over treed....but then I do like lots of trees on a golf course ;D
One thing I did hear whilst there which made me shudder.....building a new green on 16 in that open area, extending the hole some 40 odd yards...of course that beautiful willow would have to go.....please tell me that is not going to happen
-
Michael,
There has been talk for several years about moving the green back. People claimed that Fazio's firm would be able to do an exact replica of the green. This, of course, is impossible. However, the plan has more or less died out. It is highly unlikely that the green will be altered. There was also a movement to knock down the current tee and put in a new back tee. Well this is less unsavory than moving the green, it is not ideal. I believe that this, too, will suffer the same fate as the plan to move the green. The hole should remain at its current 440 yardage. It will be a bit of respite for the pros before the final two holes.
-
Sean & JNC:
Fair enough -- I'll have to give it a thought.
I would not do what Digest does and list courses in numerical order from 1-100 -- likely it would be what Digest did years ago when they grouped the first 50 courses in groupings of ten and then having a second 50 for the remaining ones.
JNC:
We agree 10000% on the 16th hole -- it works well and provides the one lone good birdie opportunity for the final three holes. Let me say that the final three at Oak Hill / East are just a tiny amount behind the tenacity you find with the final three at Winged Foot / West. Let me also point out that Plainfield also had issues with the original Ross layout being tinkered with -- see the holes of #13 & #14 there as two good examples.
Oak Hill / East is a demanding layout but I just see the rush to throw under the bus the Ross original elements as a means to garner support for future major events. The membership there is first rate and no doubt the community has been always quick to support the game / club.
In regards to the 17th -- at 460 yards you balance the needs of both the top player and those just below the level. For those who are shorter hitters -- whether the hole is 460 or 498 is really not a major issue / concern since the overwhelming majority of times they will only be getting home in three shots.
I didn't like what was done to the 18th -- it was fine before -- the "new" 18th is a slave to the concept that more distance and more demands are needed. Be very interesting to see what transpires when the next major returns to the club.
-
JNC_Lyon:
You mentioned the qualities of Oak Hill / West and Leatherstocking on another thread (Monroe) as solid designs in the upstate are aof NY.
Let me also point out that Crag Burn and Cobblestone Creek are also good courses and worthy of a play.
One other course that gets so little attention -- likely because Rees Jones name is attached to it -- is the stellar layout in the greater Albany area -- Olde Kinderhook. I would only hope that people who come to The Empire State would not automatically presume that only Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk countires are the only places where superior golf can be played.
-
I will do the same thing here that I did on the Monroe thread and post links to a slideshow...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eko_gfl/sets/72157622459739822/show/
...and a set of individual photos...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eko_gfl/sets/72157622459739822/
Again, on the second link, click on a thumbnail to bring up a picture and then on the "All Sizes" tab above it to view the photo in the largest size.
Ed
-
I was fortunate enough to also play in the 1998 US Am at Oak Hill. Great club, friendly people but I saw nothing that was that interesting. A pretty, manicured parkland course that when set up for a USGA event was tough. I actually enjoyed the west course more and thought the greens were far more interesting on that course. For whatever it's worth and to put any of my biases out there I played well on the "big" course the east, bogeying my last four holes for 74 >:( I then shot 79 on the "easier" west course and missed match play.
Unfortunately it rained and the course played sloppy (I was at the 1989? US Open as i was playing in the Monroe Amateur and we stopped by and if I remember correctly the course was pretty "flooded" then as well.)
Anyway, the course had some really good holes--I liked #1 which was a nerve wracking start, neat par 4 #2, solid par three #3 and I really liked the first par 5 #4 I think. I don't remember much about 5-8 but I really liked #9.
Sorry but I think Matt's description of #13 as a long slog is dead on. Lay-up, lay-up, wedge. Ho-hum and I fail to see any startegy whatsoever in that. Execute two lay ups and have a wedge. It was like playing down a bowling alley ??? Certainly if you missed the fairway at any point you were in trouble but is that strategic? The hill of fame thing seemed a little hokey but I'm not into that kind of thing. There seemed to me no advantage to being left, right or center off the tee or for the second shot--ANYWHERE in the fairway was fine. Granted maybe this was accentuated because of the soft conditions and maybe when firm and fast there is more strategy but I missed it in '98.
I thought 14 was a good hole. Drive was a little blah as it was a three iron with little trouble if I rememer correctly but the second shot was all world--steeply unphill, huge fronting bunker and the knowledge that long was instant death! A "get your attention" wedge shot.
#15 was a pretty standard par three-nothing unique.
#16 I liked this hole. I really liked the second shot--green just seemed to set in the land nicely and it fit my eye.
#17 440ish when I played but a really awkward drive. Eith had to hit it way over the trees about 290, hit a really big cut shot or lay up with a three wood. I only saw the second shot from the trees but had I been near the fairway it looked like a strong shot ;)
#18 When I first saw it I wasn't sure I liked the green perched up and basicly protected by a big band of thick rough but the hole played much better than I thought it would. Tough drive but there is plenty of room for a long hole and while I can't remember any details I liked the approach shot and green.
Quite honestly though, If you are in Rochester and were looking for a fun day of golf I'd send you over to Pittsford (Monroe GC)--a true hidden gem in my mind :)