Oakland Hills held up it's end of the deal ...

[Paul Richards]

Oakland Hills held up its end of the bargain by being a great host venue for the Ryder Cup.

The course looked great on TV, was tough and challenging, and the greens - spectacular!

Now if only the American team had put up a better challenge ...

[ForkaB]

Amen.

[TEPaul]

From what I could see of the putting and recovering around the greens at Oakland Hills during the Ryder Cup, I think the green speed on that course for the week was right about on the edge of what I've come to call the "reasonable maximum" greenspeed for the slopes and contours of those particular greens. Most anything from anywhere on or around those greens seemed "doable" but really intense and requiring of the very best thought and execution in some cases. At those speeds on those greens it also meant approaching particular sections of those greens was really meaningful and because it was it made the course highly strategic or probably far more strategic than ordinarily!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Loved the medium length of the rough, firm greens, but not too hard, speed was good, so the PGA should be commended.
However don't others agree, that the 18th hole needs fixing?  Making a 3 shotter for the members a par 4 for the pros, doesn't work.  The bounces of balls in the middle of the fairway are inconsistent.  Davis Love hits 3 wood in the middle of the fairway and has no shot in the rough.  I don't mind quirky bounces in match play, but shouldn't there be an alternative or safe play to make it interesting for a match play hole?
The least receptive green on the course to a long shot.  It is built for a third short shot.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Lynn,

I think the fairway was simply too narrow at 18. With that severe right-to-left cant, the fairway should probably have been wider on the left. That's a pretty simple fix.

They probably should have just played 18 as a "par 5", too. What's it matter, particularly in a match-play event, what par value holes are designated?

Oakland Hills South's 18th is one of those holes that makes for a relatively easy "par 5", but one helluva tough "par 4". In fact, I think if an architect designed that hole today and called it a par 4, he'd be called "nuts".

[tlavin]

Oakland Hills was a 10.  The Euros were a 10.  The independent contractor multimillionaire all about me Americans were a 2.

[TEPaul]

Lynn:

I agree with you that the design of the 18th green is certianly for a short par 5, not a long par 4. But, on the other hand, short par 5s today are, distance-wise, mostly for these players today what the long par 4s were for the good players of yesteryear. The only difference is the long par 4s for the players of yesteryear all mostly had a run-up front which #18 Oakland Hills doesn't have. The irony, though, is these players today can (and all do) hit their approach shots so much further (with comparable irons to yesteryear) but more importantly so much higher than they used to yesteryear! So there's sort of poetic justice in offering today's pros a hole like Oakland Hill's #18 that has no run-up option as a finisher.

It's pretty rare today to see touring pros hitting long irons into par 4s and Oakland Hills's #18 certainly accomplished that. But I do agree that the tee shot was unnecessarily restricting if even a bomber like Love hit basically a perfect 3 wood and got penalized like that. In my opinion, the thing that needed to be done to that hole which wasn't done is to give those players (like Love) perhaps up to 10 yards more fairway right in that small area on the left that so many of them seemed to end up after a perfect drive off the right to left cant of that fairway!

But I'll tell you something else about Love on that hole---what he did about not bothering to even consider "relief" and his reasoning why was without question one of the most interesting things I've ever seen in tour pro golf. Talk about showing both integrity and true "class". I know the rules of golf really well but the way he interpreted that situation (he said he didn't really consider hitting a fade anyway, for which he definitely would've been granted relief) was something I've basically never seen before from a player! (there most definitely is a decision in the Rules of Golf that says you certainly don't need to continue to play the type of shot you got relief for once relief has been granted!!!).

Talk about poetic justice, again, that after he just missed scrambling for a par, Clarke, another great guy in golf, missed his short par putt to half the match. And all that on a hole that must be the ultimate demon of all holes in golf to Davis Love 3rd!

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

I saw first-hand how far these 'flat-bellies' hit it last year when I played Oakland Hills with a plus-one amateur (who shot even par).  This youngster hit an 8-iron into each of the four five-pars - from the tips!  

There are almost NO par fives anymore!

[Brent Hutto]

Maybe I'm failing to miss the point about the fairway on #18. Couldn't a right-handed player like Davis Love hit a cut shot with a 3-wood that lands on the high side of the fairway and stays in the short grass?

I watched the balls landing and rolling and the fairway looked wide enough to give some kind of option for keeping it out of the left rough even though I admit that it was really fast once the ball started going left and down.

[CHrisB]

I don't think the 18th at Oakland Hills is unfair at all for the caliber of player who was there this week. For regular play, perhaps, but not for world-class professinals.

If you hit a straight tee shot on #18 at Oakland Hills, you are in effect narrowing the fairway, and if you hit a draw, you are narrowing it even further. You have to hit a cut shot to have the best chance of hitting the fairway. Davis Love hit a straight 3-wood that landed in the left side of the fairway and ran through the fairway. Kenny Perry hit his draw and ran out of fairway also. This is not bad luck but simply not playing the shot that would give them the best chance of hitting the fairway. They took their chances with a smaller target and it didn't work out for them.

World-class players should be able to hit all the shots when they need to, and I don't think it is unfair for the if they have to play a shot that isn't "their shot" to hit the fairway. For lesser golfers, it probably isn't fair to ask them to hit a certain kind of shot to hit the fairway, but the world's best should be able to handle it.

(BTW--Johnny Miller compared the hole to #17 at The Olympic Club, but from what I remember from the last U.S. Open held there, even shots down the left side of #17 would roll all the way down to the right rough. So I don't think the comparison is quite right.)

[Rick Shefchik]

I agree with Chris; if the fairway on 18 were widened by 10 yards to the left, it would effectively create a collection area, which would soon be pock-marked with divots, sand-filled or otherwise. It would eliminate much of the current difficulty of the tee shot (though it is not impossible; the Euros proved that), and replace it with a lie lottery: Am I going to end up in a divot or not?

The fact that green is not terribly receptive to long irons doesn't make it a bad par 5; I haven't heard anyone suggesting that #14 at Pebble Beach is a bad par 5 because the green is not receptive to long irons or 3-woods.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

A couple of points.  The 14th at Pebble is not a good comparsion.  It is 50 yards longer, but plays 80 yards longer because it is uphill.  So only about 4 players in the A T and T go for the green in two.  And when they do, they have an opportunity to run it up the right side of the green.  The uphill slope is receptive.
My point is I don't mind players hitting long irons into a green, but this green is designed for short irons.  The 14th at Pebble is still hit in 3 by most players (in the believe or not category, Nicklaus hit driver, 4 iron to the 14th in US Amateur).
On widening the 18th on the left and having a pock marked area doesn't bother me.
On having to hit a high cut, for right handed players, doesn't bother me.  Does that shot work?  The announcers seem to imply that any good shot may or may not bounce left.  I don't mind that either, but in match play, I would like to see an option, maybe a 220 yard drive that a player, from the fairway, would have the ability to hit a fairway wood into the green from about 260 yards out.  Interesting decision then on the tee.

[TEPaul]

Perhaps A.W. Tillinghast's ideas on this subject under discussion of the 18th at Oakland Hills as a par 4 or par 5 is the best answer;

"The ideal three shot hole is a combination of a long two shotter and a short one---two long shots so played as to permit the next, an accurate iron, to find and hold the green. I believe that only a hole such as this may be regarded as a satisfactory three shotter. One of the most respected golf architects in America differs with me in the estimate of holes of this type. I recall a friendly argument, and I have no hesitation in presenting his views. He insisted that such a hole should present a green of generous dimensions, one sufficiently large to receive a very long shot, and that the hole should always be open to two prodigous shots if the player can bring them off.
       To this argument I take decided exception. In the first place our putting greens must be built with the shot that is to find it in mind. The size of the greens, their very contour must fit the shot. How then, can we conceive and construct that most vital of feature if we admit that shots of one kind are to reach home ordinarily, and on unusual occasions an entirely different stroke is to do it? In brief, I hold that a three-shot hole must call for three shots from any man, and never two abormal ones. Else, how is it a three shot hole?
        If the green is open to two shots, the whole scheme of hazards must be entirely different from any conceived to guard against a third shot which is short and placed with great precision. A man cannot serve two masters, nor can a golf hole be satisfactory if two shots, so very different as is the full brassey and a pitch from mid-iron or mashie, be considered when the green and its approaches are designed and built."