[JESII]

Mark,

You may not have done so as I think you would see my point if you'd read from the start...

I asked which US Open course had been wrecked and Pete posited that Torrey may have been...when it turns out it was not much of a course to begin with I'm wondering how it has been wrecked...

This came about as I was arguing that it is the memberships of each individual club that are responsible for each and every result from hosting the US Open...it should also be noted that the clubs that do so deserve a tremendous amount of credit for offering up their homes for a considerable comittment...

[Pete Lavallee]

JES,

I like Mark's answer.

In my opinion it's still a Doak 3. It was improved slightly; the 3 greens that were moved to the edge of the internal canyons are an improvement. But for $3.2MM what did the City of San Diego get? Certainly not a better course, nor one that's more fun to play. They did get a harder course and the locals have spoken out that harder is not necessarily better. The tourists only get one crack at it so it doesn't matter much to them; just another belt notch. But as Mark so eloquently states: this golf course embodies everything that the USGA wants to see for their protecting par fest held each June!

[JESII]

Pete,

Two questions:

-Do you think a $3.2 million expense is all the city is going to reap from this?

-Why is the result the fault of the USGA?

They may well have picked Rees (I think, right?), but please don't tell me someone else would have made the course a 7 for $3.2 million...

[Jerry Kluger]

I spent a number of years in San Diego on business and played TP quite a few times - for a player at my level I always thought the North was much more fun.  The South was long but not very interesting - great views and very cool when the planes from the naval air station came over and turned on the burners when they got to the water - but again, not a very interesting or fun course.  It was often mentioned along with Pebble Beach and everyone said how disappointing it was considering the possibilities when compared with PB.  

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete,

Two questions:

-Do you think a $3.2 million expense is all the city is going to reap from this?

No, they are getting exactly $500,000 for hosting the Open; plus paying $1MM for the new parking lot and the expense of restoring the part of the North used as the driving range. As I stated earlier they will extract their pound of flesh from the tourists with higher green fees. Of course the City will profit from the influx of patrons for the big event.

-Why is the result the fault of the USGA

As Mark said the Century Club had Rees build what they thought would please the USGA. Hey, it worked, the US Open will be contested there this year.

They may well have picked Rees (I think, right?), but please don't tell me someone else would have made the course a 7 for $3.2 million...

For $3.2MM I would hope even Ted Robinson could make some improvement to the course. I truely believe that any competent GCA could have brought it up to 5 or 6 with that kind of money. Of course then it would only be fun to play and not worthy of the US Open.

[Kalen Braley]

I think if there was ever a poster-child for ," a course that benefits due to its location, because otherwise it would be a ho-hum muni that no one has ever heard of", its this one.  

Straight, tree lined fairways, with flattish greens and the occasional bunker...its a yawner in my book.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()