Oakland Hills South -- Architectural Evolution Summary

[Rick Wolffe]

OK -- here is the last of Oaks which host major championships.  Thanks again to everyone for helping. 

The purpose of these summaries is to put these classical 'golden age' courses in context with one another with a concise and factual listing of the changes with the appropriate design credit.  It is interesting to me that all of these courses have very unique histories and all have been changed -- some more than others.




Oakland Hills South – originally designed by Donald Ross circa 1917

Founded in 1916, Oakland Hills Country Club in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., has, and will continue to play a significant role in the history of golf in the United States. The South Course has played host to 16 Major Championships including: the 35th Ryder Cup in 2004; three PGA Championships -- including the 90th PGA Championship in 2008; six U.S. Opens; two U.S. Senior Opens; U.S. Women’s Amateur; U.S. Men’s Amateur; Western Open; and the Carling World Open.

When the time for the 1951 Open approached, the USGA hired Robert Trent Jones to modernize the work of …Donald Ross.  “The game had outrun architecture,” Jones has since explained in describing his work at Oakland Hills, and he set out to give the world’s best players what he called “the shock treatment”. The philosophy behind his rebuilding programme was to create two target areas on each of the par-four and par-five holes, one on the fairway for the tee shot and another at the green.  The result was a series of wasp-waisted fairways, formed by bunkers on either side, and greens surrounded by wide and deep bunkers and overhanging lips – a total of 120 bunkers in all containing some 400 thons of so-called medium-sharp sand.   In his work, Jones also re-designed the 7th and 16th greens. 

The course has been changed and lengthened since 1951__________???__________The couse played to a par-70 and was 6,974 yards in length for the 1996 U.S. Open

The most recent design work on the South was completed by Rees Jones in advance of the 2008 PGA Championship.  The couse was expanded by 471 yards to 7,445 yards by Jones, who was able to restore the test of golf required for major Championships without moving any of Oakland Hills' daunting greens.  He lengthened 15 holes, narrowed several fairways, changed the depth, size and location of fairway bunkers on 12 holes, and made changes to greenside bunkers on eight holes. Additionally, changes were made to the ponds featured on Hole Nos. 7 and 16, in order to require longer and more aggressive players to hit well-placed drives.  The pond on No. 7 was enlarged, while 38 yards were added to the hole. In addition, redesigned fairway bunkering was done to the left side to create what is perhaps the most beautiful and intimidating hole at Oakland Hills.  There was also a dramatic makeover of the par-4 No. 11, which played to 398 yards in 1996 and is now a 455-yard hole that features a 289-yard carry over a rolling hill. Jones enlarged the fairway bunkers on the right and rebuilt them with deeper faces. This section of Oakland Hills was maintained well with its elevated greens and tees.

[Mike_Cirba]

Hi Rick,

Happy New Year!

I've noticed that each of the courses you've listed are not only classic courses, but classic courses that host major championships.  Is there a particular reason you're researching courses that still host (or hope to) major championships?

Thanks!

[Rick Wolffe]

Yes, there is a reason for my research -- to the best of my knowledge this information has not been summarized anywhere else.  If it has been done already, please someone let me know so I can stop wasting time on it.

Also, I am very interested in placing the "golden age" courses which continue to host the big tournaments in a historical context with one another relative to their original design integrity.   So I value the input of this board to make sure I'm not making any errors or ommissions.

This is also meant to be a summary, and I realize that a book could be written on everything that has happened to a course over its life, so I want to make sure that the major things are mentioned and the people that were largely responsible for design/construction are credited.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rick,

Thanks...understood.

Although we here might decry it, and with good reasons IMO, it seems the prevalent architectural history of almost every "Golden Age Course" that is still hosting major tournaments can be summed up in a few words;  longer, tighter, speed up greens, longer, tighter, longer, move bunkers, tighter. speed up greens,  move bunkers, speed up greens, flatten greens, longer.

In the past few years, there has been some bit of reaction to that historical trend, where a course like Pinehurst hosted the US Open without much in the way of rough, or the aforementioned Oakmont, which was a bit schizonphrenic in that all the trees were removed yet all the bunkers deepened and the course lengthened, but generally what we're seeing now at Bethpage Black seemingly every year now...longer, tigher, higher rough, new bunkers, and a very singular "strategy" involving absolutely ZERO horizontal decision making...only vertical, where the only questions the golfer faces are "lay up or carry?", are the order of the day.

I'm not sure it's making golf any better, or more exciting, or more fun, but since the technological genie slipped out of the bottle big time in the mid-late 80s til now, I think we'll see more of it.

I just have a tough time equating what Mackenzie did at ANGC, for instance, or what Ross did at Oakland Hills...with the courses that are on the ground today.   

I also think that the example set by these prominent courses is way too often idiotically emulated by clubs and courses everywhere that see what's being done on those "championship" tracks as some "ideal" of what a golf course is supposed to look and play like.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Rick,

Sorry for the editorializing...I know that's not what you're looking for here. 

I don't have any additional info about the architectural history of Oakland Hills, but I do think some gross generalizations hold true about the architectural history of a number of "tournament" courses you mentioned in terms of intent and result, and I thought it was important to point that out. 

Truly, I don't know what the answer is for a course that 1) is a classic design, and 2) has a rich heritage of hosting important events and wants to continue to do so.

It's a Catch-22.