Sometimes I think of the varied strident opinions, entrenched positions, and experienced hands here as an undifferentiated ego mass that screams back us collectively as Maximus from the subject line...
1. Despite my laced question of an early thread subject, Erin Hills was just fine: some neat holes, an interesting presentation and much excellent golf was played to register 272 as a winner among a bevy under 280. I would've preferred to see some more proven names contend as the best players of an era are always playing for their place in history, but it's also nice to see one of a sometimes homogeneous pack live up to potential. As expressed in that thread, my critical eye is about the leadership of such a costly, engineered course that goes so far to showcase rugged naturalness and bold quirk that the course felt it had little central soul at all, just a circus tent of architecturally desirably shots with no firm bond or identity to join them...the cannon shot, the unicycle ramp and the elephant stomp on one end of the see saw...all of which these guys can do, somewhat easily as a field, even at 7,800 yards.
2. But this tent did not encompass the tightrope driving, the life threatening knife and fire acts that the classic US Open venues do. It's become a basic identity of the US Open to make play anxious, and edgy to make any "4" a relief, to make keeping it to 5 often clever, to permit 3s only for excellent play. You miss the green on the sides at Winged Foot and you are fucked, my brother. You drive in that primary rough 3-5 yards off a fairway, you get injuries to your body and the card. The US Open isn't about the gamble, risk reward of ANGC or the organic feel necessary on the Open Championship coastal courses, it's about pin-point play and perseverance in the face of all players' imperfections.
3. If I could find a middle ground with those posters who state that they wish "manliness" kept aflame in the US Open (but liked Erin as a hard course for us, no matter what the elites shot) it's that the classic courses, though treated with un-original conditions and other performance enhancers, still make it about "where to miss," and mute the pin-hunting lust...this is the martial virtue and hard strategic lesson we repeatedly learn about the game, that competition and a solid round are strenuous business at this level, that quarter is rarely given for off-key shots, that sacrifice and medicine-taking are often necessary to prevail or have a chance to. Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Merion, Oakmont provokes that aspect in a way that Erin Hills seemingly never would or will.
4. Do I think ultra pampered greens designed at speeds of 6, should be now mowed 11+? No. Do I think watered, rough, allowed to go beyond a couple of inches is the best presentation aesthetic for the historical totality of design? No. But I have no, absolutely no problem with a classic venue and the USGA having to build back tees, narrow fairways, add, eliminate or renovate features to host an elite competition on a proven, compelling venue with historical connection to the game's biography in America. I've owned my home for 18 years and I live how I live; when company comes over, I clean the place. WFW is still WFW after the US Open circus leaves town. Yeah, it's not itself for the season before and until the season after, but before you know it, it's back to just a great, amusing, audacious easy-to-walk course that, played from their proper tee, offers great dares and rewards to any golfer.
5. And look, we're not idiots anymore... While I understand the "Augusta effect" and the hubris of both design and the golfing public pining to mirror elite TV golf at their own place, who here thinks that the word isn't out on the folly and desultory path that can augur? Who here is thinking green speeds of 12+ are good? Who here is proposing trees be planted into the strategy of a hole? I'm saying there's isn't an a designer, a builder, a pro, a player or a would-be green committee member on this site who doesn't know that the USGA set-up of a classic course is a specialty, artificial one only meant to reign in an elite field to 280, in lieu of a true equipment recession...I don't think the poor leadership in design aspect means anything anymore, everyone who matters knows its meant for the pros. To be honest, I'd rather see Merion play like a bowling alley for a season at about $3 million in cost, than this trial at Erin Hills for a few times that.
6. As a last emotional note, there's also something in me that says that Whistling, Chambers and Erin Hills should have to "earn" it over time, before they get the grace and profile (and design leadership) of a significant championship. A national amateur or the ease of facility for the organizers shouldn't hold sway as much as a lineage to play. For the most part I think these courses are still-immature wines, albeit from promising vineyards and skillful vintners. I don't know what they are yet and one precept of total GCA we ought to have accepted is that courses refine and reveal and prove durable with time and change. My jury is still out on the "recent" additions of Bethpage and Torrey South; the former case I know well...20 plays and maybe 25 tournament caddying rounds for local Met competition and a few recreational rounds. It's terrific, strenuous and challenging course for golf, but maybe not for elite competition and I can't decide if trying to BE that course for 400 rounds hurts the other 250,000 rounds and the fun of its basic design and demands...
The internet Soap Box...many thanks.
cheers
vk