Thank you Lou for addressing the issue and not falling into the logistical abyss which is rapidly becoming overcrowded on my original thread.

You said:  
"Am I the only one who questions the suitability of Sand Hills as an Open venue from a playability standpoint?  Will the "best golfer" really be identified?  Or will it be the guy who gets the most breaks and avoids lost balls and rabbit holes?  I remember our host finding such a depression to the right of the fantastic 17th hole, and hadn't he picked the ball up after several shots, he might still be there.  There are so many places where a drop is not an option, that walking back to the tee or the position of the previous shot would make an already slow tournament reach glacial proportions.  On a windy day, my fear is that the play would be punched irons, chipping, and putting.  I guess that I like the driver and bold play too much."

I see it just the other way - a wide open golf course where the big boys can rip it.  Can you imagine Eldrick's ball flight off the first tee?  How about Ernie's turbo-boosted drive off the 13th?  Or Daly's hang time off the 16th tee?

The occasional varmint hole pales in comparison to water hazards, OB, knee-high rough or even rock outcroppings - none of which prevails at Sand Hills  As poor a player as I am I don't recall losing many balls at Sand Hills, or hitting into any rabbit holes or getting any bad bounces.  

Huckster keeps mentioning the green complexes but I don't seem to recall the majority of them defending par that well.  

Anyone who knows me knows how I revere Sand Hills, but I'm not sure it is a great tournament venue, though I could care less.

Mike

PS - in terms of protecting par, hopefully an enlightened USGA willing to take the bold step of bringing our Open to the greatest course on the planet would have moved beyond such concerns... But just in case that still matters, here's all they need to do:

#5 - add a back tee somewhere at 430-470 range, making this not a certain wedge to the green...

#7 - get a tee back at about 300-330, keeping the temptation to drive the green but not making it so easy to do, with the tee set each day based on that day's wind direction.  Lots of room to do that.

#14 - move up to 499 or do whatever it takes to just call it a par 4.

That's it!  The rest holds up just fine.  Assume firm and fast and rock-hard greens and they won't shoot four 66's, even in light wind.  Get normal heavy wind and par 70 holds up just fine, thank you.  And hell, even if someone does shoot four 66's, that's "only" -16.  Opens have been won at THE OLD COURSE with scores lower than that....

TH

Lou:

That is all well-said and I understand it all and agree with it.

And I still think Sand Hills would work very well as a US Open site, that par would be protected as much as it needs to be, and that as fine of a champion golfer would be determined as ever is at the Open overseas.

I believe length and accuracy are rewarded at Sand Hills, as is another key element: THINKING.  It's also pretty darn wide, such that the death that does occur in the high rough occurs only very far from the fairways (in terms of how these golfers play anyway).

It would be fun to see.  Of course it's all moot, but oh well, dare to dream.

TH

Tom,

Not to confuse the issue, but I see The Honors as being a solid 4 shots harder than Sand Hills with an infinitely greater opportunity of an "X" for us average guys.  Other than at the 13th did you ever "pucker up" at Sand Hills?

Mike

Tom,

What were your scores at Sand Hills?

Mike

Tony,

SH is NOT a course where one hits away with impunity from the tee.  This is particularly true when the wind blows and the course is firm.  The terrain and native vegetation is just too penal, as it is at Kiawah-Ocean and probably at Prairie Dunes.

Mike Hendren,

I shot identical scores of 40-42-82 on both rounds in the same day.  During the a.m. round, the wind was blowing about 5-10 mph, and the heat wasn't bad.  We played holes #2 from the second back markers (418), and #4 (449).  While I didn't play with Mr. Huckaby, we matched cards and, as I recall, I had to buy him a couple of beers.

In the p.m. round, the wind was blowing 10 - 15 from the N, NE, and my notes show that we played the back tees including #2 at 458 and #4 at 485.  This time young Thomas and I did go mano-a-mano, and he closed me out rather easily on the 15th or 16th hole.  SH being such a special place, that buying him several cold beers and consuming them on Ben's porch was actually quite enjoyable.

In as far as a-- puckering holes at SH, it would be simpler for me to list those on which I was comfortable.  Maybe #14?  #s 3 and #13 are two of the scariest par 3s I've seen.   #13 is one of the few holes where being long is the safest/easier play.  God forbid that the wind gets up into the mid 20s mph or above.

Tom,

The day we played, SH did not show its teeth.  The wind was little over a zephyr, and the temperature was not all that bad (Mike Cirba might disagree).  I went out and did a riding/walking tour of some holes the following morning prior to leaving the property, and the conditions were much more difficult.  Under US Open conditions and with a bit of wind, I would have had a challenging time breaking 90; 100 with lots of wind.  I don't think that SH would have a problem with resistance to scoring.  With heavy wind, the course would play more like some of its British Isles cousins.  I do wonder if the bunkering is not significantly more difficult than what one finds over the Pond.  You have a lot more experience there; what do you think?