[Dan Moore]

Ron Whitten provides an exclusive web only article on golfdigest.com with photos.  Many details on the routing and construction of Erin Hills.  He says both courses may be considered for future US Opens.  A few neat aerial photos of both courses looking very good.  

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/2007/08/whitten_erinhills

[Eric_Terhorst]

Fascinating, thanks for posting Dan.

It seems that Mike Davis of the USGA had more to do with the design of Erin Hills than did the owner.  Compare that to Bandon.

Based on the results I'll personally take the Bandon model 10/10, but I find the ambition--building a course primarily to satisfy the needs of one tournament--completely mystifying.  Obviously that wasn't the ambition behind Bandon.

Shouldn't owners and designers 1) build great courses, then 2) let the championship chips fall where they may?  

If you design, fund, build, then lobby, campaign with a view to attract one prestigious tournament, you have a white elephant if you fail to attract the tournament and $300 greens fees if you succeed.  A Donald Trumpian form of risk/reward...

[John Kirk]

Thanks, Dan.  Very interesting article.

Chambers Bay is a fine golf course.  Despite some pace of play issues, it is a great place to spend a summer afternoon.  Once the site matures, and long fescue grasses establish themselves in the waste areas, the course will provide handsome views in all directions.  The view looking out to the Puget Sound are just great.  

[John Kavanaugh]

It took alot of courage to post that article.

[Richard Choi]

Hmmm... $3 million to build and still charge $150/round....

I guess the argument that courses should move least amount of dirt as possible so the building cost is lower and thus green fees will be lower can go out the window.

[David Stamm]

Hmmm... $3 million to build and still charge $150/round....

I guess the argument that courses should move least amount of dirt as possible so the building cost is lower and thus green fees will be lower can go out the window.

Along those lines Richard, RW says that "it's hard to do affordable golf courses these days." While I'm sure that's true in alot of cases, I think it depends on how important it is to you. In other words, how hard did you try. $3 mill is really not that much anymore these days. $150 rounds? What was the reason you wanted to build an affordable course to begin with?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It took alot of courage to post that article.

John,

Just wondering what you had to edit in a one sentence post?

[Dan_Callahan]

It seems to me the article is less a comparison and more an advertorial.

How can a critic claim any semblance of objectivity when he is now an interested party? Doesn't he have a vested interest in promoting the design decisions of his own course (flat tee boxes, bent grass, etc.) with the implication being that courses that go in another direction are inferior? (Example: About Chambers Bay tee boxes, he says "More natural, a bit more irritating to good players perhaps. You can still find flat spots. I wonder, since the tees are fescue, whether those flat spots will wear out very quickly.")

[George Pazin]

I'll second John's remark, and add that I didn't think it was an advertorial, just an interested party sharing his passion. I thought it was the most interesting thing I've read from Mr. Whitten in quite some time.

Dan, I don't know if you care to search or not, but there's certainly been a lot of discussion in the past about whether or not someone can be both a critic and a designer. To me, the question about the tee boxes was a very valid one - the fact that either a critic or a competitor (or in this case, both) would ask it is a healthy thing, imho.

[John Kavanaugh]

It took alot of courage to post that article.

John,

Just wondering what you had to edit in a one sentence post?

I originally said...It took a lot of courage to post that...I thought the revision was better stated.

[Sean Leary]

Kind of odd that there was no mention of Jay Blasi at Chambers

[Daryl David]

It's interesting that in the Editor's letter by Jerry Tarde, he states that Erin Hills will not be ranked in GD top 100 or Best New Courses or Best in State due to Whitten's involvement and the potential appearance of a conflict of interest.  

[Dan_Callahan]

George,

I've always had a problem with Ron being both an architect and a critic. But I think in the past Ron has done a decent job keeping the two separate.

This article crosses the line. It is titled Erin Hills vs. Chambers Bay. That implies a competition out of which one will emerge the winner. Whitten is the judge who will determine that winner. He is also co-designer of one of the courses. How is that not a conflict of interest?

It would have been far better to simply publish an article about the consruction process of Erin Hills, taking advantage of Whitten's insider knowledge. If they wanted to compare it to Chambers Bay, they should have brought in an unbiased guest editor to cast judgment.

When comparing the differences between the courses, Whitten talks about the tee boxes and the fact that the sand hills will cause twisted ankles if it hosts a major tournament. He also slips in that developer at Chambers Bay "spent more on his clubhouse than what we spent on our course."

We get all sorts of information about how carefully planned Erin Hills was for grabbing a major, but no balance on the other side. One of the negatives mentioned about Erin Hill is the blind par 3, but Whitten makes sure to point out that there is an alternative routing to take that hole out of play. He doesn't blame the design but instead the lack of imagination of the players. I'm inclined to agree with him on this, but  we don't get similar insights as to why decisions were made at Chambers Bay. The only other negative I could find about Erin Hills was that one style of bunker is "less attractive than the others," but that is only because the grass has been slow to grow.

This article should never have been framed this way in my opinion. They state in the title that it is one course vs. another and then select an author who was a codesigner of one of the courses. Whatever happened to editorial integrity?

[Richard Choi]

I couldn't agree more with Dan. I think this would have been a fine article if Ron just stuck with his personal account of building Erin Hills.

There is hardly any comparison other than Ron taking his shots here and there against Chambers Bay. Kind of pathetic really and ruins what would have been a great expose about a great course (Erin Hills).

The GD editors could have at least gotten RTJII and Ron Witten together to talk about their own courses and ask questions about one another. That would have been fascinating.

At least we know where GD stands when it comes to Erin Hill vs Chambers Bay.

[Jim Nugent]

Kind of odd that there was no mention of Jay Blasi at Chambers

Sean, see the bottom of page 3:

"Chambers Bay was also a true co-design, with Bobby Jones doing his thing, Bruce Charlton (now his partner, and a real good guy and good designer) handling most routing and details, and their guy Jason Blasi being the onsite guy."

[Tim Bert]

The comment I thought was odd was with respect to building the bunker in the middle of the fairway not because it worked on the hole or made strategic sense but rather so the fairway could be narrowed to half the size and the bunker could be used at the edge of the fairway.

That's the most specific case I've ever read of building a course around a championship.

Even if you were planning for that, why not narrow it on both sides of the bunker and have a bunker in the middle.  Why must all the bunkers at a US Open course be on the edge of the fairway?

[paul cowley]

I have never understood why a Critic can criticize others  work...... but a Designer's critisism of his own or other designers work is somehow tainted.

Designers are always critics.....and are constantly evaluating the pros and cons of their own work while contrasting and criticizing it compared to others......its a major learning tool of the creative process.

I would give a Designer's criticism much more weight than a non designing Critic's.

Personally I tend to feel that most Critics are failed or wannabe designers.

I think it's great that TomD ......and Brad and Ron have tipped their hats to the design side.



 

[wsmorrison]

Is anyone getting tired of how ubiquitous fescue is on new courses and on the classics?   Is it good for golf?  Does it keep costs down?  Is it a fad or here to stay?

[C. Squier]

Up next:

Noah's Ark vs. Titanic Cruise Lines

by: Jesus H. Christ


That was one of the most transparent articles I've ever read.  

CPS

[Joe Hancock]

Is anyone getting tired of how ubiquitous fescue is on new courses and on the classics?   Is it good for golf?  Does it keep costs down?  Is it a fad or here to stay?

How are you using the term "fescue"? Do you mean the actual grass variety fescue, or the completely wrong use of the word fescue, as too many use to refer to native or unmaintained areas?

From a reliable source, I heard the outer roughs (native areas, unmaintained rough...."fescue" areas) at EH is almost anything but fescue, but a lot of forage grasses that are excessively thick.

Joe

[Dan Kelly]

It would have been far better to simply publish an article about the consruction process of Erin Hills, taking advantage of Whitten's insider knowledge. If they wanted to compare it to Chambers Bay, they should have brought in an unbiased guest editor to cast judgment.
...
This article should never have been framed this way in my opinion. They state in the title that it is one course vs. another and then select an author who was a codesigner of one of the courses. Whatever happened to editorial integrity?

Well said.

I think it's not coincidental that this was a "Web exclusive," or whatever Golf Digest called it.

I can't prove this, but believe it: There's more editorial integrity when things are committed to actual paper and not just to its cyber-equivalent.

[Craig Sweet]

Personally,I agree with Dan on the whole conflict of interest etc...

As for the fescue grass...I think the more the better...real, honest creeping fescue fairways and bent/fescue greens...like 70% fescue...

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think there is anything wrong with Ron writing something about his work at Erin Hills, or about Chambers Bay.  Putting them together does raise the specter of conflict, but it's not unusual for GOLF DIGEST ... they are always trying to work several courses into the same article, so that they aren't accused of favoritism for writing about one particular course.

However, I do think that the pictorial in this month's magazine shows that the "clear line" they painted to avoid conflict of interest over Ron's second career was easily crossed.  From the beginning of the job, I was bothered that the design team appealed to the owner of the project because he thought Ron's inclusion would get him some coverage in GOLF DIGEST.  

We were assured that the course would "never be included in the GOLF DIGEST rankings" ... but this month it got just as big a picture in the magazine as whatever course wins the Best New award.  In fact, they've implied fairly strongly that Erin Hills would win the award if only it was eligible,  a slap to Chambers Bay or whatever new course actually does win it.

Jerry Tarde's reference in his column about "conflict of interest" was intended to say that it's not Ron's idea to write up the course, it's his own.  But, his friendship with Ron is ultimately the factor that let the barrier over conflict be lifted.

If Ron is going to keep pursuing design jobs, or design consulting jobs, he should step down from the editorial staff of GOLF DIGEST and just write articles on a freelance basis when he wants to.

[wsmorrison]

Joe,

Thank you for asking for clarification.  I meant the use of these "native or unmaintained grass" areas and additionally the use of fine fescues around bunkers.  I guess there are usually found together.  I like the use of blue stem and other varieties native to the region, but only for out of play areas unless maintained as in the UK or such places as Shinnecock Hills where it is wispy without a dense undergrowth.  At such places, the added colors and textures can present an enhanced beauty without being overly penal and offering a good measure of playability.  Balls can be readily found and you can recover out of the stuff.  

[Dan Kelly]

... I do think that the pictorial in this month's magazine shows that the "clear line" they painted to avoid conflict of interest over Ron's second career was easily crossed.  From the beginning of the job, I was bothered that the design team appealed to the owner of the project because he thought Ron's inclusion would get him some coverage in GOLF DIGEST.  

We were assured that the course would "never be included in the GOLF DIGEST rankings" ... but this month it got just as big a picture in the magazine as whatever course wins the Best New award.  In fact, they've implied fairly strongly that Erin Hills would win the award if only it was eligible,  a slap to Chambers Bay or whatever new course actually does win it.

Jerry Tarde's reference in his column about "conflict of interest" was intended to say that it's not Ron's idea to write up the course, it's his own.  But, his friendship with Ron is ultimately the factor that let the barrier over conflict be lifted.

Excellent points -- though I wasn't smart enough to figure out what in the hell Mr. Tarde meant here:

"Addendum: When the USGA's Mike Davis visited Erin Hills, he said he wasn't sure a blind par 3 would work in a U.S. Open, so an alternate, downhill bye hole to a nasty little, heavily bunkered green was built (pictured above). This new par 3 will be a substitute if Whitten's hole is deemed unfair for true professionals who must see everything and imagine nothing.

"Not that I have a conflict of interest."

My first reaction to that was: "HUH?"

My second was: Who's plagiarizing whom? From Mr. Whitten's GolfDigest.com Exclusive: "But once Mike Davis mentioned to Bob that he wasn't sure a blind par 3 would work in a U.S. Open, Bob made us spruce up a little downhill bye hole (fit between the 9th and 10th) into a nasty little, heavily bunkered, tricky green par 3 meant to substitute if the Dell hole is deemed unfair for true professionals who must see everything and imagine nothing."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()