Still, my question to you would be to highlight what you think are the architectural elements that elevate Hazeltine beyond the fact that it is one of the most demanding courses when the wind blows beyond 10 mph. Any person watching the highlights(?) of the Stewart / Simpson '91 playoff can see what I mean.
P.S. I'll concede the great 16th hole -- but where's the architectural heft when compared to the big name courses that have come on the scene since 1959?
Matt -- Very fair question. As Dan has already mentioned, the original Hazeltine layout relied heavily on doglegs -- perhaps too much for some tastes -- but doglegs remain a significant part of the challenge at Hazeltine. Many of the fairways are somewhat banked at the the doglegs (some canted towards the dogleg, allowing a slingshot effect, such as on 6, 7 and 11; some with the fairway canting away from the dogleg, such as on 2, 5 and 10.) I've always found Hazeltine to be a very demanding course with the driver, not just because of its length, but because of these contours and angles. On some holes you are rewarded for hitting away from the dogleg, while on others you are not just rewarded by attempting to cut close to the dogleg, but almost required to.
Hazeltine is one course on which trees are not an afterthought, or the haphazard legacy of several misguided greens committees. From the beginning, Trent Jones obviously intended certain holes to be narrow, putting even more pressure on the driver, or demanding a long iron or fairway wood off the tee. Holes 6 and 14 are my idea of terrific short par 4s, requiring real accuracy off the tee -- on 6, to favor the right side of the fairway to take the pond out of the approach shot as much as possible, and on 14 to favor the left side of the fairway to create a favorable angle into a pin tucked behind the greenside bunker on the right.
As Dan mentioned, #10 is just a spectacular hole, tempting you to try to bust a drive over the fairway bunker at the left corner of the dogleg and get a long roll down the hill, or -- more purdently -- persuading you to leave you tee shot at the top of the hill, then requiring some precise club selection for the approach which drops steeply down to the green in front of Lake Hazeltine.
The par 5s are a matched set -- two reachable, risk-reward par 5s and two three-shotters on each nine. The drives on 3 and 15 -- the long par 5s -- are the more difficult, especially since Rees Jones improved the fairway bunkering. The drives on 7 and 11 leave you free to take your best shot at getting close enough to go for it in 2 -- as Rich Beem did at 11 during the PGA. That was one of the more thrilling shots I've seen in a major championship, and I give some credit to the hole itself. The green is heavily bunkered, but open enough in front to make it worth the risk. Same with #7 -- the green is open on the front right, but the pond on the left side of the green has to be crossed if the pin is middle or back, making a three-wood second a dicier proposal, but not off the table.
I think the par 3s at Hazeltine are strong, particularly number 8, with a deep green next to a pond on the right side. I agree with your point about the wind at Hazeltine, though I didn't want to bring it into this discussion because I think the course stands on its own; but during the 2002 PGA, when #8 played straight into a 40 mph wind, the leaders were decimated there. It was the scariest mid-range par 3 you can imagine. With no wind, the water is still a real mental challenge, particularly with the bunkers and rough left of the green. If you bail out that way, you're blasting/chipping/hacking back towards the water onto a green that slopes away from you.
Holes 9 and 18 are too similar, as Dan noted, but separately they are each good holes -- they're just unfortunately placed in the routing.
#16 is a given, so I won't spend any time on it, except to say that it comes at a perfect time in the round -- when a match is coming down to the end, and a birdie or a triple are equally possible.
The greens have less personality than they used to, but they are remarkably true -- major-championship caliber putting surfaces on which you simply need to get your ball rolling and watch it track to the hole.
Overall, what I like about Hazeltine is that there are no weak or goofy holes. Each is its own fair challenge; some are birdie opportunities and some you just hope not to make double, but each demands your full attention and rewards your best shots.
I'm not going to contrast Hazeltine to Spyglass except to say that I thought there were more ordinary holes after number 5 at Spyglass than there are at Hazeltine.
P.S. Plus: I'm realy psyched to see The Quarry later this year. I appreciate your take but if you remember Whitten's comments ... "It is already hands-down the finest course in Minnesota. Hazeltine National looks like a cornfield next to it, Interlachen like a quaint museum artifact. In the national arena, this Quarry will swallow up all Quarries before it, from Florida to California. It's a combination of Pebble Beach, Pine Valley, Merion and Tobacco Road, with a bit of architectural Tabasco sauce sprinkled in for the occasional jolt."
I really like quaint museum artifacts.