Before playing Erin Hills in the USAPL qualifier this past weekend, I had read a few short reviews of the course and had seen a few pictures that convinced me to travel all the way from Austin TX to play.
I had also read Brad Klein's review which was less than glowing:
Errant Hills Award: Erin Hills, Hartford, Wisc. A much-ballyhooed new co-design of Golf Digest architecture editor Ron Whitten and professional designers Michael Hurdzan and Dana Fry. Too bad it opened a season early in late 2006, though inadequate fescue turf cover is the least of this sprawling daily fee’s problems. The U.S. Golf Association heralds it as a likely future U.S. Open site, but the routing is a mess, in large part because Whitten insisted on moving no dirt at all – thereby taking trendy “minimalism” to its absurd extreme. The raw site is great, but half a dozen holes are inexcusably awkward and much of the bunkering is overexcavated and unmaintainable. The 593-yard par-5 10th hole offers a blind, fall away Biarritz green; the short par-4 second putting surface ends before it begins; and the completely blind par-3 seventh “Dell Hole” plays up and over to the bottom of a vast taco shell. They should have thought “inside the bun” on this one.
After playing 3 rounds, and with respect, I can hardly believe this review--talk about looking for and focusing on the negative! True, as a new course there are some maintenance issues with the bunkers and surrounds, and there is still some grow-in needed (a few holes had GUR in the fairways), but I just can't understand the criticism of the routing, and I happened to really like each of the holes that Klein singled out as being awkward. Of course Erin Hills will need to mature and work out a kink or two before hosting a major amateur or professional championship, but such an overwhelmingly negative review based on a first visit in the first half-season of the course's opening seems unfair to me.
The course was quite walkable (the tournament committee put Irish flags to mark the walkways we needed to take to get to the next tee box), although we did receive shuttle rides from #4 to #5, #9 to #10, and #18 to the clubhouse. And what a walk! Just an inspiring place to play golf.
The greens were excellent--they were cut down to a quick speed and played firm so that a ball mark barely dented the surface of the green. But one minor problem was that, with the fairways left long to allow the fescue to grow in, it was sometimes difficult to control the spin on the approach shots, which made holes like #3, #8, #9, and #18 harder. On #9 for example, it was playing downwind, so from a hairy lie in the fairway, it was hard to fly the approach onto the green (no run-up option really exists there) and stop it without using the backstop back left and risking leaving it up there. On #18, again downwind, they didn't even attempt to have a pin on the left side of that green.
The course was set up between 7000 and 7100 yards, with many tees moved far up (obviously for pace of play)--strange to look back and see tees stretching 60-70 yards behind you. There was generally plenty of room to play, but spotters were used on 12 of the holes because the tall native grasses were pretty thick in spots.
I really liked #3, #4, #8, #9, #11, #12, #15 and #17. The par 5's didn't blow me away but I thought they were nice enough, and I liked the set of par 3's (we played the Dell Hole instead of the Bye Hole).
I counted 10 blind or semi-blind full shots, which combined with the higher native grasses, would make it difficult for every day play (a lot of searches). But the only really awkward situation we encountered was on the par-3 16th, where a couple of us pulled our shots, which flirted with the higher grasses on the hill left, so we hit provisional balls only to walk up the green and find that the balls had bounced down the hill onto the green, not visible from the tee.
I also thought that some of the back back tees would be impractical to ever be put into use--#3 and #8 at 535 yards to elevated, contoured greens; #6 at 242 yards to a green running away, #9 at 521 yards to an elevated all-carry green, etc.
But overall I thought it was a fantastic golf course--certainly WAY more going for it than you would ever believe reading Klein's review--and I really like that they moved so little earth there. If you take holes like #2 or #12, it's a much different and better question to have to ask "Why did the architect run the fairway between or over those dunes?" than "Why did the architect put those mounds there?" Just knowing the landforms were already there and that the architects found a way to incorporate them automatically elevates the course for me over something like Whistling Straits, which I visited on the trip and which felt entirely too "man-made" and over-the-top to me.
I think it is a no-brainer to take the U.S. Amateur to Erin Hills (Washington County, an Arthur Hills design, would be the 2nd course for stroke play qualfiying)--any quirkiness or fairness issues go away in match play--but for the U.S. Open I'm not sure. I hope it happens, but I wonder about some of the green contours (how could you play the 3rd, 8th, or 15th greens at U.S. Open speed?).
For the record, the medalist scored 140 (-4), and three other guys earned spots by shooting 143 (-1) or better. But they could have set it up where 156 could medal. Unfortunately I was not one of those who qualified. But I glad I made the trip and definitely plan to return as soon as I can.
P.S.--I also got to play Lawsonia Links, which I also thoroughly enjoyed. Between Erin Hills, Lawsonia, Whistling Straits, Blackwolf Run, Milwaukee CC, etc., you guys up in southeast Wisconsin have it good!