Hazeltine as a major host

[Paul Richards]

What does the victory by Rich Beem do to Hazeltine's reputation as a major host?

Will history be kind to Beem and Hazeltine since Tiger ended up second?

Thoughts?

[Bruceski]

I think any objective observer should view this week's PGA Championship as a very successful event. Though Beem won, he was challenged by the most powerful player and a few less powerful technicians (Leonard, Funk). Clearly, Leonard should have won, and his final round 77 in totally benign conditions has to be viewed as the biggest disappointment of the week. Leonard blew a big opportunity to elevate his status to among the great players of the game.

Nevertheless, the course was similar to Muirfield in measuring a diverse set of skills, and ultimately the tournament was fun to watch (much like the British Open was). Hazeltine 2002 will be viewed favorably by history, in my opinion.

[John_Conley]

Tiger played well and Beem beat him by one.  No excuses, and I really didn't hear Tiger look for any.  For Rich Beem not to get the credit he deserves would be a travesty.  His last two victories overcame a guy holing field shots in Colorado and a birdie X four finish from the #1 player in the world.  He went 3-3 on 16-17, holes that proved to be Scott Simpson's unraveling a decade ago.  It should be pretty obvious that Hazeltine was a very good host for the PGA.  Very few under par on a par 72, if that's important to anyone.

One question?  Will the Ryder Cup be held in September?  I'm already worried about the potential for ugly weather for the Solheim Cup next month.

[TEPaul]

I was really trying to get some sense of the architecture during the PGA and it seemed to me from aerials and on ground shots that the architecture was OK and pretty interesting in a basic staggered (right/left, left/right)  strategic sense like dogleg right, green and it's orientation facing right (to direct the player to the inside of the dogleg (trees or bunkers being the risk) with pond on left etc for the best next shot to come from the right, that kind of basic architectural strategy used in various arrangements. #16 is intense, of course. The bunker placements on the course may have been OK too but the look of the bunkering is very bland!

[TomSteenstrup]

I agree with everything above. A few things I noticed:

- Although the bunkers looked bland, they really had a big impact due to their depth. This will hopefully transplant into a trend for other Tour courses.

- The par 5s were extremely long, taking away advantage to the power hitters. Again, this could start a positive trend for the Tour.

- Once again, doglegs appear to be the best way to challenge the pros. I wonder what the scoreboard would have looked like, had they not "straightened out" Hazeltine.

- Beem was amazing off the tee. That was the highlight of the tournament to me. Several times he challenged a bunker or a dogleg, and came away with great rewards.

Tom

[TEPaul]

TomS:

This morning I don't think that Beem would say the extremely long par 5s took away an advantage to the aggressive long hitter! After all, the way he went after the last long par 5 and made a fairly easy eagle can certainly be looked at as the hole or one of two (#16) on the back nine that won him the PGA. If they want to negate the distance advantage of today's long hitter I guess they'll have to take a 597yd par 5 out a bit farther!

[TomSteenstrup]

TEPaul, you are of course right concerning Beem, but that was the exception and not the rule, wasn't it? And, although the putt was easy, it required two supreme shots to get there.

Not counting the short(!) 7th (542 yards, 11 eagles), there were only 6 eagles (and 1 eagle one on 16) for the tournament. Tiger didn't have any.

BTW: Where will Beem's fairway wood at the 11th stand compared to Pavin's 4W at Shinnecock?

Tom

[Jeff_McDowell]

Beem played great. I don't think the obscurity of the name should take away from Hazeltine. Besides it may not be the course that brings events back to Hazeltine, it may be the revenues.

One of the local Saturday morning news programs said that by Friday night they had broken merchandising sales for a PGA championship. I had a friend who said that people would push you out of the way to get an $80 shirt before you could. Now that's Minnesota nice.

[John Bernhardt]

The par 3's were similiar to each other. I am not sure the par 5's were as distinguishable as I think a great course should be either. It was certainly no Muirfield.

[John_Conley]

Guys, guys, guys... don't take the listed yardages on the par 5s as absolute.  #3 is straight, which is why nobody was reaching it.  But #7 and #11 involve rather dramatic doglegs allowing an aggressive driver to reduce the length of hole.

I think Tiger hit D-8i on #7 with the wind.

TEPaul:  The last par 5 was #15, which Rich Beem and Justin Leonard came up a little short on Sunday.  I actually think the design of that hole was pretty good because, unlike #7 where you are faced with a do-don't decision, it is possible to play a wood up to the green leaving something less than the usual 80-100 Tour layup.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Great courses create great leaderboards...this was just another PGA tour event, in terms of course and setup, so we got just another winner. When will the PGA wake up and recognize that if they don't consistently pick better sites and set them up properly, they will always lag behind the other majors.

[JakaB]

Can anybody name one green that was interesting...one bunker that was difficult...one lie that was unlevel...Is risk even in the Minnesoatian vocabulary.

[John_Conley]

Shiv:

9 and 18 are pretty "bad" from a strategic and aesthetic viewpoint.  However, as I've said before, it makes for an appropriate finish for a golf championship.  Especially when you consider how much variety there is in the shots needed to play the last three holes.

For those who haven't seen the course, for Tiger to birdie 16-17-18 is almost unbelievable.

Jeff Lewis:

Thanks for making me laugh.  That has to be one of the more absurd assertions I'll hear this month.  The U.S. Open had Andy North twice, Steve Jones, and Orville Moody.  This PGA had one of the hottest golfers on Tour, who just won in a very strong field with a final round 63 to hold off a guy holing field shots, outplaying the World #1.  OUTPLAYING him.  Did you watch?  I haven't seen any headlines, but mine would be "Rich-ly Deserved".  Tiger played well this week and great on Sunday.  Beem played BETTER.  No fluke.

The media has said time and time again that today's players fold in the face of Tiger at the Majors.  Guess what?  A guy named Rich Beem, who now has won three times on Tour, took the challenge and stood as stoic as anyone since Bob May.  Tiger's toughness?  What about Beem's?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone since Wayne Levi found the winner's circle every time they were in contention the way Beem did.  THAT was Tiger-like.  (Tiger, by the way, posted his FIRST second place finish in a Major - an indication that HE'S one of the great closers in golf, not that I'm spreading anything new.)

Go ahead and say that great venues have great leaderboards.  Now tell me where you'll find one.  As long as they open up the field to more than 20 guys there is an opportunity for the Rich Beems and Chris Rileys to play with the bigger name players.  After all, the difference between #5 and #95 isn't much on any given day.

[John_Conley]

Can anybody name one green that was interesting...one bunker that was difficult...one lie that was unlevel...Is risk even in the Minnesoatian vocabulary.

Barney:

I don't know what you are looking for.  I can name several uneven lies.  From your question it is obvious you have not seen the course.

#3 has a severe cant to the right on the fairway.  #6 slopes like a miniature version of turn #1 at Daytona.  #9 and #18 play quite a bit uphill.  #10 is an awkward lie if you go left at all, which explains why Tiger left himself a blind approach.  A hilly course, no.  But not absolutely flat either.

As for the greens, it has been a long time since I've played there.  From memory, #3 is crazy, which is why the Leonard hit it way past on his approach putt.  #5 is a tricky uphill green that reminds me a lot of #10 at Bay Hill.  #6 and #7 have a good amount of slope to them.  #11 is a nuts green up front, as is #15.  The craziest green of all is #17, which repels shots on the right like #16 at Augusta.

Don't like Hazeltine?  Fine.  It isn't one of my favorite courses either.  But don't be such an idiot and make up stuff that isn't true.  If it looked like a series of level lies it is because television has a hard time showing relief.

As for "risk", the course still has a number of doglegs and it affords the opporunity to shorten many of the holes a great deal.  (I remember someone in 1991 hit it way down the hill on #10 and wound up through the fairway in the rough.  I don't think anyone else tries that because that 80 yard approach is no easier than 160 down the hill.  Other holes offer more to gain.)

[Jeff_Lewis]

John Conley:

I find your reference to my post as "absurd" to be unnecessarily confrontational.
I have ZERO interest in seeing Chris Riley make a run on Sunday on a golf course with ZERO strategic interest. Valhalla=Hazeltine. Bob May=Rich Beem. Yuk. PGA Championship=Kemper Open.

[John_Conley]

Jeff:

"Unnecessarily" confrontational?  I point out that the depth of field is impressive, ask you to name the setup you desire, and use the word "absurd" so you'll see that the only way to avoid having Rich Beem, Jean Van de Velde, or Mr. Lu beat all of your heroes is to not invite them.

Tell me what conditions will meet your approval and we can discuss it.  Otherwise you sound like yet another malcontent.  It was a great event.  Tiger played well, at times great.  Didn't drive it as well as he usually does, but why should we then adjust the course so he can win when that wasn't done for Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Sergio Garcia or Bernhard Langer when they didn't have their game.

You assumed because someone you don't respect as much as young Eldrick beat him that the course is at fault?  To me, that's absurd.

[RJ_Daley]

I had posted earlier in the week after walking the course watching practice rounds that I thought Hazeltine was just a big brutish course suited for a major like the PGA, but didn't exactly appeal to me personally.  I think John may be saying some of this, though I think he likes the course a little more personally since he has played it from appropriate tees, and I really only got to look at it from the spectator's point of view.  I agree there is enough contour on fairways and in the right places to challenge the lie and angles to greens an pin positions.  I think the bunkers around greens are deep enough and the green contours just barely steep enough.  I think the factor that is prevalent and necessary here at Hazeltine and Medinah that is in my mind unfortunate, but has become that other dimension in big lot, woodland style competative professional golf courses are the trees.  Without the added aerial obstacles that force these tour wizards to hit their dramatically shaped shots, Hazeltine wouldn't be much at all...

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I believe that it was during Tiger's who commented on the rain during his news conference.  Basically he said that without the rain (3 inches) on Friday night that their would not have been any birdies and no charge on Sunday afternoon.  

No matter what you think of Hazeltine the PGA is what it is.  This is the Power Event of the majors.  The Masters is for the swashbucklers, the US open for the straight hitters, The British for the shot makers and the PGA for the power hitters.  These events all have there niche and to criticize Hazeltine for giving the PGA Tour exactly what they want is ludicrous.  The only Major that seems to have forgotten their niche is the Masters!

[John_Conley]

Cos:

Australian - hard?
Wimbledon - grass
French - clay
U.S - hard

I think you are saying that having Majors played under a variety of conditions makes sense.  That way a great player can't really complain about something not suiting them.

Tiger will have an advantage every time he plays because he is the best player, but a setup like we saw at Bethpage only adds to his advantage.

Masters - (formerly) no premium on tee ball accuracy, course management in the form of managing your aggression, severe putting

U.S. - Long rough, fast greens, and narrow fairways

British - Weather usually more of a factor, native hay off the fairway, often flat greens

PGA - Normal fairway width, ample rough, reasonable green speeds, may favor longer hitters

I think I've got those right.  The only reason I spelled it out is to show how, unlike tennis, the result is usually a bit different than what you'd expect.  You know the Spaniards will do much better than the Americans at the French and can usually bank on them to exit Wimbledon early.  Contrast that to golf, where Nick Faldo won 3 Masters because of his precision iron play, allowing him to avoid the carnival putts.  Jeff Sluman won the PGA in the 80s, and Hazeltine and Bellerive seemed to actually bring more of the average length hitters into the picture.

[JakaB]

John,

Calling me an idiot is hardly original or untrue...its kinda like being gay...I can't help it but it feels so good.   So tell me what is the point of the ugly cattails on 16 that block the view both ways...and I admit I like Valhalla because I'm somewhat of a homer...is there any other explanation for your defense of Hazeltine.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

John, I think you have it.  The reason I describe the Masters as the Swashbucklers event is that it is really a second shot event.   Take the risk and pull it off and the reward is an easier putt!! Miss and you make double.  The last round this year was a perfect example.  Unfortuately the members at Augusta have made some of those shots so difficult that boredom may set in as no player is willing to take the risks.

[John_Conley]

Barney:

I will admit to treating any of your threads differently than someone else's.  You have demanded "anonymity" and brought a higher level of skepticism because of your often inflammatory remarks, which I suspect are just to see who you can get a rise out of.  Your treatment of an "un-vitation" to another on this board last summer to play Scarlet was flat out wrong.  (I'm told by your friends that you are a lot different than the Barney persona, but I doubt I'll ever find out.)

Regarding Hazeltine... I grew up in the Twin Cities and have played many of their top courses.  I don't think Hazeltine is at or near the top of the list for "great" courses, but it surely is a "great" venue for tournament golf.

Your assessment of the 16th is correct.  It really stands out as different on a course where many of the holes come across like a Midwest interpretation of Bay Hill.  However, it is one of the more demanding holes in tournament golf and will be VERY compelling during the Ryder Cup, which is contested at Match Play.

I'm sorry if you were upset by my choice of words, but I think it is idiotic to make the comments you did on a course with a good deal of relief and contouring.  My friend that was in attendance said the pin on #15 was "unfair" because it was just over a ridge and made it hard to get close to.  (Don't worry, he said he knew "unfair" wasn't the right word, but he didn't know what else to use.)

My defense of Hazeltine this month has been surprising, mostly to myself.  I consider the Twin Cities to have a lot of great Classic designs and would prefer to play all of them before another windswept round in Chaska.  However, the notion that other tournament venues are somehow superior is off-base.  Maybe it is just because I've gotten past the notion that Merion, Pine Valley, and the National Golf Links are going to host the U.S. Open any time in the future.

Hate to break this to you and others that are holding out hope for a change in the 2009 PGA venue, but merchandise sales were off the hook.  Look at it this way, because the 1991 U.S. Open and 2002 PGA were such financial success, the USGA and PGA of America were able to also use venues like Shinnecock Hills and Whistling Straits that may not be able to accomodate as many patrons.

Back to the title of the thread... "Hazeltine as a major host"... I'd say a solid B.  That's not so bad now, is it?  (If it is a C or lower in anyone's book, please share why and assign letter grades of A to other Major venues in the last decade.)

[peter mcknight]

I'm not sure how to post an excel spreadsheet, but the following represents how the holes played at the USPGA Championship.

I would say the course is no better than a B-, but could dramatically improve if no.7 is totally reworked and turned into a 475 yard par 4, no.15 becomes a par 4 between 475-495 yards and (maybe?) moving the 8th tee about 5-10 yards to the right.  I would probably move the 11th tee back about 15-25 yards for the next tournament.

I still remain disappointed that they moved up no.16's tee up 45 yards and to a different teeing ground on Saturday.  I could have supported moving up the markers to the front of the back teeing ground, or about 20 or so yards.

ROUND 1      ROUND 2      36 HOLE AVERAGE      ROUND 3      ROUND 4      WEEKEND AVERAGE
4.19      4.14      4.17      4.13      4.11      4.12
4.16      4.16      4.16      4.28      4.11      4.20
5.14      5.16      5.15      5.23      5.10      5.17
3.17      3.21      3.19      3.13      2.97      3.05
4.15      4.16      4.15      4.17      4.06      4.11
4.28      4.27      4.27      4.25      4.13      4.19
4.81      4.68      4.75      4.89      4.65      4.77
3.36      3.16      3.26      3.62      3.28      3.45
4.21      4.18      4.20      4.42      4.18      4.30
37.47      37.12      37.30      38.12      36.59      37.36
4.05      4.03      4.04      4.04      4.13      4.08
4.90      4.97      4.94      4.94      4.83      4.88
4.31      4.37      4.34      4.29      4.23      4.26
3.21      3.41      3.31      3.04      3.20      3.12
4.10      3.97      4.04      4.07      3.93      4.00
4.90      4.70      4.80      5.11      4.78      4.95
4.68      4.46      4.57      4.53      4.13      4.33
3.20      3.17      3.19      3.38      3.24      3.31
4.44      4.16      4.30      4.36      4.25      4.31
37.79      37.24      37.53      37.76      36.72      37.24
75.26      74.36      74.83      75.88      73.31      74.70

[John_Conley]

Peter:

Number 7 played as a par 4 in the Senior Open.  I believe about 415?  Supposedly the front of the tee box in question is not real flat, hence the move up in front of that one.

Why would 7 be a better hole as a 475 yard par 4?

[peter mcknight]

John...

Why would no.7 be best played as a 475 (or longer) yard par 4?  Here are some of my thoughts on the issue...

1.  There aren't enough lengthy par 4s on Hazeltine requiring a mid-iron.  The only exceptions are 12 and 18.
2.  From what I remember, the original no.7 was sort-of one of those dog-leg disasters.
3.  No.7 sort-of resembles no.6, just a par 5.
4.  I would eliminate the pond so that nos.6 and 7 don't look like twins.
5.  With no.7 as a par 4, there would be a good stretch concluding the front nine.  If no.15 were a par 4, then that stretch of holes would be quite something coming in.
6.  There is the chance of hitting a wedge at nos. 3, 5 and 6.  Another wedge at no.7 would be superfluous.  As a par 4, one could increase the balance of the course.
7.  The stroke average hovers near 4.75, my breaking point for when a par 5 probably no longer is challenging enough to remain a par 5.
8.  Lastly, the top guys need more par 4s to test their games, not pathetic and poorly designed par 5s.

Of course, the USPGA won't reduce either 7 or 15 to a par 4.  The USGA probably would do no.7, but probably not 15.  But, Hazeltine won't see the Open anytime soon...