Thoughts on Oakland Hills

[Brian Cenci]

Can someone either explain to me or provide insight on what is so special about Oakland Hills that it is consistently ranked in the top 20 in the U.S. in most magazine rankings and is consistently the hgihest ranked Ross course?  I've played a decent amount of "better" Donald Ross courses and Oakland Hills is not one I think is the best.  I mean I think Inverness, Holston Hills, Pinehurst No. 2, Franklin Hills and Pine Needles are at a minimum as good as Oakland Hills if not better.  I recently played with a member and his quote to me was something of the effect that he thought that Oakland Hills was "underated" in terms of its national ranking and should be a top 5 course in the US.
      Am I missing something about Oakland Hills?  Don't get me wrong its a very good course and I really love the greens there but I just don't see it as a top 20 course year-in-year-out in the US.
     Maybe someone else can provide their thoughts on Oakland Hills.

-Brian

[Chris_Clouser]

Brian,

I have played Oakland Hills and to be honest I felt the same way you did.  Until I played it.  Yes, it is one of the five most difficult courses I have ever played.  Yes, the rough was really deep and makes for a long day if one isn't in the fairway.  But other than that I thought it was quite good with an excellent routing and superb greens.  

I just crack up every time someone comes on and says "course X is over-rated and shouldn't be in the top 20 or 30 or whatever."  What difference does it make?

So Brian, if you don't think it belongs in the top 20, can you name 20 courses you have played that are clearly better than it in the US that aren't just better suited towards your game and allow you to score lower?  

Personally, it is in my top 10 played.  Granted I haven't played a ton of the supposed top courses in the country like most of the posters on this site.

[Brian Cenci]

Chirs,
     I guess I'm making the point about where it is typically ranked to see how "good" it supposedly should be.  I can tell you its barely in my top 20 and it has nothing to do with not fitting my game.  My two favorite courses I've ever played I shot a 92 from the tips (Whistling Straits) and I've never been lower than 73 at Crystal Downs and I've played over 300 rounds there.  I shot 85 from the tips out there this year and was pretty pleased.  In my opinion I think the following are as good if not better: Inverness, Prairie Dunes, Crystal Downs, Pinehurst No. 2, Whistling Straits - Straits Crse., Kiawah - Ocean Crse, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes, Holston Hills, Lost Dunes, Franklin Hills, Pine Needles, Dunes Club, Bandon Trails, Wolf Run, Greywalls, Kingsley Club, Wolf Creek, Arcadia Bluffs, Olympia Fields - North......that's just off the top of my head.  

-Brian

[Chris_Clouser]

Brian,

I have played four of the courses on your list and I agree Prairie Dunes and Crystal are better without a doubt.  I was not as impressed by Inverness as you were.  I also have seen Kingsley.  Though I think it is a great course, I'm not sure that it is better than Oakland Hills.  The funny thing is that the one that is closest to me on your list, Wolf Run, I have not seen.  

It is obvious you have traveled more than I to the top courses, but in your comments you say it is barely in your top 20.  But it's still there.  So let's say it slides out of your top 20 over time but is still in your top 30.  There are plenty of people that don't see courses like Bandon Trails, Pine Needles, Greywalls and several others on your list as better courses.  So it is pretty easy for me to see how it retains that position in the rankings just by looking at your list alone.  

[Brian Cenci]

Chris,
     I don't agree with your reasoning about it being close enough to a top 20 on my list therefore its addequately ranked on most lists (I checked, its #22 on my personnal rankings).
     If we use your rationale, I've only played about 30-percent of most top 100 public lists and about 20-percent of most top 100 overalli lsts (GD, Golfweek, Golf Mag).  Using that rationale, if I played them all Oakland Hills would barely be in my top 100.

-Brian

[Brian Cenci]

Brian,

I have played four of the courses on your list and I agree Prairie Dunes and Crystal are better without a doubt.  I was not as impressed by Inverness as you were.  I also have seen Kingsley.  Though I think it is a great course, I'm not sure that it is better than Oakland Hills.  The funny thing is that the one that is closest to me on your list, Wolf Run, I have not seen.  


It is obvious you have traveled more than I to the top courses, but in your comments you say it is barely in your top 20.  But it's still there.  So let's say it slides out of your top 20 over time but is still in your top 30.  There are plenty of people that don't see courses like Bandon Trails, Pine Needles, Greywalls and several others on your list as better courses.  So it is pretty easy for me to see how it retains that position in the rankings just by looking at your list alone.  

You need to play Wolf Run if you haven't.  Absolutely love that course.  I played Wolf Run two years ago and the majority of really good courses I've played in the last 2 years after playing Wolf Run.  Wolf Run is still in my top 10.  Just a  great course and even a cooler place.  A gofer's golf club for sure.  No BS there with tennis courts, social members, etc....you play golf and that's it!

-Brian

[Andy Troeger]

You need to play Wolf Run if you haven't.  Absolutely love that course.  I played Wolf Run two years ago and the majority of really good courses I've played in the last 2 years after playing Wolf Run.  Wolf Run is still in my top 10.  Just a  great course and even a cooler place.  A gofer's golf club for sure.  No BS there with tennis courts, social members, etc....you play golf and that's it!

-Brian

Brian,
Definitely agree with you there. I've been fortunate to have had the opportunity to play many nice courses as well the last couple of years and Wolf Run still makes my top five. Its easily the best "really dang hard" course I've seen in terms of variety and fun.

[Sean_A]

Chris,
     I don't agree with your reasoning about it being close enough to a top 20 on my list therefore its addequately ranked on most lists (I checked, its #22 on my personnal rankings).
     If we use your rationale, I've only played about 30-percent of most top 100 public lists and about 20-percent of most top 100 overalli lsts (GD, Golfweek, Golf Mag).  Using that rationale, if I played them all Oakland Hills would barely be in my top 100.

-Brian

Brian

What is it about OH that keeps it out of the "best of"?

Ciao

[Brian Cenci]

Chris,
     I don't agree with your reasoning about it being close enough to a top 20 on my list therefore its addequately ranked on most lists (I checked, its #22 on my personnal rankings).
     If we use your rationale, I've only played about 30-percent of most top 100 public lists and about 20-percent of most top 100 overalli lsts (GD, Golfweek, Golf Mag).  Using that rationale, if I played them all Oakland Hills would barely be in my top 100.

-Brian

Brian

What is it about OH that keeps it out of the "best of"?

Ciao

Sean,
     It has great terrain for a classic course and I really like the greens.  But, how I compare and thus rank courses is I tend to go back and say: "if I was in town and had one round and both were available for me to play, what would I rather go play?"  Having nothing to do with maybe a particular style that suits my eye.  I recently played Yeamans Hall and can't stop thinking about what an awesome but simple course.
     Specific items...where's a short interesting par 4?  Tell me you throw a hole in like #15 at Franklin Hills into the PGA Championship it wouldn't generate much more interest (look at #17 at Oakmont last year)...where's a risk/reward par 5?  I guess I would ask others, what specfically is so good that makes it a top 20 course?

-Brian

[Mike Erdmann]

It's got fantastic greens, wonderful terrain and a superb routing.  All that said, I see it more of a strong and demanding test of golf rather than a fun and enjoyable golf course.

[Chuck Brown]

I think Oakland Hills South definitely belongs in a kind of second-tier of great courses.  I think it compares very favorably with all but a few American major championship courses.  
It's actually better, I think, to talk about the classics that must be rated above it -- Shinnecock, Oakmont, and a select few others.  And Oakland Hills lacks the charm of the other rarified classics that are not forced to adapt themselves to tour-level play - Cypress, NGLA, Seminole, etc.  Because apart from the courses in that extraordinary group, I think Oakland Hills is outstanding and a first-class examination.
I do think that one of the best comparisons to Oakland Hills in terms of its issues is Riviera.  Both built around the same time.  Both courses hosted some of the best play on planet Earth in the 1950's.  And now, both constrained by the dreaded distance issue.  OHCC faces a crisis in that there is no more room for some of its very best holes to obtain the added distance they need.  At OHCC, holes 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 all need pushed-back tees if no one is willing to do anything about golf ball performance.  Ditto for 1, 10 and about three or four other holes at Riviera.  
Apart from the length issues at OHCC, they actually do have a nifty reachable par 4, and that is Hole 6.
Hole 7 at OHCC is a sore point that has been the subject of numerous committee- and consultant-driven makeovers, and none of them have been satisfactory.  They need the ghost of Donald Ross to start from scratch on that hole.  (Rees Jones could have done anything with his latest makeover and it would have been an improvement.)
Hole 16 is the Pamela Anderson of golf holes; famous, gorgeous, and mostly unnatural.
Hole 18 is a conundrum; a courageous architect would substantially re-work the hole, which is a par-5 for memebers, a beautiful hole, a lovely concept as a MacKenzie-style in-between distance/par, and, sadly, uncomfortable as a converted par 4 for tour players.
Anyway, there should be no surprise in that the majority of GCA members have it right about OHCC; those green complexes, most of which have never been touched by Trent Jones or Rees Jones, are pure Ross, and they rival Ross' acknowledged masterpiece, Pinehurst #2.

[Ian Andrew]

I never understood the reverence this course receives – but I’ll always assume that it’s simply something that I don’t get.

Yes the greens are great – and I happen to love 8 through 11– but I’m under whelmed otherwise. The bunkering is some of the least interesting bunkering I have seen on a “great” course. Too often it pinches and punishes – it rarely ever entices or dares the player. I find the focus is on execution rather than making decisions. Add to that the aesthetics of the course can be found on any “modern” style course built after World War II and I’m left flat.

[Brett Hochstein]

Brian:

Hate to spoil the party, but no way would #15 at Franklin not remain a par 5 for the PGA.  Still a great hole and, to me, the unsung hero of the course

Chuck:

I wouldn't go so far to say #16 at OH is the Pam Anderson of golf holes.  That pond was either there from the beginning or added as as irrigation pond.  I don't believe there was much shaping if any in throughout the hole--probably only with the bunkers and the green a bit.  I believe the willows were cut, too, and that would be an upgrade.  There are thousands and thousands more holes deserving of the Pam Anderson label.  #16 just wears a little makeup, is all.

Everyone:

I would say OH is overrated, but under all the changes over the years is a great site and a very good golf course.  A lot of the stategy has been lost as well as the call for varied shotmaking.  The greens are still great, though they are way, way too fast, and the routing still utilizes the hills the same way Ross designed it.  I've mentioned it before, but I would still like to see a restoration where trees and bukers were removed and the bunkers regain their original form of "scooped out pits," as I feel the shape and scale of such bunkers fit in beautifully with the scale and form of the hills on the site.  Could say more, but must run

[PThomas]

if Player hadn't hit that shot on 16 in 1972, I wonder if the hole would ever be discussed