Congressional (Pictures)

[Ed Oden]

In anticipation of this week's AT&T, I thought I would post some pictures of Congressional Blue I took in late April.  Here is the front nine:

#1 tee

#1 approach

#2 from behind

#3

#4 approach

#5 tee

#5 approach

#5 from behind

#6 approach

#8 approach

#9 approach

Back nine to follow

[Ed Oden]

The back nine:

#10

#11 tee

#11 approach

#12 approach

#14 approach

#15

#16 tee

#16 approach

#17 approach

#18 approach

#18 Green

#18 behind

[Mike_Clayton]

One day someone is going to wake up and go out with a mower and cut all that horrible grass between the fairways and the bunkers.
Why do Americans make almost every one of these championship/Open courses look exactly the same?
Aside from looking terrible, why punish the player who has driven close to the hazard?
Assuming the hazards have some strategic value surely it makes sense to reward, and not punish, that player.

[RJ_Daley]

It would be interesting for one of our GCA history buffs to trace the origins of that maintenance meld as it relates to mowing scheme philosophy.  Would the path lead back to the Chicago School under RB Harris and his focus on design for maintenance?  Or, RTJsr intentions on presenting his typical dogleg, bunkered at the near and far corners?  Is this a collaboration of archies and supers or a PGA and USGA set-up issue that was tried 50 years ago now, and stuck as conventional wisdom in course set up and presentation? 

[Bill Shotzbarger]

The greens look somewhat wide and seemingly accepting to shots who drift. Is a splendid approach shot deserving of only a perfect swing, or does a slight pull hook result in a birdie putt?

[Carl Nichols]

The greens look somewhat wide and seemingly accepting to shots who drift. Is a splendid approach shot deserving of only a perfect swing, or does a slight pull hook result in a birdie putt?

Bill:
The greens at Congressional are fairly large, but I've found that (1) the course plays quite long (most of the longer par 4's have uphill 2nd shots), so you're often hitting longer irons than you might otherwise suspect, and (2) many of the greens have significant slopes, so to have a real birdie putt you need to be in the right part of the green.  When the greens are quick and the rough is up, it's one of the hardest courses I've played. 

[Dean Stokes]

One day someone is going to wake up and go out with a mower and cut all that horrible grass between the fairways and the bunkers.
Why do Americans make almost every one of these championship/Open courses look exactly the same?
Aside from looking terrible, why punish the player who has driven close to the hazard?
Assuming the hazards have some strategic value surely it makes sense to reward, and not punish, that player.

Just scrolling through the pictures I was going to say the same thing about the bunkers. They are always effectively out of play for balls running along the ground. In a bid to narrow the fairways the course is not playing the way it was intended. Plus it looks crap.

[Jerry Kluger]

I have been a spectator at Congressional for more than 30 years - watching the 1976 PGA, then the Kemper Opens, then as a marshal at the 1997 US Open, and then the current Tiger event, and how the course and players have changed.  Today's tour players can simply overpower the golf course.  The course plays to a par 72 for the members, but for the AT&T the 6th and 11th are par 4s, making it a par 70 - if they played them as par 5s, Tiger would not be happy with the winning score.  When you consider that today's pros are hitting it 300 yards off the tee, a 460 yard par 4 is not much more than a driver/8 iron - the greens at Congressional at not severe or firm enough to defend that kind of play.  I can remember how difficult 15 was for the players 20 years ago, but not today.  14 is the only one that really gives them trouble because the fairway narrows down so much and if you lay back, you have an uphill shot from a fairway which slopes down.  10 may look pretty but it really is too simple a hole for championship golf when you have a blank canvas to work with - imagine if they had simply made a longer version of #12 at ANGC.  Clearly, Congressional is a great course for the members and I would never turn down the opportunity to play there, but for the Tour, and later the Open, they need to do something to deal with today's top players.

[Dan_Callahan]

If you think that course looks like crap, you must be playing golf at some pretty exceptional places. Looking through those pictures, I couldn't help but think that while it isn't as uniquely interesting as Sand Hills or Cypress, it is head and shoulders above anything I ever play. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would probably be pretty damn happy playing Congressional every day, and that's based only on the pictures. I guess that makes me a golf slut with pretty low standards, but damn . . .

[Bart Bradley]

Ed:

I am shocked by the negative responses to the looks of the golf course.  You were there:  how was it?

It looks like a great day of Parkland golf to me.

Bart

[Carl Nichols]

I have been a spectator at Congressional for more than 30 years - watching the 1976 PGA, then the Kemper Opens, then as a marshal at the 1997 US Open, and then the current Tiger event, and how the course and players have changed.  Today's tour players can simply overpower the golf course.  The course plays to a par 72 for the members, but for the AT&T the 6th and 11th are par 4s, making it a par 70 - if they played them as par 5s, Tiger would not be happy with the winning score.  When you consider that today's pros are hitting it 300 yards off the tee, a 460 yard par 4 is not much more than a driver/8 iron - the greens at Congressional at not severe or firm enough to defend that kind of play.  I can remember how difficult 15 was for the players 20 years ago, but not today.  14 is the only one that really gives them trouble because the fairway narrows down so much and if you lay back, you have an uphill shot from a fairway which slopes down.  10 may look pretty but it really is too simple a hole for championship golf when you have a blank canvas to work with - imagine if they had simply made a longer version of #12 at ANGC.  Clearly, Congressional is a great course for the members and I would never turn down the opportunity to play there, but for the Tour, and later the Open, they need to do something to deal with today's top players.

Times have certainly changed, but Congressional was still the 9th hardest course on Tour last year (in relation to par).  The 5 hardest were Oakmont, ANGC, Southern Hills, Bridgestone, and Carnoustie. 

[Kirk Gill]

On the 15th, the bunkering in play off the tee seems well right, but if my take on the greensite beyond is correct, a shot from the left side of the fairway would give a more optimum approach. So are the bunkers on the right just additional punishment for a pushed/sliced drive?

[Dean Stokes]

If you think that course looks like crap, you must be playing golf at some pretty exceptional places. Looking through those pictures, I couldn't help but think that while it isn't as uniquely interesting as Sand Hills or Cypress, it is head and shoulders above anything I ever play. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would probably be pretty damn happy playing Congressional every day, and that's based only on the pictures. I guess that makes me a golf slut with pretty low standards, but damn . . .

Dan, maybe I did not explain correctly. I did not say the course is crap. I have never been there. I was trying to express my dislike for there being so much rough on the course. On many holes the bunkers are taken out of play because the rough would stop any ball reaching them. Then you look at the 11th hole with the stream on the right - let the fairway go almost all the way to it so the golfer has to shape his shots to keep the ball to the left. A big slice will land in the fairway and run into the rough, let it go into the stream. If golf courses are getting shorter due to equipment then the set up of courses needs to place a premium on accuracy. Just growing rough everywhere takes hazards like trees, bunkers and streams out of play. That's all I was trying to say.

[JWinick]

It seems that the pictures don't do it justice.  Some great courses take a few rounds before you can really appreciate them.   

[Jerry Kluger]

Carl: The course plays tough because they play it to a par 70 when it was designed as a par 72.

Kirk:  15 was a tough hole for the players when they were using persimmon drivers.  The bunkers right only come into play for a badly pushed drive which bounces into one of them - as otherwise noted, the rough prevents a ball from rolling in.  The bunkers themselves are not that deep and the lips are not severe so top players can hit the green barring a bad lie.

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan, maybe I did not explain correctly. I did not say the course is crap. I have never been there. I was trying to express my dislike for there being so much rough on the course.

Dean, I see your point. I just find it amusing when some of these courses get picked apart on this board. Makes me wonder what  frame of reference people are using. Sure there are more visually exciting courses than Congressional. I much prefer the photos on the Ballyneal thread from an aesthetics standpoint. However, compared to some of the courses that I play, Congressional looks exquisite. But in terms of maintenance and its impact (or lack thereof) on strategy, I agree with you.

[rboyce]

thanks for the pics.

wish there were a user generated website that allowed pics to be uploaded with brief descriptions. my theory is that it wouldn't take long to create an encyclopedia of public and private courses with pictures. kind of a golf course wiki.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have played the Blue course about a dozen times over the past few years.  While not one of my favorite courses, it is very good.  The elevation changes make club selection tricky.  It is tight off the tee, so accuracy is important.  The shots into and around the greens a demanding because many greens have pretty good slope to them and being on the correct side of the hole is important.  I didn't like the course much the first couple of times I played it but have grown to respect and like the course the more I play it. 

Nice pictures, they capture the spirit of the course.

[Carl Nichols]

Carl: The course plays tough because they play it to a par 70 when it was designed as a par 72.

Kirk:  15 was a tough hole for the players when they were using persimmon drivers.  The bunkers right only come into play for a badly pushed drive which bounces into one of them - as otherwise noted, the rough prevents a ball from rolling in.  The bunkers themselves are not that deep and the lips are not severe so top players can hit the green barring a bad lie.

Jerry: I believe that is true of many courses on tour.  Of the top 9 hardest courses on tour last year, the pros played 7 @ par 70; only Carnoustie (par 71) and ANGC (par 72) were not played at 70.  I haven't played any of the 7 courses other than Congressional, but I would be very suprised if most played at par 70 for regular play from the back tees.  Indeed, Bay Hill (#7) and PGA National Champions (#8) are both par 72 for regular play, but play at par 70 for the pros.

[Brian Laurent]

Nice pics...I was surprised by the front, middle, back flags.  I haven't seen that on many private courses lately. 

[Jim Nugent]

Times have certainly changed, but Congressional was still the 9th hardest course on Tour last year (in relation to par).  The 5 hardest were Oakmont, ANGC, Southern Hills, Bridgestone, and Carnoustie. 

Do you know where Congressional ranked in absolute score?

[Ed Oden]

Thanks for the compliments on the pictures.  My perspective is based on just one round at the Blue (we also played the Gold).  So you will need to factor in my limited exposure.  But I found the Blue to be a very good course and a joy to play.  It is anything but boring.  Visually its quite appealing notwithstanding the encroachment of the rough beyond hazards.  The rough is very penal (but not as much as Five Farms).  I agree with those that would prefer widened fairways to bring the hazards into play.  I'd be interested to know if the current setup has existed for some time or is it a product of the return of the PGA tour.  If the latter, then I can at least understand the reasoning although I might not agree with it for member play.  Also for those in the know, have the greens substantially changed?  I found them to be just a bit on the bland side for my tastes.  But I suspect they are exactly what the pros, the tour and the USGA would consider ideal.  At the end of the day, however, these criticisms are minor in the scheme of things.  While Congressional may not occupy the rarified air of the truly exceptional courses, it is nonetheless a terrific place and worthy of its stature.  In my opinion we too often split hairs when discussing top courses.  I prefer to look past the few blemishes on an otherwise beautiful lady.  If you can't enjoy a round at the Blue then you need to find another hobby.

Ed

[Carl Nichols]

Times have certainly changed, but Congressional was still the 9th hardest course on Tour last year (in relation to par).  The 5 hardest were Oakmont, ANGC, Southern Hills, Bridgestone, and Carnoustie. 

Do you know where Congressional ranked in absolute score?

The site I'm looking at doesn't sort by absolute score, but from a quick glance Congressional looks to be right in the middle -- i.e., of the 55 courses on tour, somewhere in the 25-30 range.  

[Jerry Kluger]

I got home early from work and been trying to watch for the last hour or so - I now know how my retired friends are able to nap in the afternoons - it is awful to watch.  There hasn't been any disucssion of the design or strategy of the holes other than "keep it below the hole." There are more commercials than coverage, and most of the coverage is putting. I just don't understand what the problem is - they need some direction and they need Faldo to discuss the holes and how to play them. This is not good for the game.

[PCCraig]

Did R. Jones re design the course in advance for the US Am and Open?