Peter Kostis on Rees's Work at Oakland Hills

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chuck Brown,

Tony Soprano only objects to an increase in non-organized crime.

As to Rees Jones and Oakland Hills, would the finished product have been any different regardless of which consulting architect was selected ?

Dan Callahan,

How quickly you forgot John Daly at Crooked Stick and TOC.

Had JB Holmes maintained his demeanor, the headlines would have been how he tamed the monster.

It's only a matter of time before it's Daly deja vu all over again.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I think we agree on this more than you want to admit.

I remember that Davis Love was asked prior to the last Open at Oakland Hills whether he would try to drive past the pinching bunkers or lay up short of them and he replied that he hadn't given the bunkers much thought, because better in them than in the rough.

On some of the holes at Oakland Hills, there were two new bunkers on each side of the fairway further downrange, and yet Mr. Holmes often flew past all of them.

Do you really think adding 300 yards to the championship course and adding a few fairway bunkers meant a three-shot difference per round?  If it does, then the USGA course rating system is all incorrect -- according to them, 220 yards = 1 shot, and that's for a scratch golfer, not a plus-seven Tour pro.

Most of all, you are right that "the sponsoring organizations want par to be a challenge."  That is the whole problem in a nutshell.  They are too caught up in a standard that died forty years ago.  Pros aren't scratch players, they are plus-seven ... to try to hold them to the antiquated par figures of 50 years ago is silly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think we're close to agreeing on this subject.

However you can't look at the addition of 300 yards and the introduction of new bunkers without factoring in "narrowing" and deep penal rough.

I was shocked at how good Harrington's lie was on # 18.
Then I thought, perhaps his lie was good because he was so far removed from the DZ and noone really gave any thought to the rough in that location because they were so focused on the normal DZ.

A National Championship conotes a test of a higher degree, not that of a typical tour stop. 

But, I don't know how you conduct a thorough examination of the field's game without length.

I&B have made length a necessity in the minds of the sponsoring organizations, the clubs, their memberships, TV and the viewers.

I was friendly with a number of individuals at various clubs who were in charge at their club when a major was hosted.   Everyone of them, along with a large portion of their memberships, didn't want their golf course to be "embarrassed" by low scoring.  They wanted it as tough as possible.

I think the culture of "Major" golf is focused on par.
The hosting club, their members, TV, their viewers and the sponsoring organization are all consumed by the issue, and with the distance the ball travels, distance is perceived as the # 1 defense.

I have grave concerns when clubs like NGLA host a prominent tournament because I fear that any changes may become permanent, especially the narrowing of the fairways, which seems to be universal these days.

Has there been any discussion regarding alterations to Sebonack, including narrowing the fairways ?  And, if the fairways are intended to be narrowed, will they be returned after the big show leaves town ?

Newport and others have yet to restore their fairway widths.

I wonder if Prairie Dunes has restored theirs ?

[Dan Herrmann]

By the way, Tom Doak was interviewed on XM146 yesterday morning.  He spent some time explaining the differences between designing for TOUR pros versus designing for club/resort golfers.  It was a great interview.    Doak also praised Oakland Hills, and rightfully so.

[Sean Leary]

Prairie Dunes has not restored their fairways yet.

[Jeff_Mingay]

This will probably sound "off the wall" -- and definitely impossible -- to many, but Oakland Hills would have been more interesting if they removed all the bunkers, cut all the trees down, and mowed the entire property fairway height. Especially with the high winds there over the weekend, and the impressive firmness of the approaches into the greens. 

Narrow fairways and the addition of bunkers further down range off the tees only makes the course more monotonous and plain difficult, in my opinion. I'm more interested in seeing an array of interesting shots than keeping the winner somewhere around par.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Mingay,

I don't disagree with you in principle, but, how do you test the best golfers in the world for a National Championship ?

And, can you consistently count on the wind when you need it at Oakland Hills ?

[Dan Herrmann]

Is decent fairway width a key to good strategic design?  I think it's interesting that we're talking about this at Oakland Hills - we've been clamoring for a return to the "no rough" ANGC for a few years now.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Pat,

I'm getting so tired of these contrived championship set-ups -- new tees, moving bunkers, narrowing fairways, RAKING ROUGH, mowing fairways with green mowers, etc. etc. -- I start thinking: Just let the guys play golf. The lowest score wins no matter where they play, nor what the set-up.

Maybe I'm simplifying things a bit too much, but... hey, isn't this golf? Tee it up, lowest score wins.

Why do the powers-that-be these days consistently feel it's their obligation to make it really, really difficult for the best players? Perhaps, in part, it stems from the fact the powers-that-be stopped effectively regulating playing equipment a number of years ago... and, the only way to maintain any somewhat sensible relationship between the accomplishments of Hagen, Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods is to do what they're doing with golf courses pegged to host major championships these days. 

It's goofy.

I'm hoping Mike Davis continues to be innovative. He could single-handedly change the tide.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Mingay,

Let me give you my REAL take on this.

It's a next to impossible problem and task.

The solution to which is similar to that evidenced by Madison Square Garden and other arenas when they have a hockey game in the afternoon and a basketball game in the evening.

Two seperate playing surfaces must be specifically prepared.

That entails destroying one and creating another.

Today, too often the vestiges of USGA/PGA events remain long after the site has been abandoned by the competitors.

[Tom_Doak]

All these cliches about "testing the best players in the world" start to wear on me.  Any good course will do that.  It doesn't need a ridiculous set-up.

Pat, I don't agree that length needs to be a factor in testing great play.  If it did, then the USGA was really negligent in its equipment regulation, because that horse left the barn about 15 years ago.  None of these courses count as "long" for a PGA Tour pro with modern equipment, in the same context "long" has for you and me.  That doesn't mean you can't find a course which makes the players play smart golf and control their ball and tests their ability to get the ball in the hole, and isn't that the real definition of a champion?

I still believe it is the stupid attachment to par that is the ruination of tournament set-ups and "championship" architecture.

And here's my defense:  how were you enjoying this PGA before it rained, when nobody could break par?  Was it interesting to watch?  Was it identifying the best players?  Seems to me it only got interesting once it rained a bit to soften the set-up so the best players could show you what they had -- and then it got really exciting.  If any of the members at Oakland Hills are embarrassed about how Padraig Harrington played the course the last 27 holes, they are really missing the point.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I'm in total agree with Tom Doak's post above.

Oakland Hills didn't play long, except for Corey Pavin and a few others. Garcia was drive/9-iron to the par-5 second, Sunday. Holmes hit drive/sand iron to ten. I saw some amazingly long tee shots Thursday and Sunday, while I was at the tournament. Scary long.

I also saw Pavin hit a calculated hook off the tee at eighteen, followed by a faded driver off the deck into the green to about 20-feet from the hole, Thursday. His second there is undoubtedly one of the greatest golf shots I've ever seen, live. Amazing. I want to see shots like this, and birdies as well as the occasional eagle.

With the majority of a golf property covered with long grass, we don't see as many truly great shots. Period.

[Dan Herrmann]

It's like a baseball game played with 5" grass in the infield and outfield.  B O R I N G!

[Jerry Kluger]

I cannot think of another sport where the playing field is changed for championship events.  The new baseball parks don't have deeper outfields, the basket hasn't been raised although the players are clearly bigger, same thing for football. 

The fact is that the equipment changes have only been signifcant in tennis yet they still use the same size court.  Baseball did see some changes such as raising the pitcher's mound but they went back to the old height.  There were many questions about the ball but it seems that it was the players who were juiced and not the ball.  The most obvious difference between baseball and golf is the bat versus the club.  Baseball at the top levels of the game could have allowed changes in materials or hollowing of the bat but they decided against it - why - BECAUSE THOSE WHO REGULATE THE GAME OWN THE PLAYING FIELDS.  That is not the case in golf as far as the championship venues.  So the PGA Tour, the PGA and the USGA don't have a financial or other interest in the courses.  The only exception is the Masters and they are the most likely to take the lead in equipment changes.  Of course, it would be very difficult for them to change the ball and deal with the manufacturers.  But would it be that difficult for them to regulate the drivers - steel shafts are readily available and there are manufacturers still making persimmon heads.  Sure, the players could say no or the manufacturers could pressure the players, but I would bet on the moguls who are members of ANGC to prevail.

[tlavin]

CBS had a half hour special before Sunday's telecast in which they twice said Trent Jones Jr. was the ORIGINAL ARCHITECT of Oakland Hills.

[Chuck Brown]

Tom - Yes, the USGA was really negligent with equipment regulations, and yes that horse did leave the barn.

Now, I think that horse is not only out of the barn, that particular horse is wandering around causing a lot of damage.

Let's face it, we wouldn't be talking about extremes in course alteration if the USGA had regulated golf ball performance more rigorously.  Sure, there might have been some tee movement; there might have been some bunker movement.  Trent Jones was doing that to OHCC in the nineteen fifties.

I share everyone's general objections to much of what was done to OHCC.  But as I understand it, Tom agrees that given the task of making the course a major-championship test, what Rees Jones did was well within reason.  This architectural evil isn't Rees Jones' doing; it is almost purely a function of equipment.

By the way, we should keep in mind that Steve Cook, OHCC's superintendent has heard all of the criticism of the course, which is painful for him after having been basically told what to do on most of the issues of controversy.  As I understand it, Kerry Haigh came to Steve at 4:00 am on Saturday and directed some changes, in deirect response to complaints.  Steve complied.  As I understand it, mowers were sent out to make additional cuts to the rough not once, but twice.  They ended up using the far-back tees on 9 and 17 just one day apiece.  With one or two exceptions, the hole locations were ones that members might expect to see on ordinary days.  They never once used the farthest-back tee positions on 6, or 11, and perhaps most important, they used an "up" tee position on 18.  Oakland Hills could have been set up much harder than it was.  I take no pleasure in that notion; just to say that these things were the subject of conscious tinkering, by the PGA of America.

[Matt_Ward]

Tony:

Good to see that Kostis gets "something" about architecture. Now if he would only advance the program with better interviews of the players (see Sergio as case #1). 

[Dan_Callahan]

How quickly you forgot John Daly at Crooked Stick and TOC.

Had JB Holmes maintained his demeanor, the headlines would have been how he tamed the monster.

It's only a matter of time before it's Daly deja vu all over again.

What is wrong with Daly all over again? Isn't driving a part of the game? Why should course setup be dictated by trying to reign in a great driver of the golf ball? In my opinion, if someone like Daly can put together four exceptional rounds of driving, assuming his short game is okay, SHOULD win. In the same way that a guy who has four unbelievable rounds putting, like Goosen at the U.S. Open, should win. We don't see greens that are tricked up to try to penalize a great putter. Why should courses be tricked up simply to impact the long hitters?

Maybe golf should follow the lead of MMA, which all began by a group of people wondering who would win in a fight: a boxer, wrestler, black belt, etc. The only way to find out is to put them into a ring with a uniform set of rules and let them duke it out.

I don't see why golf should be any different. Put the best players in the world on a golf course that isn't artificially rigged to penalize one skill. Let them all play, and we'll find out which skill predominates.

[Dean Stokes]

Jeff Mingay,

I don't disagree with you in principle, but, how do you test the best golfers in the world for a National Championship ?

And, can you consistently count on the wind when you need it at Oakland Hills ?

You go to the tournament ball. A ball that when spanked by JB goes a max of 280 yards. How easy is that?

No more knee high rough. No need to pinch in fairways and no more need to extend already great courses. Done.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Amen on the good timing of the H20 to hit Oakland Hills / South. The first two rounds were truly boring to watch as it was nothing more than a golf course overpowering the field.

The rain -- and the considerable thought of Kerry Haigh to place tee markers ahead of where they were previously -- see the 17th, as just one example, permitted the best players to show what they do.

Oakland Hills / South doesn't need to be helped with the overkill in narrow fairways and the like. The sad part is that too many events are now following the same pattern over and over again.

[Jeff Goldman]

This infection spreads from members of the host club, who feel embarrassed if scores are low, and want to demonstrate how "tough" their course is, to the media, for whom greatness means difficulty, to even folks on this site, who extolled how well Winged Foot, Oakmont, Bethpage, etc. "held up" to the best players in the world.  Is Oakmont that much better a golf course after the last open than it was after Larry Nelson "torched" the place in the last two rounds 1980s, or a whole bunch of folks broke par when Ernie Els won in 1994, or when Jonny Miller won in 1973?   And is there any reason for the latest changes to Bethpage beyond making sure no one shoots low?  Many have stated how glad they are that the Open is going back to Merion, but what kind of Merion did we see during the Amateur, with rough up to everyone's ass, and what kind will we see if the fairways are narrowed even more, green speeds are at 20 and the rough is 8 feet high, all to ensure that the course "holds up"?

[Sean_A]

This infection spreads from members of the host club, who feel embarrassed if scores are low, and want to demonstrate how "tough" their course is, to the media, for whom greatness means difficulty, to even folks on this site, who extolled how well Winged Foot, Oakmont, Bethpage, etc. "held up" to the best players in the world.  Is Oakmont that much better a golf course after the last open than it was after Larry Nelson "torched" the place in the last two rounds 1980s, or a whole bunch of folks broke par when Ernie Els won in 1994, or when Jonny Miller won in 1973?   And is there any reason for the latest changes to Bethpage beyond making sure no one shoots low?  Many have stated how glad they are that the Open is going back to Merion, but what kind of Merion did we see during the Amateur, with rough up to everyone's ass, and what kind will we see if the fairways are narrowed even more, green speeds are at 20 and the rough is 8 feet high, all to ensure that the course "holds up"?

Jeff

I agree with you.  Ultimately, the membership is responsible for their course(s).  Its hard to believe that all these clubs that have monstered up for events has nothing to do with the membership.  There is no question that most folks use the term "challenge" to really mean difficulty - even for many on this site.  Can't a course be demanding and require thoughtful execution without being crazy difficult?  I am afraid it is our obsession with par which gets us into such a mess.  I think once folks lose this idea of par as a measuring stick and concentrate on what is good golf the game will be much better off.  The idea is especially insane for the pros.  There are very, very few tournies these days where a pro shooting par will win.  The kicker is, of those tournies, most are boring to watch and are met with derision by a significant number of pros.  I think its time we all accept that the experiment with attempting to force a winning score by altering the setup and architecture of what in many cases are great courses has utterly failed. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Weren't you one of the main driving forces behind turning Olympia Fields South into a much tougher course, or am I confusing you with someone else?

Kelly:

The Open set-up at Birkdale was just as bad or worse.  With all of the crosswind holes there, the fairways were impossibly narrow.  I don't know that the set-up should have anticipated steady 30-mph winds the whole week, but it did seem that they were too busy defending par in possible calm conditions, and it's not like the wind never blows off the Irish Sea.

[Sean_A]

Jeff:

Weren't you one of the main driving forces behind turning Olympia Fields South into a much tougher course, or am I confusing you with someone else?

Kelly:

The Open set-up at Birkdale was just as bad or worse.  With all of the crosswind holes there, the fairways were impossibly narrow.  I don't know that the set-up should have anticipated steady 30-mph winds the whole week, but it did seem that they were too busy defending par in possible calm conditions, and it's not like the wind never blows off the Irish Sea.

Tom D

I disagree with you concerning Birkdale.  On the weekend the setup was fine, nothing I would call great, but I think that has more to do with the architecture then the setup. 

The idea of loads of crosswind shots is a much more interesting comment.  I spose more up n' over design would have been necessary to eliminate some of the cross wind holes - which I think would have been a great idea.  One problem with following the valley floors between dunes is that if the valley isn't terribly wide it is awfully hard to create the width with the mower.  Not many clubs are likely to cut significantly up the banks to nurture tee shots back into play or at least make the ball findable.   To a lesser degree Burnham has some of the same difficulty with wind and width between the dunes.  Of course, all this pre-supposses that wind will blow in these areas.  IMO its a very good assumption even if a critically difficult wind only appears once a month the architecture should allow for it.  Unfortunately, most memberships of  links are of the opinion that their courses need to be made tougher - hence there is little attempt to widen fairway corridors.

I wonder how many archies out there would look at a lovely corridor between the dunes that was 30 yards wide and think that isn't enough room for a prevailing cross wind that at times blows over 30 mph.  There is a lot to be said for the course which limit the number of cross wind holes in favour of more down/up wind holes.

Ciao

[Doug Ralston]

What WILL happen to Chambers Bay? Can any course keep it's integrity under the onslaught of the Major?

Doug