[Dan Moore]

Erin Hills will be hosting the US Amateur in 2011 with aspirations for the US Open in 2017.  In anticipation of those events extensive changes are being made to the course just a few years after opening.  Here is a quick look at some of those changes. 

After some Memorial Day golf on a nearby Langford Moreau I stopped for a quick look at the changes being made at Erin Hills.  I only looked at holes 1,2,3 and 8.  I did not look at the new green on 4, the modified biarritz green on 10, the modified volcano green on 15 or the shaving of the esker on 17. 

From what I saw the changes look fairly extensive.  Even on Memorial Day the construction crew was hard at work moving  dirt on the 8th hole.  Looks like they have plenty of work to do before reopening on July 1st.

The Dell Hole is no more, at least for now, its green turf having been stripped for use, I assume, on some of the green expansions taking place.  Perhaps rumors of its death will prove wrong, but it certainly won't be in play this year.  The putting green looked like its turf may also have been used for green expansions, but unlike the Dell, new sod had been laid with the net result of a much larger practice green. 

I'll get to the other holes I saw later tonight.  For now here is a look at the changes to the opener #1.

The changes on #1 are in the grow in phase.  Two changes are most notable.  First the modification of the ridge between the drive and landing area for the 2nd shot has had a bunker added to the right and has been lowered to allow a better view of that area.  Looks like a big improvement.  Much of the turf in the landing area of the drive has been resodded and the cart path up the ridge to the left of the large tree has been turfed over.  The other big change is the addition of some deep bunkers added to a depression left of the green.  These look pretty nasty and will have a big impact on play to the green. 

Hole #1
View from tee
New Bunker added to fairway left.  Landing zone widened.  Biggest change to ridge which has been lowered with fairway areas added between bunkers.  Hideous looking cartpath left of tree removed. 
Before


2009


View of 2nd shot from landing area of the drive.  Closer look at the lowered ridge and landing area for 2nd shot. 
Before 


2009


View of the green from the landing area of the 2nd Shot.  New Bunker added into hillside right.
2009


View of New Bunkers Greenside Left.
Before


2009

[jonathan_becker]

Dan,

I am playing EH for the third time this August and am highly anticipating your photos of the new #2 green.  Before, that green was smaller than small.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Here's yet another article by Gary D'Amato:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/golf/46146002.html

[RJ_Daley]

Mr. Lang's dedication is certainly to be admired, since it appears that he is taking a pretty big hit by taking the new course out of business for this remodelling time.  I think it is the right thing to do.  Just looking at the before and after on the first hole is illuminating.  In my view, the original mantra and theme to lay the routing naturally upon the native drumlin and eskar land to the most minimal degree was taking the ideal to the unreasoned extreme.  It was a valiant and ideal effort, but it didn't work for just the very reasons that these before and after photos depict.  I also can't wait to see what they will do to 2 green. 

Perhaps for the top tournament pros, the original design might have been interesting to see how those elite players negotiated with the severities and quirks.  But, for a paying customer of average abilities, it wasn't a design that was going to hold up to the enduring perennial repeat golf consumer's desires, in my estimation.  I think it would have been more of the masochists cup of tea. 

I presume that this whole process would be fodder for the so-called 'frank commentary' of golf course architecture we are here to engage in.  I'm personally tossed between the criticism that I feel is warranted but not handed out gleefully to respected gentlemen of the golf course archetecture and construction culture of Mrrs. Hurdzan and Fry and Whitten about the original concepts in design and minimal construction ideals over the severities of the land but possibly at all cost to playability and repeat business VS the "I told you so" of 'other' architects that might have been given a look and evaluate or bid during the original conceptualization that knew more 'melting down' had to be done on the land. 

One way or another, they started with the most lovely and desirable pastoral land and vistas and are working their way, it seems, to an ultimate 'cathedral' of golf, with a real cathedral within its backdrop.  It is a special place, and I hope they end up with the most special golf course that can provide not only the big tournament, but the kind of place many would want to 'commune' with the setting and with the game on an almost 'devout' enduring relationship.  I can't wait to go again when it gets regrown-in.

[Jim Colton]

Reading about all these changes, I cant help but wonder about two things:

1.  How much money they would've saved if they (namely Whitten) weren't so extreme in their stance to move as little dirt as possible in the initial build and they had made these changes at the outset. Ultimately, does this incremental cost get passed on to the consumer?  Was Whitten part of the redesign efforts?

2. How strongly the Dell hole played in the initial routing (was it a hole that they felt had to be there) and how the course might have differed if that constraint was lifted.  We'll never know. I do recall Doak stating that Whitten talked to him about the Dell hole, and Doak's comment here about the Dell-name being used in vain in this instance, yet it still made into the first final product. Not sure how much one can read into that though.

Reading Gary's article, I'm not sure what Lang's primary motivation is and wheter it has changed over time:
1. Build the best course possible and let the chips fall where they may
2. Build a course to land the U.S. Open, which must mean it's a great course.
3. Build a course moving as little dirt as possible.

Dan, thanks for sharing the pics. They definitely look like changes for the better.

  

[Jim Colton]

Dick,

I think we're saying the same thing. I couldn't help but wonder 'what might've have been' if they hadn't taken the non-dirt moving stance to an extreme. Isn't the point to move some dirt if it improves the course, with the key to make it look like it hadn't been moved at all (if minimalism is what you're going for)?  I think we saw the same thing at Dismal River, and both courses have made significant changes just a few years after opening. 

[Garland Bayley]

...
The Dell Hole is no more, at least for now, its green turf having been stripped for use I assume on some of the green expansions taking place.  Perhaps rumors of its death will prove wrong, but it certainly won't be in play this year.  The putting green looked like its turf may also have been used for green expansions, but unlike the Dell, new sod had been laid with the net result of a much larger practice green. 
...

Isn't Dell a misnomer for this hole? Wouldn't depression hole be more accurate?
From what I have read about it, it seems ill-conceived.

[Mike McGuire]

Jim -

I believe the US Open was the goal from day 1.

RJ

Well said.  As a local - I am hoping for the Erin Hills to be magnificent. SE wisconsin is already a great golf destination and majors at Erin Hills adds a lot to the offering.

[Michael Dugger]

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind a course that is only a couple of years old going under the knife already???

I don't get it.

[Jim Colton]

Michael,

 It certainly seems they are doing whatever it takes to get the course ready for a successful 2011 U.S. and to give themselves the best chance at getting that 2017 U.S. Open.

[Mike Bowline]

I remember standing in the middle of #2 FW with a Lob wedge in my hand and having zero confidence I could hit and hold the original #2 green, due to its extremely small size AND falling-away sides and rear. And sure enough, I hit it a little too far, hit the green too high, and bounded over.

I read the green was rebuilt and enlarged to offer more hole locations with the added benefit of spreading wear.

Having said the above, I liked the original tiny green and its demand on an accurate approach with a very short club in one's hands.

[Dan Moore]

View of 2nd Hole from the teeing area.  The glacial mound to the right was lowered and a bunker was added to the face. 




View of 2nd green from fairway.  While expanded to the left and rear, the green is still quite small.  The areas around the green have been softened quite a bit as well. 

Before


May 2009


View of 2nd green from area of 3rd tee.  It looks like much of the dip in short of the green was removed. 

Before


2009



Sodded 2nd Green


View of 3rd hole from tee.  The new bunkers left look quite penal and add some balance to the look of the hole. 

Before


2009


Dell Green on Life Support



8th fairway from Dell Hole tee.  Looks like a new 8th tee is being built just to the right of the Dell tee which will transform the 8th into a par 5.  Not sure what going on in the fairway there, but it looks like a very deep pit is being built which will need to be carried with the drive.  There was work being done in the fairway short of the green as well.  More new bunkers? 

[jonathan_becker]

Thanks for the photos of #2.  The new green is still pretty small.  It's not as big as I thought it was going to be, but I like the fact that they took out some of the dip short and left of the green.  Before, if you missed the green you were chipping back up to it with no room for error.  Missing it left instantly brought the tiny bunker on the right into play on your recovery shot.  I don't think the original green was unfair, now I just think it's more playable for everyone.

[jonathan_becker]

Dan,

I'd love to see more photos if you've got more!

[PThomas]

this seems like an interesting point to ponder:  was having the US Open TRULY in the architects minds when designing the course...one argument that that wasnt the case is because they would NOT have built the DELL hole...Mike Hurdzan and Ron W surely know that that the USGA and PGA would never allow such a hole to be played during a major

[Phil McDade]

Paul:

I think the Bye hole was built, and arranged in the routing, for easily substituting it for the (alleged) Dell hole, with the knowledge that those issues about a blind hole might very well arise. I think the (alleged) Dell hole was built because the routers/designers came upon a natural depression that they thought would make a cool hole. There's little else about the hole that stands out -- you tee off a flat piece of land into a depression.

Of all the posters on GCA, Mike McGuire lives closest to Erin Hills, and I believe him when he says (as I've heard others speculate) that a big tourney -- hopefully the US Open -- was the goal of this course from the beginning.

[Jim Colton]

this seems like an interesting point to ponder:  was having the US Open TRULY in the architects minds when designing the course...one argument that that wasnt the case is because they would NOT have built the DELL hole...Mike Hurdzan and Ron W surely know that that the USGA and PGA would never allow such a hole to be played during a major

Paul,

  Isn't one of the primary purposes of the Bye Hole?  To allow them to skip the Dell for tournament play (and to link 9th green to the 10th tee).

  Jim

[PThomas]

this seems like an interesting point to ponder:  was having the US Open TRULY in the architects minds when designing the course...one argument that that wasnt the case is because they would NOT have built the DELL hole...Mike Hurdzan and Ron W surely know that that the USGA and PGA would never allow such a hole to be played during a major

Paul,

  Isn't one of the primary purposes of the Bye Hole?  To allow them to skip the Dell for tournament play (and to link 9th green to the 10th tee).

  Jim

think you guys are right, duh me...sorry for the brain lapse!

[George Freeman]

Paul,

  Isn't one of the primary purposes of the Bye Hole?  To allow them to skip the Dell for tournament play (and to link 9th green to the 10th tee).

  Jim

Exactly...which brings the obvious question up:  why the need to get rid of the Dell Hole if you assume the course was routed properly in the first place to successfully detour the Dell during tourny play...

I must be missing something...

[Jim Tang]

I have to say, of all the courses I played for the first time in 2009, Erin Hills was the most disappointing.  The design is just a bit too extreme for my tastes.  The refusal to move as little dirt as possible made of some flat out average, or even poor holes IMHO.

Hopefully, the redo will make for a better course.  I do not like the idea of a golf course being built specifically to host a US Open.

[Dan Moore]

This may be too generous, but what about the possibility the architects didn't move dirt initially so they could see how things played and then make the nips and tucks needed to improve on nature.  If anything they erred on the side of leaving too much natural quirk, e.g. green on 2, Dell and green on 10.  Might not this be a better approach than destroying natural features from the outset.  The counter point being the only reason they are changing things at all is due to the USGA's interest. 

I don't think there is any question the course was designed with the idea it would be able to host big tournaments; the USGA was visiting even before the course opened.  Plus see Dana Fry's comments in his Feature Interview.  He indicates more length was built into the course to give greater flexibility in how it can be set up for tournament play.

Jim,  I'm curious as to which holes you found lacking.  While I'm a fan of the course, I also felt there were a few holes lacking.  On the other hand, the section from 11-17 I find pretty exilarating.  Changes are being made to 10 and 18.  Seems like most significant changes are on the front nine with some pretty major work to 1,2,4 and 8. 

[Jim Colton]

Dan,

  I think you are being too generous.  Mr. Lang must have some deep pockets if he was willing to build and grow-in a course knowing full well that wholesale changes would be made just three years later.  That doesn't seem to make much business sense for a guy who has shown a high level of it in the past.

  I played w/ Mr. Tang last year and can echo his comments, but I definitely liked the course more than he did.  My beef was with the extreme view they took with moving little or no dirt, instead of trying to take a fabulous piece of property and try to enhance it to yield the best course possible (there was significant old-mac-level buzz about this course before it opened and it really has died down since it opened).  I think they've realized this and that's why you're seeing these significant changes, yet they are constrained to a large degree by their original routing decisions.  Maybe you get a whole different routing if you didn't feel tied to the Dell hole from the outset.  Who knows.  I think we saw some interesting options in that recent amateur armchair exercise (of course I'm biased, but I much rather play Ballysnoop )

  From first glance of your pics, I am excited about the changes and they look like a huge step in the right direction.  The first hole alone is night and day.  Your pics alone have moved me from 'course I played once but never again' to 'worth another look'.  Hopefully, they don't start charging $250-$300+/round if they land the U.S. Open, but I can't help but wonder if that was part of Mr. Lang's long-range business plan all along.  In any case, I look forward to your full report in July.

[Tom_Doak]

I just love it when people criticize architects for moving too little dirt.

Then again, if you are an architect who is used to moving lots of dirt, maybe going to extreme minimalism is not a good idea.  You can only be a purist about moving dirt if you nail the routing.

And, yes Dan, you are being too generous about their not moving dirt.  If they had moved the dirt on the first hole in the beginning and done a really good job, no one would ever have known they'd done it.

[George Pazin]

I'm incredibly disappointed I didn't get to play EH before the changes.

Can someone credibly hypothesize as to whether the course will be better, or simply more fair for a tournament crowd?

In spite of Tom D's informed criticism, I'd rather see the approach Dan theorizes: Move too little, evaluate play, make changes. The only real question to me is are the changes needed, or simply desired by those hoping for an Open?

[Dan Moore]

George, Its probably a mixed bag.  Almost everyone felt holes #1 and #2 needed to be changed.  #1 because it looked and played a little awkward, #2 because the green was just too small for everyday play.  I felt the 8th hole was a weak link and now its being turned into a par 5.  Most also agreed the biarritz green needed to be softened to make use of the front and rear portions of the green.  Other changes may have been with an eye toward the Open.  Shaving the esker on 17 to eliminate blindness and softening of slopes on several greens to accomodate pin postions at Open green speeds are good examples.  I only saw 4-5 holes last week so I'm curious as the rest of the changes. 

I should also have mentioned the other thing I noticed during my brief wal around was that the long stuff bordering the holes was being kept short and in some places looked like it was undergoing some kind of treatment.  It will be interesting to see what their long range plan is for those areas. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()