Should the USGA stop holding the US Open at classic-era courses?

[Terry Lavin]

At Olympia, the Board held a special meeting before a vote about renovating the course in conjunction with being awarded the Open. At the meeting, over 300 members listened to the plans for the $3 million wholesale renovation of the North Course. Two questions came from the audience. One had to do with the removal of a willow tree. The other related to the lack of bunker rakes in early spring. I was amazed, but it proved how accepting members are to all sorts of tumult and change, because the lure of a major is intoxicating. It becOmes toxic, but that is much later after the predictable power struggles.

[Bill Brightly]

Terry,

Was it a Board vote or a membership vote? If the later, how did the vote go?

[Mike Hendren]

Of course it is up to the clubs in question to decide whether to make changes or not ... but, the USGA doesn't even bother pretending anymore that it is the club and their consulting architect, rather than the USGA itself, who suggest the architectural changes that are "necessary" to challenge the world's best players.  The new bunker at Olympic is just the icing on the cake -- a last-minute change when Mike Davis realized that his decision to turn the hole into a par five might not work out as well as he'd visualized.

Bingo.  While I was very impressed by Mike Davis at MucciFest, I found a couple of his comments regarding elasticity in set-up to be dubious.  I have no problem with the USGA moving tees well forward to make holes driveable (was it the 2nd at Torry Pines?) but he posited a Garanimals approach to pin placement, pairing more easily accessible pin placements where tees had been moved back and extremely difficult placements when they'd been moved forward.  Such thinking does nothing more than compress scoring, whereas pairing short distance with easy pin placements and tough pins with long approaches would yield an eagle-bogey spectrum.  I believe they did the same thing on a par three at Bethpage(the 13th maybe), moving the tee well forward and placing the pin in an extremely small front position.  


Sometimes conventional wisdon isn't.   It's refreshing to see a large green on a short par four and small green on a long par four for example.

Mike

[Tim Martin]

Most in the member ranks of the host clubs believe that any architectural suggestions by the USGA will entail only positive changes. What they don`t realize is that the changes are for the benefit of the USGA`s championship and tournament setup. What is appropriate for the U S Open is not in lockstep with what is appropriate for John Q. Golfer and daily member play. I`m sure most of the decision makers for the host clubs don`t realize this.

[Mike Hendren]

I do not want Mike Davis practicing golf course architecture and I don't want Tom Doak wearing a blue blazer populated with dandruff and a white bucket hat.

Bogey

[Jud_T]

Actually I'd pay to see Tom wearing a blue blazer and white bucket hat.   

[Matt Ingraham]

My club is preparing to host the US Senior Open.  It has been interesting to watch the USGA's interactions with the club and the membership. I would estimate around 15% to 20% of the membership isn't excited about the USSO and wish the club wasn't hosting.  Another 20% to 30% are indifferent about it and as long as it doesn't impact their ability to golf too bad they do not seem to care.  But the rest that are in favor of it are beyond excited and refuse to say anything negative about some of the gents from the USGA that have been on site or the changes to the course.    

The majority of the membership did not seem to care when a few fairway bunkers and back tee boxes were added/expanded at the direction of the USGA, as they are not in play off the tee for 95% of the membership.  However, when a creek running across a fairway on a par five was partially covered last summer and a green side bunker on the same hole was removed so that the hole could play as par four, a larger portion of the membership finally took notice and got upset.

I am interested to see how the club does financially.  It is my understanding that Des Moines Golf & CC did very well financially when they hosted the USSO but that Prairie Dunes only made a small profit from hosting the USSO.


 

[Terry Lavin]

Matt,

The Senior Open is a delightful championship to host at your club.  The players are much more low-key than the regular tour, the USGA staffers are under considerably less pressure and the crowds are smaller, but more appreciative.  It's a great vibe kind of tournament.  The club might make some money, depending upon whether it had to spend money to doll the place up, but at the end of the day, it's more about recognition and legacy than a quick payout.

[Ed Brzezowski]

For you folks who belong to these great clubs. Is this a recent issue or did the same type of thing happen at the 1951 Open at Merion?? Or any Open/ PGA at other clubs?

 Did the USGA come through in 1949/50 at Merion and ask/demand for work to be done? Is this a constant thing or just more recent due to the financial gains a club can realize for a " major"??

I know " play it as the pros did" is a mark of honor/stupidity to some. How far does it go back??

ed

[JMEvensky]

   

The majority of the membership did not seem to care when a few fairway bunkers and back tee boxes were added/expanded at the direction of the USGA, as they are not in play off the tee for 95% of the membership.  However, when a creek running across a fairway on a par five was partially covered last summer and a green side bunker on the same hole was removed so that the hole could play as par four, a larger portion of the membership finally took notice and got upset.

 

Were the members not made aware of these changes before the vote to host?

[Mike Hendren]

Matt, by chance did they partially cover the creek crossing the 10th?

Mike

[Matt Ingraham]

Matt, by chance did they partially cover the creek crossing the 10th?

Mike

Yes, about 20% of the creek on the east side of the fairway is still exposed. 

[Mike Hendren]

Matt,  sorry to hear that.  There's something to be said for a hole where the hazards are at an awkward spot and as a result can't be pigeon-holed into a definitive par.  While few of us are fans of laying up off the tee, the shot uphill from short of the creek with the strong bunkering short of the green created a real challenge on the second shot, something typically missing on par fives.  I thought it was a good half par hole that would reward the player who could hit a long cut with a reasonable eagle opportunity. 

BTW, the 4th hole at your club is among my favorite two shotters anywhere.

Mike

[Phil McDade]

Bingo.  While I was very impressed by Mike Davis at MucciFest, I found a couple of his comments regarding elasticity in set-up to be dubious.  I have no problem with the USGA moving tees well forward to make holes driveable (was it the 2nd at Torry Pines?) but he posited a Garanimals approach to pin placement, pairing more easily accessible pin placements where tees had been moved back and extremely difficult placements when they'd been moved forward.  Such thinking does nothing more than compress scoring, whereas pairing short distance with easy pin placements and tough pins with long approaches would yield an eagle-bogey spectrum.  I believe they did the same thing on a par three at Bethpage(the 13th maybe), moving the tee well forward and placing the pin in an extremely small front position.  


Mike

Bogey:

This is a very astute observation, one that I hadn't thought of until you brought it up. But I saw evidence of this at Davis' personal playpen -- Erin Hills -- during last year's US Amateur championship at Erin Hills, which was the dry run for the upcoming US Open. Longish par 4s converted into driveable par 4s with dicey pins.

[Matthew Rose]

Omaha CC?

[Terry Lavin]

Terry,

Was it a Board vote or a membership vote? If the later, how did the vote go?

BB:

It was a membership vote and I doubt that more than an handful voted no.  The real interesting thing to me was how indifferent the members were to the scope and scale of the work to be done on the course.  They were basically resigned to that as a "cost" of getting the championship.  I thought there might be some vocal opposition.  Not so much as a peep.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But let me ask you this hypothetical question: What would you say if the USGA said to Mounatin Ridge, you are under consideration for a US Open, but we want the 9th green moved back 30 yards, and the trees removed to create a skyline green. (Best example I can think of.)

Both of those suggestions have already been made by others, so there might be some merit in them, especially the removal of trees to create a skyline green.

Moving the green back on a short par 5 is interesting and not without merit, but converting the hole to a par 4 and leaving it intact, sans trees, might be the Preferred solution

[Bill Shotzbarger]

No.

[Joe_Tucholski]

No.  The USGA should continue to host at classic courses but they shouldn't be considered with keeping the scores around par.  These guys are pro's who cares if they shoot -18 (a score Tiger has won with in every Major except the US Open, where his low is -12 when he destroyed the field as the only person under par in that event) or lower.

If the USGA can't get over the fact they want to keep scores around par they should implement some sort of technology restrictions (I guess the regular rants on Geoff Shacklefords website has had an influence on me).

If the above are no-go's in the mind of the USGA, as many have said, it is up to the host course.  I don't think I would want to have a US Open at my club unless it was like the restoration/modifications completed at Pinehurst.


Last year w/ McIlroy finishing at -16 was seen as a negative with respect to Congressional.  There were obviously other issues w/ the course that were highlighted but if the score had been around par I don't think we would have heard as much negativity regarding the course conditions.

For reference here are the average winning scores related to par since '83.

US Open -3.44
Masters  -9.87
The Open -8.31
PGA -9.83

All that being said I read the R&A has recently published their fund to bring The Open Course "into the modern era."
http://espn.go.com/golf/britishopen12/story/_/id/7853211/ra-spends-16-million-upgrading-british-open-courses

[Bill Brightly]

But let me ask you this hypothetical question: What would you say if the USGA said to Mounatin Ridge, you are under consideration for a US Open, but we want the 9th green moved back 30 yards, and the trees removed to create a skyline green. (Best example I can think of.)

Both of those suggestions have already been made by others, so there might be some merit in them, especially the removal of trees to create a skyline green.

Moving the green back on a short par 5 is interesting and not without merit, but converting the hole to a par 4 and leaving it intact, sans trees, might be the Preferred solution

Hmmm, sounds like you are OK with USGA suggested changes to get an Open to your home course, as long as you like the changes... But you seem critical of the changes at Merion.

Reminds me of the joke about the man who asks a woman: hypothetically, would you sleep with me for $1,000,000? The woman replies sure. The man then asks if she would sleep with him for $100. The woman says of course not, do you think I am a whore? The man answers: madam, we have already established that, now we are negotiating price.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

In the hypothetical you cite, the USGA would not be the first one's to promote that change.
It is a change with merit, irrespective of the author.

Merion changed a great green for the SOLE purpose of accommodating higher speeds
Your analogy would be more accurate if you asked me the question in the context of flattening any of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 16th or 17th greens.

Now ask yourself the following question:
If you were designing MRCC today, where would you site the 9th green ?
At it's present location or higher up on the hill, which co-incidentally could create a skyline green ?

As to the trees behind the green, they're already gone.
And they were planted by a green chairman about 40-50 years ago.

With the nines originally reversed, I'm surprised that "THE" Donald didn't have the 18th higher up on that hill.

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick,

Of course I had to come up with a suggested course change that you might like! I needed to get you on the path of accepting some changes to get an Open...  I know you don't want the greens flattened.  (Even though I still think MR 18 is too severe!)

It is just such a tricky business. With all due respect to membership votes, which I know should be required, such a procedure will do almost NOTHING to preserve the architectural integrity of a golf course. In my opinion, THAT will only happen if the club's leaders have that as a main goal and/or they have retained the services of a consulting architect and that is his goal and/or charge.

In otherwords, I think 95% or more of club members will look at the proposed changes and ask: "how will affect my game?" Throw in enough new Tiger tees, and you'll get the vote of all the young sticks (and maybe their dads.) If you are talking about a US Open, you will automatically get a very significant percentage of yes votes who want the revenue and/or the prestige that comes with hosting an Open. Consider that 30-50% of the membership won't even both to vote (unless there will be a huge assessment to pay for the changes)... and there will be an insignificant number of members who will "vote for the course" and even care what the ODG might say.

[Jay Flemma]

god forbid any course narrows its fairways instead of adding superfluous hazards.

I am all for more classic courses and Oakland Hills would be at the top of my list.

Mine too, I love Oakland Hills - and I have it on good order that we will see an announcement that it will host an Open sometime relatively soon (if not this year, next year is my guess)

But they need to shave the rough...bring all those great fairway undulations - and playing angles - back into play!

[JESII]

I think the classic era clubs that have typically been in the rotation should stop saying yes to the USGA for the US Open.

[Phil McDade]

I think the classic era clubs that have typically been in the rotation should stop saying yes to the USGA for the US Open.

The Country Club in Brookline did.