[Phil McDade]

The USGA has always been heavily involved in the set-ups at the men's US Open, historically by narrowing fairways, growing thick rough, and speeding up greens.

With the US Open two months away, recent developments at two of the country's best classic-era courses:

-- Olympic's new 17th bunker, put in specifically for the US Open and likely to be removed afterwards:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51870.0.html ...

-- Merion's new 12th green, which GCA's Jamie Slonis (who knows Merion probably better than anyone on the board) says is out of character with the rest of the course's greens: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34519.0.html (see page 4 of this thread) ...

...suggest that the USGA is now more willing to make wholesale changes to the integrity of these courses simply to make sure the courses test the world's best players, with little regard to the history of these courses. GCA's Patrick Mucci has often suggested classic-era courses that narrow their fairways for the US Open rarely return those fairways to their original, intended widths. Others here can certainly chime in with major changes at other US Open classic-era courses at the order of the USGA.

Should the USGA simply forego classic-era courses, and instead move to hosting the tournament at modern-era courses where such changes don't necessarily strike at the heart of the course's history and integrity? Within a few years, the US Open will be played at Washington's Chambers Bay and Wisconsin's Erin Hills, both courses changed significantly in preparation of the upcoming Opens.

Chambers Bay changes:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49900.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51804.0.html

Erin Hills changes:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49372.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45966.0.html

Is this sympathetic renovation of Pinehurst #2 -- http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51803.0.html -- the exception that proves the rule? Can a classic-era course host the US Open anymore without fundamental changes in the course? Should the USGA more aggressively adopt what might be called a "TPC' approach to the Open, holding it at courses where wholesale changes don't run up against the historical integrity and nature of the course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

 The hosting club is at fault, not the USGA

The compromising of the architectural integrity of a golf course is the sole responsibility of the owner/club, not an outside organization.

[Mark Johnson]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

I recall Larry Nelson commenting that Oak Tree and modern courses of its ilk will be future classics.  We just don't know it yet.

The British Open history suggests that the rotation will evolve over time to modern courses designed for the modern game.

Short version is yes, I think the venues will change over the next 25-50 years.  S L O W L Y.

[Jason Connor]

Phil,

 The hosting club is at fault, not the USGA

The compromising of the architectural integrity of a golf course is the sole responsibility of the owner/club, not an outside organization.

Amen -- exactly what I was thinking. 

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

 The hosting club is at fault, not the USGA

The compromising of the architectural integrity of a golf course is the sole responsibility of the owner/club, not an outside organization.

Do the financial advantages, and prestige associated with hosting the US Open, distort club thinking in the short run, leading to the possibility of compromised design integrity in the long run?

[Terry Lavin]

No, I just think we should stop whining about it.  The lure of a national championship is such that the overwhelming majority of clubs that would be "in the running" to host an Open would hardly hesitate to make major changes to its golf course.  The fact that legendary clubs like Merion and Olympic would make significant changes is testament to this fact. 

[Jud_T]

Phil,

It's a complicated question.  You have places like Medinah that have been relentlessly altered to cater to the pro game yet are of the classic era.  I'm also not sure I'd want modern gems like Pacific Dunes bastardized to protect par against the pros either...

[Phil McDade]

Terry:

Olympic and Merion are -- what -- among the 20 or so most prestigious golf clubs in the country. Do they really need to add to their prestige?

Lots of folks on this board have criticized the USGA for doing little to stop or mitigate the onslaught of technological improvements that have led to unnecessary lengthening of many courses, US Open-types or not. Why not a similar critique of the USGA's bastardization of classic courses?

Jud:

Yes, it's complicated -- one reason I raised the question here on GCA!

PacDunes is a bit of a red herring, I'd suggest. I'm convinced one reason Doak builds alot of courses in out-of-the-way places (remote Oregon coast, northeastern Colorado, Montana) is that it avoids the very pressures of course alteration brought on by major tournament pressures. No need to change PacDunes for the Curtis Cup, after all.

[Terry Lavin]

Phil,

Apparently they think so.  Who are we to judge?

[Carl Johnson]

Phil,

 The hosting club is at fault, not the USGA

The compromising of the architectural integrity of a golf course is the sole responsibility of the owner/club, not an outside organization.

Amen -- exactly what I was thinking.

 

Agreed.  If some of these classic clubs are in trouble and think they need a USGA championship, and what goes with it, the upside and the downside (compromises of integrity, of whatever sort), then so be it.  They need to survive, and who can fault them for that?

[David Cronheim]

Terry:

Olympic and Merion are -- what -- among the 20 or so most prestigious golf clubs in the country. Do they really need to add to their prestige?

Unfortunately, I think the answer is probably yes. There's a difference in many people's minds between being a course that hosts US Opens and one that hosted a US Open. It's unfortunate, but I think few people hold courses like Myopia Hunt Club, Onwentsia, or even more modern hosts like Bellerive or Northwood (if anyone outside this site has heard of them at all), in the same regard they hold current US Open courses. I guess what I'm trying to say is there's a difference in many people's minds between courses that once were great, and great courses currently. Sadly, many people consider hosting a US Open the sign of being a currently great course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

 The hosting club is at fault, not the USGA

The compromising of the architectural integrity of a golf course is the sole responsibility of the owner/club, not an outside organization.

Do the financial advantages, and prestige associated with hosting the US Open, distort club thinking in the short run, leading to the possibility of compromised design integrity in the long run?

Phil,

Since you asked my opinion, I'll render it.

The financial advantages, of an OPEN, are difficult to ignore, as is the prestige and notoriety.

Very few members delve into the potential architectural impact for a number of reasons.
One is that architectural alterations are RARELY disclosed in advance.

You may recall my objection to changes that I was aware of regarding Merion.
Some Merion fans, members and others, some of whom used to post on this site, either denied the planned changes, or remained silent regarding what they had to know was going to take place.  If I knew about it in advance, they had to as well.
But, those in the know represent a very, very small portion of the membership.
In addition, most aren't as "tuned into" architecture as those on this site, so to them, it's not that significant.

Call it a blind eye, or discounting the impact on play.
Most are concerned about the disruption of their access to the course.
When will it be closed, when will it open, how much damage will be done ?

Few if any are aware that greens with great character will be compromised in the name of speed, or that features will be added or removed.

Above all is the impact the added revenue will have on capital improvements, operating budgets and member dues.

Not hosting an Open can be a difficult argument to make

[Tim Martin]

Phil,

 The hosting club is at fault, not the USGA

The compromising of the architectural integrity of a golf course is the sole responsibility of the owner/club, not an outside organization.

Do the financial advantages, and prestige associated with hosting the US Open, distort club thinking in the short run, leading to the possibility of compromised design integrity in the long run?

Phil,

Since you asked my opinion, I'll render it.

The financial advantages, of an OPEN, are difficult to ignore, as is the prestige and notoriety.

Very few members delve into the potential architectural impact for a number of reasons.
One is that architectural alterations are RARELY disclosed in advance.

You may recall my objection to changes that I was aware of regarding Merion.
Some Merion fans, members and others, some of whom used to post on this site, either denied the planned changes, or remained silent regarding what they had to know was going to take place.  If I knew about it in advance, they had to as well.
But, those in the know represent a very, very small portion of the membership.
In addition, most aren't as "tuned into" architecture as those on this site, so to them, it's not that significant.

Call it a blind eye, or discounting the impact on play.
Most are concerned about the disruption of their access to the course.
When will it be closed, when will it open, how much damage will be done ?

Few if any are aware that greens with great character will be compromised in the name of speed, or that features will be added or removed.

Above all is the impact the added revenue will have on capital improvements, operating budgets and member dues.

Not hosting an Open can be a difficult argument to make

Pat-Heck of a post. I think the architectural changes are an afterthought to the majority membership of the host club. By the time the rank and file sees something that has compromised the design the tents are long gone and backtracking at least in the short to medium term is impossible.

[Kirk Moon]

Olympic and Merion are -- what -- among the 20 or so most prestigious golf clubs in the country. Do they really need to add to their prestige?

The Olympic Club is not a typical private golf club.  It is an athletic club first and foremost.  The competitive juices flow strong within the membership and the club takes great pride in being in the forefront of competition in most sports.  Golf is just a part of that tradition.

I think the club sees hosting the US Open as a validation of their tradition and standing in the world of athletic competition and very much enjoy the prestige that the event brings to the club.  One could argue that the US Open has "made" the Olympic Club every bit as much as one could argue that the Olympic Club has added immensely to the history of the US Open.  Would Olympic Lake be one of the top rated courses in the US if it had never hosted the US Open or other significant tournaments?  Tough call.  I know that some (including some here at GCA.com) would argue that it would not. 

There are other private courses in the area that one could reasonably argue are the equal of (if not actually superior to) Olympic Lake, SFGC and the newly renovated Cal Club being the two obvious candidates.  The SFGC has reportedly declined requests from the USGA to host the Open on several occasions.  The membership at SFGC is a very different crowd than at the Olympic Club and apparently doesn't feel the need to chase the prestige that the event might offer, preferring to maintain without restriction the many benefits that they accrue from being a small, very exclusive private club. 

Different strokes for different clubs. 

I think that hosting the US Open is so important to the Olympic Club that they would do almost anything asked of them by the USGA.  It would surprise me if this has much, if anything, to do with the income involved.     

[Tom_Doak]

Phil,

 The hosting club is at fault, not the USGA

The compromising of the architectural integrity of a golf course is the sole responsibility of the owner/club, not an outside organization.

Patrick:

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.

When you sign up the Open, you are now giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want to your course.  It is sad, to me, that so many prestigious clubs will sell their souls just to host the Open again.  But the evidence is incontrovertible that there is a long line of clubs ready and willing to do so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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. 

Tom, as my mother used to say, "lie with dogs and you'll get up with fleas"

The clubs choose their bed partners.

And, as I'm prone to say, "You take the King's schilling, and you have to do the King's bidding"

Clubs are fully aware of whom and what they're getting in bed with, so they're not the benefactor of my sympathies nor are they exempt from blame.

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.

I don't doubt you on this point.

When you sign up the Open, you are now giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want to your course. 

Agreed, but, Again, if you take the King's schilling, you have to do the King's bidding.

It's not as if it's a "surprise"

It's part of the financial arrangement, and the club sells their architectural soul in the process.

It is sad, to me, that so many prestigious clubs will sell their souls just to host the Open again. 
But the evidence is incontrovertible that there is a long line of clubs ready and willing to do so.

Agreed.
I can't believe that Merion allowed the gain from a four day event, once every 10-13 years, to bribe them to betray their architectural integrity, their heritage.

Now I know the Philly Phanatics and the Merionettes will be up in arms, but the truth is they compromised the course's architectural integrity, they sold their Wilson Pedigree/heritage/legacy for the King's schilling.

And you're right, other clubs are standing in line, ready to disfigure their courses as well.

I wouldn't mind it, if after the event, the courses were returned to their pre-tournament configuration, but, that never happens.

[JR Potts]

Of course the architectural retreat never happens - everyone wants to play the course the way the pros played it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JR,

That's a huge part of the problem

[Sean_A]

I agree with Pat.  Protecting the heritage of a club or course is the job of the membership.  That said, if the membership wants to muck about with its course, its not really any of my business no matter how infuriating it may be.  Still, its hard to get behind an organization (and I haven't supported the USGA for years) which advocates altering classic courses for the purpose of a one week tournament to be played by a very small number of professionals. 

To answer the question, no, I don't think the USGA should stop holding the Open at classic era courses.  If the USGA and a club work out a deal what business is it of mine?  I may not like it, but so what.  I would rather courses weren't altered, but not enough to interfere unless it is my club course.  Live and let live.

Ciao 

[Ronald Montesano]

Are we discussing the problem that all aging bodies eventually face? We wish to remain relevant. Know this call? In my youth, I did this, that and this again! I'm still relevant, damnit!

The death of a golf course, in whatever terms, is not taken lying down by its membership (there's an opening in there, if anyone wants it.) The desire to remain relevant in the face of changing, more disparate standards, is nearly an impossibility. I think that we may see this contrast between beloved Merion in 2013 and beloved #2 in 2014. I'm not certain how it will play out, but it will play out. I'll check back in 2015 with an answer.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

Does the USGA only get involved in course changes after a US Open has been awarded? Or do they they also consult with a club like MR and your architect prior to the US Mid Am?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron,

"Relevant" for whom?

PGA TOUR Pros who visit for four days once every decade or for their membership and their guests who play the course on a daily basis ?

Bill,

Others intimately involved can probably answer that better than me, but it's my understanding that there's pre-contract dialogue where quid  pro quo is involved.

When are you going to visit MRCC and take more photos ?

You won't believe how the course looks and plays since your last visit

[Phil McDade]

Kirk:

Thanks for your insights into Olympic; I was vaguely aware of how that club operated, but it puts the changes there into perspective. Thanks!

[Bill Brightly]

Ron,

"Relevant" for whom?

PGA TOUR Pros who visit for four days once every decade or for their membership and their guests who play the course on a daily basis ?

Bill,

Others intimately involved can probably answer that better than me, but it's my understanding that there's pre-contract dialogue where quid  pro quo is involved.

When are you going to visit MRCC and take more photos ?

You won't believe how the course looks and plays since your last visit

I can't wait to see MR, I'll PM you.

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.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()