The Open Championship - At what Price?

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Pat Mucci raises a great question in the Merion 2013 thread.

Is the USGA a molester of great golf course architecture when they hold their open championships every year? Is the PGA guilty as well?

Are these classic venue's enhanced or are they being ruined by the multiple design tweaks that are imposed on them?

Should the "Open Doctor" be shot?

As an example, the twelfth green at Merion, in anticipation of 2013, has been rebuilt by Fazio as a shelf. No longer will a shot to the front left roll off and continue down the hill. This was done to accommodate the higher stimpmeter numbers that the USGA desires for their championship. The old green pad would be too penal at the "stimps" that the USGA desires.

The same can be observed at Oak Hill in Rochester, NY where the old west course greens are violently undulating while the "championship" east course greens  are demure.

I'll take Baltusrol Upper over the Lower every time.

What thinks You???

[Sam Morrow]

You say at what price? That price is a shit ton of money that the club gets. I'm not saying I agree with it but the almighty dollar speaks the loudest.

[Tom_Doak]

You say at what price? That price is a shit ton of money that the club gets. I'm not saying I agree with it but the almighty dollar speaks the loudest.

Sam:

The clubs do get paid a lot of money for hosting a major championship.  But, they also have to SPEND a lot of money to host a major championship, not to mention enlisting hundreds of volunteers to work at the event.  And they have to give up their golf course, not for just a week, but for a month or more of preparation and de-construction.  I guarantee you, no club does it for the money, if they have any clue about what the deal really is.  It's all about the fame.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom,
Wouldn't the fame in turn bring in money?  Bethpage Black increased the fees after the US Open. I am sure Chambers Bay is expecting a surge of play after the Open.  Perhaps the private clubs get more for initiation etc?

[Terry Lavin]

Bottom line:  Olympic, like almost every other course that hosts an Open, temporarily becomes the USGA's course. The month old bunker on this classic course is testament to that. The lure of the Open is such that most clubs will allow architectural defilement, probably figuring that they can try to restore it later. It is what it is. Even with the unsavory-to-purists alterations, the course is a beauty and a beast and will hopefully produce a memorable winner.

[Tom_Doak]

Terry:

Those older clubs which allow "architectural defilement" almost never want to put things back the way they were, because they want the members and guests to experience "championship" quality.


Keith:

You are right.  I meant that at the old-guard clubs (Olympic, Shinnecock, Winged Foot) it is not about the money, even though there is no denying that prestige has a price tag.  But at the newer places like Chambers Bay and Erin Hills, it's all about the money that an event will bring in, directly and indirectly ... even though it will take a huge windfall just for them to justify the money that was spent to build them.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom Doak speaks with unforked tongue.  The last thing that clubs like Olympic and Merion need is money.  What they need (in many cases, actually crave) is street cred and/or self-esteem.  It's a "my Johnson is bigger than your Johnson" thing.  The irony is that in SF, Olympic's Johnson will never be as big as SFGC's Johnson and same thing in Philly vis a vis Merion and Gulph Mills.

[Sam Morrow]

You say at what price? That price is a shit ton of money that the club gets. I'm not saying I agree with it but the almighty dollar speaks the loudest.

Sam:

The clubs do get paid a lot of money for hosting a major championship.  But, they also have to SPEND a lot of money to host a major championship, not to mention enlisting hundreds of volunteers to work at the event.  And they have to give up their golf course, not for just a week, but for a month or more of preparation and de-construction.  I guarantee you, no club does it for the money, if they have any clue about what the deal really is.  It's all about the fame.

Doesn't fame equal money? Now that you're a world famous architect do you charge more than you did than when you were a pup getting your name out?

[Kalen Braley]

Along the same lines of Rich, I think what these older courses like Olympic are looking for is plain old fashioned vanity/"we're still relevant", even if it means assuming all the hassle of hosting the tourney.

I'm guessing if they tried to negotiate a bigger fee, or better terms, the USGA would just say "fine, we'll take our ball and go somewhere else".

[David_Tepper]

At the risk of sounding naive and maudlin, I believe there are some golf clubs that feel they have an obligation to the game, for the good of the game, to make their courses available for championship golf. They feel it is important to give back to the game and to bring "big-time golf" to the communities where their clubs are located.

Anyone who thinks a golf club decides to host a major championship for the money is kidding themselves. Staging a major golf tournament is an enormous undertaking that requires thousands of hours of volunteered time from the members of clubs hosting these events. In addition, it makes these courses unavailable for member play for 4 to 8 weeks. If someone ever did a cost/benefit analysis of hosting a major golf tournament, the financial benefits would barely qualify as minimum wage.

[J Sadowsky]

Am I the only one confused about the title of this thread?  Is this about the USGA or the R&A?

[JR Potts]

You say at what price? That price is a shit ton of money that the club gets. I'm not saying I agree with it but the almighty dollar speaks the loudest.

Sam:

The clubs do get paid a lot of money for hosting a major championship.  But, they also have to SPEND a lot of money to host a major championship, not to mention enlisting hundreds of volunteers to work at the event.  And they have to give up their golf course, not for just a week, but for a month or more of preparation and de-construction.  I guarantee you, no club does it for the money, if they have any clue about what the deal really is.  It's all about the fame.

MinorcCorrection, no club SHOULD do it for the money...but they try to in order to sell it to their wary members.

Hosting major championships used to be quite lucrative...those days came and went in the mid-2000s.  However, there is still a pretty penny to be made on some of the old contracts....but those are quickly expiring and being replaced with flat fee agreements.  Hence the push to public venues.

[David Harshbarger]

David,

Your "good of the game" argument probably holds moreso for the USGA undercard, such as the Senior, Junior, Publinks, etc.

Dave