I thought I heard an announcer say that Oak Hill was the perfect course to host

[RJ_Daley]

Hear is an idea...

The PGA sponsored a lame viewer vote to place a pin on the par 3 water hazard hole as a gimmick.  So, if they really want to try something unusual, consider this:

The theme was set earlier in the week with a panel of talking heads in the pre-tournament discussion group that included Geoff Shackelford and John Feinstein and some other guy (I forget who).  The general conversation was Geoff defending the notion of preserving the classic architecutal features of DR and what they are left with to set up a tournament via typical narrowing, mowiing and non-mowing, trees, and green redesigns and repositioning, etc.  The Feinstein approach was to make Geoff out as a nostalgic fuddy-duddy for the olden or non-modern considerations of B&I and player strength and conditioning.  So, Geoff essentially defended architecture and Feinstein and Learner with snide comments pooh poohed architecture in favor of tough set-ups both at Merion and OH as the needed element for presenting a major.

So, why not give the architecture mavens their due for once in the same vain as the viewer call-in or vote for pin placement?  Impanel a group of well respected architects and mavens to set up a truly architecturally classic and relatively un-remodelled course.  OK if the same theme and style of bunkers have been repositioned for yardage differences, and slight softening of green slopes for putting speeds, but essentially an intact classic course in faithful spirit of a classic architect.  Let the architects of merit and reputation as classic design of the ODGs experts and commentators who are proven to know their stuff, form a set-up committee to present a major.  Give them authority to remove trees deemed not in the spirit, mow to their understanding of design intent, and with cooperation of Mother Nature, firm up or however they deem classic and original intent.  If that allows higher scores to par, so be it.  See if that would be any better to enjoy from the spectators point of view, and which skilled golfers come in the top 10 of the field.  Wouldn't that tell us something about set-up, maintenance meld, and architecture?  

My list of participants on a set up committee for a classic architecture course:  Shackelford, Klein, Doak, and yes... Nicklaus for playing cred and architecture, with Ran for tie breaker on any disputes.  

[Brent Hutto]

The best storylines are things like frequent lead changes, multi-way ties at the top of the leaderboard late on Sunday or a charge from way behind. I guess an epic collapse is a good storyline as well.

That sort of drama was sadly lacking this time around. I turned it off after the leaders got to about the 8th hole, it was pretty clear by then that one of those two leaders was going to plod along and play well enough to win with the other coming up just short and the rest of the field trailing. I suppose there was an outside chance of a two-way playoff at -10 or something.

Not sure how much of the boredom factor can be laid at Oak Hills' feet though. Having two of the most plodding, boring, affectless drones on the Tour separate themselves from the field with a dozen holes to play is a recipe for awful television. It could conceivably have happened on any course in any major.

That said, even after the greens got faster on Saturday/Sunday they were not much if any firmer. So you had a pretty low-key recipe working where the everpresent deep rough was going to eliminate a lot of players who were trying to make an exciting charge from behind while for the guys driving it in the fairways (or in Furyk's case driving it into the "first cut" of non-penal rough) the soft greens meant plenty of birdie opportunities and the ability to make up from slightly mispositioning ones ball.

Like it or not, borderline over-the-top greens and severe difficulty stopping the ball near the hole are just about the only known formula for exciting major championship golf IMO. Overhanging trees and rough make the course more difficulty, no doubt, and will shorten the field of Sunday contenders by winnowing out anyone just a little bit crooked and a little bit unfortunate. It sure seems to me unless one can arrange slope, contour and/or firm-and-fast putting surfaces you don't get those Anything Can Happen storylines down the stretch.

[Josh Tarble]

Interesting comments here about the course.  Agree with Brad Klein that I don't think there is one place on the golf course where a ball could actually roll into a fairway bunker.  The fairways are not where Ross would have laid them out (he would have designed to let the ball roll into the fairway bunkers), and many of the original Ross bunkers have been moved or rebuilt to look more modern.  When you add the butt ugly rock lined creeks that go through the property, you have a course that seems to have lost it's Ross identity altogether.  I got to thinking if you removed 1,000 trees (which clearly needs to be done), what would you have left?...a wide open course with non-functioning fairway bunkers and one of the ugliest creeks in golf (can you imagine Ray's Creek with rock linings?).  I know the course has a charming history, I just think the membership over the years has made decisions that have altered the course in a way that leaves it lacking an identity.  Think what a herculean task it would be to restore it. Not even sure that would be possible.  I'm surprised this course is still ranked as high as it is (Golf Mag has is 32 in the US).

TS

I think this is a very good point.  They don't have a Ross anymore, they don't really have a Fazio....so what are they uncovering if they take out all the trees?  At this point, the main character of the East course is the trees.  I don't know that it's necessarily a bad thing, but to assume taking out all the trees is a cure all is a little short-sighted. 

[Ed Homsey]

That stone lined creek produced some strange results on the 5th hole.  One player, hitting from 140-150 yards, hit directly into the stone-work and his ball rebounded almost halfway back to him.  Another player hit into the stones, the ball bounced high into the air and onto the green.  I am guessing that the creek was lined with stone in order to prevent erosion, but it does not fit the setting.  

The trees at Oak Hill are sacred.  I actually noticed some fresh plantings.  I am certain there is no discussion about doing an Oakmont on their trees.  And, I would agree that the removal of trees would not be a move toward restoration of the original Ross course.  As has been said several times, that course is gone.  If the trees were all removed, and Ross returned, he would still have a difficult time recognizing his original course. 

Would be interesting if they would do a major tree removal on the West course which, to my knowledge has not undergone major cosmetic and other types of surgery.

[Lou_Duran]

Wow!  What stupids those PGA folks must be.  How have they survived to hold a tournament for 95 years that is considered by most in the golf world as one of the four majors is beyond explanation.  Obviously, they don't know golf from tiddlywinks and, for the sake of the game, should surrender their positions to a committee of gca.com posters.  Perhaps after deforesting the course, scalping the rough, cutting the greens to run at varying speeds between 5'-8', restoring any missing centerline bunkers, and moving the tees up to 6,500 yards, Oak Hill might offer some architectural interest (and Gary Woodland as the winner at -32).

Me, I thought that OH provided a fine test of all aspects of the game: too long to leave the driver in the bag, too tight to swing away with abandon, bunkering and rough that punished without being over the top, a good variety of short, medium, and long holes, greens that required placement of the approach shot and/or defensive putting.  The final scoring suggests a course that didn't favor one type of player, but, I forgot, golf is not so much about the golfer as opposed to the golf course.    

[Joe Hancock]

Lou,

Not to attack any of your sarcasm, but IF the PGA actually did show some weakness in their knowledge of the game, or it's history, or etc, etc.(name the criticism de jour), how would any other group of golfers/ people/ professionals establish themselves as more knowledgeable of the game or it's history, and then position themselves to run tournaments? Maybe something like the members of Augusta National did?

Joe

[Lou_Duran]

Please Joe, do attack!

My point is that it is very easy to criticize- I am scratch in that department- particularly when you have a constituency of ONE and no consequences for doing so.  While I share many of the architectural preferences that seem to dominate this site, I am in the "golf is a big world" camp.  The PGA has an approach that has been developed and verified for nearly a century.  The USGA does as well.  Ditto for ANGC.   It would be extremely presumptuous of me to suggest any significant changes.  And contrary to the attitudes often betrayed on this DG, we would not fare well in nearly every area against the decision makers at any of these organizations.  Really, it does not even merit consideration.

I am a big fan of C & C.  It will be extremely interesting to see what they come up with for the new big tournament course in Dallas.  My guess is that it will try to be everything that OH was not.  I have my doubts that a course even in the style of Sand Hills can serve as a venue for the 300-500 or so elite golfers which potentially make up the field in the majors.  

[Jud_T]

Lou,

300-500?  Do you doubt that a renovated Pinehurst can hold an Open that will test these guys?  Why do you think C&C can't produce a good test?  Didn't Ben just say in the current Golf Mag that building a hard course solely to test the best players is the easiest thing in the world?

[Matthew Sander]

Jud,

I'm going to be very interested to see how #2 tests them next year. The fairways are very wide, but if they are firm and fast (which is no doubt the intent), then they become much smaller. Proper shape and line will be very important. Now, I didn't have much trouble with the waste areas. Finding a clump of wire grass can certainly give you some grief, but the sandy floor is actually a really good surface to hit off of. However, if they've found the sandy waste area on the wrong side of the fairway (for a particular hole location), then all bets are off as the genius of the green complexes takes over.

As with most courses, mother nature can throw all of the best intentions out the window, and #2 is probably no exception. Apparently, the area had +/- 30 inches (!) of rain this past June. If that weather pattern repeats itself, there is probably no way the course will play as intended.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,

300-500?  Do you doubt that a renovated Pinehurst can hold an Open that will test these guys?  Why do you think C&C can't produce a good test?  Didn't Ben just say in the current Golf Mag that building a hard course solely to test the best players is the easiest thing in the world?

I guessed that 300-500 golfers worldwide have a chance to make the cut at a major.  It is a number I pulled from the air, but whatever the correct one is, it has to be very small.  I'm currently playing to a 5 and I doubt I could break 100 at OH under tournament conditions.

I wasn't aware that C & C designed Pinehurst.  I was under the impression that their work there was more of a restoration of Ross' many renovations, while leaving the (unintended) crowns on the greens largely alone.  

The Dallas site lacks trees and the land is not particularly interesting (there is an article in the DMN this morning about the methane build up that will likely be a problem if the site is capped as planned without venting and burning the gas as the garbage continues to decompose).  If C & C go with their normal width and defend par primarily with their green complexes, the organizers better hope for unusual winds in the fall for a FedEx event or a Ryder Cup.  If they let the natives run wild, then the rest of us wouldn't have a chance.

Crenshaw said in the Golf interview, and I quote, "The easiest thing you can do is build a hard course".  He prefaced that by stating that a course must be a test, and that the trick is to make it an interesting test for "every class of golfer".  From my limited experience of his and Bill's work- 7 of their 20 courses , plus part of another- I see little evidence to date that he has mastered that trick.    

[Bill_McBride]

Lou,

300-500?  Do you doubt that a renovated Pinehurst can hold an Open that will test these guys?  Why do you think C&C can't produce a good test?  Didn't Ben just say in the current Golf Mag that building a hard course solely to test the best players is the easiest thing in the world?

Crenshaw said in the Golf interview, and I quote, "The easiest thing you can do is build a hard course".  He prefaced that by stating that a course must be a test, and that the trick is to make it an interesting test for "every class of golfer".  From my limited experience of his and Bill's work- 7 of their 20 courses , plus part of another- I see little evidence to date that he has mastered that trick.    

Lou, I think Austin Golf Club is a great example of just how difficult C&C courses can be.   If you miss those greens hole high left or right, you can be in a world of ping pong hurt.  A smart player would play for the front center of almost every green, but who has that kind of discipline?

[Lou_Duran]

Bill,

The pros do.  Austin GC and all of the C & C courses I have played are very interesting tests of golf, for guys like us.  The pros would have no trouble finding the fairly large greens at AGC with their short irons, and when they do miss, it would be typically to spots where their brilliant short game makes it look like child's play.  I have always had trouble at Bandon Trails because I just can't get the hang of the greens.  Tour players leave little to chance and would have those things mapped out to the last square inch.  Look at the scores at Kapalua.  Six of the last 10 winners were in the 20s under par.  11 years ago, Els won at -31.  I am not a believer that a course can be all things to all people.  I think we like C & C a lot because their courses are very playable for us, most often walkable, and nice looking to boot.  And there is nothing wrong with that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

First let me say that irrespective of the venue, a champion, who played better than his fellow competitors, will emerge.

And, irrespective of the venue, exciting drama/theatre can be created, if nothing else, by probability.

But, is this the presentation to be replicated ?

Would you rather witness play at Oak Hill or Muirfield or ANGC ?

Did Oak Hill represent "target golf" taken to a new height ?

[Brent Hutto]

Did Oak Hill represent "target golf" taken to a new height ?

I don't know about "new height" as there are a lot of Target Golf courses around. But yes, this particular championship was the essence of Target Golf.

The roughs weren't quite as penal as some Florida water hazard left/OB right horror show but between the roughs and trees there was a pretty small, demanding target on just about every tee shot. Then dead aim at every single flag all week long. Target Golf from start to finish, no other way to describe it.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Sand Hills is a hard golf course to score on, that is one example where C&C were spot on with Ben's comments.

[Jud_T]

Lou,

If the greens are firm and fast enough, I can imagine these guys pulling their hair out on some C&C greens.  Imagine them playing Bandon Trails #14 with the green running right on the edge of playability.  I'd much rather watch them get pissed off as balls roll back to their feet on a delicate chip, or putt it into a bunker when they go 5 feet past the hole than plod along at golf-by-numbers play as we saw this week. Obviously weather will play a part.  Yet another reason why almost all truly great courses are built on sand...

[Bill Brightly]

It most definitely was taget golf taken to a new new height. The more that I come to appreciate golf course architecture, the less I care about what the USGA or PGA does to test the players at major championships. The pros are not playing the same game as 99% of the golfing public. If we could isolate course setups for pros in a vacuum, I say go ahead and continue with ridiculously narrow LZ's and rough as high as you can grow it. But the problem arises when golfers view this as some type of ideal model to strive for, especially when those golfers rise to leadership positions in their clubs.

So while we have seen great progress in tree removal and even some restoration of lost width at many US parkland course, OH might be viewed as something that should be emulated, and THAT would be a shame. What was done to Merion and the setup at OH represent just about the polar opposite of what we should be doing to our courses.

[Steve Lapper]

It most definitely was taget golf take new new height. The more that I come to appreciate golf course architecture, the less I care about what the USGA or PGA does to test the players at major championships. The pros are not playing the same game as 99% of the golfing public. If we could isolate course setups for pros in a vacuum, I say go ahead and continue with ridiculously narrow LZ's and rough as high as you can grow it. But the problem arises when golfers view this as some type of ideal model to strive for, especially when those golfers rise to leadership positions in their clubs.

So while we have seen great progress in tree removal and even some restoration of lost width at many US parkland course, OH might be viewed as something that should be emulated, and THAT would be a shame. What was done to Merion and the setup at OH represent just about the polar opposite of what we should be doing to our courses.

+1....

Like Bill said, the infatuation with the Pros is silly and overweighed.

  Do recreational skiers press the managements of their favorite mountains to maintain their steeper slopes race-ready?? When a Kitzbuhel, Beaver Creek or Whistler deliberately ice-down their famous racing runs for an FIS World Cup competition, do recreational skiers yearn for such conditions? I think not. Why should golf place such an emphasis on degrees of artificial difficulty just to stand up to the pros?

[JESII]

Steve,

What is artificial difficulty?

Oak Hill is one of several ideal hosts for a men's major championship...the trouble is it just doesn't translate we'll to TV.

There seems to be a constant push-pull regarding the golf and "the show" so I empathize...but Oak Hill East is a world class golf course...just lost the river rocks!!!

[Lou_Duran]

Why should golf place such an emphasis on degrees of artificial difficulty just to stand up to the pros?

Because most golfers convey great meaning to par.

MWP- I've played Sand Hills a half dozen times and don't share your opinion.  The wind was not blowing all that hard this last time, but I managed an 82 from the backs, and an 81 from the next set, without hitting that ball or putting well.  David Davis shot his best round ever, a 72.  And the greens were as hard as a rock.

Jud- you'd have to firm and speed up the greens a whole bunch to punish the pros.  In the process, it would make the course unplayable to the rest of us.  My thesis for why we like Doak and C&C so much is that their courses have width and are very playable.  Trails already gets a bad rap (the least played of the four, by far I am told) largely because the greens are seen as so difficult (condition-wise at least, the were by far the best of the four when I was there last for the KP).  Whether we like it or not, the game has been bifurcated for a very long time and a course can't serve two masters.      

[Steve Lapper]

Steve,

What is artificial difficulty?

Oak Hill is one of several ideal hosts for a men's major championship...the trouble is it just doesn't translate we'll to TV.

There seems to be a constant push-pull regarding the golf and "the show" so I empathize...but Oak Hill East is a world class golf course...just lost the river rocks!!!

Jim,

Artificial Difficulty:

Excessive Rough
Excessive Trees...remember the original Ross design had a minimal number
River Rocks
Insertion of water hazards where they didn't previously exist

If none of the above existed or was intended at the time of the original Ross design, then by definition they were "artificially" introduced or created.


PS.....I've played the course several times and found it uninspiring (e.g. perfect for a PGA tournament ). Oak Hill is not alone in this category., nor do I wish to solely pick on it. It has kissing-cousins in NJ, Ill, KY, and MN and elsewhere, all of them equally lackluster.


MWP,

 I too do not share your opinion on Sand Hills. I've shot 70 there from the tips and watched a young friend just two weeks ago shoot 73 from those tees on his first time around.

[JMEvensky]

Do the OH members like their golf course?

Are there a lot of strong players as members?

[JESII]

Is there a course lacking artificial difficulty then?

I left Oak Hill after the 1998 US Amateur thinking it was one of the best driving golf course I'd ever played. The notion of width and options for a mens major championship is laughable because a recovery shot for you and I is a run of the mill shot for these guys so the best driver gets no reward for that aspect of the game.

To test driving skill with width you absolutely have to have great green complexes that are rock hard...

I think Oak Hill's green complexes are good and I know Merion's are great. Neither organizer wanted to gamble on the weather providing a firm course so they grew the rough...that never translates well on TV. I'm anxious for next year's US Open to see how mega width translates on TV.

Regarding Oak Hill being uninspired, maybe. It certainly seemed like a great, great golf course to me with tons of variety and challenge...while I understand the mutations the course has gone through, I generally focus on what's there when I am...happy to talk about what could have been's in the 19th hole/GCA.com but it still comes down to "would I rather play this course or that course?" and OH is going to beat the vast majority of options for me.

[Brent Hutto]

Were the greens pretty much rock hard during your Amateur there?

Never having seen either course in the flesh, so to speak, it looks to me like Merion's greens might hold up better to being slightly on the soft side than Oak Hill's. I think Oak Hills or Merion with very hard greens would each be pretty amazing. I'm just wondering if as the rain falls, Oak Hills doesn't suffer more quickly than Merion as their greens seem less...extreme?

[JESII]

They were not rock hard...probably about like Sunday looked. Very soft but the ball didn't splatter as it did Thursday and Friday.

I agree with you about Merions greens being better equipped to provide interest/challenge even when very soft...but I don't want that to diminish OH too much. Only played it those two rounds there but left, and remain, very impressed.