Ed:
Good points raised and fair questions asked.
Oak Hill / East is a long and unrelenting layout that accentuates straight tee shots to the max with little real deviation from a design perspective. I don't doubt it can weed out the mediocre or shabby players and it's roster of champions is quite impressive -- Middlecoff, Trevino, Nicklaus -- with the lone exception being Micheel.
One has to aslk the question -- why the need to change the course? Was it done because people were upset that an unknown (at that time) in Trevino fired four (4) consecutive rounds in the '60's -- something no one had ever done prior?
The architecture is indeed impacted by the profusion of trees -- the desire to keep fairways fairly narrow -- and the choking nature of the rough. I agree with JNC Lyon -- some good tree cutting and a general move towards opening things up in several areas would help immensely.
The TF design changes did not ADD to the course -- they simply subtracted from it. I don't see the property as "all world" as JNC has suggsted -- I save such a distinction for another NY layout -- called Shinnecock Hills as one clear example. Yet, even if Oak Hill carried out the changes the course, for me at least, would still be in the range of a top 50 layout -- but more towards the rear of the line than the front.
If you want a really compelling golf hole -- check out the short uphill par-4 14th -- people rave about the long slog at #13 but #14 is simply a gem of a hole that requires a whole slew of options and strategic choices.
Ed, the concluding holes are more about bone crushing length than anything else. Yes, there are a number of strong holes and the sum total of what is there is quite good -- exceptional in spots -- but not of the nature for me at least of being so bulletproof that it can reap a #11 position as Digest states.
One last thing -- Ed, I never said the course doesn't have merit -- it simply doesn't convey consistent compelling architecture of the highest of high levels that you see with the top 15 courses in the USA.
Matt,
You ask a very good question about Oak Hill's need to change the course. There are several possible answers, but the two that are put forward are:
1) The old Ross holes were not spectator friendly. 15's plateau green (to the left of the present green) was flush against the boundary line and fell off on three sides, meaning that the par three at the critical stage of the round was virtually shut off to spectators. The green was moved down the hill to its present, gallery-geared locale. Of course, Ross never built the green down there because it is low-lying and drains poorly. The stone wall in the pond will need to be rebuilt continuously, otherwise, the green will fall into the water! 5 and 6 was also a congested area that was solved by a temporary par three between the present 4th and 5th holes. This holes actually flows well with the routing, but it is bland and unexciting and has been out of play for several years. The new Fazio holes create more gallery space at 5 and 6, but both the greens and the creek have required reconstruction since the Fazio redo because of flooding issues.
2) Oak Hill was told that it would not host another major unless it made the course more difficult. Whether the changes actually made the course more difficult is debatable. Jack Nicklaus was five shots better in the 1980 PGA Championship post-changes than he was at the 1968 US Open pre-changes. Lee Trevino and Nicklaus were the only players to break par in the 1968 Open.
Personally, I don't think either explanation can justify the Fazio changes. The first reason really scares me, especially with the current talk about the 13th green. However, I get the sense that people do not want to mess with the greens after the Fazio changes.
As the nature of Oak Hill's property, I do not really understand the comparison to Shinnecock Hills. These are two completely different types of golf courses on two completely different kinds of property. Oak Hill's property is in no way comparable to Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes or Pebble Beach. Oak Hill's land is, however, as good as you could for in a parkland course. After watching the Walker Cup at Merion (a classic parkland layout), I will say that while Merion (East) is certainly a better golf course, Oak Hill (East) possesses the better land. The creek winds perfectly through the property to allow for variety in hole routing. But more importantly, the property is a perfect combination of broad, sweeping hills and compact micro-features.
This combination of big and small contours is best exemplified by the par-five 13th. The tee shot runs gracefully downhill to the creek and then ascends gradually but surely up to the green. In the last 100 yards of the hole, the fairway winds into a bowl that is created by two ridges that taper off from the main hill of the club. The green is eventually set perfectly at the end of the bowl. This is a superb location for a green site directly below the clubhouse, and it is perfect spot for spectators at all times, be a major championship or a routine Saturday afternoon.
This hole is not, as you say, "a long slog." A slog is hole that requires a player to blast away until he reaches the green. In contrast, the 13th on the East Course requires a great deal of thought on every single shot. I review the tradeoffs of all three shots on 13 in my post above.
As to the finishing stretch, I agree to a certain extent that is about bonecrushing length, particularly at the 18th. There is even a move afoot to lengthen the 440-yard 16th, as if two 500-yard par fours to finish were not enough. However, this characterization misrepresents the nature of the 17th hole. The penultimate hole on the East Course is half-par hole in the true sense of the word: it plays as a 4 some of the time and a 5 at other times. The hole must be regarded in this light. Furthermore, the hole contains one of the very best greens on the property. It is of the double plateau variety, and there is nothing more satisfying than hitting a three-wood approach from the crest of the hill in the landing area and watching the ball chase towards a flag on the back tier.
Oak Hill East is far from bulletproof. You are definitely correct about that. However, one should not underestimate the greatness of the long holes like 13 or 17. They are about much more than pure length, and they are reason why the East Course outpaces courses that are have much more in overall yardage.