Phil, You are correct- my view towards EH is perhaps a bit harsh. I see the terrain there and try to envision what Perry Maxwell or William Flynn could have produced. The long walk doesn't bother me, in fact I carried my clubs the entire way on my first visit. You are correct also is that it should be firm in October . If they get rain the week of the Open it will become a slog. I felt it was a poor choice of venue to hold an Open . Which holes at EH are really memorable ? At BM or Milwaukee both you and I could rattle off 12-15 holes at both Clubs that are very good to excellent . Green complexes at EH are good but not in the same league as Lawsonia , BM , or Milwaukee . I was recently invited by a pal to play EH for free in 2 weeks- I passed , as having played it a few times I just don't see the hype. In fact I would struggle to place it in the top 6 in the fine State of Wisconsin .
[/quote]
I think memorable holes at EH are: 2 (a really good short par 4, the critics nothwithstanding
); 8 (just for the fairway terrain); 9 (a terrific short par 3 that's quite dicey in any kind of wind); 12, the better-looking cousin of #8; and 15 sort-of (although its terrain is so rugged and penal that I don't think it plays as envisioned -- a driveable par 4).
I think the opener #1 is a bit of a slog, and and the finish of #s 17 and 18 I think is a letdown (esp. with the NLE esker a non-factor at 17
) I wish the fairway at #5 would be re-aligned to make that right-side fairway bunker a true Principal's Nose bunker, which I think it was at one point. The rest of the course is filled with solid golf holes, although I would agree that on a memorability scale, they may fall short -- U.S. Open tough, yes; memorable -- a fair critique.
Part of my bias toward a favorable view of EH is how it played when it hosted the US Amateur a few years ago under incredibly fast-and-firm conditions in August here. That's how the course is meant to be played, and it really made for some fun golf -- balls were just zinging all over the course, with incredibly long and often unpredictable rollouts. And parts of it are a real puzzle for some of the best (amateur) players -- the 2nd being a good example. Player after player put their tee shot within 60 to sometimes 30 yards of the green, then were absolutely befuddled about how to play the 2nd shot -- little skipper, high spinner, one bump-and-run to that little perched-up postage stamp of a green. That to me is really good architecture.
And I also think we golf architecture cognescenti (I tend to be one of them
) are somewhat biased toward classic-era courses whereas we give a bum rap to modern courses with similar features in how they play. Take the 4th hole at EH -- which at one point during the Am was moved to well under 300 yards from the tees, with a very difficult, tucked pin. It called for a 6-iron/wedge approach, yet player after player (all young guns
) took out driver. Not that dissimilar to Oakmont's 17th -- praised as one of the game's great short par 4s, and yet it offered similar options to EH's 4th. You can argue the 17th is a better hole -- it probably is -- but Oakmont's 17 is by most measures memorable, but a similarly playing par 4 at EH is just another hole.
However, -- I too worry that EH won't present itself in its ideal condition with a mid-June US Open date; maybe the PGA and US Open can switch dates that year.