[David_Tepper]

DMoriarty -

As to your first point, I can only repeat my earlier comments. You can either accept them or not.

"Joel Stewart's enmity toward the Olympic Club is no secret to the regular participants here. While he can and does express his views freely, it would be a mistake to regard his views, in all cases, as the final authority or the gospel regarding events that have transpired over the years at the Olympic Club."

With regards to your second point, you are kidding yourself if you expect the membership of these clubs to "rise up" against the USGA. I do not know where you play your golf or what clubs you belong to, but you would be well advised not to join the clubs I have cited.

DT   

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David Tepper is correct. I actually would not make the statements I did about the USGA possibly wearing out its welcome at Olympic imho if I really thought about it. It just seems like these events take up a great deal of energy and time for the staff and membership at minimal benefit to the club. There is no question the subject is one which merits honest discussion at any club that hosts usga events. It is a balance of needs and interests of the club versus time and costs. One just has to live with the leadership calls by the people who are duly elected by the membership. I do not remember if the 8th was a USGA call. I was told about it a year ahead of time by one of the Members who is part of the group well connected with the usga. I thought it and 7 were part of the green resurfacing project and flowed from that process. I am sure the USGA signed off on them given the US Am was just around the corner at that time. Ot had it just happened. Oh well a tired mind makes mistakes.

[Patrick Kiser]

One thing too I was reminded of recently is we need to remember the Olympic Club is first and foremost an athletic club with a deep and rich history of competition in athletics and sports.  So it's only natural when the opportunity presents itself to see the club host premier golfing tournaments as the primary form of competition for the golfing side of the club.  If that means making some course changes in order to host such tournaments then I think it has a chance of happening ... if the changes are possible.

Tiger,

I'd almost argue the USGA could be wearing out its welcome just about anywhere...  With the ball and equipment being out of control, there's only so much clubs and courses can change to accommodate.  Many were able to pull it off in the '90s / early '00s because the money was flowing, but now ... different story.  Not to mention running out of land all together.  Something has to give in the end.  Hopefully at some point the governing bodies will finally get a clue and it all has to start from within.  The pros like Phil have expressed the need for control and maybe that's a start, but ultimately it has to come from within.  Wouldn't you agree?

[DMoriarty]

David Tepper,  

Thanks for repeating your comments but it was unnecessary.  Restating that in your opinion Joel is not the final authority doesn't at all address my specific questions and really does nothing to clarify anything.  If Joel Stewart has the record wrong then why not set the record straight?  Generally disparaging his take on things without actually addressing the specifics rings hollow.

As for the rest, you misquote me as calling on these clubs to "'rise up'" against the USGA.  I said no such thing.  I merely disagreed with your assertion that the members of these clubs ought to either toe the line or find a new club. There are many other options, one of which to try to raise awareness within and without the club about why such changes may not be great for these great golf courses.  Joel Stewart seems to be taking this approach and given that I appreciate quality golf architecture more than I do U.S. Open ready architecture I respect and support his efforts.  Now maybe Joel is all wet, but these vague statements about how he isn't the final authority? Well like I said such statements ring hollow with me.

By the way, I have no interest of joining any of the clubs you cited, but thanks for the advice anyway.


Patrick and Tiger,  

I think Patrick touches on something very important here, and something nearer to my interest in this situation.   The changes to the game at its highest level have been so drastic over the past few decades that these courses are going to have to face some difficult choices about just how much they are willing to sacrifice to remain relevant for one week every ten years.

[Joey Chase]

  Wouldn't it be fair to guess many of the members of the Olympic Club are members there because of it's high profile as a tournament caliber course?  When I've been fortunate enough to play Merion, my host has been like a tour guide talking about all of the great moments on the course and where they happened.  It was easy to see his pride in that regard.  I would bet a good number of the members will gladly make these sacrifices to continue the tradition at Olympic as well.

  In the Royal St. Georges book, it is really interesting to see the evolution of it's links with the main reason being it wanted to continue hosting the Open.  It has added several new holes to the mix as well over the years, as I'm guessing many places have.

[Mitch St. Peter]

While I can't confirm the inner dealings of O Club's greens committee (and am skeptical that it is as black and white as is suggested), I do philosophically agree with Joel's thoughts on how the Open prep work could have been approached. I do wonder if the Club missed an opportunity to both improve the conditions of the course (which happened) and restore it (which did not occur). That said, no one asked me to be on the greens committee. It's always easy to be a backseat driver.

Joel/others - can you point me to a thread or explain to me why using USGA spec greens was such a poor decision? What are the fundamental tradeoffs between building USGA spec greens versus push-up greens? What is the affect on playability? I'm sure there's a good thread somewhere.

And, I will say I do miss the three-tiered #7 green. It will be interesting to compare scoring averages for the hole between 2012 vs. 1998. The hole is also easier due to a felled tree which once stood right of the green and penalized players who went for the green and blocked their tee shot right (which happens a lot).

Joey - I agree with your view. The Open is a point of pride for the vast majority of members. And, like those at Oakmont (so I'm told), O Club members greatly value the difficulty of their course, more so than the "playability" of it.



Thanks.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Joel
If you replaced the word superintendent with the word industry would it read similarly?
On paper your super may be great, according to the industry.
You are fighting the industry, he is not.
Tough battle
Cheers

Mike-

Interesting comment. Are you saying those of us in the industry have no respect for classic golf course architecture?  If so, I think you need to get out more.

Scott

Thanks Scott
I did not say those (or you) in the industry are controlling the industry
The industry is made up with a number of individuals
And as a collective it hasn't had the end user (or player) in its best interest

Who is a bigger help to the industry:
The great super who is managing a great playing course but gets fired after an architect gets brought in to do a whole bunch of stupid stuff
Or the super who stocks up on designer chemicals and gets lots of marlin fishing trips as a result
Or the guys who are tasked with building a golf course; are told they can spend $20MM; but choose to spend $3M instead? (without any savings incentives)

I like #'s 1 & 3 best, but I can certainly tell you that #2 has had a bigger impact on the industry.

Cheers

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Patrick I do agree with you. It is certainly not an Olympic Club only  comment. i just happen to be a Member there and see the actions of the USGA more closely than at other clubs.Plus I watched the Pebble Open more closely than normal as well.  I too am proud of the Olympic Clubs traditions occasionally need to be reminded of that in this discussion as well. We should and likely will go to greater lengths to put forth significant competitions in not only professional golf but other sports as well. The US Open is there next month which makes this relevant now. I do think other private clubs which have different missions than the Olympic Club might feel these pressures more than we do. The public and resort courses have completely separate reasons to host events. Yet as David and Patrick pointed out it is a worthwhile discussion. I still feel the R@A does a better job of letting the architecture and weather dictate the final result of the Open Championship than the course manipulation approach used by the USGA and make for a better more exciting event. I feel the same way about the Masters putting the US Open 3rd in the rotation as far as greatness is concerned. Lastly I do not mean to leave the subject at hand on Mr Love. I think the work done on the greens and new holes were well done even if I am against how 7 was approached and done.

[Jay Flemma]

The USGA can't be all things to all people at all times.  It seems that under Davis, they have been moving well in the right direction, both in terms of architecture and otherwise.  Sebonack, and National will host important tournaments, and Hollywood just got named for a USGA event as well.

 The several members of Olympic (and not just GCAers) that I have talked to are - on the whole - generally happy with what has transpired there.  Sure, it could have been better, but then again we could be at Atlanta Athletic Club instead.  No thanks.

[Joel_Stewart]

Lastly I do not mean to leave the subject at hand on Mr Love. I think the work done on the greens and new holes were well done even if I am against how 7 was approached and done.

Tiger as well as Jay.  You're giving Bill Love way to much credit for anything.  It would have been nice for Jay to ask Bill, exactly what ideas did you have for the golf course.  The answer is nothing.  Bill Love did what he was told and drew up some pictures and signed his name.  For those who haven't met him, he's a big imposing figure with a strong voice.  He talks the talk and shakes some hands.  That's it.

My main argument is they have wrecked the course for the membership to host this tournament for 1 week in June.  When the USGA leaves town, the members are stuck with a brutal no fun golf course.  What good is that?  The course just beats you up.  For anyone over a 7 handicap, your highlight of the day is to make 1 or 2 pars and shoot 92?  A 3 to 7 handicap tries to break 80?  Since the US Open is booked now until 2019, the members will suffer through 10+ years of tough conditions.  The course was once a classic the Jones, Hogan and Byron Nelson walked.  Now it's built for Bubba Watson and John Daly.

Lastly, in my almost 20 years there, I never met anyone who advocated that we have to get the US Open.  There was never any type of member movement and never ever is there a vote within the membership.  Management seems to have an open line of communication with the USGA and it just kind of happens.

[Jay Flemma]

Joel, you are mistaken - John Daly or Bubba won't win there because there is no benefit to hitting it 350.  No bomber has ever won at Oly.  It's always a thinking plodder.  In a sense, the architecture and terrain at Oly - and most importantly the way they work together - is quite intelligent and has been a check on equipment and technology.  That's why this Open is going to be so good - it's going to be wide Open.

Several members (other than you) have said to me they think that the new bunker and the rest of the work Love did fit well with the rest of the course.  They say it looks like Whiting.  In total, I'd say the reviews I've heard are reasonably positive.  No one is turning cartwheels down Lombard Street, but you are the only person this resoundingly negative.  I like you and respect you, but on this issue, maybe you've invested too much for too little return?

Your problem seems to be that because you didn't get a perfect restoration to the exact specifications you wanted to see, you are determined to vilify the work.  I saw where you called it one of the great architectural crimes of the century or something...that it completely off the deep end.  Go talk to members of Crestwood Golf Club about an architectural crime of the century.  Or go talk to members of courses who fall into disrepair or get remodels in the flavor of a completely different architect or lose all their greens to disease.

And who knows what the future holds?  Maybe next time, the influence of the minimalists may have expanded so that when the next person is chosen for what ever work needs to be done, they may pick someone you find more palatable.  

As to 7, could someone post a pic (I'll try to find one too).  I agree this far with you Joel, I don't like it when a unique classic feature gets bulldozed to make way for something pedestrian, and to that extent, your ideas about 7 green are lucid.  But why have the other members I've talked to, and why do those posting here at GCA.com seem not to mind so much?

[David_Tepper]

"My main argument is they have wrecked the course for the membership to host this tournament for 1 week in June."

Joel S. -

If that is your main argument, it is a pretty weak one. Other than lengthening #7 by 15-20 yards (and probably making the green play easier), lengthening #8 by 20-40 yards and changing the greens from poa to bent, what substantive changes have been made on the Lake Course either recently or in the past 30-40 years? Back tees have been added on a number of holes, but no one is required to play from them. The notion that the course has been "wrecked" is pretty silly.

Hasn't the Lake Course has always been (since 1955) a course that "just beats you up?" Hasn't it played that way for the past 57 years? Although it might make the course look prettier, how would adding more bunkers to the course make it more playable or make it beat you up less? 

By the way, what made the Lake Course a "classic" was when Hogan walked there in the 1955 US Open.

DT

[Bill_McBride]

I must say that cart path carousel at 7 & 8 is pretty fugly.   I thought #8 was a cool little hole with that backdrop, and certainly not worth all that out of the way cart paths to change.  JMHO.

[Jay Flemma]

Yes, Bill, but a cart path is a hang nail, not a coronary artery.  A couple days and a few bucks and it's fixed.

[Rick Shefchik]

I don't know that any two courses can be lumped together as having identical views about/relationships with the USGA, but I do know that Hazeltine -- the one major venue I'm very familiar with -- was founded with the sole intent of bringing the U.S. Open back to Minnesota. The club's mission statement continues to be to do whatever it takes to keep the golf course modern and relevant to major championship golf.

It would be easy to argue that Hazeltine was not a classic golf course in the sense of Winged Foot or Baltusrol, and any changes to the course can hardly be viewed as ruining something special. But all golf courses are moving targets, and any two members might disagree about at which particular point in its evolution the course was at its best. Perhaps that day is yet to come.

Some courses wouldn't pick up the phone if the USGA called and offered the Open in exchange for some course changes. Others would ask, "What do we have to do?" It seems to me it's up to the members to decide which kind of club they want to belong to. At Hazeltine, they lose a few members each time the club goes through changes to host a major -- but the mission statement stays the same.

[Jay Flemma]

Nicely put, Rick.  Every bit as well-spoken as your new book.

Everybody should give Rick's new book on Minnesota Classic Courses a read!

[JC Jones]

I don't know that any two courses can be lumped together as having identical views about/relationships with the USGA, but I do know that Hazeltine -- the one major venue I'm very familiar with -- was founded with the sole intent of bringing the U.S. Open back to Minnesota. The club's mission statement continues to be to do whatever it takes to keep the golf course modern and relevant to major championship golf.

It would be easy to argue that Hazeltine was not a classic golf course in the sense of Winged Foot or Baltusrol, and any changes to the course can hardly be viewed as ruining something special. But all golf courses are moving targets, and any two members might disagree about at which particular point in its evolution the course was at its best. Perhaps that day is yet to come.

Some courses wouldn't pick up the phone if the USGA called and offered the Open in exchange for some course changes. Others would ask, "What do we have to do?" It seems to me it's up to the members to decide which kind of club they want to belong to. At Hazeltine, they lose a few members each time the club goes through changes to host a major -- but the mission statement stays the same.

Rick,

Thomas Jefferson was very concerned about future generations having to atone for the sins of the present.  To that end, he felt that the debts of the deceased should be discharged so as to not burden their next of kin and that our country should go through a revolution every 25-50 years (depending on the quote) so that the dead may not rule from the grave.

Should current memberships who desire to spend millions (perhaps by acquiring debt) and change the golf course, be mindful of the burden they are placing on subsequent memberships who will either have to pay the debt or acquire their own to return the golf course to the position it was intended; rather than the one it is in, because of the ego quenching, major championship hosting, current membership?

[David_Tepper]

"Should current memberships who desire to spend millions (perhaps by acquiring debt) and change the golf course, be mindful of the burden they are placing on subsequent memberships who will either have to pay the debt or acquire their own to return the golf course to the position it was intended; rather than the one it is in, because of the ego quenching, major championship hosting, current membership?"

JC Jones -

You can raise the same question regarding the expense of any major project (a new clubhouse, swimming pool, etc.) a club decides to undertake. The expense of the minor changes that have been made to the Lake Course since it last hosted the US Open in 1998 are relatively small potatoes and would almost have certainly been made regardless of whether or not the Olympic Club decided to host the US Open ever again.  

DT

[Rick Shefchik]

I don't know that any two courses can be lumped together as having identical views about/relationships with the USGA, but I do know that Hazeltine -- the one major venue I'm very familiar with -- was founded with the sole intent of bringing the U.S. Open back to Minnesota. The club's mission statement continues to be to do whatever it takes to keep the golf course modern and relevant to major championship golf.

It would be easy to argue that Hazeltine was not a classic golf course in the sense of Winged Foot or Baltusrol, and any changes to the course can hardly be viewed as ruining something special. But all golf courses are moving targets, and any two members might disagree about at which particular point in its evolution the course was at its best. Perhaps that day is yet to come.

Some courses wouldn't pick up the phone if the USGA called and offered the Open in exchange for some course changes. Others would ask, "What do we have to do?" It seems to me it's up to the members to decide which kind of club they want to belong to. At Hazeltine, they lose a few members each time the club goes through changes to host a major -- but the mission statement stays the same.

Rick,

Thomas Jefferson was very concerned about future generations having to atone for the sins of the present.  To that end, he felt that the debts of the deceased should be discharged so as to not burden their next of kin and that our country should go through a revolution every 25-50 years (depending on the quote) so that the dead may not rule from the grave.

Should current memberships who desire to spend millions (perhaps by acquiring debt) and change the golf course, be mindful of the burden they are placing on subsequent memberships who will either have to pay the debt or acquire their own to return the golf course to the position it was intended; rather than the one it is in, because of the ego quenching, major championship hosting, current membership?

J.C.,

That's a fair question, one that each club member should face and seriously consider. Returning to the not-necessarily-analogous case of Hazeltine, however, the major tournaments held there since the 1991 U.S. Open have been hugely profitable, with much of those profits earmarked for future improvements, upgrades and mandates from the PGA or USGA. When they lose members, it's more about the inconvenience of further construction work on the course, rather than any financial hardship.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jay I am a GCA person and a Member. 7 is not as good as before. The 3 tiered 7th green complex was a masterpiece. The new two tiered green complex is good but that is it. 8 is better. 18 green was not improved. The new longer tees do not effect the membership. The vast majority of the membership is not going to rock the boat nor have strong opinions about architecture at Olympic no more than at other clubs. The wars on these changes were made several years ago and frankly are  not a big deal to discuss out there now. Life has moved on. There are new issues like the Open, how Randy did at the Cal Am etc. But I promise you a short interview with Bill Love and a few visits with a few members on an old issue will not make you the guy in the know here. There are and were more people than Joel who felt strongly both ways about this back then  Some of them post on here as well. He just took it to a much higher level, probably too high and let it get personal. The leadership did what it thought was right and it is still a great golf course. You basic feelings on that are correct and consistent with mine. I also think it will be a great US Open. I am not sure I agree with you at all on Mike Davis. His changes at Congressional were nothing but bad last year. I am not going to speculate or form an opinion as to whether he is better or worse than his those that went before him. It is his job and he does a good job given his marching orders. I feel the mandate makes the US Open 3rd because of them not because of him.

[Jay Flemma]

Like I said, Tiger, no one is turning cartwheels down Lombard Street, but it seemed only one person was saying the sky was falling once all was said and done.

Re: Congressional.  Let's talk via IM, but if you're thinking about the same changes I am, are you sure they were ordered by Mike?

[Joel_Stewart]

[ The expense of the minor changes that have been made to the Lake Course since it last hosted the US Open in 1998 are relatively small potatoes and would almost have certainly been made regardless of whether or not the Olympic Club decided to host the US Open ever again.  
DT

Dave:  Do you know the construction costs to build the new tees on #3,4,5,6,16,17 and the daily cost to maintain them? Add in the costs to rebuild the 8th the first time and then the added costs to rebuild 7 and then the 8th again.  Do you think the water, fertilizer and mowing is free?  All of this for tees that are used rarely.  The problem is Pat Finlen is not accountable and his budget is secret so nobody complains.

Someday, I'm going to howl when your beloved Royal Dornoch brings in Bill Love or some other 3rd rate architect to make changes.  My sense the members will rise up as opposed to Olympic when the members layed down like lambs.

[Carl Nichols]

The course just beats you up.  For anyone over a 7 handicap, your highlight of the day is to make 1 or 2 pars and shoot 92?  A 3 to 7 handicap tries to break 80?  

Wasn't this true before the recent changes? How much harder are 7 and 8 now, 1/4 stroke total?  Do you think Love (or the greenskeeper) should've been striving to make the course easier?

[Joel_Stewart]

The course just beats you up.  For anyone over a 7 handicap, your highlight of the day is to make 1 or 2 pars and shoot 92?  A 3 to 7 handicap tries to break 80?  

Wasn't this true before the recent changes? How much harder are 7 and 8 now, 1/4 stroke total?  Do you think Love (or the greenskeeper) should've been striving to make the course easier?

It's not just 7 and 8 although 8 is much harder.  It's almost every hole, especially the first 6. #5 from the backs is a ball buster.  #1 playing as a par 4 is almost unthinkable for the average guy.  #16 playing close to 700 yards. 

[Bill_McBride]

Yes, Bill, but a cart path is a hang nail, not a coronary artery.  A couple days and a few bucks and it's fixed.

LOL, when do you think that will happen?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()