Saturday, October 07, 2017

Back to the Home of Golf - Crail Old Comments


Been too long, but spent two weeks in Scotland. Highlights today and comments for Crail Balcomie, but more specifics to come. I will probably finally profile the Colleton Courses as the Nicklaus is about to re-open from re-grassing and a few very peculiar changes post Matthew to "Maintain Integrity" - I see a certain personal stamp -  by architect on retainer Jim Lipe. I have never somehow offered the Dye Course, but must take a few more photos prior.

So for Scotland - Coming or today:

  • Old Course at Crail (Balcomie) Here today
  • Walking the Old Course on a Sunday
  • Prestwick
  • Cruden Bay - even better than expected with high expectations
  • North Berwick West Links - also even better than remembered
  • Re-do at Alisa - very disappointing, I'm in minority, but will tell you why it's a fail for golf
  • (.....)Turnberry Hotel renovation -  a fail for SPG
  • Nicklaus CRP
  • Dye CRP
So, in two weeks, I didn't play much, haven't been walking much because of a wonky knee. Tested it out at Pine Valley when evacuated for the hurricane and it did OK. Without being too technical, not amenable to a scope not really a TKRA problem, but other than getting sore and swollen, even took two days in a row.

Balcomie Crail

Sub 6000 yards with six Par three holes, but not a pitch-and-putt affair by any standards, it probably is a hickory payer's dream. The Old Course at Crail is as fun and quirky as ever, a good first stop, Gil's Course happily and very popularly booked solid, more than glad to play the Old because sole previous play was the same day as playing St. A's Old with Renee for her first time that same day. (R&A was in St. A's plus Dunhill prep prevented any golf at St. Andrews, original play for first 3 days) Two Medals were being contested, so it was a little slow giving ample time for a look-see. I'm not taking as many photos any more and Crail suffered the fewest photos because of being the first Course and low light. Seeing what was there on the ground proved how much a disservice playing 36 in a day on two different 18-hole courses really can be. Crail sanely keeps these greens no faster than nine. I'll be back again any time.

The Par 3's - Rather Notable
The Par three holes at Crail offer so much.

Starting with the blind third where having the knowledge of contours is invaluable, as well as a requirement to bring it in from the left (Sanely away from water's edge. Brilliant hole! A modified punchbowl affair, but far more interesting due to the contours. The hole had stuck so well in my memory, that I hit it in the right place and came up 8 feet short on line off the tee. Just lovely contours, perfect for a blind shot over a dune, this is truly a great hole and a major exhibit why blindness should remain a part of the game. Back pin from 2007 seen on 12 tee here:

The seventh at the first turn is a relatively modest and raised green affair, the least memorable of the six. Be sure to hit it far enough. Bunkering left keep you honest, still a fine hole many courses would gladly swap for on of their threes.

Everyone remembers the elevated and often into the wind 13th, short with a driver (I'm 66 now). A steep escarpment and elevation can make it seem impossible and it is for an ill-struck shot, you'll be in the organic matter of the face. Rather a small and contoured green considering, a four is just fine here.


Immediately following is "The Cave (Unforgettable and following the hole) a drop-shot hole with a crested or saddled green which is magnificently fronted by a very receptive bunker. At 145 yards, into the bunker, I was pleased with a four. One can hit the green and the ball can still easily find the bunker A hole to study for all architects considering another mundane drop shot hole, you CAN build a great one, come study how the green (Which cannot be run at 13 on the stump) makes the hole and is far better than anything that runs a fast green speed. See below (2007):

The Famous Spion Kop is the sixteenth, an uphill, often into wind hole that requires a truly committed shot. The shape of the green again determines play. Being domed as well as 1.5 clubs uphill, the ball does not really run up you must carry boldly.

Eighteenth Quarry is a fine and demanding finishing hole with Gorse right and a plethora of bunkers left, one other example along with Pasatiempo and Boston Golf Club for how a Par 3 eighteenth can test you. So easy to lose it right here and even if you hit the green.

The Par 5's - Pleasant Enough - and a twist
The second, from the medal tees is actually quite a hole with an angled tee shot and North Sea hard right. Even the visitor's tee provides you the thrilling blindness of second shot. Proximity to two other holes left gives one a fair bailout to the left, but a large dune on the left of the fairway and shared bunkers complicate matters. Coincidentally, the 11th and 12th, the other Par 5's are the shared fairway. A rather clever bit sharing the width of the three long holes. on two, long can be dreadful. Very clever hole

Eleven is up the hill from a somewhat lowest point to one of the highest in that particular part of the course, first thirteen or so holes. Plays long uphill and shares a double green, the back of which is a Biarritz-y manner for the Par 4 eighth, a superb hole. Shared fairway right with 12 over to two, clever. Remember this is the sixth oldest course in the world! Scene of tee with great width from 2007 (there is a real Loo, not a porta-potty now for the sharp-eyed)

Twelve plays back down the hill and a burn comes prominently into play about 100 out from green front. Green set a bit on a table top sort of ploy, very modern holes still use this strategy as if it were fresh. The twist of course is the triple fairway on the three longest holes allowing forgiveness ona hard swing - fun matters here.

The Par 4's - a few highlights
The first is potentially reached with driver but a burn and a cavernous bunker in a grassy dune makes you think again and play hybrid - wedge. Big green, semi-blind very deep on the right. Perfect starter, tasty, making you hungry for more.

Four is the classic "(False moniker) Cape" tee shot. Greed is a lost ball, a lesser hole, but still fun. Birdie ....

Five - Again - classic "(False moniker) Cape" tee shot. Greed is a lost ball, the elevation is deceiving. too far left and you're yelling fore to the Par 3 sixth players where greenside bunkers double as fairway bunkers on this hole. Clever. Hard. This is a bitch to par. From 2007:

Seven - very clever land use, a plateau drops off 60+ feet  with 150 to go, but you can drive the green over the wall (all blind). You don't tee off until you see players on the next tee. Said wall integral and pithy. Not so well-defined in the 2007 photo here.

Eight is the architectural masterpiece of the fours. Left-turning elbow hole to the aforementioned double green, a Biarritz from this side. Simply thrilling.

Nine & Ten show the variety of truly excellent holes available under 350 yards and still fun and challenging due to ANGLES.

Fifteen reached by less than driver at 265 rather often. Or not. Hole high right yielded a birdie.

Seventeen tee is the Blog header photo from the previous visit with Gorse in full bloom.

That's it for today.

Routing - **
Overall quality of individual holes, par 3's, 4's  and 5's- 3 -** 4 - *, 5 - *
Cohesion of the course - **
Green Complexes - **
Bunkering schema - *
Conditioning - **
Appropriate Vegetation - ***
Ideally - **
The rest of the Club - **
Milieu - **

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Rory In, Tiger Out, Clubs and balls

Rory McIlroy, #2 OWGR but the real #1.  News from my friends at Callaway Golf that one Rory McIlroy is playing GBB Epic Zero (That's the lowest spin model), fairway woods and Apex custom irons without compensation. Whether this is experimental, his choice or working on a permanent deal, he seems to be using them well. I would assume that the Vokey wedges and Titleist Pro V1x balls aren't leaving the bag any time soon, if ever. It is also confirmed that the market share report which tracks all golf products 7 of the last 8 months Callaway Chrome soft is the top selling ball.

Bridgestone has started to run ads featuring Tiger Woods, I figure because he had promised them that he'd be back by now. Most of you know that I've doubted his ability to return at all at this point, medically speaking. First off, you just don't have back surgery for back pain, it's just not the treatment. Bulging discs don't cause back pain, it's been proven by peer-reviewed studies by reputable back specialists using "Evidence-based" studies (The highest accuracy, specificity and reliability) to be factual. Three surgeries suggest serious complications up to and including chronic infection, but we will never know. In 2008 I was called racist, #hater, etc. for suggesting it would take him two years to win another Major  He surely proved me wrong. Their 4 premium balls allow the most precise choice.

I've been ball testing as usual and have some latest release Pro V1 and Pro V1x, direct from the rep and found the x 5 yards longer of the two off the tee. Both are great balls and neither spins too much where the Pro V1 used to spin too much, the other day 18 holes in the wind, it was not a problem as the old V1 had been.

Callaway Chrome Soft and Callaway Chrome Soft x have been excellent balls with a clear difference being that the "x" model spinning higher. This is one of two balls I mostly play, the regular Chrome Soft ball. It's very versatile, the compression being very low (60) appeals to nearly all golfers, although most need not spend the money for a premium ball. The x spins a bit more for workability and higher ball flight.

The other ball that regularly finds its way into my bag is TaylorMade. TP5 and TP5x are the current release, the preferred  and Preferred X being the last release. As with other balls, the x tends to be "Harder/Firmer" and spins less.

Srixon testing is over, the pair of the Z-Star and Z-Star XV are also very durable if both comeout on the firm side, probably even the Z-Star too firm for my tastes.

The Kirkland ball was short-lived as it sold out quickly but will likely be back as it has gotten all lawyered up and that story isn't over by a long shot.

Titleist is the #1 ball in USA golf because every aspiring professional gets free balls and starting at $500 cash. That's why so many stick with them.

So ... For you premium ball-seekers  - Bridgestone (4 premium balls!), TaylorMade (including Lethal - a top ball with slight loss of distance - available in a 50-pack for $100 USD garage box), Callaway, Srixon even Kirkland if it returns makes zero difference in game.You will like what you like, but You do not get any more ball for that $5 USD/dozen to play the Titleist. If you are a professional, your bank account balance may vary.

One of the best, most consistent low-handicap club golfers I know, not afraid to play you for more money that I can afford to lose will pull out Callaway SuperSoft balls. Don't call him out.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Down South

I went down south for a bit. It's a different kind of Golf than Boston , Lehigh or the CalClub, but I learned to play on Bermuda surface and love it.

Did you know Bagger Vance (on TGC last nite) was filmed at the Colleton River Dye Course?

I will show more soon as I feel it is not really well-known, and despite living on it; feel I ought ought to show it off.

Stay tuned.

This is on the second tee

 This is from the clubhouse to the ocean, We have 11 holes you can see to the ocean.

Kick me in the rear so I get on it ...

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Ron Prichard Comments on Upcoming Aronimink Work

Joe Juliano article link:

The following is presented for all interested parties. The author is Ron Prichard, Golf Course Architect of Record for the Aronimink Golf Club's most recent complete restoration - essentially undoing Robert Trent Jones, Sr.'s work performed prior to the 1962 PGA Championship and re-creating as closely as possible the original design/design intent. Presented with copyrighted permission for The content contained herein is solely Mr. Prichard's as regards re-presenting this material in any other for than reference to this location.

In my opinion, it should be very informative to a great many people.

Some supplemental Comments pertaining to the recent Article “Get to know the New Aronimink coming in April 2018’ by Joe Juliano, staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer – updated August 19, 2016.

First of all, I want to mention, I am not particularly eager to spend time clarifying portions of this long Article, (as stated, “Get to know the New Aronimink coming in April 2018), however since I was not contacted and interviewed by Mr. Juliano, I thought it might be helpful to address certain comments, and shed further light on certain conclusions which as a result of the Inquirer Article are now a matter of record and from my point of view are not accurate. It is my purpose as the most recent golf architect to work on the Aronimink Golf Club Golf Course to now and for all time correct the historical record.

In his opening paragraph, Mr. Juliano describes the inscription that is “embossed” on a metal disk that is attached to a large stone located behind the first tee. On it, the words attributed to Donald Ross (Note: this comment was uttered when he came to Aronimink Golf Club on his first visit, following construction of the golf course). It states, “I intended to make this my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew”. And when I first read that quote in 1994, the year I began to conduct serious research for a Plan of Restoration for the golf course, I initially questioned, why did you say that, at that time, so many years after the golf course was built? Where were you while construction was proceeding? Was it also true, (even though there is a film clip which showed Ross on the ground during early construction), that here also his constant travel prevented him from returning to Aronimink Golf Club as the course was under construction?

As the Article continues, Mr. Juliano goes on to say, “The recent discovery of photographs, an aerial shot and several from ground level, from 1929 has unveiled some never-before-seen features of a Ross design that have disappeared over time”. I must say, I find that a very strange comment, for the 1929 aerials that Juliano refers to as, “a recent discovery”, have hung on the walls of the men’s locker room for over 20 years. These are photographs I first located over 25 years ago, which are all located, as mentioned, in the Dallin Collection housed in the Hagley Museum in Wilmington, Delaware. And every male member of the club has walked past these photographs for decades.

These very same photographs were hanging on the walls at the club in 1994 when I visited to make a Presentation to the Aronimink Golf Club Restoration Committee of my proposed Plan of “Restoration.” This was a special meeting convened so that Jay Sigel, a well respected member, who was often away from the club traveling, could attend and hear the discussion of my intentions for the golf course.

It was at this meeting where I explained to the Committee that it was my suggestion; (if they approved), to reconstruct the golf course, (which was no longer a Ross Course), according to the appearance illustrated on Donald Ross’ original Field Sketches. The original sketches which had been provided for construction.

At that same time, I only briefly touched upon my strong personal belief that the bunkering of the golf course which was clearly indicated on the Dallin Photographs, (which as mentioned above were hanging in the club at that time), illustrated the architectural efforts of a then member of Aronimink named Mr. J.B. McGovern. The same J.B. McGovern, a resident of Wynnwood, Pennsylvania who was a long time employee – and associate – of Donald Ross. (I did not know at the time, but in a recent discussion with a very serious authority of early American golf architecture, I subsequently learned that Mr. McGovern was not “just a member – he was in fact, Green Chairman”).

When I was asked by the Aronimink Golf Club Restoration Committee why I favored reconstructing the golf course according to Ross’ original Field Sketches, I stated, “In my opinion the drawings provided by Ross, are a set of quite probably the finest drawings I have studied” and that “I feel it would be a better result if the superintendent had only 75 or so bunkers to maintain rather than a number approaching 200 bunkers”.

Following the meeting during which it was decided to proceed as I had suggested, Jay Sigel walked over, and said to me, “Ron in the last hour and a half listening to you, I have learned more about golf architecture than in a career of playing. (It was a wonderful compliment, - one I will always cherish). 

As Joe Juliano proceeds with his article, he goes on to say, “those photos showed that Ross liked to improvise with bunker design and location, rather than follow the original plan on paper”. He does not mention who suggested such a thought, but in response I say, “In all the many years I have concentrated on the restoration of Donald Ross golf courses, I have found the actual bunker construction deviated from Ross’ original field sketches on only three other golf courses. Each of these was a golf course where J.B McGovern was the on-site construction associate. And interestingly, what these three golf courses had in common was clear evidence of McGovern’s proclivity to alter Donald Ross’ bunkering sketches and instructions. One of these golf courses was “finished by Mr. McGovern” a year after the death of Donald Ross. The result in each case was a golf course with double, or triple clusters of small bunkers precisely where Ross’ field sketches had specified a single large bunker. 

In a subsequent paragraph, Mr. Steve Zodtner, Club President at Aronimink is quoted saying, “Comparing the Master Plan to the aerial, they, realized that the bunker complexes were much different than they were as they were drawn”. (This might refer to the original Ross Plan of the golf course, or the Restoration Plan I created in 1994). And indeed this is true. Juliano then further quotes Mr. Zodtner saying, “We think, and Gil believes, that Ross, when he went out in the field, made sort of game-time decisions about where to place bunkers. He was trying to do things more innovatively. So we’re going to restore it back to it’s 1929 look”. And although I respect that Gil Hanse has restored seven Donald Ross golf courses, I have restored perhaps seven times seven. (I do not keep count). And in my experience, and all the research I have pursued over 40 years; that was never the way Ross worked – not ever. Because of the difficulty of travel during the late 1920’s, (the choice was either auto, or rail), Ross only rarely visited one of his courses while it was under construction. And these were courses which were extremely close to one of his homes. It is my belief that at Aronimink, where Ross had an associate who was not only a member, but the Green Chairman, he felt little need to monitor the work.

At this point, you may still question what I discovered and therefore I have included a few of the original Donald Ross field sketches for the Brook Lea Country Club Golf Course, (Rochester, New York), where construction commenced in 1926 – a few years prior to the golf course for the new Aronimink Golf Club. The field sketches with field notes in the hand of Donald Ross, are for holes # 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18.

If you chose to make the trip to Rochester, you will find the original field sketches for each of these holes which were drafted by Donald Ross, and they clearly show “in pencil”, where J. B. McGovern modified the sketches to illustrate the separation of many of the individual large bunkers into a pair of smaller hazards. And if you carefully study the bunkers created at Aronimink, you will see that they were separations of the single originally sketched bunker, precisely within the original footprint of the Ross Bunker.

You can see this on the following pages:

Hole #10 – where three fore bunkers, (on the left – each labeled #1), were left unaltered, however the two approach bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern.bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern

Hole #11 – Three left side fairway bunkers were left untouched, and the three beyond the 350 yard mark, (#s 4, 5, and 6), were altered by McGovern. Please note: for the most part, The Ross fairway bunkers are 4’ 6” in depth.

Hole #12 – Each of the leftside fairway bunkers were divided
by McGovern as indicated by the narrow turf bridges – with a

Hole #17 – The first two bunkers were not altered from
Ross’ design. The next four, (#s 3, 4, 5, and 6), were each
divided by McGovern. (Again, notice all bunkers, except one
was specified to be 4’ 6” in depth).

Hole #18 – Of the six bunkers illustrated by Ross, four, (#s
1, 2, 5, and 7), were split in half by McGovern, #4 is an
“irregular mound not less than 5’ high”.

When later in the article, Gil Hanse is quoted as saying that, “we’re really focused on the original design character, the style of bunkering, and the configuration.” “He generally kind of put
together in groups of three or four clusters as opposed to a singular bunker”. “He” should be understood to be McGovern – not Ross. Gil goes on to say, “that is different to Ross and I think a really interesting presentation’. I agree. What McGovern produced is different “from” Ross. And the bunkering shown on the Dallin photographs is the original design, character, and configuration created by McGovern.I know for certain, on a few courses, Ross might flash the sand further up the face of a bunker – always carefully stipulated in  the field notes accompanying each of his field sketches, and in one incident, he specified that a hazard rather than being a concave pit of sand, should be a sand covered mound. But he did not call for groups of multiple hazards on his field sketches, nor did he embrace them on his golf courses. If that was his preference, he would have illustrated that on his “construction plans”.

As the Juliano article continues, John Gosselin the golf course superintendent at Aronimink Golf Club explains to readers, and perhaps members, that; “over the years most of the bunker clusters designed by Ross – (They were not designed by Ross), have been gradually merged into one bunker”. The real story of what actually happened, is: over the many years the course has been in existence, first – George Fazio, then, (I believe), David Gordon, and in 1987 Robert Trent Jones Sr. all worked on and altered the architectural character of the golf course. In fact I visited the Club in 1987 during the reconstruction of the golf course by crews under the supervision of associates of Jones. And due to those efforts, the golf course was significantly altered. Tees were added. And the course was completely rebunkered which in several cases required cutting away sizable portions of the green’s fill pads to gather fill materials for construction of bunker surrounds. I still have many photographs of the golf course under construction at this time. 

It was for me a sad experience. And the golf course in play today
was reconstructed, (by erasing most all vestiges of the Trent
Jones redesign with the exception of the pond fronting the 17th
green), and utilizing the original field sketches, to reestablish
the course Donald Ross illustrated on his General, (routing),
Plan. When John Gosselin mentions, and Gil Hanse concurs that
several “Ghost Bunkers” were removed and three will be
restored behind the 11th Green’s fill pad, I feel it is important to
note: There were no back bunkers on that green on Ross’
original field sketches nor on the large routing plan. Any “game
time” decisions were decisions made by McGovern. And
forcing bunkers into that location “hanging up on the back
slope” is far from anything Ross would suggest.

The fundamental point I have focused so much attention on:
is in greater detail what I explained, (as stated above), in 1994;
in several subsequent discussions over twenty years, and
expressed in a long email I sent to Dr. Ned Ryan, the then Green
Chairman, two years ago. - long before Mr. Juliano”s
Philadelphia Inquirer article was printed.

I am sure Gil Hanse will produce a very fine result, and if as
voted, the members of Aronimink Golf Club prefer the golf
course created by J. B. McGovern in behalf of Donald Ross, I
suggest they simply accept, and acknowledge this. Give your
former member, Mr. McGovern due credit rather than
proceeding under a series of convenient suppositions.
Now, one other comment I want to address is the statement
by Gil Hanse where he comments that as a result of his bunker
reconstruction, “some of the high shoulders in front of the
bunkers will be lowered significantly”. (I presume he means the
back shoulders – between the sand base and the green). Gil goes
on to say, “there will still be some depth,” to the bunkers “but it,
(they) will be defined by the slope of the ground as opposed to
(artificially) created slopes”.

What you, Gil, should understand is: Donald Ross never
mentioned he was seeking some particularly “natural
appearance”. That’s your preference. And what you should
further understand is: When Donald Ross specifically called for
rather large singular bunkers on his golf course he was
anticipating that the fill materials gathered by shaping the base
of the hazard would be used to properly create meaningful
“back” shoulders. He did not haul soil away from his bunker
excavations, nor did he import additional soil. And whenever I
have shaped a Ross bunker I have never imported a “tea spoon”
of additional soil to build the hazard. When Donald Ross
repeatedly specified a depth of 4” 6”, he was seeking that the
player be required to elevate a shot from the hazard
approximately 11” or so below “your” eye level. (To clarify:
4’6” as you know, is 54”. And therefore: as I stand in a typical
Ross Bunker – the type he sketched and called for at Aronimink
Golf Club – my eye level is at 64”. That is only ten inches
“above” the green side shoulder. That is the challenge “Ross”
specified. He did not suggest lower, more easily negotiated back
shoulders. And when an architect chooses to follow
McGovern’s cute little clusters of bunkers; that also will be your

If you reestablish the original Aronimink Golf Club golf
course to the architectural appearance adopted by J.B.
McGovern, you will create less soil at each bunker site because
a fair amount of the potential soil will be utilized to create the
separating shoulders. This without question will result in lower
shoulders, which may perfectly suit your search for “a natural
look,” but it will alter Ross’ intentions.

In closing, I want to wish the Club, and you, Gil all the best.
I have always enjoyed my visits to the club, and deeply
appreciate the respectful way I was treated. The members of the
Restoration Committee, which was headed by Mr. John Trickett
were a treat to work with even when we had to remove the
maple tree which had been planted on the original #1 putting
surface, and reconstruct large portions of the third, sixth, and
14th green’s fill pads. My hope is that this response to Mr.
Juliano, which also contains certain “conversations” with Gil
Hanse, fully clarifies once and for all the proper history of the
bunker construction on the original golf course.

Ron Prichard
Golf Architect

PS: Mr. Juliano; where you mention in your article, that Ron
Prichard “specialize(d) in restoring Ross courses -----“ I am
presently restoring the Donald Ross golf course at: Riverside
Golf and Country Club in Rothsay, New Brunswick, Canada,
and the Ross Courses at Portland Country Club in Portland,
Maine, and Northland Country Club in Duluth, Minnesota. Last
fall we finished “restoration” of the only Donald Ross golf
course in Iowa, at Cedar Rapids Country Club.

- Presented unedited for content or opinion.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Upcoming Majors

Summer approaches and with  it the majors save Augusta - which doesn't really fit the mold of the rest as I see it because of its odd selection process. There's a bit wrong with ANGC and all the control about the Maters, but it is so well-loved no one ever dares criticise it. So I usually refrain from commenting much partly because it usually is entertaining the last day. It is a wonderful Rite for all golfers, the annual re-awakening and unveiling of a new Fazio-design.

This year 2016 and The Major Championships - let's get the curmudgeonly stuff out of the way.

The 2016 USGA Open

Go see it at Geoff Shackelford if you care, you won't find anything about the course here. He's doing two holes at a time.

A rather charmless brute, an homage to the un-fun, penal golf beyond the interest of completing a round, perhaps even bothering to make the turn. "The U.S. Open is supposed to be hard", repeat that mantra over and over and over. It's supposed to make the world's best play as we regular golfers do day-in and day-out.  I must admit that once I did buy into this concept and as an American I defended my country's Ruling Body for Golf and their posterchild of Tournament Golf. Oakmont does everything possible to make golf slow. Ironically the USGA face of "While we're young" program is none other than the Iconic Arnold Palmer - so strongly identified with Oakmont, especially after what was to be his Coronation in 1962 utterly ruined by the Greatest Major Player of all-time Jack William Nicklaus. Tied in regulation 72 holes, Palmer was never ahead in the playoff and was nearly ceremonial, albeit the most loved golfer perhaps of all time, in golf after that. (1966 at Olympic just deepened the misery of Palmer fans to abysmal levels)

Time has taught me otherwise, after such events as the persistent non-control of implements, lengthening golf courses by necessity, the disconnect of "Game Improvement Advances" ironically much more helpful to the more skilled golfer than the regular handicap man and woman intended to be the target of such advances. Average Handicaps (By the awful cheat-ridden methodology that is GHIN) have not risen or dropped significantly over the last 25 or so years, remaining about the proverbial Bogey Golfer among those who play regularly with some enthusiasm and financial commitment. Introduction to regular Links golf, not the faux version available in the USA also has had a profound influence on what I've felt a proper golf tournament should be. I am a proponent of dropping the PGA Championship in favor of an Australian Major played on Couch/Bermuda requiring the special skills required to play on that surface. It would also lend a credence of the US PGA Tour and US PGA not having such a stranglehold on the "Majors". So personally the USGA Open has fallen mightily in my eyes. They do however excel in Amateur golf.

Back to Oakmont. Built in the most mean-spirited way and made worse by narrowing fairways and deepening rough, I hear so mny golfers lately excited for this upcoming Major. The idea that the greens are slowed by the USGA for the US Open is laughable. To paraphrase Mae West "Too hard is never hard enough". Fast, sloping greens, absurd bunkering schemes, landlocked with often sweltering heat and little wind, little resemblance is borne to golf's origins. I'd pay not to play there.

Oakmont is the USGA on steroids, its pin-up course for "Par is Sacred". Johnny Miller despite winning there with a record (tied) 63 final round score in 1973, his sole US Major has oft opined that he'd be happy with the USGA Open played alternately at Pebble Beach and Shinnecock with something else thrown in every so often just to break it up. Can't call him a homer on that one, he won on a wet, soggy, toothless Oakmont. (UGH say the brass).

I have very little to say about Oakmont except that the Women's Open won by Paula Creamer was the most painful excuse for a golf tournament that I have ever attended. That was the last time I was on property, likely my truly not only last but "final visit".

The probability of a  first-time winner of a Major is greater than 50-50 but it will not be Dustin Johnson. THE BIG THREE make up the other 50% as I see it unfolding.