80 Golf WorldAugust 2017
our radar since literally before it was even
a golf course. And, most of that was just
because we loved the piece of property and
were intrigued by it.
Unusually for Wisconsin [which tends
to be flat, heavy farmland] this is actually
the remnants of a glacier which pushed up
loads of sand and soil, about 10,000 years
ago. There’s wonderful movement to the
land. It’s really well-drained. And when
you play on well-drained, bouncy land it
adds to the test of golf and the enjoyment
because you have to think about what
happens when your ball lands, and then
where it is going to roll to.
We’ve never before taken a US Open to
Wisconsin. We tend to concentrate on
east coast and west coast courses. So this
was a middle America property, a new
property with new architecture, plus it’s a
public access course, not a private club, so
golfers can actually play here. And that’s
important to us.I’ve heard that it was designed specifically
to host a US Open. Is that true?
I think that would be inaccurate. When
the previous owner – Bob Lang – started
it, he knew what a special piece of
property he had. And the architects Mike
Hurdzan, Dana Fry and Ron Whitten
also knew what a great piece of property
it was; so they went into it with a very
minimalistic mind-set.
We saw the course before it was even
built but we didn’t get involved in the
design. The only thing we did was point
out to them that if they wanted to have a
really big event then they needed to think
a bit about how you want to move people
around, about the road infrastructure and
so on. The owner may have said “I want
to host the US Open”, and that was
actually one of the reasons I went out there
the first time. Ron Whitten actually
reached out to me in about 2002 and said
“There’s this place where they’re going to
buildagolfcourse,andit’llbegood
enoughtohost a US Open
Igetthosetypeofcomm
all the time, and usuallyth
to nothing.ButRonwaslea
enough, and knew enough
aboutgolfcoursearchitect
that we went out andvisite
it. And now, 15years later,
actually came true.Howmuchinput has theU
hadinthecoursethisyear
We’ve had some.While wereallyhavemuchsayintheinitialdesign,
we played the US Women’s Public Links
there in 2008 and the US Amateur in- Those events showed us that some
things didn’t work as well as they could
have.Whenwegotoanoldcourse like
Shinnecock or Oakmont, they have
evolvedover100years.Andthey’ve
made changes, sometimes
nships, sometimes not.
hat’s happened with Erin
cause it’s hadthese
onshipsbestowedonit,it’s
alittlefasterthananormal
So, we’ve had input. But it
bewrongto sayit’saUSGA
ourse. Our input has been
pretty minimal.
aywas,yousaid,“radically
hitecturally”fromprevious
ues.IsErinHillssimilar?Or
ore expected test?
latter. The architects reallywentoutoftheirwaytomakethisas
minimalistic as possible. So, they just laid
these holes out, right on the ground. And
some of the changes which were made
were because they were almost a bit too
minimalistic. But, for the most part, it’s
pleasing because it doesn’t look artificial.
At Chambers Bay, where balls just
bounced in unique directions, you really
won’t see that at Erin Hills. It’s more of
a traditional course. The grasses are fine
fescue, the putting greens are bent grass
and it has very few trees.
The fairways should have a slight tanned
tinge to them, because they are fescue.
And, if we’re lucky enough that it’s dry,
you’re not going to see a dark green course,
like you see at some US Opens.You said after Chambers Bay, “we did
everything we could”. How much of
your planning is at the mercy of the
seasons and the elements?
We feel that – just because of the type ofDavis expects Erin Hills’ wid
undulating greens to prod
scoring US Open t‘In an ideal world, we wouldn’t be taking the
US Open to Erin Hills so soon after ChambersBay. But it’s a risk we think is well worth taking’