Let’s Get the US Open Back to Cherry Hills! – Henry Shimp
For context, not at all as a brag, I have now competed 6 times in the US Amateur. With confidence and not recency bias, I will say I have not played a golf course better suited for the highest level of competition than Cherry Hills. That is in comparison to Oakmont, Pinehurst No. 2, Atlanta Athletic Club, Bandon Dunes, and Oakland Hills.
Here are my takes:
1. Cherry Hills is a large and highly impressive country club.
The clubhouse just underwent an extensive renovation that has it in form to play host to something like the USGA and the membership is of the type that I believe would support (in the right way, looking at you ****) an event like the open at the highest level.
2. History.
Come on, the Palmer thing at Cherry is so real and bringing back the open to a course where one of the event’s most historical outings took place would be awesome. We went away from Merion for years and when the guys returned it was one of the best I can remember in some time.
3. The course is there, and it’s still fun to play without getting crazy.
A couple of the other places I’ve been to for the US Am as well as for other big events can get hard to the point where it starts to become so stressful, particularly on the greens, that the fun of the course goes away. Cherry doesn’t do that. It’s a bit hard to articulate, but the course is so fair for a hard place. You know what needs to happen, or not happen, on each shot and hole and it just becomes a matter of execution. Forgive me if I’m off the mark, but I believe that is what the US Open is about. Pros don’t get mad about difficulty. They get mad when delineation between good, bad, and great is obscured by unreasonable conditions and setup. Cherry Hills gets firm, the rough is long, and the greens are fast, but it does not get dumb in any way.
4. Isn’t this what the people have been asking for?
We are all seemingly clamoring for a narrow fairway, long rough, firm green open. Well, this is it. Now, hand in the air, can Cherry Hills get to where it’s at in the middle of August by the 3rd week of June? I’m not positive. But, assuming a little assistance from sub-air and rough that is left alone from the first of the year, I’m optimistic. Pull in the mowing lines a little, put the greens about where they are at this week, and let that rough go, and you’ve got the old school US Open vibe with the shiny, concrete greens everyone has been asking for.
Now, a couple counter points/things that would likely need further consideration.
1. Yes, it might not be long enough.
Even at 7400, with the firmness and elevation it plays short. I only hit 4 drivers around the course and my average 7 iron this week was from about 215 considering roll out on the greens. It would be a funky par 70 in my eyes as the 5th hole at 554 should probably be a par 4 which would leave only 2 par 5’s, both of which coming on the back nine.
To play devil’s advocate on the above point, although Cherry Hills may not be long enough, this is why architecture matters and the whole reason I think it is a good open candidate to begin with.
When the rough is long enough and the greens are firm enough, sorry stat guys, but you need to get in the game and out from behind the keyboard. The whole bomb and gouge, closer from the rough is always better deal does NOT stand up. I can promise you that there are plenty of spots at Cherry where if a pin is tucked and the greens being as firm as they are, 175 from the fairway is INFINITELY better than 100 from the 5 (maybe 8, no seriously) inch rough. Just take my word on this one. With a few fairways brought in a bit, and rough at the proper length and greens firm enough, this would mirror the 2013 open at Merion. Short, but plenty stout.
2. The driving range/practice facilities would need a step up.
Don’t get me wrong. For a US Amateur and particularly in a general sense, Cherry has wonderful practice facilities. But for a US Open, the range setup is as much of a spectator draw as anything these days and the current setup at Cherry isn’t enough for grandstands, etc. I kind of hate that this is a point of consideration, but it is. Whether it be off site, or Cherry adding a large area (I don’t know where this would be) the current setup couldn’t handle an open.
I played Cherry Hills for the first time about 4 years ago and my main takeaway was that it is highly underrated. After seeing it in top form, this opinion is only further substantiated. I have never seen such an intersection of challenge and enjoyment and the architectural pedigree of the place is top brass as a Willy Flynn original and now being the beneficiary of the oh so subtle yet oh so valuable work from Tom Doak. While I’m fine with the opinion that this is a place that may need to be put on hold until we finally decide to roll the ball back a bit, I still believe it could stand up to today’s game. The main point is that whatever we need to do to get a US Open back to Cherry Hills, we need to do. This place rocks, and with the conditions people have been wanting to see the US Open return to in recent years, I can report to you all that it’s out there. In the mile high city with the front range of the Rockies in the backdrop. Cherry Hills, it’s rather hellish rough, and rock hard greens await. Maybe it can get the next available slot for the US Open if we’re lucky… in 2075!