Olympic Club member here as well. The below take is not fully formed so I may just ramble a bit... One thing I've grown to understand and appreciate about the Lake Course is how well the course fits its identity. Without getting into its architectural merits, I'm just personally proud and satisfied that the course is what it intends to be: a stern championship course that demands a lot of a player's game if they intend to play well (you have to play smart and hit a lot of different shot shapes if you intend to score). And I'll say this now before the US Am field inevitably shreds the course but this is one of the few courses in the world that modern players cannot completely dismantle all day every day. In many ways, I also personally think it fits the bill very nicely for a club that defines itself on athletic achievement. We have legit Olympians as part of the club. I'm glad our course reflects that identity and is not some push over pasture that you can blow it all over and still score. There's many things that the Lake Course isn't, which many other great courses are: beginner friendly, heavily strategic and welcoming of alternate paths to the hole, etc. But its lack of box-checking in some of those areas shouldn't detract from its identity. An apple shouldn't be critiqued for not being an orange. I guess the last point I'll make which is probably a bit reductive is that in my opinion when it comes to (great) courses there's a simple way of thinking about them: 1) there's a few unique courses in the world that are highly strategic with many paths to the hole, varied hole types, and unique features that can equally test the the world's best and somehow are still fun to play as a less skilled golfer 2) there's others whose sole purpose is to test extremely skilled players (these may have flaws but at the end of the day when a trophy is handed out you can rest assured that a player truly golfed their ball that week) 3) there's others that are characterized by fun architecture, diverse optionality, and all the things we typically associate with great design but simply cannot test the best for one reason or another. 4) maybe there's a fourth bucket but I'm kinda coming up empty. Olympic is obviously number 2 in this bucketing exercise and IMO shouldn't try to strive to be anything otherwise. The land on which the course is built is extremely severe. The fact that someone thought to build a course on it to begin with is astonishing and the fact that we got a really good course on it is even more impressive. I guess all of the above is a long winded way of saying that I'm proud that our course delivers on its design principles of testing the best in a fair and varied way. I hope the US Am is fun for all involved. Cheers!

Great insights as always Garrett! As a proud Olympic Member, I feel like it’s my duty to defend our architecture at least a little bit 😉. To say the course’s identity is tight fairways, small greens, and too difficult, along with “repetitive” bunkering simplifies the Lake too much in my opinion. That take negates the incredible routing up, down and along the hill it’s been built on that provides its overall interest from hole to hole. It gives the player thought provoking golf shots beyond hitting it straight down a fairway and between 2 bunkers near a green. Additionally, I agree the greens are not complex by many architecturally great golf course standards, but they do fit the property perfectly and I feel that anything more provocative would feel too artificial. The greens do change things up along the way sloping right to left, left to right, and front to back on occasion that keeps us on our toes when playing our approaches. Glad you think the course is a great test for championship golf! But I do think it’s more than that when given the chance and playing the correct tees to enjoy the round. Cheers!

My theory is that there was a stump not fully extracted and it rotted over time causing the depression. Makes for some interesting approach outcomes which I love. When stymied or partially blocked it's fun to roll a gravitational slingshot on the edge towards the hole.

This title needs to get some credit. Absolutely NY Post worthy.

As someone who enjoys watching Spieth play competitively, I think the exemptions are hurting him in the grand scheme of things. If he is going to find "it" again, it would probably help (mentally) to go down to the PGA B tour and grind a little bit, go earn something again.

Once again, the PGA Tour faces a problem that has an easy fix, but they will never do it -- just make sponsor exemptions ineligible for FedEx points.

Everyone cares about pace of play until it comes to the first tee shot. Start the round with a par thee, or even back to back par threes, and pace will be better for everyone all day.

I'm kind of the opposite. I don't mind a slightly tougher start. Takes me 4 holes to get warmed up anyway. If I'm going to make a bogey I'd rather it be on a tougher hole 😅.

I love this course but the set up is leaving a lot to be desired lately. I played there yesterday in the middle of the day (the high was 90°) and it was so green, wet, and soft. My foursome had multiple mud balls and there was standing water on the 18th fairway. It’s making the course play significantly longer than it should. All four of our tee shots on 16 came to an immediate stop on landing when they should be feeding down towards the hole. I can’t imagine Mr. Hanse and Mr. Shackelford are vibing with it these days.

Bruce Hepner is one of the few architects/restoration specialists who use restraint “don’t overlook the soup” as a strength. The comparisons to Chicago Golf are noteworthy. To think this relationship began with words from Tom Doak in Confidential Guide “the club’s landscape committee over the past 60 years should be lined up and shot for planting so many trees of so many varieties” 5 Doak scale May 1994. Kudos to Blue Mound for changing directions over 20 years ago.