Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jim Franklin on October 19, 2005, 09:27:00 AM
-
I just played Oakmont yesterday and the changes are still going on. The course is playing a lot tighter and penal as the new bunkers are deep and pinching the fairways more and more. I am not sure what they are doing on the right side of 15, but they are adding Church Pews on the left. There was an elbow shaped hole at about 180 from the green and my host looked confused at what they were doing. He is a three time club champ and also plays the Crump each year. The views without the trees were great and they are going to eliminate some more of the surrounding trees as time goes on. #12 will be stretched to 676 yards with the new tee being next to the 10th tee. We only played a few of the back tees with the 285 yard par 3 8th being one of them and, into a nice breeze, I hit a 3-wood to the center of the green for a nice two putt par. My host hit a slinging hook driver that went through the green and our opoponents hit drivers short. All in all, Oakmont and their changes are pretty impressive.
-
:o 285-yard par-3!? :o
-
I heard Bobby Weed talk about the added lenght at Oakmont this summer.
He played Oakmont with Jack Nicklaus and on that 285 yard par 3 they BOTH hit driver.
He also mentioned how Hank Kuehne once said the day he needs a wood for a par 3 is the day he gives up the game. Well, if he uses an iron for that hole at the Open this year I wll be very impressed ;)
Jason
-
Jason -
He could probably get away with hitting an iron. It is 245 to clear the right edge of the bunker and the ball will roll the rest of the way to the green. It is a long Redan type hole. Now if he aims further left, the carry becomes more significant and I don't think he could hit an iron. Also, I played it into the wind and hit 3 wood to the center. I don't carry any other woods so if it was downwind, I may have to hit iron too ;).
-
Nothing wrong with a 285 yard par three today.
What club do you think the pros were hitting into 250 yard par 3's in the 20's and 30's designed by Ross, Flynn, Tillie and others?
Bob
-
Jim - those are brand new Church pews they are adding? if yes, that seems "sacreligious" to me....doesn't it seem as if the original Church Pews should remain the only ones???
-
There were always a mini set there and they are making them bigger. By the way, the originals are getting a few more pews too.
-
I assume the 285 yard par 3 has no significant elevation change or other distance decreasing factor?
If so, well it goes as a two shot hole for both the bogey and the scratch for course rating purposes. It's not that big of a deal... absent a tiny green or other penal factors it's going to be an exceedingly easy two-shotter and so the net difference won't be much from an exceedingly hard one-shotter.. but it will be a two-shotter nonetheless, and the approach won't be judged based on the 285 yard shot.
Just thought of something else - if it is 245 to carry a bunker, and there is no easy way around such, we might have to have the scratch lay up by choice... he only gets 225 carry plus 25 roll the way course rating works.
I know this is interesting to no one but me and perhaps John VanderBorght... so bear with me. My whole point in mentioning this is that the course surely can call a hole whatever they wish in terms of par... but for rating purposes, well that hole is a par 4.
TH
-
Huck -
It is downhill slightly and you can aim further right and not worry about the 245 carry too. The hole will max out at 300 yards.
-
Tom,
It interests me a lot, actually. Does this get encountered a lot in the process of rating a course?
If so, it seems that there could be some significant course rating inflation.
-
Huck, the hole is very slightly downhill and the back tee is slightly elevated. During the Am, I think it was playing about 250 to the center of the green and I saw lots of guys carrying irons to the green.
Paul, my understanding of the ongoing work at Oakmont is that it is all being guided by historical photos (except for new back tees, obviously). If they are putting in a mini church pew on 15, I'd wager it must have been there before.
Jim, you got a beautiful day in the Burgh if you played yesterday (Tuesday). I hope you appreciate that we don't normally have San Diego type weather here. :) Today is even nicer.
I know you're a big hitter - do you mind sharing how you played the #s 4 & 12, the two par 5s for the Open?
-
Jim:
It's going to need to be VERY VERY downhill for us to get the scratch onto the green. Remember normal distances are 225+25. And it's good to know there is a way around the 245 carry. Most likely we give him his 250 plus allow a little for downhill and/or additional roll, and have him pitching in from the right. Like I say, it's not going to make a huge difference in the final number so this is more of a curiousity than anything else. But his approach target is indeed going to be from somewhere around 35 yards, not 285.
Kyle:
No, I can't imagine that this is encountered very often. Look at it this way: how many par threes over 250 yards do you find?
TH
-
Tom,
Not enough.
However, I was also speaking for Par 4s and 5s as well. Depending on the design of the hole, that could effectively add a shot to the hole...
-
In the context of the modern game, this is a good par 3. You can run the ball onto the green.
At the old tips distance of 238-240, it's a big par 3 but now an iron for the Tigers and Hanks of the current world. But the 238-240 tee is still there so the mortals of the world can be challenged as well!
One question: will #9 be played as a par 5?
Another: how far is the 12th tee from the tenth tee now? I have been wracking my feeble brain and cannot remember that 12th tee being anywhere near the 10th! The carry over those corner bunkers will be daunting even for the Tiger and Hank crowd! And I don't care how long they make that hole, stopping a pitch anywhere near a front pin is impossible!
-
I will just say that it disturbs me that they are having to make such substantial changes to a great course like Oakmont to keep it "up to date."
If I were building a course for Tour pros today I wouldn't have qualms about a 285-yard par-3, but this isn't some schlocky modern course; it's Oakmont.
-
George -
Yesterday was an ideal day to play. We did not play all of the back tees and I know we were way up on #4 as I hit a good drive, but only had 220 left. I think we were the third box up. I did not think to look at the yardage. On #12, we were one tee box up and it played to a fairly hard left to right helping wind. I hit about the best drive I could and had 225 to the middle. I hit a four iron pin high from there.
Not that you asked, but on #1 I had 130 left and #10 I had 80 left. I hit my driver about as well as I have all season yesterday.
-
Not that you asked, but on #1 I had 130 left and #10 I had 80 left. I hit my driver about as well as I have all season yesterday.
Bet those weren't your normal 130 and 80 approach shots! :)
-
One question: will #9 be played as a par 5?
Others could be more definitive, but I'm reasonably certain it will play as a par 4. No real room to stretch the tee back, easily reachable by most tour pros, plus it fits the "ball buster par 4 closing hole on a 9" mold that most tournament organizers seem to prefer.
It's still a par 6 for me....
-
Tom,
Not enough.
However, I was also speaking for Par 4s and 5s as well. Depending on the design of the hole, that could effectively add a shot to the hole...
For course rating, distances absent elevation/altitude/roll adjustments for the scratch player are 225+25=250 off the tee, then 225 off the ground thereafter.
Thus par 4s over 475 might have this "extra shot" effect, and it would take a par 5 over 700 to achieve it.
Obstacles can effect this as well - but we're just talking pure distance here.
So yes, the way courses are being laid out today, there will be quite a few holes over 475 that courses call a par 4. And given the way the ball goes today, it's very realistic.
Just do understand that in these cases, again the net difference isn't going to mean very much. John V. can quantify this much better than I can, but think of it as a very easy par 5 as against a very hard par 4. Your scoring averages are going to be pretty close, right? That's how it's going to work out for course rating also, more or less.
Thus it is just a curiousity.
One more thing: don't get too caught up in these course rating distances being "unrealistic." Remember if they're the same for everyone, it really doesn't matter much what they are. These numbers just need to be the same course to course to make the handicap system work.
TH
-
No George, they weren't your normal 130 or 80 yard approach shots. The 130 my caddy said don't hit it more than 105, so I hit SW and still left it above the hole, but two putted. The 80 yarder I hit LW to the front right fringe and got a great spin to the left for about a 10 footer for birdie, but, alas, I yanked my putt and made par.
#9 will be a par 4 in the Open. The tee will stay the same, but the two trees near the tee are coming down as the turnpike is being widened. The bridge is being rerouted too. It certainly is a ball buster if you don't hit the fairway.
-
Tom,
Roger on all fronts. When I was in the one Golf Architecture class I took at Penn State, we had a day about course rating and slope, and I've often wondered if architects considered that process in order to make their courses "appear" more difficult based on the numbers.
Could be a powerful tool for marketing.
-
Kyle - I've wondered that also, and in fact once did a topic on here asking that very question. A simple knowledge of the process would allow one to gear a course to get a huge slope (or course rating), if that was the goal. The response I got was the one I hoped for - that no architect had yet worked for a developer/owner for whom huge slope or rating was the sole and only goal.
So while lots of golf courses do use this as a marketing tool - sadly, I think - well it hasn't seem to have gone overboard. Yet.
I'm waiting for the course that trumpets and advertises it's high course rating and low slope... I've said this way too many times already on this site, but man to me that's what the perfect, most fun for all golf course should be.
TH
-
Sorry to say, I don't really care much at all about the results of the Slope system. If it works properly, then it evens out the playing field whether I am building a difficult course or a tricky one or an easy one, so why should I care what the slope is? (And if it doesn't work properly, why should I waste my time on a system that doesn't work? ;) )
I do think a lot about the difficulty of my courses, and how different players may be affected by certain features, but I do it in a way more complicated form than the Slope system, where every scratch player hits the ball one distance and every "bogey" player hits it a different distance.
What you are really describing with the Oakmont hole is the weakness of the Slope system. Distance in golf is a continuum and an extra ten yards is always meaningful, to some players more than others.
-
Tom,
Thanks for the course rating perspective, this is quite interesting.
One more thing: don't get too caught up in these course rating distances being "unrealistic." Remember if they're the same for everyone, it really doesn't matter much what they are. These numbers just need to be the same course to course to make the handicap system work.
Is this really true?
What are the distances for non-scratch players under this system? And, furthermore, are these distances equally as unrealistic as those for the scratch player?
I ask because if the two are not equally unrealistic (off from real distances by approximately the same amount), then the scratch and non-scratch players may not be on equal ground within the system. Since technology increases seem to have given more distance to scratch players than high handicappers, perhaps there is a larger distance gap between the two now and the high handicappers are at a disadvantage.
Out of curiosity, how old are those distance numbers?
-
Tom D:
Well I'd hope to God you don't think about the slope system as you design your courses, and it is very heartening to hear you have far deeper thoughts as you design. I would expect nothing less. ;D
As for the hole at Oakmont showing a weakness of the slope system, well I don't see that. But fair enough, even if it does, well it's a quite rare exception I think the world can live with. If a course wants to call a 285 yard hole a par three, then let them. The tiny percentage of golfers who can reach such a hole with one shot deserve to defeat the system a little, no?
In any case no need to apologize - the one's who ought to apologize are the ones who DO design with slope in mind.
TH
-
What you are really describing with the Oakmont hole is the weakness of the Slope system. Distance in golf is a continuum and an extra ten yards is always meaningful, to some players more than others.
Indeed, and the same goes for other challenges that are not distance related: they affect each player differently.
Could the rating/slope information be more accurately derived from actual posted scores? This seems to be how standard scratch is calculated in the UK (correct me if I'm wrong).
-
Andrew:
Bogey distances are 175+25=200 off the tee, then 175 off the turf.
Scratch has a pretty big advantage. I don't see that being very different in "reality" with today's equipment, in a relative sense.
I don't know how long these distances have been in place - we need John V., who is WAY more knowledgeable than I am regarding all of this.
TH
-
Andrew:
Please understand these distances are just one factor in the course rating process - they are the basis for all of it, true - but EVERYTHING else is considered, in the way of obstacles, elevation, wind, whatever. My posts today are just discussing distance.
As for basing course rating on posted scores, that might work... but the current system does just fine, believe me.
Oh man we have beaten this to death WAY too many times. Lots of people complain about this... just get Rich Goodale started.
The bottom line is that the system works pretty damn well as it is.
I knew I'd regret my curiousity about the hole at Oakmont...
:'(
-
Toms, Andrew, et al.,
What's even scarier is that an older, established course, looking for a new edge could build a whole new set of tees to bring existing features into the forefront slope/rating-wise... get them rated, and then never put the tees on them.
This is getting off topic, but do local associations have oversight as to how a rated tee is implemented?
-
I doubt any association can have any sway on how often tees are used.
If they have a set of tees they want rated, we rate them. On any hole tees have to be 25 yards apart to get a separate rating though.
TH
-
Jim Frankln said:
"....but they are adding Church Pews on the left. There was an elbow shaped hole at about 180 from the green and my host looked confused at what they were doing."
Hmmm, that doesn't sound very good if your host, seeing as who he is, was confused about it. If I find out Mark Studer is confused about it too, I think I'm gonna get real concerned. Do they have some reincarnation of William Fownes around there now who used to demand (even when he was in Mass.) that the superintendent put a bunker in overnight? ;)
-
Tom -
You are right it is not good for my host ;). I thought the elbow shaped hole could be part of a new drainage area because it was not shaped like a normal bunker as it was really deep and narrow. There was a dug out hole in front of it that was most certainly a bunker. Fownes must have a ghost there as the course is certainly getting harder and harder.
-
Hmm...
Let's see...
Tighter, longer, new bunkers added, old bunkers moved. Where have I heard this before?
Did someone say this is a "restoration"?
-
Jim Franklin, love your story about #10, hitting LW right front to get to a left pin.
The first time I played Oakmont #10 was playing maybe 440 and I hit driver a little thin and hit 2 iron about 15 yards short. Maybe the course was wet. ;D
The pin is back left. I'm out in front dead center. The caddy puts the bag down, I reach for the 8 iron, he says, "Uh uh," and hands me the SW, says flop it right over there, pointing to the right front of the green.
I pitched it just like he said. It seemed like it took five minutes for the ball to trickle down to that left back hole. It finally came to rest about three feet behind the hole and I stabbed in my par putt.
Never forgot that, this was about 15 years ago, maybe 20.
What a course. Is there another in the world with three such wonderful fall away greens as #1, #10 and #12?
-
"Is there another in the world with three such wonderful fall away greens as #1, #10 and #12?"
Bill:
You got that right. For fall-away greens with some truly interesting and intense playability requiring real imagination, those three on one course are pretty tough to top.
You know, I'Ve been reading all these old Golden Age guys in the 1920s who all seem to say it's really bad form in architecture to build greens that fall away from the shot. Thankfully Oakmont and the Fownes did what they did there that way before thinking got as standardized that way as it seems to have from the writing in the 1920s. I would love to know what Oakmont looked like around 1910!
-
Tom,
I've shared this quote from legendary Canadian golf architect Vernon Macan before. Nonetheless, it seems an appropriate fit here, again.
"Today, the uninformed believe a green should be constructed with the slope from back to front, so that it will retain the ball. In brief, this suggests the shot should be a mechanical operation and the result a mathematical certainty. This is not the game of golf. Golf was not conceived as a mechanical operation but rather full of fun and adventure. Many things could happen to the ball after it pitched on the green. The ill-happenings were not regarded as ill-fortune or ill-luck, but part of the adventure, and the more skilled found methods to overcome the risks of ill-fortune."
Great stuff, eh!
-
Jeff, there are several greens at Macan's Columbia-Edgewater CC in Portland that have very subtle fall away slopes at the back and back corners. I would love to know how much those greens were changed during "renovations" over the years by Bob Cupp and others. CECC has a wonderful set of varied greens, no two really alike.
Tom, MacKenzie was not above the occasional fall away green. #7 at The Valley Club is the example that comes to mind most readily, but I'm sure there are more.
-
Whether you agree with the changes to Oakmont or not the reality is, if Henry Fownes were alive today the course would play 7800 yards and have over 500 bunkers. He was well ahead of his time with keeping the course current with changing technology.
Greg Boring
-
Since Tom H has used my name a few times I guess I'll chime in now that I'm back home after rating a course today, unfortunately not one that is anywhere near the league of Oakmont. This will probably be quite long as there is a lot to answer.
We will be rating Oakmont next year some time when they get all the changes in place. First let me say that most of the changes being made are based on an aerial photograph from the late 1940s which was when Mr. Fownes died so it probably reflects his thoughts. The only area where they seem to have done something a little odd is that they really pinched in the end of the landing area on #14 to force the driver out of the big hitter's hands. The adding of length will restore similar shot values to most of the course. I have an ad from an old American Golfer that talks about the 15th at Oakmont being a 475 yard par 4 in 1927. #9 will be played as a par 4 for the US Open. But who cares as par doesn't matter.
As for #8, if we rate the back tee separately we would probably rate it as a par 4. But, due to some possible changes in the course rating system next year, we might only be rating one set of tees for men and one for women in the future. Yardage differences will be used for all the rest. In that case, we would rate the most frequently used tee which will definitely not be the back one at Oakmont.
In the >100 courses I've rated, I can't recall seeing a par 3 that would be rated as a 4 from one tee. We do see the opposite quite frequently though. Today we had a par 4 that had a senior tee that was only 228 yards so we rated it as a par 3.
Tom H. you were 5 yards off on both the scratch and bogey golfers second shots, they are 220 and 170. Add 220 to 250 and the "maximum" for a par 4 is 470 yards. We certainly do encounter par 4s over 470 yards. There is no difference in rating a par 4 or a par 5 so it really doesn't matter what the club wants to call it. We also see a lot of par 5s under 470, especially on older courses. That also doesn't matter.
In regards to manipulating the course rating system, it wouldn't be hard. To get a higher course rating, tighten the fairways from 225 to 250. To get a higher slope, tighten them at 180-200 and again at 360-370. Or build a creek across the fairway 20 yards short of the maximum carry distance for the player you to increase. To get both numbers up there, grow the rough real high and get the greens real fast. Lots of other ways also. On top of that, by making holes of certain lengths just short of the 2 or 3 shot maximums for specific golfers you can get the numbers up.
I do know of one owner who really cares about his slope and course rating and wants the slope as high as possible. We got a call asking why his course had a lower slope than Pine Valley. We pointed out that the course rating was much higher and the bogey rating was higher, but the difference between them was less so the slope was lower.
Tom D, I'm glad you don't care to think about the slope system and I would hope that most if not all architects also do.
Tom H, as for the tiny % of players who can reach the 285 yard par 3, there won't be many players who play it at that length and I would assume that most of them at least think they can reach it. I know we didn't go near there two weeks ago when we played it.
Kyle, As for someone jobbing the system by building tees and never using them, when we prepare a course for rating, we look at wear patterns and try to find the middle of the areas that are being used. So, if a course that built a 50 yard long tee and tried to tell us to rate it from the back and we say all the divots and the like in the front would find we didn't do what they want. For new courses, we go back every 2-3 years for the first 10 years to make sure they haven't change things too much. Sometimes they will grow the rough real high at first and then when the see the effect it has on pace of play, the start cutting it shorter.
-
Gents:
The changes made to the 8th at Oakmont are not ill-conceived by any stretch and I believe having the hole play 285 yards given the wide opening in front is entirely appropriate for the world's best when they play there in 2007.
I see nothing wrong in having the world's best pull out a 3-metal or its equivalent when playing the hole. If the wekaest in the field need to hit driver so be it. Many a player has done similar things when playing other such long par-3's liek the 16th at Cypress or the 16th at Carnoustie when conditions warrant.
For the people bitching and moaning about the length of the hole do yourself a big time favor -- move up to where you can play it. The length for the best players in the world is not unfair or inappropriate IMHO.
Greg B makes a very astute observation concerning the Fownes philosophy -- there was never a thought on making the course fair and easy -- it was always meant to be a demanding no-nonsense layout. Oakmont never suffers
fools -- whether in person or on GCA.
If the USGA is smart -- an always problematic assumption -- the tee boxes will be played at different lengths so that al the players in the field have some sort of equal opportunity.
-
Matt, et al,
I, too, am in the 285 Par 3 is good camp. Frankly, there aren't enough 220+ par 3s out there to test that aspect of the game.
What club is most often left in the bag?
3-wood
A LONG par 3 changes that.
-
Matt, et al,
I, too, am in the 285 Par 3 is good camp. Frankly, there aren't enough 220+ par 3s out there to test that aspect of the game.
Kyle, it seems that that's all that's been created over the last 20 years. If anything, there's a shortage of good, short par 3's. And, there's definitely a lack of balance or diversity amongst par threes. All too often all four are all long.
One only has to look at Pine Valley to see what's happened to par 3's.[/color]
What club is most often left in the bag?
3-wood
I thought that's what par 5's were for.[/color]
A LONG par 3 changes that.
I"m not so sure that long par 3's haven't become the rule rather than the exception.[/color]
-
Pat,
I'll add the qualifier "in my experience," which is about 80 courses - maybe 20 of which are notable. I am at least photographically familiar with Pine Valley, and I was under the impression that the fifth hole was the only really long Par 3 out there. Are 3 and 14 of similar length? I thought both played in the mid-long iron range.
I certainly hope that 10 isn't that long. ;)
Rolling Green's 10th, to me, is an ideal model for the long Par 3. However, I wouldn't want to play four par 3s like that in a round, either. I just like the thought of having a wood in my hand on one of the par 3s for some courses.
I do agree with you that there are also too few short par 3s, however, I was unaware of an abundance of long par 3s as well. Just seems that every course, new and old, that I play has me hitting a 4-6 iron into the green from the tips on all their par 3s.
-
Kyle Harris,
The 14th at Pine Valley is now 220 yards.
With wind in your face it can be a 3-wood to a driver.
# 3 is now 198 yards long, but wait a while and that too may change.
Thankfully, land constraints don't allow substantive lengthening of the 10th hole which presently plays to 161 yards.
-
Oakmont never suffers
fools -- whether in person or on GCA.
What, exactly, does that mean?
-
JVB -
Thanks for that insight, very interesting to learn.
Pat -
I agree that the short par 3 is a lost art form and most new courses have the 200+ yard par three's. Also, your boys got jobbed versus SC.
-
Jim, I confirmed with our handicap director that when we rate the back tee on #8 we will rate it as a par 4 regardless of what it says on the card.
-
Thanks John, I always wondered how this was done.
So rating number 8 as a par 4 will give Oakmont an even higher course rating.
Are there plans to increase the yardage minimums due to technology?
-
JV:
Many thanks for setting the record straight re all of this - you are my rock. And hey, what's 5 yards among friends. ;)
But that just shows that relative newbies like me (4 years doing this now) ought to stick to the book, and/or think more before they write.
Re the 285 par three and my point that those who play that and can reach it ought to get an advantage, we are copacectic there. I would assume that very few people actually play that tee and those who do will believe they can reach, and actually do so as Jim did.
And re rating it as a par 4, well given the distances we use for scratch, do you have a choice? That is, in what reality could you get the scratch on the green in one shot (and those make Target value based on the tee shot)?
That was my point... that regardless of what Oakmont says o the card, the reality of course rating makes it a two-shot hole.
But please do clarify... I must be missing something else here. Hey, it's the end of the season and I've only done 7 ratings this year.
;D
-
Thanks John, I always wondered how this was done.
So rating number 8 as a par 4 will give Oakmont an even higher course rating.
Are there plans to increase the yardage minimums due to technology?
It probably will have a very minimal effect if any and it might even give it a lower rating. The Green Target value is based on the length of shot into the green. If it was rated as a par three, that length would be 285 for the scratch and 85 for the bogey. Rating it as a par 4 means it will be a 35 yard shot for the scratch and still 85 yards for the bogey. The Green target will be much lower for the scratch than as a par 3. This will cause other numbers to be lower also. But, some numbers such as having a fairway rating will go up (don't have that on a par 3). All the multipliers of these change also so I'm not sure how the rating will change, but it would be so minimal as to not matter.
There are no plans to increase the yardage numbers, although the definition of a scratch golfer might change. Currently it is defined as what the average player who made match play at the US Amateur would shoot in his 10 best of 20 rounds. But, it is now recognized that these players are usually plus handicaps so it is wrong to use them as the standard for a scratch golfer. Changing that definition will bring the 250 yard scratch golfer closer to reality. I played with a scratch golfer yesterday who hits it about 250 yards so they do exist.
-
The real issue would have been if the 16th (235 yards+) had been lengthened -- then a much more compellign case about "unfairness" or the like could be made.
The 16th is easily the more demanding of the long par-3's at Oakmont IMHO -- I have personally witness the last three US Opens there and the front right pin placement -- usually in the final round -- is very demanding and almost unplayable.
The room fronting the 8th will permit the bounce-on shot and thus is a bit more flexibile even with the added length.
-
Matt -
You hit the nail on the head as I think #16 is defintely harder than the 8th. Front right would be a pretty tough spot. Fortunately, it was back left on Tuesday ;).
-
Here are some pictures from 10 days ago, of some of the current work at Oakmont. The bulk of the activity was around the green on #14, and on the opposite sides of the fairway in the landing zone of #15...
From #14 landing zone, looking at the green
(http://www.pbase.com/image/51018397/large.jpg)
From greenside right, looking back down the fairway
(http://www.pbase.com/image/51018411/large.jpg)
From #10, wide view catching the front edge of the current back tee on #12 (note the Open tee is off the picture to the left), the 14th green and then looking down the 15th fairway at the work being done there
(http://www.pbase.com/image/51018419/large.jpg)
We were participating in a charity event, so we did not have a member host, but the caddies claimed that the work on #14 was for pinching the fescues all the way in towards the green. We saw some obvious bunker drainage going in, so either some new bunkers were going in there as well, or existing ones were being re-plumbed. By the way, the existing back tee on #14 is at 360 yds, and the club's concern was that the green would be driven, thus the work being done. I don't believe that tee can be moved back, as it is already on the top of a hill behind the 13th green
View of the all-world #15 green, looking back up the fairway to the clubhouse
(http://www.pbase.com/image/51018455/large.jpg)
The caddies were not sure whether the re-done area in the left rough (right side of picture) was a true Church Pew or a multi-"toothe" bunker complex. They claimed it was to mirror the grass Pews on the opposite side of the fairway
From middle tee on #18, looking back across the #15 fairway (near-ground), past the work around #14 green, across #12 tee, #10 fairway, to #9 fairway in the distance in front of the tree-line (you can't see the 1st fairway which is right in front of the tree line)
(http://www.pbase.com/image/51018495/large.jpg)
Again #18, but rotated a bit to the right, still catching the work on #15 in the left foreground
(http://www.pbase.com/image/51018504/large.jpg)
Someone mentioned that Oakmont "does not suffer fools". Boy, was that a perfect choice of phrases. I can't imagine trying to play that course on a regular basis as a mid-high HCP'er, even from the proper set of tees. As Jim F mentioned, it was very difficult to execute even the safest-appearing recovery shots from rough that was thick and dense, but not necessarily long. There is no such thing as a tap-in, or gimme putt, as there is so much character to the greens, and they weren't even at "Oakmont" typical speed last week.
Oakmont is an examination, a measuring stick, if you will, for where you are and what kind of grasp you have on your game at that moment. I can't fathom anyone "getting away" with shots at Oakmont, or getting many lucky bounces, and that is why I think it doesn't suffer fools.
-
Peter:
It was I who mentioned about not suffering fools -- Oakmont is America's best parksland course IMHO. The work that is still being done will only help further the considerable reputation the club has enjoyed.
What many people don't realize is that the Fownes philosophy was clearly Calvinistic in its approach to golf. Souls that sin were eternally damned on the course and to the pleasure of the founders. At Oakmont -- you get a layout that will carve away and eat any mistakes you make. Some will not find that kind of golf fun and I can certainly understand the hesitation to embrace such a style.
What strikes me about Oakmont and elevates it ahead of another strong layout like Winged Foot / West is the level of details on the greens and the sheer range / diversity of holes encountered when playing.
Nonetheless, for me Oakmont belongs in the highest level of courses I have ever played in the States. Yes, there are going to be some additional changes as the '07 US Open approaches but I see those changes in line with what the course needs to be given the techonological gains made since the '93 event.
P.S. The one change I wish was not made is switching the par-5 9th to a long par-4. I know it doesn't mean that much since a score is a score regardless of it's par but I alway thought the 9th provided that comeback eagle / birdie attempt after facing the long par-3 8th.
-
Peter Hereid,
What do you think is the average handicap of the membership at Oakmont ?
-
When we played Tuesday, we played the front 9 behind two woman that could be 70+ each, and were never held up at all. Granted they were on carts, but hit the ball a little, drove, hit it again. Their handicap couldn't be much lower than 30.
-
Here's what I've never fully "gotten" about Oakmont:
I understand it's great fun for Matt Ward. In fact I'd be shocked if he doesn't have it in his world top 5, right up there with Shinnecock. Examination of one's game seems to be the top criterion for Matt, and there's nothing at all wrong with that - lots of people think that way. Tough but fair is what it's all about. (And Matt, I know I am WAY overgeneralizing but you are a known entity here so you work for this example).
Is it any fun at all for the rest of us, who don't hit 350 yard drives and 240 yard 4 irons, miss chips and putts all the time, and otherwise make mistakes?
Several have tried to explain to me that it would be. Yet still, every time the course comes up, all that is trumpeted is its difficulty and how it doesn't suffer fools.
For me, true greatness means a course would please both Matt Ward and me. I just don't see Oakmont doing the latter, just as far too many courses that Matt would find too easy don't do the former.
So let's try again... how is Oakmont any fun for a guy like me?
TH
-
Patrick Muci--
I did not make an effort to peruse the HCP listings in the locker room. I would not even care to guess...
I would have this gut reaction, not based in fact but only in instinct--that my 14 HCP from the northwest corner wouldn't match up so well against a 14 HCP from Oakmont...
Again, this is only my opinion...
-
Huck -
JohnV says it well here (pulled from another thread):
That's more like my wife's dream top twenty. :)
As for playing Oakmont on a regular basis, one of the other posters on this board made a similar comment after playing Oakmont for the first time - it was too hard for him to want to be a member. However, after having a few more cracks at it, he has changed his opinion.
And I reserve the right to change my opinion again after Friday. ;)
I enjoy having fun when I play golf and sometimes if it is too hard it isn't fun. But the more I've played and seen Oakmont, the more I'm convinced it is fun as well as hard. Oakmont challanges you on every shot, but you can play it without losing a ball (assuming you have a decent caddie.)
Some other courses where you can lose a golf ball on every shot are not fun, just hard. A friend of mine who is a 12 handicap lost three golf balls on three consecutive tee shots a few days ago at a course. That is not fun. You don't want to sit around reloading all day and if a course is very difficult and penalizes you in that manner, I don't consider it great.
If you can find it and hit it, but be suitably punished for the mistake it is great. Oakmont is that kind of course as Cary's description of his round implies. He (and I) might not be good enough to shoot a great score there, but we can still play it and give it a great effort without feeling like we just reloading until we get it right.
I think you'd love it, but I could be wrong!
-
Huck:
Re-read what Tom Doak said about Shinnecock Hills in "Confidential Guide" - I would apply that same linkage to different handicap types at Oakmont.
Keep this in mind there are at times more than a few people who will post comments on a given course that they claims is too tough or too unforgiving. Guess what? They may be right but likely because they are judging the course ONLY from their perspective and as I have seen personally over the years from playing the course at a given length that is beyond their ability level.
Naturally, the person making such a claim doesn't see that the course is too strong for them at a given tee box -- therefore the course is simply impossible to play, unfair, you know the verbal dress-down drill. These are the same clowns who drown in their brewskis after a round and are looking for some sympathy. I know such a drill would not apply to you.
I have had the opportunity to have played Oakmont about a half a dozen times over the years -- my last two times have come recently since a good bit of work has been to the course.
The layout now has more a-i-r and less of the confining and inane tree plantings that took away the stark visual image you get of Oakmont from the early photos of the course.
Huck -- help me out with something -- you draw a conclusion that Oakmont would not be any fun for you. I don't know the answer to this -- but have you ever played the course? Might it be more prudent to hold such comments until you do?
P.S. Huck -- I appreciate your characterization of my views on courses but it's a bit of a generalization and at times fits a certain stereotype easy for people to say over and over again when I opine on a given course. I enjoy plenty of different courses and there are quite a few I have played over the years that are not beyond 6,500 yards or have CR's beyond 74 or slopes higher than 135.
Great courses of all types -- do not suffer fools -- they are quite adept in identifying the better player in their consistent and thorough examination they provide. Such an examination goes beyond the "350-yard tee shot & and the 240-yard 4-iron" that you mentioned. Oakmont is simply a superb layout with an equally storied reputation -- albeit -- one geared more towards the penal school of thought. However, minus Sam Parks in '35 if you examine the names of champions who have been crowned there over the years it is an impressive roster that only a very select handful of courses can possibly match or exceed.
-
Huck -
I think Matt is right, you may hate it from the green tees, but from the blues you may find it wonderful. I would bet that you find place this course in your top 10 if you played it. The history alone is enough to give you goose bumps all the way around. Sure, it is hard, but it is fun too. We have never played together, but I am not the straightest driver in the world, so finding rough and bunkers is not uncommon for me and I loved the place.
-
George:
Thanks. JV's comments are powerful, as were yours before as well as Kyle's when we discussed this before. But somehow I can't get over the hump here, so to speak. It still seems to me to be a torture test first, fun second. And I'm still not convinced where the fun occurs. One must have a reasonable chance at success in this game, and I've yet to hear anyone say that can occur at Oakmont.
Matt:
Chill. Notice how I said in my post "And Matt, I know I am WAY overgeneralizing but you are a known entity here so you work for this example)."? Or did you miss that part? I thought you might be able to discuss this with some sense of humor, but I guess you've been too pounded lately to allow for that. My bad. Please understand that I KNOW it's a generalization. So just change the words "Matt Ward" to "some guy who prefers a test of golf to all other things." Then try to answer my question.
And of course I haven't played it. Fact is, I can say with 99.44% certainty I never will. I don't tend to get to Pittsburgh often. :'(
I'm just trying to get a handle on this golf course, because it intrigues the hell out of me. And remember when we discussed this before, I admitted that I had the same feelings about Winged Foot West before I played there, and such were reversed dramatically upon actually playing it. I could have fun playing that very difficult golf course any time.
So what I'm asking for is some help - assume I never will play the course. Make me see what I saw at Winged Foot. I'm having a really hard time imagining it when it comes to Oakmont. And understand what I'm trying to imagine is the EXTREMELY high praise it receives from you and others... best course in the US, Top 5, top 2, whatever, that type of praise...
To that end, Jim Franklin's brief post helps - goose bumps mean a LOT to me and there is absolutely no doubt I would feel a huge sense of awe if I ever did set foot on those grounds. I truly belive that counts in these assessments also. And he makes another great point, one does have to play the proper tees. But still, that's not getting me to see it's a Top 5 course, let alone "better than Pebble, better than Cypress, better than NGLA" as some have proclaimed.
Thanks!
TH
-
TH -
I understand you have never been to Pittsburgh, but you have heard of Fox Chapel and Laurel Valley? Both pretty decent courses in their own right. I had the option to play those courses a few years ago while I was staying at Oakmont, and I said no way, I playing Oakmont again. That's how good and fun it is.
As for Winged Foot West, it is my favorite Tillinghast (SFGC is a close second), but I would play Oakmont 6 out of 10 times versus Winged Foot West. Now if we are talking Merion, it would be 5 and 5.
-
Peter Hereid,
What do you think is the average handicap of the membership at Oakmont ?
11.1
-
TH -
I understand you have never been to Pittsburgh, but you have heard of Fox Chapel and Laurel Valley? Both pretty decent courses in their own right. I had the option to play those courses a few years ago while I was staying at Oakmont, and I said no way, I playing Oakmont again. That's how good and fun it is.
As for Winged Foot West, it is my favorite Tillinghast (SFGC is a close second), but I would play Oakmont 6 out of 10 times versus Winged Foot West. Now if we are talking Merion, it would be 5 and 5.
Jim - that speaks powerfully to me. And I know your thoughts on other courses... although from all accounts you are a VERY strong player, well... from what I can tell our take on courses is similar, in that we tend to go for fun first, test second.
6 out of 10 v. WFW is a very strong statement. But I am getting it better now - many thanks.
And yes, I have heard of those other Pittsburgh greats. That's a strong statement also.
But 5v5 v. Merion speaks loudest of all. Wow. Merion (again, from afar, don't jump down my throat Matt) appears to me to be fun all over. Oh it's a test for sure, but fun comes first. 5v5 v. Merion makes me understand this.
Thanks, Jim.
TH
-
Huck:
No matter how many words can be posted or pictures shown the final barometer on any course -- especially one at the lev of Oakmont -- is to personally play there and see it for yourself.
Clearly, you are being impacted upon by the words people generally use when describing the course -- very penal, long and narrow, extremely fast greens, etc, etc.
Oakmont does reward fine play -- you just have to be consistent in your execution and to follow the maxim of Clint Eastwood, "know your limitations." Many people often opt for the wrong tees and then project such failure as a sign of weakness in the design. Clearly, addressing one's own shortcomings is never discussed -- it's always the course.
Huck -- if you can't see the course beyond the likes of others usually mentioned here on GCA -- than there's nothing I can say or write that I definitively prove it.
Oakmont, IMHO, is easily among the top five courses we have in the States. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. The course has sensibly returned to its roots with a concerted tree removal program that has done miracles in illuminating the sheer nature of what the Fownes envisioned many years ago. Yes, there has been added length included but it's entirely in line with what technology is about today. The core nature of those holes has not been bastardized as you see with other layouts like Augusta National.
The totality of the holes -- the manner of their routing and the overall pacing -- are always an issue when playing. The green contours and speeds faced have no peer in American golf from the many layouts I have been fortunate to play. In sum -- the game is on when you tee off there.
Oakmont is not assisted being in the Pittsburgh area simply because the fanfare and hype is not a given there -- I have nothing against Pittsburgh so those from there should not bash me. If the course were in the greater New York area it would be even more noted than it is today.
There are few courses in the world where the sheer existence of the golf is so thorough and complete and is in no need in having a body of water to compliment it in some meaningful way. Oakmont is golf and golf is Oakmont. Nuff said.
P.S. Appreciate your sense of humor -- more than a number of others here on GCA. ;D
-
Matt:
In the end you are correct - there is no substitute for personal on-site experience. But given I damn well for sure will hever have that at Oakmont, well... I am just trying for some understanding. Maybe it can't be done.
But the same thing goes for Augusta, Pine Valley, so many other intensely private all-world greats. Are we to just give up trying to understand or make sense of those also?
In any case your last post there does help a lot. There simply must be more to it than the torture test. I just can't get over that whenever someone does play it, words like "it doesn't suffer fools" seem to be all that are expressed. Outside of me specifically asking for this, no one has ever come back from Oakmont saying how much fun the course was, or how much they enjoyed themselves. That too speaks powerfully to me.
Because no matter how I fall on the Shinnecock/NGLA debate, well... people do come back from Shinny glowing over fun as well as difficulty. I know I did.
;D
-
Huck, if you check the archives following the Am, I believe it was Tom Paul who said he spoke to many players and most felt Merion was one of the touhgest, if not the toughest, courses they had ever played. One of my friends had the pleasure of playing there recently and he said it was fun but exceptionally difficult, especially for a course that does not rely on length to be a difficult test.
Incidentally, Oakmont doesn't rely on length, either. There are plenty of shorter par 4s that are really tough - 2, 5 & 17 come to mind, though 11 & 14 are certainly tough as well. (Many would include 8 and 16 as tough short par 4s as well. :))
If you're looking to shoot your handicap, you will certainly be disappointed, but if you're looking for tough, challenging and imaginative shots, Oakmont is all that and more.
As an aside, there probably aren't many great courses that "suffer fools", but that's a thread for another day.
-
George:
ANY course be made to be tough through set up. Thus TEPs comments from players at the recent USAm have way less weight to me than Rich Goodale's playing it in a friendly round.
That being said, I have no doubt Merion is a difficult golf course to score on, any time.
But I also have no doubt that no one looks at it as a paragon of difficulty, at least not in the way that courses like Winged Foot, Oakmont, Bethpage Black, PGA West Stadium are. That is, one rarely hears Merion when "brutal tests of golf" are listed.
One does, however, often see Merion cited when "fun, wonderful, awe-inspiring" courses are the topic.
So that's all I meant there.
And you'll notice I never once mentioned length in any of this. I am well aware Oakmont has some short holes.
I'd also disagree and could cite several great courses at which fools are very much suffered. Let's start with these:
The Old Course
NGLA
Cypress Point
Sand Hills
Need I continue?
;)
-
Huck -
Just a couple quick thoughts:
1) Those courses you list wouldn't suffer this fool much easier than Oakmont. Maybe NGLA & TOC, but there are more opportunities for lost balls at both Cypress and Sand Hills (from what I've seen and read on here and from others, obviously I haven't had the pleasure).
2) You listen to RICH? :)
My friend who told me his opinion about Merion didn't play in the Am, he's a mid to high single handicapper. Long but wild, can't putt a lick unless I'm reading the green for him. He said he'd call Merion his favorite course and the best he's played - except that he played Shinney earlier this year and it won his head to head.
You played Winged Foot and loved it, didn't you? That certainly strikes me as a course that doesn't suffer fools, either.
-
George:
You obviously didn't read the entirety of this thread and for that I am insulted. ;)
I did mention Winged Foot West as one at which my eyes were opened. This surely could happen at Oakmont if I ever played it. But given I damn sure never will, I am hoping for clarification from those who have. A lot has been given and I am almost there, almost ready to allow that it is more than the torture test its founder and creator intended. But something still nags at me.
As for the rest, well... Rich Goodale was just at the top of my mind given I just read a post of his. That could be any "normal" golfer playing it at a "normal" time. Championship setups mean little to me. Hell they made our local Harding play tough recently....
Now as for courses suffering fools, oh my friend there is SO much more to this than losing golf balls, or not. Sure one can and does lose golf balls at each of Sand Hills and Cypress (not as many as you seem to think, but it does happen). But the key is one knows it and doesn't mind. Fools are suffered because they can have success on damn near every hole... for many reasons.
And re Oakmont, well one thing everyone seems to trumpet is the very high rough, year-round, all the time. You really think no golf balls ever get lost in that stuff?
In any case, your friend's take is interesting. But heck, it's not like there are many lost ball opportunities at Shinnecock. Seems to me this guy just likes great courses where he can spray the ball and still find his golf ball... which seems to describe both of these very well.
Give me several high handicappers who came back praising Oakmont and saying how much fun they had - then I might come to full understanding.
That I have yet to hear.
TH
-
I've read your comments on Winged Foot many times on many different threads, which is why I brought it up. If WF opened your eyes, why do you think Oakmont wouldn't?
The rough is not as penal as you would think. You won't lose a ball there, though that is also partly a function of having a good caddy corps, which Oakmont does.
Jim mentions that he played the front 9 behind two women in their 70s who never held them up. Does that sound like a course that is overly penal?
Losing balls is the bane of the poor golfer. You fail to understand this because you are a good golfer. (Don't feel bad, there are only a few people on this site that do understand that.) That's why I chose JohnV's comments. He understands the desire of any golfer to play interesting shots, not simply reload until you get it right.
As I said before, if you want to shoot your handicap, you will surely be disappointed. If you want to be challenged with interesting shots and don't mind ringing up a few high numbers in the process, you won't. It's as simple as that.
-
Who knows what Oakmont's old 8th hole used to look like before the green was moved or whatever and it was redesigned maybe fifty years ago?
-
George:
Again, you don't read the rest of the thread and my insult is now doubled. I granted ON THIS THREAD that Oakmont could well open my eyes, as WFW did. But once again, since we'll never get to test that theory in any sort of reality, I ask for written help. ;)
And you keep missing the point. I never said I felt Oakmont was overly penal. I just have yet to read anyone say it is any sort of FUN. You know, the fun they rave about at places like the courses I listed at which fools are suffered.
Jim Franklin has given me some understanding saying he'd go 5-5 with Merion and Oakmont. Why? Because while all do grant that Merion is far from easy, most also do trumpet various fun aspects about it.
Apologies, but mentions of 70 year old women going fast does nothing for me, except wish they were in the group ahead of me. ;D
Look - it comes down to this: didn't Oakmonts creator set out to make the world's toughest test, or something to that effect? And damn near everyone says he succeeded.
That's what I can't get over, George. Because no matter what people say, well... the world's toughest test is never gonna be what golf is about, not for me anyway. And I really do believe that the greatest of all courses - the very top of the lists - these courses should be BOTH difficult AND fun.
So if you want to say Oakmont is a great golf course, I'l just nod my head and agree. I have absolutely no doubt of that.
But if you want to put it in the world's top 10... top 5.. call it better than Pebble Beach... better than Cypress... better than Sand Hills, etc... which is what some here have said... well that I am having a very hard time with.
And thanks, but I got your line about shooting one's handicap the first three times you said it. I understand that. But one could say that about MANY difficult golf courses. In fact that's exactly what I say about PGA West Stadium course.... I just don't then take it further to put that course among the world's greats.
TH
-
I read the thread, I read it multiple times. I don't understand how WF can open your eyes, but you remain unconvinced about Oakmont. Oh, I know, you say Oakmont could open your eyes, but you'll never understand until you play it. Well, if that's the case, why ask the question?
There are all sorts of ways to not shoot your handicap. Of those, reload after reload is far and away my least favorite. In my limited experience, I have yet to see another course that punishes shots as effectively without causing reloads. That is a gigantic thing for me. From what you keep saying, apparently it is not for you.
When I face a really difficult shot, I may or may not find it "interesting". If the penalty for the mishit is reload and try again, I probably won't find it especially interesting. If it means that I might face an even tougher shot from a difficult lie, difficult bunker, something like that, that I find that interesting. I call that fun. That is why I think Oakmont is appealing to more than just ace players on top of their game.
I can't think of any other way of saying it, so if you need further clarification, you might need to seek someone else's opinion. :)
-
George:
I should first say this: thanks for trying. This can't be easy and must be frustrating.
But I am asking the questions, seeking the help from you and others, precisely because I don't believe I ever will play Oakmont. You guys are my only hope at gaining some understanding. So whereas I do surely grant that this "opening of eyes" that occurred to me at WFW could happen at Oakmont, well it doesn't matter, because we can never prove it one way or the other.
So can we agree to just drop that as a consideration? Or just consider it "stipulated" as they say in litigation. That is, I grant that you are right about that.
I just want MORE. So bear with me.
So as for the lost ball issue, we can stipulate that as well. I understand how that sucks, and how that's no fun. It's as much not fun for me as it is for you. Yes I'm a decent player but not THAT good. I lose golf balls also on very penal golf courses. I understand that's not going to happen nearly as much at Oakmont as at truly penal golf courses with desert/lakes/other unplayable stuff to the sides. Why do you think I hate THE RANCH so much? Potential for lost ball on both sides of every hole. I get this, George.
And yes, that's not gonna happen at Oakmont.
But are you truly that masochistic that you LIKE decent shots so severely penalized, as you say, just because you can find the golf ball?
That can't be all there is to it. There must be more than just a difficult golf course at which one can find his golf ball. Because hell, one can say that about many, many golf courses. One never loses a ball at Bayonet, but it is tough as nails... one also just never puts it among the world's greats.
So George, work with me here. Your take is important to me. Why is it that you'd find Oakmont fun to play? What puts it so high as to be among the world's greats for you? It can't be just this masochism. Come on man, you have to enjoy when you have golf success....
TH
-
But are you truly that masochistic that you LIKE decent shots so severely penalized, as you say, just because you can find the golf ball?
Maybe this is our disconnect. I don't see decent shots being severely penalized at Oakmont. Maybe occasionally, but not as a general rule. Indifferent shots, poorly thought out shots, bad shots, sure, but not decent shots. Decent shots will likely not be faced with a simple 2 putt, but that doesn't bother me. (In fact, I don't think there is a simple 2 putt on the course, but that's another thread as well.)
I can't say Oakmont is among the world's greats, because I don't have the depth of experience to say that. What I can say is that it is a special place, and if there are more courses that exhibit its level of sophistication, I hope to experience some of them.
What makes Oakmont unique to me is that is seems like the result of really clear thinking in the area of design. Everyone often says things like "Of course Pebble is great. Who couldn't build a great course there?" And you could obviously insert Cypress, Pac Dunes, Shinnecock, etc., in there - probably a ton of overseas courses, too. Most of the world's great courses feature dramatic settings. (I don't subscribe to this philosophy, btw, I think it's insulting to the geniuses that built these masterpieces.)
No one that I know of would say that about Oakmont.
We have land like Oakmont all over western PA, heck, all over much of the world, and yet I don't see many other parkland courses like it. Why Fownes was able to build a masterpiece, whereas no one else has built anything in western PA of even remotely the same level of sophistication, is what fascinates me most. Well, that, and why few seem to have learned the lessons Oakmont can teach us.
Many other courses rely on length and rough as their only defenses, with some water thrown in as well. Oakmont relies on unbelievable green complexes, terrific fairway contours, penal bunkers, and, to a much lesser degree, penal rough. I bet a lot of money that if you mowed it all at one cut like ANGC (formerly was), it'd play damn near as difficult as it does with rough. Only the very best players would benefit from the added control afforded by less rough, and even they would likely struggle with the added run of the ball. Too bad we'll never know the answer to that one.
Someday I'll bore you with a hole by hole analysis of what makes Oakmont special, but that's gonna take some time and patience, and right now I have little of either, as I'm heading home for an early evening with my two angels at home. :)
-
One last quick example before I roll:
I thought it was incredibly cool that during the recent Open at Shinnecock, golfers would stand in the middle of the fairway on the 10th (? I think, the relatively short par 4 that swooped down, and then back up to the green perched on the top of the hill) with a short iron or wedge and be thinking, how the hell I am gonna scratch out a par here (with no water or penalty-type hazard around)?
At Oakmont, almost every hole is like this. Yes, they are extremely difficult, but Oakmont's members manage to figure out how to get around, and I think you'd be up to the challenge.
Now I'm rolling. Have a good weekend. :)
-
George:
Wow. Many thanks. That was extremely helpful. I am almost there. I get all that. I also like the example.
This is why I love the 14th at Bandon Trails, which a lot of people hate... it is a confounding golf hole, and the approach is often just a tiny little wedge.
So that's what I keep missing about Oakmont - the fantastic green COMPLEXES and approaches to them. I get too caught up in the "worlds fastest/toughest greens - can't get around in less than 36 putts" aspect that others do trumpet. That to me also screams out stupid more than fun. Hopefully you recall my thoughts on infinite putting. But I digress....
Examples like the 10th speak loudly to me. I like to be confounded by wedge shots. That to me is fun.
I am definitely seeing the light about Oakmont. It's just tough, you know? It has SUCH a rep as a torture-test... and telling me it doesn't suffer fools only underscores this.
Have a great weekend - thanks, my friend.
TH
-
Peter Hereid,
What do you think is the average handicap of the membership at Oakmont ?
11.1
Which means for every 1 handicap, there's a 21 handicap playing the golf course.
For every 4 handicap, there's an 18 handicap playing the golf course.
For every 7 handicap, there's a 15 handicap playing the golf course.
Which means that a broad spectrum of golfers play the golf course day in and day out and enjoy the experience.
It's not such a ferocious golf course that only zero or plus handicaps tee it up every day.[/color]
-
It's not such a ferocious golf course that only zero or plus handicaps tee it up every day.
Patrick - I am on a quest for understanding about this undeniably great golf course. I'd be shocked if every Oakmont member was a great golfer - few if any clubs are like that, thankfully so.
But can you shed enlightenment, as George just did, on what makes it fun for the average golfer? Because for whatever reason, right or wrong, I had the impression that such golfers just got beaten to death there and thus fun for them didn't include actual chance at success.
One can never have enough knowledge.
Thanks.
TH
-
Oakmont is definitely not everyone's cup of tea. Some say there's sort of a cold and unfriendly aura to it and I guess I can see that.
Apparently, it was always supposed to be that way. That's the way William Fownes wanted it and over the years apparently he just kept making it harder and harder in all kinds of interesting way. His green speeds which he demanded were apparently completely revolutionary for that early time. His idea with bunker sand was beyond belief and that was so criticized by respected players that might have been the only thing he actually backed off on.
But why is the course so hard for some? I guess basically it's because it just demands precision pretty much thoughout. I would call that course the way Fownes designed it as very "center directed". In other words you just need to keep the ball in the fairway because if you get in the wrong places in some of those bunkers and other dangerous features on either side of most holes such as ditches, you can really get screwed up if you try for too much trying to recover.
I think I played in two state amateurs there in maybe the 80s and early 90s and I've officiated two other state Amateurs there. I see what happens on that course to many players.
The bunkers are what I'd call "architecturally iffy" in that if you happen to get too close to most of the faces you just need to be sure you just get the ball out with anything to get over those faces and even very good golfers seem to make mistakes that way.
Then there's those greens. When I first played there they were the fastest greens I'd ever seen and by a lot. That's nerve-racking as hell right there. And then just try pitching and chipping on some of those things at those speeds.
Strokes can just endlessly slip away on that course even with shots that are seemingly OK. Some of the fairway bunkers collect balls right off the fairways better than I've ever seen so there's that too.
Is Oakmont strategic in the way some to most on this site think of "strategic"? No, I don't think so. Again, I'd say the course is very "center directed" and for really good players some of the strategy in playing the course well probably is to just take off the tee whatever club you can hit the straightest into those fairways. But then the course is long too so if you're too cautious on distance off the tee you're kinda behind the 8 ball on distance on the next shot.
In my opinion, the reason the course was and is that way and in many ways is seemingly the opposite of the wide open old courses we call strategic is because Fownes as much as anyone---about as much as Crump, was into this idea we sometimes call "shot testing". Most don't seem to understand what that really was, and frankly if they did would probably criticize it as unstrategic.
"Shot testing" was a series of basically shot requirements from hole to hole that were really demanding and if you failed in the test at any point along the way you could get fairly heavily penalized. Fownes very much believed in that concept too---severe penalty for a misplayed shot---he wrote about it and spoke about it.
Some of the other architects of those early eras wrote about what an "ideal" golf course was supposed to be and how to be "ideal" the course and it's architecture had to accomodate every level of golfer, in some ways.
Fownes, Crump, and maybe even Wilson and some of the other early amateur architects who were basically building a course for themselves (they built them and they were the client too) didn't care about that "ideal" label of those other architects. Matter of fact, Crump and probably Fownes too actually said they didn't really want hackers on the course because it wasn't designed or intended for them.
What those two courses were designed for, and there was never a doubt about it, is that old fashioned philosophy of severe "shot-testing". The basic strategy involved in that rather rare "shot-testing" style was that if you didn't feel like accepting the "shot-test" then you just laid up somehow and hoped to get lucky and maybe scramble for a par somehow or just accept bogie.
Most players, even good ones, may not have ever understood that "shot-testing" philosophy that well. One of the real ironies of courses like PVGC and Oakmont is if you're sort of on your game but not quite and you try to get aggressive on those courses you'll get handed your hat a whole lot worse than if you decided to just play the course extremely conservatively and just accept some bogies as the best to expect.
Oakmont and PVGC have this unique thing about them that seems quite different than on most other courses for even really good players. That unique thing is what they call "others" and they are a lot of the reason those two old fashioned "shot testing" courses are often so hard to score on.
That's the best I can do to explain Oakmont, TomH. It's different, it's hard and in my opinion, it's really great architecture and a great golf course. In my opinion, it deserves to be where it's pretty much always been---eg somewhere in or around the Top 10.
-
TEP:
Great stuff.
But you see, this "shot testing" philosophy, and Oakmont being the absolute paragon of such, is the impression of I have of the course (again seeing it only in pictures and on TV).
Now of course one could dismiss my premise that the truly greatest courses are both difficult and fun... but let's say one accepts that.
How is Oakmont any fun, for those of us NOT into shot-testing as the be all and end-all in golf?
Or is the answer in the question? That is, it's SUCH a paragon of shot-testing that that alone is what makes it great?
I could accept that.
I'd just not want to hear any more about it being fun to play, however. ;)
George Pazin gave me some great stuff to help understand this. But I seek more....
And let this be a challenge: I also asked Pat Mucci.
;)
-
"Now of course one could dismiss my premise that the truly greatest courses are both difficult and fun... but let's say one accepts that."
That's probably why many over the years have said Oakmont has an aura of being cold and unfriendly.
This idea of "fun" is probably too general and too amorphous a description when it comes to that old so-called "ideal" that a great course had to accomodate everyone.
It never failed to amaze Crump and PVGC and maybe Fownes too that even if he actually told hackers the course was not for them they seemed to just love playing it even though they were getting clobbered score-wise.
I don't know why that is. Maybe they just like the idea of playing something that really was specifically designed for the best of the best just to see what it's like or how different it is from the rest of architecture.
-
AHA!
Fun through being different... I get that... that's how I used to treat a bitch of a course out here calledf Bayonet (before they emasculated it, which they did recently)... That is, it was so over-the-top hard, it was fun in a masochistic way.
So I can understand the average golfer feeling that way about Oakmont. It's just so different, in a "golf test" sort of way... that it is fun. Playing something specifically designed for the best of the best... that speaks loudly also. Well done.
Just one more question: I guess I should just give up on the idea that one has a realistic chance to achieve success there? People keep beating around the bush about this... But is it just that way?
I can certainly live with a paragon of difficulty being in the world's top 10 - there is room for that. Especially as you describe it, being so unique in this, espousing this shot-testing philosophy.
TH
-
TomH:
No, just being masochistically hard is not what an Oakmont (or PVGC) is about. I've seen a number of modern courses (a number by Palmer) that are masochistically hard and they are also pretty dumb. They just don't make a lot of architectural sense in their shot values. Oakmont makes a ton of sense that way--even if it's hard.
-
TEP:
I mischaracterized that. Let's call Oakmont masochistically difficult, but in an interesting, not overtly and immediately penal fashion. Is that closer? And that would make it unique and allow for the greatness (as I see things). Of course that was what George Pazin was trying to get me to understand, but sometimes it takes me awhile. ;)
Full concurrence that we've all seen lots of masochistically difficult courses, none of which any of us would call "great."
I don't think you've seen it yet, but think #14 Bandon Trails or #6 Pacific Dunes. Both just sit there, short and not overtly terrifying... one licks his chops and thinks three. One then leaves the green with 6 or worse all too often, wondering why. I'm getting the picture there are a number of holes at Oakmont that are like this.
And that is GREAT.
TH
-
Huckaby,
Didn't we have much the same conversation awhile back regarding Oakmont and Pebble? ;D
-
Huck -
One of the last times I played there, one of the guys in my group, a 6 handicap, shot a 77. Not a long hitter, but a decent ball striker and decent putter. 77 at Oakmont for a 6 handicap is fun stuff and a great round.
When I played there last, my buddy told me about the club championship where one guy shot 68 in the morning to the toughest pins my friend had ever seen. He said it was the greatest round of golf he witnessed. I think the guy shot 86 in the afternoon though. But good scores can posted. It requires concentration on each shot. (One thing I lack)
-
I think I disagree at least somewhat with the notion that Oakmont is "center directed". This may be true off the tee, I'll have to think about that some more, but it is most certainly not remotely true when it comes to the greens.
"Center directed" implies to me that a golfer should simply aim for the middle of the fairways and greens. And the best play for Oakmont's greens is rarely just aiming for the center. In the first 3 greens alone, this is a dangerous play, nearly impossible on #1, in fact. It's not necessarily the right play on 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ... either. Witness Jim Franklin's 130 yard shot that his caddie told to play 105. On other courses, you might play short with the intention of hitting a bump and run into the green. On #1, Jim hit sand wedge, not a punch wedge or 9 or something like that. That is a highly unique hole, IMHO. The last time I was at Oakmont I saw someone putt from about 3-4 yards in front of the 1st green and he barely touched the ball, and it rolled about 2 feet past a front hole location.
Huck, you're somewhat right about your thoughts re: BT #14 & PD #6 - there are many holes at Oakmont where your approach is of a length that, on almost any other course, you'd be thinking of a birdie attempt. The main difference is that you quickly realize at Oakmont that you might want to consider playing for the par, rather than just gunning it at the pin for birdie. That is what folks mean when they say "Oakmont does not suffer fools". It is an admittedly defensive concept, but one that I find fascinating.
I haven't seen Winged Foot (hope to next year, but then again, I hoped to see Merion this year and didn't make it to that, either :(), but it strikes me as a more "center directed", straightforward brutal test than Oakmont. Oakmont possesses a great deal of subtle torture, if that makes any sense whatsoever.
-
Since the issue of Winged Foot and Oakmont have been mentioned a good number of times on this thread I have to say the greatest strength of each course is the absolute unrelenting pressure you get with your approach shots.
With that said -- the tee shot elements become magnified because success in getting near the putting surfaces in the regulation stroke from the rough is virtually a long shot proposition -- save for the strength of the respective player and the actual lie you draw.
Clearly, what stands Oakmont above Winged Foot / West IMHO is the complexity and variety of the putting surfaces. For example, at the 1st at Oakmont you had best be long rather than short -- even if that means giving up 40-50 feet past because being short is more than likely an invitation to a fast three putt -- sometimes even more.
Ditto with the nature of the 10th -- although I hate to see what is normally done with the hole when an Open is played --the fairway slopes from left-to-right and in ways mirros what you see happens with the uphill par-4 17th at The Lake Course at Olympic. With a v-e-r-y narrow landing area the 10th at Oakmont can be a real terror because the effective landing zone is then reduced to no more than 10 yards across.
The green at #10 is also extremely demanding as it too slopes away from the player. When you stand back in the fairway and are contemplating your approach you had best make sure you don't end up short of the green again and face the same predicament you see with the 1st.
My only suggestion for Oakmont as the '07 Open approaches is for the uphill short par-4 17th to be played just under 300 yards so that you can see the players tempted to go for the green at the tee. The hole offers so much in terms of reward but the risk is ever present should you short-side oneself.
-
The hole offers so much in terms of reward but the risk is ever present should you short-side oneself.
The 17th green is so narrow that both sides are short sides and now that the bunkers on the left are as tough as Big Mouth on the right, there really is nowhere to miss.
-
From middle tee on #18, looking back across the #15 fairway (near-ground), past the work around #14 green, across #12 tee, #10 fairway, to #9 fairway in the distance in front of the tree-line (you can't see the 1st fairway which is right in front of the tree line)
Wow, that is quite some picture. I don't remember that area being so open when I was there watching the 2003 US Amateur. I know there has been talk of some tree removal, but it appears they have removed quite a lot of trees in the areas shown in the picture. Have there been significant tree removals elsewhere on the course, like 2-8 across the road?
Apologies if this has been previously discussed on the site (I was AWOL for a few years).
-
This idea of "fun" is probably too general and too amorphous a description when it comes to that old so-called "ideal" that a great course had to accomodate everyone.
I think this is a key point in this whole discussion, and in reading this thread I found myself wondering what each person meant when they used the word "fun", and whether each person meant something different.
I do see a few places where people have given specific examples what things they find fun, but how about a more general description of what makes course characteristics fun/not-fun. I think the closest to this is George's statement in reply #74:
When I face a really difficult shot, I may or may not find it "interesting". If the penalty for the mishit is reload and try again, I probably won't find it especially interesting. If it means that I might face an even tougher shot from a difficult lie, difficult bunker, something like that, that I find that interesting. I call that fun. That is why I think Oakmont is appealing to more than just ace players on top of their game.
I personally like this description of fun, since it equates fun with interesting challenges. I have gotten the sense that for many people having fun is directly attached to shooting a low score; when I was finally able to detach the two for myself, I started having more fun playing and better appreciating interesting challenges.
Another thing is that pitting fun against difficult seems to imply that a fun course is not a difficult one. I'd expect this is not what was meant, but it seems as if people (Huck, in particular) feel there is a point at which a course becomes "too difficult" that results in it no longer being fun. It sounds like hazards that result in lost balls, rough that is "too" long, and holes that are "too" long all contribute to making a course "too difficult" and no longer fun. Is this an accurate assessment of the feeling out there? If so, what about these characteristics no longer make a course fun to play (for you)?
-
Tom Huckaby,
I'm afraid I can't shed any light on the play of the golf course.
Everyone's unique game interfaces with the architecture differentlly.
I didn't find any element of "unfairness", I didn't find it unreasonably difficult. Like many golf courses there's a premium on being below the hole, and a deft touch is required.
-
Huckaby,
Didn't we have much the same conversation awhile back regarding Oakmont and Pebble? ;D
Yes indeedy. I've referred to it several times in this thread.
Still trying to get a handle on the place, not sure if I ever will. But these guys have been a great help.
And Andrew, yes you have me correct to some extent - please don't take this to the extreme that it's all about score for me, as it really isn't - but if a course is SO difficult that there is really no chance for any sort of success, than to me it's fun only in a masochistic sense. That is, I might enjoy it as a supreme test, and return to it at times as a state of my game check, but I doubt I'd ever call it truly "great." Like I say, for me course greatness allows both for the test and the success. I'm not saying it "has to accomodate everyone", I'm just saying there has to be a chance at success.
I'm getting that Oakmont is that way - and also has a lot more to it than just the torture-test rep it otherwise seems to have.
TH