Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: George Pazin on December 04, 2006, 05:54:01 PM
-
Just kidding...kind of.
Anyway, week 2 in our series finds us at a type of hole that is rapidly disappearing from the scene - the highly interesting sub 350 yard par 4 that isn't really driveable.
From the website:
Green 340
Blue 325
White 317
Red 309
(http://www.oakmont-countryclub.org/A_master/NET/RadEditor/getImage.aspx?ID=715580)
On this short par 4, a long iron off the teeing ground avoiding the ditch on the left and the bunkers on the right sets up a short iron to an infamous green. You must approach your putt from below the hole; three putts are common from above it.
#5 handicap hole for the men
The bunker on the diagram just short of the green is a newly restored bunker. I was somewhat surprised, during my days at the Am, that no one I saw simply drove it long up the right side, allowing a better angle into the green. Everyone I saw laid up with a long iron, leaving one of the more treachorous wedge approaches in the game.
When discussing this hole with a friend, he related to me that the 2nd hole sometimes has a higher stroke average than the first, during the many tournaments which Oakmont is generous enough to host. I'm not surprised - the green has to be among the most sloped in golf. Many a poorly judged approach shot results in the ball coming off the green, ending up well short of the putting surface.
More to follow.
-
From The Book, purchased at the 2003 Amateur:
(http://www.nauticom.net/users/tshirts/hole2.jpg)
What I find most interesting about the 2nd hole is how it plays as an interesting contrast to the 1st. Long par 4 with a fallaway green, short par 4 with a green sloped strongly to the front.
Let's hear your thoughts and stories, please.
-
No stories, of course. Hopefully some day.
But re your wonderment why the big boys didn't go long up the right for a better angle in, well... isn't it simply because they are so damn good with short irons that angle doesn't matter to them? Even on this ungodly sloped green, it doesn't surprise me they just hit it to a comfortable distance. Those guys can make short irons dance so much with today's equipment, angles to them are meaningless except from way way far away.
Now us normal guys, well... I know I'd want to have a decent angle in. But I also do NOT want to be in that bunker that looks to be about 80 yards short. Can't tell the distances for sure but I'd hit a club that gets me past the last one of the bunkers on the right while staying short of the nasty center one. Then I'd pray to the golf gods for help on the approach shot.
VERY cool-looking golf hole, btw.
TH
-
But re your wonderment why the big boys didn't go long up the right for a better angle in, well... isn't it simply because they are so damn good with short irons that angle doesn't matter to them? Even on this ungodly sloped green, it doesn't surprise me they just hit it to a comfortable distance. Those guys can make short irons dance so much with today's equipment, angles to them are meaningless except from way way far away.
You will see, in June, the fallacies in this statement.
:)
-
My best Oakmont playing story involves the second hole:
The pin position on the day I played it was particularly difficult, I believe back right. I had a fifteen foot putt straight up the hill, the two members I was playing with told me the only way I could make the putt was to hit it past the hole and let it roll back in. Well I didn't listen and after making it to the edge of the cup I watched my ball roll back about twenty feet. They told me that the pin position isn't used very often. What a fantastic green, can't wait so see how people handle it in the Open.
-
IMO one of the best looking holes on the course. And since I have some pictures I will share them with you. Just to note, a back extension was added to this green over the last few years. I really can’t imagine how small it was before that took place; the green is a very small target with a severe false front. I guarantee a lot of wedge shots will be spinning off the green and down the approach during the Open.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/rfarrow22/2-2.jpg)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/rfarrow22/1-2.jpg)
-
George - in all seriousness - is the angle from the left really that bad? Ryan's pics don't show that, but of course photos do level things. Given they're gonna have wedges in pretty much no matter what, the slope off the left bunker would have to be very severe... And it would seem to have to be concrete-firm for this to matter... is Oakmont really going to get that way?
TH
-
... the green has to be among the most sloped in golf. ...
Have to wonder how this could be. Oakmont is reputed to have some of the fastest greens in golf. Therefore, it seems impossible for them to also have the most sloped in golf.
-
George,
It is interesting that in the pix the green doesn't seem to be sloped towards the golfer. What would you estimate the elevation change to be from back to front? Of the golfers at the Am who you saw play this hole was there a particular sort of shot or approach that seemed to work well? Or do you just want to get on the green?
What is the most difficult hole location?
-
There really is no angle to the left. I see everyone staying as far away from that ditch as possible. If you are talking past the ditch then they may be in trouble if they are in the rough. They would be coming in from a horrible angle if the pin is anywhere near the front of the green. Plus the bunkers guarding the front left are many, many feet deep.
And the course will play concrete fast unless it downpours all week.
-
Ryan - so for the great players, is angle in a consideration or not? Or is it indeed that they just want to miss the ditch left, bunkers right?
Seems like another hole that looks purely penal... but I was convinced that #1 is far from that... so what gives this hole its strategic worth?
TH
-
George - I wonder. The sketches you include from The Book have yet to correspond to the hole renderings you feature.
What gives?
-
Great analysis great photos
-
George,
You are on your own defending this hole as the toughest 2nd hole in golf ;D I might beg to differ on this one. I'll try to chime in later.
Mark
-
Tom, we are talking about Oakmont Country Club here. The name of the game is Penal. Like I said before its all about knowing where not to miss throughout each hole, you need to know when to try and carry, split, or play short of the hazards. If I was to recommend an angle for a PGA Tour player on #2 I would say right. They would not have any trouble clearing the bunkers on that side but then again they are going to grow the rough out 6 inches so the tee shot comes down to what distance you want for your approach. As far as a where not to hit the ball I would say left off the tee and long into the green. I will say the par 5's are the most strategic holes on the course but it is not the dominant theme at Oakmont, that’s just the way it is. Does anyone think that makes it a bad course?
-
Ryan,
Thanks for posting the picture. I am pondering where I would aim if I was lucky enough to play there. I absolutely love holes of this length especially when they offer a few options off the tee.
It is also remarkable to me how the bunkers add some much texture to the landscape. I love how it looks so low profile from your shot.
-
SPBD,
The reason the pictures and sketches don't match up is because the sketches are from the official yardage books done by George Lucas. He simply sketches the holes in the parts that have relavance to the golfers and caddies (tees on the 3's, landing areas on the 4's and 5's, as well as possible lay up positions on 5's, and the green structures). His books are the gold standard of yardage books and you won't find more accurate information, but if you are looking for sketches made to scale, its not happening from a book done by George....
George Pazin,
This is a great thread, and I look forward to the discussions on all 18 at Oakmont in advance of this year's US Open.
Mike
-
George - I wonder. The sketches you include from The Book have yet to correspond to the hole renderings you feature.
What gives?
One thing I've noticed with The Book is that it takes equal parts imagination and intellect to read and understand it. I'll try to expand on this tomorrow. My son is calling out to me!
Huck -
There's guys that played in the Am that play in the US Open as well. No one that I followed, including the eventual winner, treated the hole like a pushover, wedge or not. The green was tiny (haven't seen the enlargement), the slopes have to be seen to be believed.
Garland -
My statement was indeed probably inaccurate. What I should've said was that the combination of slope and speed make the green play as one of the steepest around. Hopefully that makes more sense.
Still, with the speeds they maintain, you wouldn't believe the green could be as sloped as it is.
Ryan -
Thanks for the additional photos and comments.
Thanks everyone else for the support. Mark, I was indeed joking about the 2nd being the toughest.
:)
-
Cut the fairway out to the ditch. The hole seems almost TOO narrow with the fairway cut as is.
Never seen it, just from Ryan's angles there should be some danger on a firm and fast day of an overzealous hook running into trouble.
-
I think #2 may be my favorite hole on the course. After tough opener you get to two and think birdie. After three putts you go grumbling to the next tee.
For my money, though, two at PV is the scariest second hole on golf.
-
#2 is a wonderful hole. Kyle, the fairway really is pretty wide if you layup with an iron.
As to how steep the green is, consider this. At the 2003 US AM, a player hit a shot that stopped about 5 feet above the hole. He came up, lifted the ball, cleaned it and set it back down where it was at rest. Suddenly it started to move, rolled down the hill and into the hole. The official who was there was called in and said that since the ball was at rest and nobody cause it to move, he had holed his previous shot for a 2.
This along with #5 are probably the most severe greens on the course, not that many if any could be considered anywhere near flat. Since both are on short par 4s that seems like the right mix to me. Oakmont has as great a set of short par 4s as any of the great courses I've seen. Holes 2, 5, 11, 14 and 17 are all wonderful holes and all under 400 yards.
The changes since the Book that George has copied are probably the greatest on this green. It is quite a bit bigger on the back left.
The last time I played there, I hit a good wedge to the green. The next player hit and I saw a ball run off the green. I said I was sorry that his ball didn't stay on there. He turned to me and said he came up 20 yards short. It was my ball which had rolled around for about 45 seconds before coming off the front of the green.
-
#2 is one of the five short par 4's at Oakmont that was NOT lenghtened when we built the new tees in the fall/winter of 2001. We did not make 2, 5, 11, 14, or 17 longer . Each of these shorter holes is protected by severe bunkers and tricky greens. #2 was expanded (changed) as John V points out in the back right and was raised in the front right . I was personally against the changes because we could not find photos to document that the #2 green was ever as proposed. These putting green modifications were made after my term as greens chair. As John V said, the safe play is with a 220 yard tee shot, short of the potential ditch trouble, leaving~ 135 yds. Once on the putting surface- Good Luck! It is the #5 handicap hole at 345 yds. from the member tees. I think #2 at Pebble beach as a 4 par(as played in the '99 USAM and '00 USOpen) is much tougher.
-
Ryan/George:
I guess my questions go toward trying to see if this hole is GREAT. See, I know it's TOUGH - that's the assumption for every hole there at Oakmont. But tough does not equal great, at least not as I see things... and I don't think George sees it that way either.
So this is a difficult golf hole, especially for it's short distance. The green sounds incredible... I'm going to assume there are areas on which the ball will stay at rest.. because of course if not we've crossed the line into the absurd.
So yes, this sounds like a very tough golf hole.
But is it GREAT? And if so, why?
BTW, just being so tough at such a short distance might be enough to make it great... Let's just hope that every hole on the course isn't like this, with the difficulty being the main selling point.
See, George wants me to believe that Oakmont is better than Pebble Beach. So far, I believe #1 is a great golf hole. We'll see how it goes....
-
Huck, I'll expand more later, but one answer is, similar to the first hole, the hole is challenging for all levels of players. I can't think of too many other non-driveable, sub 350 yard par 4s where that's the case.
There certainly are options with decisions - favoring side of the fairway brings the bunkers into play. A nonchalant layup to the left fairway yields a VERY difficult wedge shot, even for the best players. Some might say the fairway is too narrow to favor a side, but remember, most are teeing off with long irons or hybrids.
If I were Fred Funk or Joe Durant, I might even think about driver/half wedge, to keep the spin down.
I need to pull out my tape of the 94 Open, but I think in the playoff, all 3 guys were over par through 1 & 2, and I think someone even doubled one of them.
One thing is for certain - there's no hard par, easy bogey at Oakmont.
Everything's hard.
But also fun.
:)
Thanks Mark, John and Ryan for the added info.
-
George - gotcha - but you may have to indeed expand more. So far at Oakmont, I am seeing a lot of hard.. but the greatness is more difficult to see. Challenging for all levels of players is very cool... but fun reigns supreme for me. And so far I am not seeing the fun at Oakmont, only the pain. Although like I say, I was convinced by #1. Still too many brutally hard holes strung together does not make Tom a happy boy.
-
George,
I knew that the second was much shorter hole and that this might be a hole that would buck the idea of Oakmont being just a series of "nutcrackers". Well, in looking at this hole I can see where the fun can be had with this hole but two things really have me worried.
It seems that the hole would be plenty difficult with the green contouring that exists, but the from the storied relayed earlier it looks like the speeds are over the top. Regardless of the quality of the course, in my opinion if the greens are over the top speed wise then that takes away a lot of the fun. Which is one of the things that seems to be lacking at Oakmont as Tom H. points out.
The second thing is I am wondering how wide the fairway is short of the bunkers and then what is it between the ditch and the bunkers.
But on the whole I agree that this hole is much more appealing than the first to my eye and quite a constrast. I could live with the beginning portion of the fairway being a little wider. I can see why the narrow part of the fairway is the most dangerous to achieve and provides a much better shot into the green.
-
Chris -
The over-the-top speed question is probably too subjective for me to answer. If someone is not used to it, it is certainly overwhelming. Heck, I normally play on muni courses that stimp about 8, so anything upwards of that is quite a shock to me.
But golfers at Oakmont, and the many tournaments I have observed, seem to adapt pretty well, so I think it would be somewhat unfair to characterize it as over-the-top. More than anything else, it is eye-opening. Tom Paul often says that architecture comes alive under the right maintenance meld. Oakmont is always alive!
Huck -
I guess it all boils down to what you find fun.
To me, fun is hitting interesting shots, unusual shots, and, yes, even difficult shots. Fun is not "What's my carry yardage to that flat area over there?" Fun is not "Every green should hold my short irons and wedges because I spin them so much." Fun is not hitting only dictated shots.
To me, Oakmont is very much the former and very little the latter.
Do you find Pebble in any way easy?
-
Chris, the green slopes and speeds at Oakmont are scary. But, they are also part of the fun of the course. You really have to laugh at some of the putts you hit, either way past because you got just a little aggressive or way short because you got scared.
I was on #10 putting from back right to front left. My caddie told me to putt to stop the ball 20 feet left of the hole and it would drift down. Unfortunately I was too good a learner and stopped the ball right where he had pointed. I had a good laugh at that as I faced a 20 foot straight downhill putt.
Oakmont is definitely a course where you are never guaranteed a two-putt once you hit the green. You can take that as hell or fun depending on your point of view.
The fairway short of the bunker/ditch line has to be at least 30-35 yards wide, possibly wider.
-
A quick check with Google Earth says that the fairway is 27 to 37 yards wide depending on how you measure it and look at the angle.
-
Huck -
I have said this before and I will say this again, you need to trust me and come play Oakmont. It is as hard a course as you will play, but a ton of fun. Lots of different shots needed and can be played. I love #2, but #5 is my favorite hole even though I eagled #4 ;). Hell, there are lots of fun holes there.
-
George:
I agree with this completely:
Fun is hitting interesting shots, unusual shots, and, yes, even difficult shots. Fun is not "What's my carry yardage to that flat area over there?" Fun is not "Every green should hold my short irons and wedges because I spin them so much." Fun is not hitting only dictated shots.
And I be shocked if you didn't know that already. But please also understand I do get the fun of hitting weird, odd, out of the ordinary shots - and it would appear Oakmont requires this in spades. That is, the runner to the back of #1, the many ways of trying to reach and hold the green on 2 and the seemingly infinite ways of trying to manage shots around and on that green, etc. I get that - that is fun. But that's a function of conditions more than anything else... and lots of courses are firm and fast and/or have a lot of contour, such that a variety of shots are required.
The truly great courses have MORE than this...Rustic Canyon and Wild Horse are each exceedingly fun and each allow for a very wide variety of shots.... One has to assume Oakmont is greater than these... but if so, why?
See, I'm not seeing many shot choices so far - in terms of strategic decisions - at Oakmont. And I find that to be a VERY fun part of this game. I trust they exist - it's just going to take explaining for me to see them. But also, a key part of fun is a decent chance at success, however one defines that. If a course is so hard that one just gets beaten up, it's hard to find that very fun. And of course that is the rep that Oakmont has.
Believe me, I am trying to find the fun and see the greatness... it just concerns me that so far, 99% of what's been said has to do with how tough the golf the course is... with the rest not being mentioned at all until I ask about it.
Jim - I trust Oakmont is a great golf course - hell the history alone makes it such for me. I'm just having a hard time seeing the fun... I'm seeing a lot of pain and very cool conditions... but the fun putting this into the realm of greatness has not yet arrived.
TH
-
I don't believe the walking bridge from 1 green to 2 tee has been mentioned yet but maybe it should be. In '94, it was difficult for everyone to get across down there. 99F, 99% humidity, and no wind might have had something to do with it too. Oakmont was boiling (nearing Congressional levels-- I thought), but I talked to a guy that attended both and he said it was much worse in '64. Whew!
-
It is unfortunate that George cannot report on anyone playing bomb and gouge on this hole. It seems that the modern player could bomb it down the right and gouge it on with a wedge. If the green is significantly sloped as reported, then stopping the ball should not be so difficult. The other obvious option is to lay back to full PW distance and take dead aim.
Does that sound like fun Tom?
-
It is unfortunate that George cannot report on anyone playing bomb and gouge on this hole. It seems that the modern player could bomb it down the right and gouge it on with a wedge. If the green is significantly sloped as reported, then stopping the ball should not be so difficult. The other obvious option is to lay back to full PW distance and take dead aim.
Does that sound like fun Tom?
Garland - as you see, that was pretty much my first question in this thread... seems to me bomb and gouge would work just fine... but perhaps that green is just wacky enough to preclude this.. it does seem that's what they are saying.
In any case, to me that's also just a side-note - I'm way more concerned with how the other 99.9% of golfers play the course.
TH
-
John,
Thanks for your response. The fairway width then isn't an issue for me. I'm still skeptical on the green speed thing but that is something that one can adapt to and actually increase the fun on the course if it isn't too outrageous.
The story about putting twenty feet away from the hole reminded me of when I was at Kingsley and tried the same thing on the punchbowl par three. The ball stopped at the edge of the slope and didn't move. I felt like an idiot for trying the line. I'm sure Mike DeVries was laughing at me the entire time we were walking to the next tee.
Tom,
If I'm one of the 99.9%, depending on how I'm feeling I would try to hit driver into narrow fairway (I can't carry the bunkers) or lay back with a long iron or utility club short of the first bunker. If I got to play the course it would probably be my only chance so I would more than likely go for the gusto. Plus a bunker shot of that distance isn't the worst thing that can happen to you on that hole from the sounds of it.
-
See, I'm not seeing many shot choices so far - in terms of strategic decisions - at Oakmont. And I find that to be a VERY fun part of this game. I trust they exist - it's just going to take explaining for me to see them.
It depends on what you believe are options.
The prevailing modern view seems to be alternate fairways, carries over water hazards, desert, etc. (Or the always popular and exciting, choose a different set of tees....)
I believe a much more spohisticated type of option is the classic dogleg with a bunker on the inside of the corner. Each time, the golfer tries to cut it closer and closer, until he fails, then hits his next tee shot further away, and starts the process over again. (Tom D describes this at a hole at North Berwick in The Confidential Guide.)
The modern view lacks subtlety and the decisions are usually far too obvious, imho. I can't comment on Rustic or Wild Horse, sadly. I will say, you would have more "options" if the rough were simply gone at Oakmont, but you probably wouldn't want to attempt most of those angles, so they're kind of redundant.
On the 2nd, you could play an iron off the tee as close as possible to the right side of the fairway, while avoiding the bunker cluster, with the reward being a better angle to the green. You could try to snake a driver or 3 wood up into the area where the new bunker is, with the reward being a shorter shot into the green. Heck, you could tee off with a 6 iron, short of the bunkers and into a wider part of the fairway, and leave yourself with probably no more than a 6 iron into the green.
I saw a lot of excellent players in the Am struggle going 3-5 iron, wedge, and I think it's because they chose not to favor the right side, thinking they could hit and hold any target with a wedge.
How many clear options do you see playing many of the holes at Pebble? When I walked those holes years ago, the strategies seemed rather straightforward upon first view. The beauty is in noticing the fine distinctions between favoring landing spots, favored shots, and then executing the shots (not to mention the scenery!).
-
It is unfortunate that George cannot report on anyone playing bomb and gouge on this hole. It seems that the modern player could bomb it down the right and gouge it on with a wedge. If the green is significantly sloped as reported, then stopping the ball should not be so difficult. The other obvious option is to lay back to full PW distance and take dead aim.
Does that sound like fun Tom?
Garland - as you see, that was pretty much my first question in this thread... seems to me bomb and gouge would work just fine... but perhaps that green is just wacky enough to preclude this.. it does seem that's what they are saying.
In any case, to me that's also just a side-note - I'm way more concerned with how the other 99.9% of golfers play the course.
TH
So you guys think you're better than all the people who said their wedge came back off the green?
You think you're better than all the guys at the Am?
You think you're better than Ernie Els, Colin Montgomerie and Loren Roberts?
Bomb and gouge is the obvious strategy - and yet no one seems to try it, pre or post restoration of the bunkers.
-
George,
I don't think bomb and gouge even existed during the other events you refer to, did it?
Also, I assume the 317 tee would be the one recommended for me, which brings me closer to bomb and gouge range. :)
-
George,
As much as I criticized the first hole, I like this hole. Several options off of the tee make this a better hole in my mind while also being difficult if you screw up. As for my wedge game, not nearly as good as the big boys. But I don't get nearly as much spin as they do, so that might be to my benefit.
I'm still leary of the green speeds being beyond the point where they are fun. But that might be the only thing I can point to on this hole as a possible knock.
-
7-wood, lob wedge, birdie. And that's with Tom Paul telling me he wouldn't give me a ride home if I missed the 8-foot putt. Nothing to it ;)
-
George,
I don't think bomb and gouge even existed during the other events you refer to, did it?
Also, I assume the 317 tee would be the one recommended for me, which brings me closer to bomb and gouge range. :)
The Am was in 2003. Bomb and gouge is/was the preferred strategy for many of the young guns.
And on a 350 yard hole, bomb and gouge has always been an option for the tour pros.
-
George:
That's good stuff, and more what I need to really understand this course - because while never say never, well... let's just say it's exceedingly doubtful I play this golf course any time in the foreseeable future.
So I see the options on 2... but given the green is SO difficult as you and others have said, what's the difference where you put the tee shot? Options are only fun if there's a reward. Is there really any reward on this golf hole?
I look at the diagram and the picture and think I just want to avoid the ditch and the bunkers, getting myself far enough down so that I have at least some sort of short iron in. The shot is going to be a tough one, for sure... and I want the short iron just because I'm better with those - standard strategy for ANY golf hole. Throw in that this green is so damn difficult, and well...
Again I'm not seeing the fun options nor fun shots. Of course once I miss the green, the fun begins... but that's only fun in an abstract way also... it can't be that much fun to get down in 5 from 3 feet off the green...
Re bombing and gouging, remember I was only speculating on what the pros and other greats might do. If the rough is too awful, of course they won't do it. But if the rough is that awful, then pooof there go all fun options also....
Let's leave Pebble out of this for now, OK? We've beaten that comparison to death... I only mentioned it because it is the context behind the discussions you and I have had. If you want to talk Pebble I can do that til the cows come home... that will just massively sidetrack this thread.
TH
-
I wasn't particularly impressed with Black Mesa #2, so I give this one to Oakmont.
All square.
-
7-wood, lob wedge, birdie. And that's with Tom Paul telling me he wouldn't give me a ride home if I missed the 8-foot putt. Nothing to it ;)
Thanks for sharing the story, Wayne.
2 holes and 2 good stories - now that's a great golf course! :)
In a way, this story also illustrates the beauty of the hole, and the difficulty of judging design: one guy might hit an indifferent wedge and see it return to his feet, while another might simply get lucky and hit a perfect shot and not realize how close he was to disaster.
-
So I see the options on 2... but given the green is SO difficult as you and others have said, what's the difference where you put the tee shot? Options are only fun if there's a reward. Is there really any reward on this golf hole?
....
Let's leave Pebble out of this for now, OK? We've beaten that comparison to death... I only mentioned it because it is the context behind the discussions you and I have had. If you want to talk Pebble I can do that til the cows come home... that will just massively sidetrack this thread.
It's obviously just my opinion, but I think the shot really is much better from the right. Hence, it's a subtle option. I really don't think most appreciate or understand the distinction.
As for the Pebble thing, that was not meant to compare the two, it's meant to illustrate the difference between the subtle options of the old guys and the new approach of many modern designers.
I like the old guy way, whether it's Pebble or Oakmont.
:)
-
George - gotcha. And I too like subtle options. In fact I said before the tougher they are to figure out, the more fun it is.
So again you are winning me over re #2....
But not so fast my friend. If the green is that wacky, I still don't see any benefit from any side or distance. Hell it seems to be just a lot of luck if it really is that absurdly fast and contoured.
And of course there is also something to be said for that... but I'm not sure it adds to the greatness factor.
TH
-
So you guys think you're better than all the people who said their wedge came back off the green?
You think you're better than all the guys at the Am?
You think you're better than Ernie Els, Colin Montgomerie and Loren Roberts?
Bomb and gouge is the obvious strategy - and yet no one seems to try it, pre or post restoration of the bunkers.
For me and my lousy game, it would not be bomb and gouge. I feel that bombing with my driver could take me over the right side bunkers, and I would welcome an angle into the green that did not take me over the greenside bunkers. From there I would try to run the ball through the gap onto the surface as I am not a talented gouger. With my propensity to miss my shorter clubs right, taking less club would be just as dangerous as it would bring the right side bunkers into play. So I am not better than anyone mentioned. I am most definitely worse, and most assuredly different. (see the sinister lefty thread) ;)
-
But not so fast my friend. If the green is that wacky, I still don't see any benefit from any side or distance. Hell it seems to be just a lot of luck if it really is that absurdly fast and contoured.
And of course there is also something to be said for that... but I'm not sure it adds to the greatness factor.
I don't know that anyone said the green was wacky.
Imho, I think the slope distinctly favors an approach from the right. I don't know that many golfers see that, so it could simply be my own opinion.
-
George:
Come on man, you're not going to go Mucci on me, are you?
Of course only I used the word "wacky." But several have told stories about how difficult the green is... balls rolling off that seemed to be stationary, etc....
And if that's the case, well... I continue to have a hard time seeing that it matters much where one puts the tee shot.
And you ought to treat that as a good thing... it makes the hole difficult to figure out... because of course the green can't be that absurd, can it?
Anyway, could it be just as I postulated way at the beginning - that is that for good players, they just want to miss the trouble and don't care where they leave the tee shot... but for us mortals, we'd be better off coming in from the right?
That is, they see it George - they just don't need it like you and I do.
TH
-
Anyway, could it be just as I postulated way at the beginning - that is that for good players, they just want to miss the trouble and don't care where they leave the tee shot... but for us mortals, we'd be better off coming in from the right?
That is, they see it George - they just don't need it like you and I do.
My only experience with top players was observing the action at the Am. I watched maybe a dozen groups on this hole, and the players who favored the right side (and there weren't many) generally fared better. I saw A LOT of guys who are probably +2s and 3s who struggled to get the ball close from the left side (it's totally blind, also, which I don't recall anyone mentioning), and I think they were on the left side of the fairway because of: 1) the bunkers on the right and 2) they didn't see the need to get it close to the bunkers. But, obviously, I can't read their minds, so I don't know that that is why they were on the left.
Wayne birdied the hole - maybe he could share which side of the fairway he was on and if it was a conscious decision.
Hopefully we'll have more discussion fodder next year. I won't be surprised if Tiger lays up to the right and dead hands a 9 iron in there every day, happy to walk away with par.
-
Well... one thing these great players are not is dumb. If there's a benefit to going right, you'd have seen most go that way. So one conclusion is this is a subtle choice that great players are missing... another is that it doesn't really matter where one approaches this green - for them.
But again, how they play the hole doesn't really matter all that much.
The average joe golfer would be better off from the right, correct?
That's good enough for me. And in fact in a way is kinda cool... playing away from the greater trouble (ditch, high rough) also gives the better angle in... not your standard fare, which would be the opposite.
So OK, I am starting to like this hole more and more, as I thought I would. The green still scares me though - and I don't mean in a shotmaking way - I mean in a "this seems absurd way". I like quirk; I don't like goofy-golf. Hopefully you understand the distinction.
TH
-
George,
Believe me, I constantly know I'm walking the razor's edge. Chunk wedge or hit it in tight. I never know. But I was inspired at Oakmont that day and had one of my all-time enjoyable rounds. Of course, a round with our host couple and Tom Paul made a great venue an even greater experience.