Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: George Pazin on January 22, 2007, 05:14:46 PM
-
I think this qualifies as a long par 3.
From the website:
Green 288
Blue 225
White 209
Red 185
(http://www.oakmont-countryclub.org/A_master/NET/RadEditor/getImage.aspx?ID=715586)
This extremely long par 3 requires a long iron or fairway wood to a fairly large green without undulation. A bunker called "Sahara," some 100 yards long sits to the left of the green, making the tee shot very intimidating.
The visual deception with the Sahara bunker is very cool. It looks like it fronts the entire green, but there is a enough room to put the clubhouse in between it and the green. Well, a normal clubhouse anyway, maybe not Oakmont's. :)
The green looks like a mirage, it's so far away. I think it played about 250 during the '03 Am, and I saw more than a couple guys hit irons on. Those kids are looooooooooong.
I'll try to dig up some photos, the yardage guide, the overhead, etc.
Last week: Teh 7th at Oakmont (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=27541)
-
That is a class hole, I think that every course should have a long Par 3.
-
Some photos:
From the 8th tee, the green's back there somewhere:
(http://www.nauticom.net/users/tshirts/8tee.jpg)
The front gap between the bunker and green:
(http://www.nauticom.net/users/tshirts/8green.jpg)
The 8th green, from the right side:
(http://www.nauticom.net/users/tshirts/8infront.jpg)
-
From The Book, circa 2003:
(http://www.nauticom.net/users/tshirts/hole8.jpg)
The overhead:
(http://www.nauticom.net/users/tshirts/overhead8.jpg)
-
I know this one is a hole I'd always remember even if I only played it one time, even though I've played it a lot of times in state ams and things.
It was just so long to me, even back then, and look at it's back tee length now! To me it was actually one of the few very strategic par 3s I was aware of because I figured my chances of hitting the green might not be that good so I started thinking if I don't hit the green where am I going to leave it? After a while I just began to play the hole basically to leave it in the right place just in front of the green and if I got lucky it might make the front.
This is the only par 3 I ever intentionally played that way most of the time. The other one is PV's #5.
And furthermore, for a strategy like mine on that hole---eg conservative, the bunkering arrangement before and on both sides of the approach (just like PV's #5), is, frankly, brilliant!
-
Thanks for that, Tom. I think golf would be better for all of us if we had more holes that forced this sort of decision upon us (without using water or OB :)).
-
You know George, you are so right about that.
I think most designers today may just think on a big long flat-ground par 3 like that they may just need to use water somewhere on it just to make it more interesting in either play or in look. Not that that can't work too but this hole just shows so well how it's not essential.
I added another thought to that post above and that might just be the key to holes like this----eg short grass/chipping area as a form of a mental hazard even if it's the safe conservative play balanced by that bunkering arrangement before that green which evokes two of the hardest shots in golf---ie the really long explosion shot vs the virtual long chip out of a bunker!
Being faced with those shot choices is pretty good strategic balance or equilibrium, don't you think?
And given all that maybe they balance the other tee shot strategy which would be for most golfers to just take out the driver on a par 3 (something that always felt really weird to me) and rip it and hope!
-
What a golf hole. Unfortunately I never got to play it but I was able to see Arnie whack one in Sahara.
For your enjoyment:
*In front of the mens tees.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/rfarrow22/2-3.jpg)
*Ladies tee (about 10 yards right of the mens)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/rfarrow22/1-3.jpg)
*View of the green from #5 tee.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/rfarrow22/3.jpg)
-
Emil Loeffler, who was the superintendent for most of Fowne's life and built quite a few courses here in Pittsburgh loved this hole as he made very long par 3s similar to it at every course that I've seen.
-
Emil Loeffler, who was the superintendent for most of Fowne's life and built quite a few courses here in Pittsburgh loved this hole as he made very long par 3s similar to it at every course that I've seen.
Is there one at Bucknell? Anybody? Mark Fine?
-
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l151/golfobserver/sioakmont1962.jpg)
-
John VB:
You say that this one was one of Emil Loeffler's favorite holes?
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I vaguely remember someone like Forrest Richardson mentioned on here a few years ago that this hole was altered quite a bit by perhaps a later Oakmont superintendent that he is somehow personally familiar with.
-
I have had the opportunity to have played Oakmont through the years -- particularly around US Open time as a media member and I have to say the 8th has to rank among the very best of long par-3's that I have played.
Why?
The run-up option is indeed available and the hole can be accessed in just about all of the pin locations. If you compare the 8th with the likes of the 16th you can see how the former can be tough but playable and how the latter can be quite vexing when the pin is cut front right and tight against the bunker on that same side.
I think in today's game it's good to see the big boys play the hole as it was intended - a fairway metal or even driver. Tiger and the longest of the guys may have a go at the hole with a 2-iron if conditions warrant such a play but the 8th ties very nicely into the motif that is Oakmont -- muscular, uncompromising and sinister.
Best of all, as you leave the bridge that connects the two sides of the course you can walk right over to the 8th and see what a truly unique and quality hole it still is today.
P.S. I'd love for the folks at the USGA to vary the distance the hole plays -- possibly two days from the max tips and the other two from different locations so that the pin can be placed accordingly.
-
John VB:
You say that this one was one of Emil Loeffler's favorite holes?
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I vaguely remember someone like Forrest Richardson mentioned on here a few years ago that this hole was altered quite a bit by perhaps a later Oakmont superintendent that he is somehow personally familiar with.
I've tried to make a quick search in GCA old threads on the 8th hole evolution. Some quotes from Forrest Richardson on this subject :
Forrest Richardson, 07/11/04 : “My mentor, Arthur Jack Snyder, re-built No. 8's green in 1952-53 so it would better accept a running downhill shot on fast ground conditions. He tells me that professional Lew Worsham often said that the green was "nearly impossible to hold" due to its length and the fact that a wooden club was almost always the weapon of choice. Both men agreed — and so, too, the members — that the hole was best as a very long par-3 requiring exceptional skill to bound a ball onto the green, or even greater skill to fly a ball into the surface and hold it. The work to the green was mainly to raise the right and right/back portions, giving the well-executed shot a chance to hang on. Worsham said he could only hold a ball 25% of the time on the green prior to the 1952-53 remodel.”
Forrest Richardson, 22/01/03 :
“Regarding No. 8 Green?
The Green Committee authorized Jack to re-do No.8 green after Jack asked pro Lew Worsham how many times he might be able to hold the green -- "Only one in four" was Worsham's answer. Jack created the plan for the green and used in-house labor to get the work done. The sand came from local river sources. The Saraha trap stayed along the left, the change was in contouring and a raise on the right portion so a ball could be held more often by a well executed shot. The intent was not to change, just improve the playability.
"When a pro of Worsham's caliber could only be on 1 out of 4, something needed to be done", Jack said.
- - -
I would love to hear what Jack has to say about the moving of the 8th green when the turnpke was added to the existing railroad bed?
The re-done No. 8 green had nothing to do with the turnpike, it was simply Jack's suggestion because the green was too difficult to hold. And, it didn't move, it just was just re-contoured. Jack also enhanced the sand on the right, making it work with the newly contoured green. Jack also recalls building a new forward tee at No. 8 hole at the same time.
- - -
Regarding the No. 8 green being 3 feet above its present height and playing as a short par 4 that balls would not run up on and stay put?
Jack doesn't recall this at all -- No. 8 was raised only on the right and it was always a par-3 as he can recall. He kept the green in the same spot and shape.”
Here are some good GCA threads on this question :
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7749
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=1064
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=1084
Hope it helps. ;)
-
I find it great that this excellent hole was built on the flattest piece of property.
-
I find it great that this excellent hole was built on the flattest piece of property.
Couldn't agree more with this sentiment!
Thanks for digging up those comments, Sebastien, such research is much appreciated. I wonder if anyone bothered to actually test Lew Worsham's statement about 1 in 4, or if they just accepted it. Anecdotal evidence to me is iffy at best.
-
Adam:
No, Emil Loeffler came first. He was W.C. Fownes' primary super perhaps up to the time Fownes died in 1950.
Thanks for bringing up those threads Sebastien. Hey, Sebastien, how the hell do you get one of those little accent things on the first e of your name? Where do you find something like that on the keyboard? I think my name needs some kind of accent or sometihng like that---it's far too boring looking without one.
-
It only looks about 160 Yards in the photos
-
I think it's just totally shocking that Oakmont would have EVER allowed anyone to recontour one of their front to back runaway greens no matter how hard it once was. It sounds like it was damn lucky Snyder didn't recontour those other otherworldly runaway Oakmont greens #1, #10, #12 on Worhams advice.
Synder should've been sacked for that and Lew Worsham should've had his head examined and his lips permanently stapled shut for saying such a thing as he could only hit the green one in four tries.
For God Sakes, didn't Worsham realize Hogan won the US Open in 1947 at Oakmont by purposely hitting his approach shot over #1 all four days?
-
Tom, I took my post down after seing the links and my error. He was his caddy.
-
.
It was just so long to me, even back then, and look at it's back tee length now! To me it was actually one of the few very strategic par 3s I was aware of because I figured my chances of hitting the green might not be that good so I started thinking if I don't hit the green where am I going to leave it? After a while I just began to play the hole basically to leave it in the right place just in front of the green and if I got lucky it might make the front.
This is the only par 3 I ever intentionally played that way most of the time. The other one is PV's #5.
And furthermore, for a strategy like mine on that hole---eg conservative, the bunkering arrangement before and on both sides of the approach (just like PV's #5), is, frankly, brilliant!
Great point. After the first time I played PV #5 I decided to keep the ball short and left off the tee. I thought the same thing about #8 at Oakmont about hitting it to the front edge on the right. Hitting the green is not the only way to par a hole. Eight at oakmont looks like a long dull flat hole until you play it a few times.
-
John VB:
You say that this one was one of Emil Loeffler's favorite holes?
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I vaguely remember someone like Forrest Richardson mentioned on here a few years ago that this hole was altered quite a bit by perhaps a later Oakmont superintendent that he is somehow personally familiar with.
Tom, I'm just assuming it was since there are quite a few others around Pittsburgh at the courses he designed.
-
If they did modify the green to accept a running shot after Loeffler and Fownes were gone, that might add more credence to the idea that Loeffler liked the old green as many of the copies he built run away to the back more than #8 does. #11 at Hannastown, #11 at Alcoma, #4 at Nemacolin (redone by Tillie, but originally Loeffler) are examples right off the top of my head.
-
John -
Did Loeffler build the 9 holer at St. Francis? If not, do you know who did?
-
George,
No. There is some dispute as to whether it was Travis or Ross. I think that St. Francis says Ross, but some others have said Travis. Brad did not list it as a Ross in his book.
-
It only looks about 160 Yards in the photos
The first shot is from the front of the mens tee so it is about 190 yards from where I took that picture.
-
Rakes in the bunker, at Oakmont, interesting.
-
Rakes in the bunker, at Oakmont, interesting.
They won't be in June.
-
JV/JC:
I gather for rules purposes it's better to have rakes placed outside bunker - why?
Also, I've found that at most courses where any instruction is given as to where to put the rakes, it says to leave them IN the bunkers - why do you think that is if it's contrary to what's better for the rules - just for convenience?
George - another very cool hole, not much more to say, other than whereas this hole is fantastic, I'm not sure I'd want a course full of holes where one just gives up on reaching the green in regulation. Birdies are fun too. ;)
-
George - another very cool hole, not much more to say, other than whereas this hole is fantastic, I'm not sure I'd want a course full of holes where one just gives up on reaching the green in regulation. Birdies are fun too. ;)
I certainly agree, and Oakmont does not generally overwhelm one with length, so I think it fits rather nicely.
What's a birdie?
-
George - beats me, it's been a long time.
;D
And not to be contrary, but wasn't the wisest play on #1 to just go long and play back? That is, part of the coolness of that hole was that the best play was to give up on holding the green in regulation?
If so, that's two holes in 8 where this is the case, and we're reaching a maximum point pretty quickly....
No?
-
JV/JC:
I gather for rules purposes it's better to have rakes placed outside bunker - why?
Also, I've found that at most courses where any instruction is given as to where to put the rakes, it says to leave them IN the bunkers - why do you think that is if it's contrary to what's better for the rules - just for convenience?
Its better for an occasional ball to be deflected into or away from a bunker than for a ball to be stopped up against the lip of a bunker because of an improperly placed rake. And the reality that most people don't know the rules well enough to know what to do if there ball is under a rake in a bunker.
Supers like rakes in the bunker because they don't have to move them out of the way while mowing.
-
Perfect and concise and very helpful, Sarge. Thanks.
TH
-
I differentiate between playing long (btw, I read that strategy on #1 as not necessarily over the green, just not trying to stop it at the pin) as a strategy, and a hole being nigh unreachable in regulation, as Tom P suggested.
Wayne and others have indicated they hit various wedges into #1, so I think that is a good example of what I mean.
-
I differentiate between playing long (btw, I read that strategy on #1 as not necessarily over the green, just not trying to stop it at the pin) as a strategy, and a hole being nigh unreachable in regulation, as Tom P suggested.
Wayne and others have indicated they hit various wedges into #1, so I think that is a good example of what I mean.
Hmmmm... I'm not reading TEP as saying he couldn't reach 8, but rather he gave up trying as it wasn't worth the risk due to the horrid places a driver could end up. I read that as a strategic choice, the same as 1... That is, the best shot is trying to maybe get it on one easy portion of the green (very front on 8, very back on 1), without really trying to hit the middle of the green, not to mention any tight pins.
And there's nothing wrong with this - in moderation. Two or three or maybe even 4 holes on a course would seem to be fine. It's just scary to me - as a new fan of Oakmont - that we're at two and we've only played 8 holes.
TH
-
The difference to me is driver versus a much shorter club. Even Tom P has said he doesn't remember ever having more than a 5 iron into #1.
To me, that in no way suggests a similar approach, other than playing somewhat defensively, which appears on perhaps all of the holes at Oakmont!
Think Winged Foot. :) Doesn't seem like there were that many birdies out there, nor at Shinney '04. At least, it doesn't seem like one would go out hunting for them, rather one would take them when the putting opportunity arose.
-
Of course it's a shorter club.
But in the discussion of #1, much was made about the coolness of giving up all chance of getting close to most pins - that the best play was long, etc. That doesn't sound to me much different from the strategy on #8, except that of course it's a more dramatic choice on 1, because on 8 you might never get it on or close to the green no matter how many times you try given the long distance.
And I'm not saying birdie opportunities must be present, or that requirements for defensive play are necessarily a bad thing.
I just do find that intentionally missing greens is a very cool thing - but only in moderation. Yes, Winged Foot has at least one hole where apparently that is the play (#3 I guess). I just didn't see too many others there, as I recall. My fear - only knowing 8 holes at Oakmont - is that it might have too much of this otherwise good thing.
But if 1 and 8 are the only holes, then it's not an issue.
TH
-
Well, you're gonna think it's an issue, then, because this is certainly not the last time you're going to see this type of decision.
To me, they are very very different in strategy. The shots are very very different. The only real similarity is not going for the hole, instead pretty much deciding on the tee you're playing for a par, not a birdie chance. In that sense, there are more similar holes than different holes at Oakmont. Heck, you could make an argument that this type of decision exists on almost every hole at Oakmont.
I used to hate the notion of protecting par. After spending so much time at Oakmont in 2003, then watching the Open at Shinney in '04, I have a whole new appreciation for it. I think it encourages thoughtful golf more than just about anything else.
But that's obviously just my opinion, others are entitled to theirs.
:)
-
If you throw out Tiger, the new back tees seems to be saying 'not with an iron, not anymore'. Good luck to 'em. :-\
-
I guess the only thing I'd think there might be too much of are conscious decisions not to even try to hit a green, as TEP clearly is on #8 (as I read it anyway). That is different from playing defensively - playing for pars - as you describe - again as I see it anyway. So perhaps it is a different thing going on on 1 and 8... I just had this idea lots of guys were intentionally missing the green on 1 also (or should do that). If it's just playing away from the hole, then that is different.
TH
-
I don't think anyone is consciously missing #1 (or #10 or #12, for that matter). They're simply saying you shouldn't fool around trying to play an unusual shot short, and leave yourself with a brutal downhill putt, but rather just accept that the ball is going to go long, and leave yourself an uphill putt, or at worst, an uphill chip.
Additionally, the wonderful grounds crew at Oakmont does a superior job keeping the ground in front of the 8th green firm and fast, so there is a reasonable chance the ball will release onto the front of the green.
-
Understood - thanks.
Just re #8, TEP did mention that best case scenario of trying to roll the ball on the front, so I assumed conditions allowed such. Good lord would it suck if the approach was soft and/or wet.
TH
-
P.S. I'd love for the folks at the USGA to vary the distance the hole plays -- possibly two days from the max tips and the other two from different locations so that the pin can be placed accordingly.
Matt, you wish has been granted. I got a letter today about the setup of the US Open and it states that #8 will be played from 252 and 288. No statement as to how many days from each, but I'd guess 2 each.
-
Emil Loeffler, who was the superintendent for most of Fowne's life and built quite a few courses here in Pittsburgh loved this hole as he made very long par 3s similar to it at every course that I've seen.
Your right. Emil Loeffler designed the course I work at , and the Par 3's are brutal.