Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Joe Bausch on March 22, 2015, 03:39:45 PM
-
Thought some in the treehouse might enjoy this 1905 article (click on it to obtain larger size):
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Oakmont/Sept3_1905_PittsburghPost.jpg) (http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Oakmont/Sept3_1905_PittsburghPost.jpg)
(if your web browser doesn't expand that image, click on it again!)
-
Thank you, Joe.
Has the listing of each hole's bogey score ever been more apropos than at Oakmont in 1905?
Also - very interesting opening for a golf article, i.e. referencing country club life as a signifcant social and political component/influencer of American life.
Peter
-
Joe,
This is an awesome article and a great find. Some observations.
* The course described is today's routing.
* The contention that the course would be laid out "scientifically", which may be the first mention of the term I've heard in the US.
* Amazing to consider that the course could be setup to play 6800 yards in 1905.
* Amazing, but not surprising to learn that there is only one bunker on the course. As seems to have been the predominant thinking in amateur circles for that decade and much of the next, it appears the idea was to study play for some period to best determine bunker placement. It was estimated that bunkering the course would cost $10k.
* Tough to tell but it appears there may be more trees on the course in 1905 then exists today! :o ;D
Thanks for sharing!
-
The spelling of "Pittsburg" in the newspaper's name led me down yet another internet rabbit hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Pittsburgh
-
I'm not sure if this has ever been found/posted before but it's from November of 1903 and is pretty cool. The evolution of Oakmont has always been incredibly fascinating to me.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8700/16908670015_fbfca75488_z.jpg)
-
If Oakmont had been built in New York Chicago or Boston there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been widely hailed before 1910. How many people were building 6800 yard courses back then with a great routing that still exists to this day intact?
-
Mike, here is a clickable version of your wonderful 1903 article:
(http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/Oakmont/Nov1_1903_PittsburghPost.jpg) (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/Oakmont/Nov1_1903_PittsburghPost.jpg)
-
Thanks for the assist Joseph. More to follow.
-
The spelling of "Pittsburg" in the newspaper's name led me down yet another internet rabbit hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Pittsburgh
Been there, done that Andrew. . .
. . . pretty neat though, eh?
:)
-
It seems the course had already been laid out by early April 1903, and the intent was to have a full length championship course. At the time, the only courses in the country generally acknowledged to be really good were Garden City (pre-Travis), Chicago (pre-Raynor), and Myopia (post-Leeds).
I'm trying to imagine an Oakmont without bunkers but with the current routing (which is essentially what it was) and I'd have to believe it would be very, very good, and at least the equal of anything in the country at that time, perhaps save Myopia.
If Oakmont was in a major metro area with a large golf community like NYC, Boston, Chicago, or even Philly, instead of a dour industrial coal and steel town, is there any doubt it would have been universally hailed and better known from the get-go?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/16916491345_bf796c4bed_z.jpg)
-
Mike:
Oakmont may have had the bones to be a great course when it was first laid out, but it was missing the details. It wasn't until around 1912 that it was even considered one of the best courses in Pittsburg(h), at which time the idea was first floated to host the Amateur.
There is no doubt that the original intention was to build one of the very best courses in the country from the get go, it just took a while to get there.
I also think the course received plenty of notice from the golf community. Fownes was a well known figure with connections throughout the country, and his undertaking would not have gone unnoticed. The course would have been considered in the same light, that being a big, unfinished golf course, no matter where it was located.
What is curious to me is why he decided to build it at that length. Around the same time Bendelow was espousing longer courses to keep up with the increased distance of the new ball. Several of his attempts to stretch courses out were met with disdain, and in many instances the courses actually built ended up being shorter than his proposed plans. There's a great corollary to East Lake, as both courses were built to be championship tests. East Lake, like Oakmont, took a number of years to evolve into the desired image of its founders.
Sven
-
Sven,
I agree that the details, primarily the bunkering, took some time to flesh out but even these earliest articles mention that the intent for Oakmont is to host a national title. What else in the Pittsburg(h) area was superior at that time?
Personally, I'd be very intrigued to see an Oakmont that had everything but the bunkers. I can't imagine it being anything but very good.
It certainly seemed challenging enough from the get-go even sans bunkers, as this October 1904 Opening Day article (as well as the scoring) suggests.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7603/16915823011_eb62ed254f_z.jpg)
-
I remember reading that the bunkering at Oakmont was made difficult due to the clay soil. They could not dig them deep because of drainage issue and that was why they initially ended up being at grade and the furrow rakes were created to add difficulty. I believe they have been deepened over the years as better drainage became doable.
-
Mike -
In the scoring results, is that the W.G. Carr of PVGC?
Bob
-
Jim Sherma,
Yes, that's my understanding, as well.
Bob Crosby,
I'll see what more I can find related to Father Carr but it wouldn't be surprising.
The early championship aspirations of the club were also known to a wider circle than Pittsburg(h) as seen in this December 1904 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8748/16891029526_e7063dfc6e_z.jpg)
-
I am informed that W. G. Carr is not the Rev. Carr of PVGC. The BCrosby slap-down is as follows:
"W.G. Carr was not the Carr of PV. PV's Carr was Simon J. Carr, a catholic priest. He was one of Crump's best friends and a helluva player (he was also one of the early secretaries of PV). However, although he did play in many Philadelphia tournament events and won some significant ones, he apparently was not a traveler for golf for probably obvious reasons. Matter of fact, not long after Crump died Carr was transferred by his diocese somewhere out into the middle of the state. Finegan thought (and reported) that may've happened because his diocese felt he was playing too much golf and perhaps not spending enough time promoting God and such."
Bob
-
Mike:
I'm not doubting the intentions. I'm commenting on the timing of when it was ready.
Here's the 1912 article discussing the evolved Oakmont (American Golfer Feb. 1912) -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Oakmont%20-%20American%20Golfer%20Feb.%201912%201_zps1l5xujwh.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Oakmont%20-%20American%20Golfer%20Feb.%201912%202_zpsta9gurra.png)
-
Bob,
Poor Father Carr. To live in abstinence from sex is one thing but to be banished to central PA without good golf is more than a man should have to bear on this earth. I assume he died shortly thereafter.
Sven,
Thanks for sharing that article.
I find it very interesting and one almost wonders if Fownes (with son) wasn't something of a perfectionist/obsessive and from most accounts regarding his philosophical approach (i.e. "a shot irrevocably lost") it seems somewhat likely. The fact that Oakmont didn't apply to host the US Amateur until 1912 or so may tell us more about Fownes and his demands for perfection than about the objective quality of the early course at Oakmont, at least in comparison to its early contemporaries.
-
Courtesy of Joe Bausch, we've resized the rest of the articles for easier viewing.
Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette April 2, 1903
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Oakmont/Oakmont19030402PittsburghWeeklyGazette.jpg)
Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette October 2, 1904
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Oakmont/Oakmont19041002PIttsburghWeeklyGazette.jpg)
-
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 1st, 1904
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Oakmont/Oakmont19041201BrooklynDailyEagle.jpg)
-
Mike,
In the '04 article Fownes wanted to try for the 1907 Am at OCC, but it wasn't played there until 1919, some 12 years after his 'prediction'.
Why the wait?
-
This thread contains some very interesting old articles. Thanks to those who have posted them.
As for the attempts to use the articles to fundamentally alter our understanding of early Oakmont, I am less impressed. A few quick points.
1. The term "laid out scientifically" was not novel nor did it necessarily mean there was any thing special or unique going on about Oakmont.
2. As Sven pointed out, the theory that Oakmont was a great course in 1905 but somehow escaped notice because it was in Pittsburg is untenable.
3. Likewise regarding the far-fetched theory that Oakmont was already a great course, but that somehow the Fownes perfectionist tendencies kept it under wraps.
4. The claim that the course could have been stretched to 6800 yards did not necessarily reflect positively on its design in 1903.
None of this is meant as a knock on Oakmont or Fownes. To the contrary, Oakmont seems to have been made great through years of hard work. Trying to portray it as great from day one somewhat diminishes their years of efforts.
-
Part of that hard work was their more-than-famous greens, many of which weren't around prior to the mid 1920s.
http://www.history.cmu.edu/docs/schlossman/Americas-Toughest.pdf
-
Jim,
Thanks for sharing that article. I'll be back to discuss further as time permits over the next day or two.
-
I'd like someone to explain the enduring greatness of Oakmont
-
Having played Oakmont only twice, I'm surely no expert, but the easy answer to the question of Oakmont's enduring greatness is its continuing ability to provide an amazing challenge to professionals under major conditions while still managing to regularly supply it's members and guests with a stirring but survivable experience on a regular basis. The course as it has evolved still provides the kind of stern test that Fownes envisioned more than 100 years ago. It sits on a terrific piece of land that supplied the architect with many ways to challenge the golfer, whether uphill, downhill or innumerable sidehill complications. Finally, it strikes me as a place that seems uncompromising, but it still had a project that removed thousands of trees in such a successful way that it became a role model for hundreds of classic courses that emulated their action. That's a fair amount of enduring greatness in my book.
-
I'd like someone to explain the enduring greatness of Oakmont
The terrific article linked by Jim Kennedy (immediately above) is probably a good place to start.
-
Having played Oakmont only twice, I'm surely no expert, but the easy answer to the question of Oakmont's enduring greatness is its continuing ability to provide an amazing challenge to professionals under major conditions while still managing to regularly supply it's members and guests with a stirring but survivable experience on a regular basis. The course as it has evolved still provides the kind of stern test that Fownes envisioned more than 100 years ago. It sits on a terrific piece of land that supplied the architect with many ways to challenge the golfer, whether uphill, downhill or innumerable sidehill complications. Finally, it strikes me as a place that seems uncompromising, but it still had a project that removed thousands of trees in such a successful way that it became a role model for hundreds of classic courses that emulated their action. That's a fair amount of enduring greatness in my book.
Terry,
I think that is particularly well stated.
One of the things that you mentioned in terms of the terrific land forms particularly well utilized by Fownes strikes me as fundamentally important and is the basis of my contention here that a bunkerless Oakmont in its original (and current) routing, even conceding that some greens were rebuilt at times, would have been an exceptionally good golf course by 1903 standards and the first of its kind in many ways.
-
Interesting stuff, many thanks. Just skimmed it, look forward to fully digesting it sometime soon.
As opposed to a bunkerless Oakmont, I personally would like to know how a rough-less - ala Augusta pre-second-cut bastardization :) - Oakmont would play. I believe it would still present a tremendous challenge to all and would love to see the experiment - but I won't hold my breath.
None of this is meant as a knock on Oakmont or Fownes. To the contrary, Oakmont seems to have been made great through years of hard work. Trying to portray it as great from day one somewhat diminishes their years of efforts.
Classic David M. And I mean that in a good way.
I'd argue it was great indeed from day one, simply by virtue of the greensites chosen and the routing. Subsequent tweaks may have made it greater, but it's the bones that made it the stalwart that it is, always has been, and always will be (regardless of Cary's lack of affection...).
What makes Oakmont great? I'd argue that Fownes was given land no different from 99.9% of parkland courses, yet he produced a parkland course that has arguably one parkland equal, Merion. I haven't seen enough greats to verify this, but am standing by it nevertheless....
-
Hi George,
All I can go by is the historical record, and it suggests that Oakmont became great after decades of extensive work on the course, not merely tweaks.
How about a little mental exercise? What if a relatively unknown professional had provided Fownes with the initial routing of the course, and then Fownes & Son had taken over and done everything they have actually done, from the beginning of construction onward? Do you think anyone would be clamoring to rewrite the early history of the course to turn the routing into some sort of ex post facto masterpiece? I have my doubts.
-
Before anyone comments further on the original routing and use of landforms, can we at least see a show of hands from those who have actually seen the course in person? That seems eminently fair, no?
-
As I just said, all I have to go on is the historical record. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that no one here saw the course in 1905.
-
This 1925 article notes 3 new greens at holes 6,7, & 8, along with descriptions of every hole.
http://digitalarchives.usga.org/mbwtemp/August%201925.pdf
The 1919 US AM, (lengthy) - 6,707 yds., numerous traps, no-one liked the 17th
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1919/ag2111e.pdf
Fifty new bunkers in 1909
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1909/ag16p.pdf
A few more bunker added in 1910
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag33q.pdf
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1912/ag74j.pdf
Not ready for the US Am in 1911
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1911/ag53o.pdf
Oswald Kirkby underwhelmed by Oakmont in 1915
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_65/outLXV06/outLXV06l.pdf
Oakmont declined holding the 1916 Am
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag172i.pdf
It appears that Oakmont was awarded the 1917 US Am - WW1 got in the way
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1917/VOL_68_NO_22/SL6822014.pdf
-
Very interesting articles, Jim. It appears for a number of years that the powers that be at Oakmont not only didn't apply to host the US Amateur, but also declined the one in 1916 when Merion first hosted instead.
Thanks for sharing.
-
* The contention that the course would be laid out "scientifically", which may be the first mention of the term I've heard in the US.
Did you plug the term into SEGL's search function? If so, you'd find the term in use in the Sept. 1900 issue of GOLF.
-
Hi George,
All I can go by is the historical record, and it suggests that Oakmont became great after decades of extensive work on the course, not merely tweaks.
How about a little mental exercise? What if a relatively unknown professional had provided Fownes with the initial routing of the course, and then Fownes & Son had taken over and done everything they have actually done, from the beginning of construction onward? Do you think anyone would be clamoring to rewrite the early history of the course to turn the routing into some sort of ex post facto masterpiece? I have my doubts.
I'm not into pointless speculation. The routing as posted is the same as what currently exists. I can't speak as to whether the greensites are the same or not, but if they are, and they sure appear to be at least damn close, then I'd say QED to my earlier statement. Your read of history may prompt you to infer it was the tweaking that made the course special, but my read of the routing posted and the course today says otherwise.
-
George,
I really couldn't agree with you more.
As to the question of whether we'd find the same genius in the routing if it have been devised by a golf professional and then further developed by Fownes, that's not only hypothetical but also a completely moot point as there really weren't any routings developed by golf professionals in 1903 in the US that were much to speak of based on modern standards, were there? Perhaps Ekwanok?
-
George, Mike has started so many overlapping threads the past few days that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of the information, but there have been a number of articles posted which indicate that the green sites have been significantly altered.
Mike, your pronouncements about the state of GCA in 1903 are getting more and more outrageous. You can knock the state of architecture all you like, but keep in mind that early Oakmont wasn't widely considered to be a top course even among the courses you keep knocking.
-
At this point it seems that Oakmont was a well-routed course from its inception. Considered 'good' from the get-go, it did take nearly a decade and a half of work before its owners felt it was ready to hold a significant tournament like the US Am or the US Open, and many of the articles show that it kept on changing for around a quarter of a century by adding bunkers, moving some greens to new sites and reworking many, if not most, of the others before reaching some sort of 'fruition' in the latter part of the 1920s.
What have I missed? :)
-
Jim,
I'm not sure if you missed it but I think my contention is that Oakmont was extraordinary in comparison to what else existed in the US in 1903-05 and perhaps was only inferior to Myopia Hunt and perhaps Garden City (although I doubt it) or Ekwanok at that time.
I state that contention due to the following that made it distinctive and certainly one of the first of it's kind in the US;
1) The routing that we already agree is very good, particularly the locating of terrific natural greensites. These sites are stellar even if the green internals were rebuilt and/or enhanced over the years.
2) Built with the clear intent of being a Championship course.
3) Built with the clear intent of being lengthy enough to handle the Haskell Ball
4) Built without the Victorian style predominant in the country of cross-bunkers and steeple-chase golf
5) The first US course I'm aware of built without bunkers but instead with the intent that play would be carefully observed and bunkers and other artificial hazards placed based on that learning.
6) Built with the idea of forcing the better golfer to play all the clubs/shots.
7) Built with greens so varied as to test every kind of play. Tom Doak recently mentioned that before 1905 most greens were simply areas cut lower at whatever the natural grade was.
I think the whole issue of them not requesting a US Amateur until later was due to Fownes own preoccupation with perfection and certainly not with the lacking quality of the course. Perhaps more importantly, however, I think it was all about location, location, location. The New York and Chicago regions had a virtual lock on US Am venues during this period and I'd be hard-pressed to say that any of the following courses were better in 1903-05 than Oakmont.
Consider the following run from 1896 on as far as location and USGA influence;
1896 - Shinnecock (New York)
1897 - Chicago (Chicago)
1898 - Morris County (New York)
1899 - Onwentsia (Chicago)
1900 - Garden City (New York)
1901 - Atlantic City (New York/Philadelphia)
1902 - Glen View (Chicago)
1903 - Nassau (New York)
1904 - Baltusrol (New York)
1905 - Chicago (Chicago)
1906 - Englewood (New York)
1907 - Euclid (Cleveland...def a one-off but still a Victorian style architecture)
1908 - Garden City (New York)
1909 - Chicago (Chicago)
1910 - The Country Club (Boston)
1911 - Apawamis (New York)
1912 - Chicago (Chicago)
-
Mike:
I think you are reverse engineering the conclusion you want to reach.
I'll give you #'s 2 and 3 in your list, but it wasn't the only course built in that era with those aspirations.
#1 - Green sites were moved.
#4 - It didn't have bunkers. We have no idea what kind of bunkers Fownes would have used if they had been built in 1903. By the time the bunkers were added, a good number of other courses had already adopted the non-Victorian style.
#5 - Please cite where Fownes discusses adding the bunkers based on how the course played as his plan in 1903. For all we know, he didn't add bunkers early on because he didn't have the resources. I may be wrong on this, but I have yet to see evidence backing your claim.
#6 - I don't think this was any kind of innovation.
In 1903-05 Oakmont was no where near ready to host a big tournament. It wouldn't be ready until 1910 or so at the earliest, and by all accounts even the guys that ran the place didn't think it was ready until much later.
Sven
-
Sven,
The only green sites I saw moved in all of the articles to date were #8 and 16, both very slightly.
The first article on this thread that Joe Bausch posted states;
"Considering the fact that the course has been developed in less than a year, and that it enjoys the distinction of being one of the finest courses in America, it is easier to realize what wonders have been done. The management has placed no bunkers on the course, wisely waiting for it to become thoroughly tested. It will cost $10,000 to bunker it properly."
"The Oakmont Country Club will feel fully justified in extending an invitation for the amateur championship to be held upon its course in 1907"
My November 1, 1903 article states;
"This (2nd hole) is the only hole that bunkers have been planned for. They will be placed as play next year demands them and will be constructed of well-packed gravel, a hazard that gives the ball no run and sticks it fast."
So, it does some like Fownes had some very definite ideas about how and when to bunker his course from inception, and it was much different than the standard Victorian-era steeple-chase courses of that time.
When compared with the courses being awarded the US Amateur at that time like Euclid and Onwentsia, Nassau and even Chicago, it's difficult to imagine how Oakmont, even sans bunkers, would not be ready for the US Amateur from the get-go.
Have you been on the property to see it in person? Thanks.
-
Mike,
A new hole is not a minor change, nor is relocating a green some 40 yards from where it was. ;)
Fownes himself thought the course wasn't ready to hold a US Am.
I've never been there either, but as David so aptly said on one of these Oakmont threads - none of us were there in the time frames we are talking about.
The old sixteenth hole has been eliminated and a new hole built. There was fault found with this old hole by some of the players, who pronounced it a bit unfair. The green was of the hog-back variety and it was difficult to hold your tee shot on it.
Another important change is the one to the fifteenth green. A new green moved back 40 yards has been built and it calls for a full iron on your second shot. The hole measures 470 yards with the new green.
-
Sven,
The only green sites I saw moved in all of the articles to date were #8 and 16, both very slightly.
The first article on this thread that Joe Bausch posted states;
"Considering the fact that the course has been developed in less than a year, and that it enjoys the distinction of being one of the finest courses in America, it is easier to realize what wonders have been done. The management has placed no bunkers on the course, wisely waiting for it to become thoroughly tested. It will cost $10,000 to bunker it properly."
"The Oakmont Country Club will feel fully justified in extending an invitation for the amateur championship to be held upon its course in 1907"
My November 1, 1903 article states;
"This (2nd hole) is the only hole that bunkers have been planned for. They will be placed as play next year demands them and will be constructed of well-packed gravel, a hazard that gives the ball no run and sticks it fast."
So, it does some like Fownes had some very definite ideas about how and when to bunker his course from inception, and it was much different than the standard Victorian-era steeple-chase courses of that time.
When compared with the courses being awarded the US Amateur at that time like Euclid and Onwentsia, Nassau and even Chicago, it's difficult to imagine how Oakmont, even sans bunkers, would not be ready for the US Amateur from the get-go.
Have you been on the property to see it in person? Thanks.
Mike:
I have been on the property. I attended the 1994 US Open.
I read the quote regarding the bunkers differently than you. I also read the text you omitted discussing the bunker guarding the front of the 2nd, which sounds like a Victorian concept to me and is much in the vein of many of the fronting bunkers at Chicago which you claim differed so much from Oakmont, as do the "pit" bunkers on its left.
You are entitled to your opinion on this, but understand there is nothing that I've read that suggests that the way the course ended up being bunkered had been conceived by Fownes in 1903/04. And there is nothing, other than opening day hyperbole or local press aggrandizement, that suggests the course was ready to host the best players in the land before it actually did. I can give you scores of articles that note courses as being equal to the best in the land, this was the tagline of the day back then.
Please remember that the article you are quoting from was written before the course had even been played.
Whatever happened with the greens, some were moved, and by 1926, contrary to what Tom Doak recently posted in another thread, every one of them had been remodeled and rebuilt (Aug. 1925 Golf Illustrated).
The bunker system wasn't completed until 1912, after two years of work (Feb. 1912 American Golfer). Whatever Fownes was thinking about in 1903, it wasn't for a number of years that those ideas, if they remained static, were implemented. And we know many subsequent changes were made, including the bunkers Fownes added on a whim when hearing about the likes of Sam Snead driving over existing ones.
Golf architecture in the United States evolved a great deal between 1903 and 1910. The ideals espoused in the Travis, Bramsten and other articles posted in the other thread were taking hold, as were the much publicized views of MacDonald and others. Fownes was the beneficiary of this knowledge, he had exposure to the work being done elsewhere, he saw how the game was changing.
I don't mean to discredit him in any way. I do give him credit for the foresight he displayed in building the course at the length he did, a length that held up over the years. And the routing has shown its strength by its longevity.
But the course was not Oakmont until it gained its penal nature. That is what it is known for, and that is why it remains to this day a solid test for the best players in the world. The course evolved into itself. It did not start that way on day one.
Sven
-
4) Built without the Victorian style predominant in the country of cross-bunkers and steeple-chase golf
Mike,
It sounds like there were quite a few "Victorian" influences at Oakmont's debut:
From the initial article:
#5 - green surrounded by ditches
#7 - requires a clean tee shot, ditch in front of tee
#10 - requires a carry of 170 yards on the second shot to carry ditches and long grass
#11 - requires a perfect second shot to carry ditches and long grass
#12 - second shot plays from a hanging lie but requires a long carry over rough grass
#16 - green is entirely surrounded by difficulties
#18 - requires a tee shot of 165 yards to carry long grass
Cross bunkers? who needs 'em when you have ditches and long grass serving the exact same 'Victorian' purpose on a little over 1/3 of the holes on your golf course. :)
-
Sven,
We'll definitely agree to disagree on this one but I thank you for the interesting, education dialogue. One final question if I might...you say you think Oakmont in its earliest stages wasn't ready for something like hosting a US Amateur but I'm very puzzled when I see the list of courses that hosted it during those years to think which of them was superior. Any in particular come to mind?
Now, if we were talking US Open courses that's another thing with Myopia a clear early gem, but the US Am courses? I'm not seeing it.
Thanks again..
Jim,
Point taken, and delivered with a panache of humor to boot! :D
-
Mike:
Why can't you just take Fownes' own words at their face value, that it wasn't ready to host any kind of event until it did.
How was an uncompleted Oakmont superior in any way to courses that had years of maturity, whatever their styles?
Sven
-
Sven,
Because I think Fownes was a bit of a obsessive-compulsive perfectionist.
His own opinion of whether and when he was "ready" to unveil it, or done tinkering/perfecting it 16 years later when he finally hosted the US Amateur in 1919 I think is a much different question than how objectively good it was in comparison to some pretty limp competition during the first decade of the 20th century.
-
You can't just alter, dismiss, and diminish the factual record to suit your desired result, yet that is exactly what you are trying to do here.
-
Mike:
It wasn't that "objectively" good until he was done working on it, which "objectively" we know didn't happen for a number of years.
Sven
-
Mike - copied from the other thread:
I'm reminded of the phrase/concept that TEPaul used to use a lot, I think it was "designing up" -- in reference, I think, to that phase of course design that, in the early days of American golf, was just as important if not more so that phase one (i.e. the routing/laying out of the course.)
So, first came the decisions on (and creation of) tees and greens and basic direction and length of the 18 golf holes in some kind of routing; and then came - in the designing up phase - the addition of bunkers and other hazards and mounds and tweaks to the length of the holes and evolving maintenance practices etc. And it seems to me that, whether it's Oakmont or Myopia or Merion, the courses we now (still) consider great owe a lot of their greatness to this "designing up" phase. I have no way of knowing how many well-routed/laid out courses from the early days of American golf never benefitted/benefitted enough from the designing up phase and thus were, either soon afterwards or in the decades to come, forgotten or bulldozed over.
Edit: to state the obvious, wasn't this same question at the heart of the Merion debates? What did Wilson do in the designing up phase after his return from overseas, and of how much utility and value and defining greatness was the adding of bunkers etc etc worth to the totality of what Merion is today?
Peter
-
We're on the third page of this thread and there hasn't been one word of the contributions of John McGlynn or Emil Loeffler to the evolution of the course.
The following (already posted by Jim Kennedy on p. 1) gives them their due credit, as well as providing a fairly concise history of how the course was developed.
http://www.history.cmu.edu/docs/schlossman/Americas-Toughest.pdf
-
Peter,
That's a great point and insightful set of questions that really get to the heart of the matter from an architectural standpoint. Some believe that routing is destiny and there is definite truth that a poor routing can be impossible to overcome through "designing up" and that a solid routing provides a sound foundation for that building process.
The fact that Oakmont's routing has remained fundamentally intact for 112 years is fairly remarkable, wouldn't you say?
I think one thing this discussion has missed so far is the issue of agronomics, as my friend Kyle Harris reminded me. I think we tend to compare and contrast courses based strictly on architectural features when indeed the biggest challenge these early pioneers had was to get good turfgrass growing that could be sustained.
So when I see that in 1904 Fownes wanted to host the US Amateur in 1907 and then wasn't "ready" until over a decade later I really think that had very little to do with architecture and probably everything to do with agronomic issues.
Sven,
Speaking of agronomy, thanks for pulling that article over here and for citing the contributions of McGlynn and Loeffer.
-
So when I see that in 1904 Fownes wanted to host the US Amateur in 1907 and then wasn't "ready" until over a decade later I really think that had very little to do with architecture and probably everything to do with agronomic issues.
Given that the bunkering scheme would not be anywhere near completed for another five years after 1907, this is just silly.
-
So when I see that in 1904 Fownes wanted to host the US Amateur in 1907 and then wasn't "ready" until over a decade later I really think that had very little to do with architecture and probably everything to do with agronomic issues.
Mike:
Little to do with architecture? Everything to do with agronomic issues?
Are you not reading all of the accounts about what was done to the course between 1904 and when it eventually hosted the Am?
This is specious, speculative (lack of) reasoning at its best.
But yes, I'd concede that the turf (in addition to other features of the course) probably wasn't up to Fownes' standards for a number of years after 1904.
Sven
-
Mike,
Another way to look at is in the context of the era - the courses that held the early Ams were built in the style that was expected for that time period. Oakmont wasn't - it was longer, and it used long grass and ditches as hazards. It did not 'fit' into the established norms of its time, one of those norms being bunkers.
Fownes played all the other 'good' courses of the era, and he played them with a cast of characters that was fairly unique. Agronomic issues aside, he probably came to the conclusion (no doubt from his experiences and his felllow competitors) that when he debuted Oakmont it would be necessary for it to have a relatively complete bunkering scheme if it was going to be seen as a course worthy of holding a national championship. Every US Am course has had them, from 1895 on.
Oakmont surely 'worked' in it's un-bunkered state, it proved itself locally by holding many state ams and local events, but his engineer's training would have taught him that you don't take a prototype to market.
-
It's not very wise to down play the agronomic aspect/challenges faced at Oakmont, or any golf course built in this, and the subsequent era. When one considers that Oakmont's famous putting surfaces are comprised completely of Poa annua and furthermore a noteworthy variety which is only found at Oakmont, and which only has ever successfully established at Oakmont through years of selective pressure, it makes one wonder how and why such a variety established.
The most plausible answer is through determination.
It's extremely likely that if one were to dig deep enough, reports of almost total turf loss in the months of July and August at Oakmont went on for years.
-
I wasn't downplaying the agronomic conditions, I just haven't seen any evidence that they were bad enough to have had any impact.
As far as I can tell Oakmont had good reviews from day one, and it held numerous and important local tournaments in the first decade and a half of its existence,. Could it have done that if the turf wasn't good?
Oakmont also bought seed from J. M. Thorburn & Co., supplier to many fine clubs of the day.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8700/16847743638_9283a3c44e_o.jpg)
-
Good find, Jim.
However, that still doesn't address the idea that the golf course had a sustainable agronomic plan, which was the challenge for many of the inland courses during this era. When the weather turned hot and humid with no mechanism to dry the soil, things basically shut down. I don't have the information available, but the timing of the aforementioned US Amateurs in relation to the season may tell a different story as to the why/where/when of selection for this, and other tournaments.
It is also possible that the "championship condition" ethos at Oakmont, which by all accounts existed from very early in the club's history, contributed to any issues that may or may not have occurred.
Yes, this is all speculation but one that broadens the discussion beyond something as facile as bunkers.
-
True, it broadens the discussion, but there is no evidence that Oakmont experienced such difficulties.
As for the weather, the USGA schedule for the the Amateur looked like this from 1895 through 1916: Oct, July, Sept, June, Sept, Oct, July,
Oct, June, July, Sept, June, June, Aug, June, June, June, Aug, Sept, Aug, June, and June.
I'd hazard a guess that Oakmont may have had fine turf in at least one of those months. ;)
-
True, it broadens the discussion, but there is no evidence that Oakmont experienced such difficulties.
As for the weather, the USGA schedule for the the Amateur looked like this from 1895 through 1916: Oct, July, Sept, June, Sept, Oct, July,
Oct, June, July, Sept, June, June, Aug, June, June, June, Aug, Sept, Aug, June, and June.
I'd hazard a guess that Oakmont may have had fine turf in at least one of those months. ;)
Perhaps, but if it were already hosting some form of other tournament, etc. then who knows the mitigating circumstances.
I'm in the "Oakmont took a lot of time/hard-work/dedication to become what it is/was" camp, for what it's worth.
-
For the most part I think this has been a very good discussion and I appreciate everyone's participation and feedback.
One of the things that I've watched here durinig my absence from GCA is the need to separate fact from opinion, particularly in these historical discussions where no one can actually prove debatable points.
I've tried to state a number of facts found in the earliest articles about Oakmont that to me seem very divergent from almost all other courses that existed at that time and offered the opinion that knowing how few there were in terms of quality golf courses in the US in 1903, no matter which of the Victorian style courses held the US Amateur during those years, that Oakmont in a raw state had to be at least as good as virtually any of them and I still believe that. I think a few others here like George Pazin would agree with that assessment. Others disagree citing how much work went into refining it over the next few decades to what we know today and I get their point and we can hold different opinions.
During the debate process, I think we've all learned more about Oakmont's evolution, at least those with open minds. I agree with Sven's early comment about the influence of Pinehurst with Travis and Ross as having played at least some influential role in the development of Oakmont, given the amount of time the Fownes family spent their each winter. I do think what Ross and Travis (and Emmet) were doing in the first decade of the 20th century is largely overlooked in the story of American golf so I'm going to be spending more time here discussing that over the next months.
Thanks for everyone's input.
-
One of the things I found most interesting in looking at old aerials is the fact that much of the tree planting at Oakmont (since removed) took place sometime after 1969. I would have assumed that it started back in the 50s or so, but not the case.
-
This thread was sent to me from a couple friends and I thought I should chime in as I have been a member there for 38 years and still a scratch golfer there. I have done some projects with our Archives Chairman, John Fitzgerald, and learned a lot about our great golf course over the years.
I saw a comment about few bunkers from the start as I had never heard that and only know that at its peak, there were 350 of them which became a great expense to maintain. Mr. Fownes used to sit on the clubhouse porch as he could see 16 or 17 flags from there (depending on who you talk to) and watch the members play. If he saw someone miss a fairway and not be in a bunker, he had one installed there immediately....hence the increase to 350.
He designed the course for championship golf and his dream has been attained many times over as the club prepares for its record ninth US Open in 2016. It has been fascinating to watch the course evolve over my time there as Mr. Fownes was a believer that the course should evolve with the times and that "a shot poorly played was a shot irrevocably lost." And by evolve I mean keep up with the ever improving technology of today's equipment. After all, he built the course just as the new Haskell ball was being introduced to the game. Fairway bunkers that are no longer in play have been removed and added to the far side so as to keep the challenge the same using better equipment. It's cool to see the scars from these retired bunkers as you can still see impressions as to where they were.
And the tree program has been an amazing undertaking that continues to improve the look and feel of the course, in my opinion. Many more were removed this past winter so that we can again see the famous Church Pew bunker from the clubhouse. Little has had to be done to the course (from a distance stankpoint) to prepare for the upcoming Open since new tees were added and bunkers rolled up for the 2007 Open that was won with a score of +5.
I hope this has been interesting and infomative for the readers and I post one golf picutre per day, usually of Oakmont, if you are interested in seeing them on Twitter.
-
I hope this has been interesting and infomative for the readers and I post one golf picutre per day, usually of Oakmont, if you are interested in seeing them on Twitter.
Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.
-----
If the standard for "objectively" good is when tinkering is done, there are a lot of top courses that are not "objectively" good.
:)
-
I hope this has been interesting and infomative for the readers and I post one golf picutre per day, usually of Oakmont, if you are interested in seeing them on Twitter.
Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.
-----
If the standard for "objectively" good is when tinkering is done, there are a lot of top courses that are not "objectively" good.
:)
There's a big difference between tinkering and finishing the conceived course.
-
Curt, how do you think Oakmont would play with no rough? The idea that the ball would run more, and find more trouble, and that might offset the easier lies you get from shots that miss today's fairways.
-
Funny that you ask that as the USGA has given us mowing patterns for the rough that we are trying out for this year to see how it plays. They will use the graduated rough we have grown accustomed to, but they are looking at cutting the rough into the bunkers at a short height, but I don't know the exact number since I'm not on the Grounds Committee. In my opinion that will make it play tougher as balls will no longer stop short of the bunkers and since most of them are so deep, one will not get a shot at the green unless they are in the back of the bunker.
The jury is still out so it's not a done deal yet, but that is the thinking and I agree with it.
-
Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.
It's @OakmontHooks since several have inquired. You can look at past posts for a lot of Oakmont shots as the course is not ready for current shots....enjoy.
-
One of the things I found most interesting in looking at old aerials is the fact that much of the tree planting at Oakmont (since removed) took place sometime after 1969. I would have assumed that it started back in the 50s or so, but not the case.
All of the tree planting actually took place after the '62 US Open when Herbert Warren Wind referred to Oakmont as "the ugly old brute" of a course and Fred Brand took offense to that. He was the Greens Chairman at the time and took $10-15k of his own money to plant trees and beautify Oakmont. The plan ultimately backfired by the 90s after they had grown so much that they changed the intended direction of play as well as obscured many of the bunkers. I did a series of before and after pictures on Twitter awhile back that showed several of the holes and it's amazing.
-
Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.
It's @OakmontHooks since several have inquired. You can look at past posts for a lot of Oakmont shots as the course is not ready for current shots....enjoy.
Why "hooks"? You play a nice fade.
-
Curt,
Welcome, and thanks for the additional information. It looks as though it took a bit of time for the tree planting plan to get established, but once it did it quickly grew roots, so to speak.
I was looking at www.historicaerials.com for my observations, particularly contrasting Oakmont's aerial from 1969 followed by one from 1993. Amazing how fast those things grow!
I was at the US Open both Saturday and Sunday in 1983 and from pictures, I'm startled at how much better the course looks today, as well as impressed by how incredibly well Fownes used the existing landforms in the original routing. The question of bunerking is an interesting one and clearly Fownes (and son) had a penal mindset, but I'd venture to say that the course would still play enormously challenging with wider fairways and less penal bunkering.
-
There was some off-line discussion related to when the "Church Pews" were created and I came across this Brooklyn Daily Eagle drawing from 1919 that Joe Bausch found some time back that seems to show them in place even at that early date. Perhaps someone with better eyes that me can weigh in on the date of the drawing (on the drawing), which looks like it may be even earlier.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/GCA/Aug10_1919_DailyEagle.jpg)
-
Here's the description of those bunkers from the same paper:
(http://img0.newspapers.com/img/img?id=55303647&width=557&height=1670&crop=3284_311_1264_3861&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1428433437&h=3f34d8e6d3434d507824f1ec70805f81)
-
The map apparently shows some changes, which are either in the works or had already been made.
-
The church pews were put in place prior to the 1935 Open. Prior to that there was a series of bunkers along the side of the fairway.
-
Sven,
What's the source of that information? From the looks of it, there are 8 bunkers, identical to what I understand the configuration was initially before being expanded later. What would be required in your mind to make them officially church pews, the connecting of sand between each row? Thanks.
Prior discussion here focused on when everyone thought the course was US Amateur capable. From the sounds of things, the folks at Oakmont still weren't ready by 1910, but it seems everyone else was, which I think is again indicative of Fownes perfectionism. Of course, that's not provable, but it does seem consistent with his somewhat obsessive personality.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/16883846919_1c95ee915d_z.jpg)
-
Here's an aerial view of Oakmont from 1925. Unfortunately, it's difficult to see the 3rd/4th fairways in the distance, but it's interesting that the accompanying article mentions needing to avoid the "cemetery mounds" on your drive to the left of the 3rd hole. It also looks like long rows of bunkers were a recurring theme.
Click on it for a larger image...thanks Joe!
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/oakmont/Oakmont1925aerial.jpg) (http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/oakmont/Oakmont1925aerial.jpg)
-
Here's Oakmont in 1938 for comparison purposes with the drawing published in 1919.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7666/17070455405_242759e818_z.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/GCA/Aug10_1919_DailyEagle.jpg)
-
Oakmont didn't apply in 1912 either, but Fownes must have felt that Oakmont was ready by early in 1915, they were on the list for that years Am, but lost out to Detroit.
-
Jim,
Didn't they skip out again in 16 which was part of the reason Merion was awarded the tourney?
-
I've read that no club from that section applied for the Am in '16.
-
It's not very wise to down play the agronomic aspect/challenges faced at Oakmont, or any golf course built in this, and the subsequent era. When one considers that Oakmont's famous putting surfaces are comprised completely of Poa annua and furthermore a noteworthy variety which is only found at Oakmont, and which only has ever successfully established at Oakmont through years of selective pressure, it makes one wonder how and why such a variety established.
Zombie Poa Annua - worth the few minutes read:
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/golf-us-open/2007/06/12/Oakmont-inspired-Stimpmeter-allows-USGA-to-accurately-measure-speed-consistency-of-putting-surfaces/stories/200706120203
-
Jim,
Sorry...just found it. In your reply #32 on this thread you link to an article that states Oakmont declined to host in 1916. Thanks.
-
The question of bunkering is an interesting one and clearly Fownes (and son) had a penal mindset, but I'd venture to say that the course would still play enormously challenging with wider fairways and less penal bunkering.
Two things:
1. - Oakmont seems like a course that you are supposed to attack head on - no feints, no subterfuge, no flanking moves, no rope-a-dope, just man up, sound the bugle, and charge ahead. I'm guessing that the greens are designed for that frontal assault.
How's that going to work if the fairways were wider and the defenses less staggering?
2. - All of the golf course lies in Plum Borough (except a tiny portion of the property), not the Borough of Oakmont. Do you think the Fownes' might have made it more ' user friendly' if it was known as Plum Country Club. ;D
-
There was some off-line discussion related to when the "Church Pews" were created and I came across this Brooklyn Daily Eagle drawing from 1919 that Joe Bausch found some time back that seems to show them in place even at that early date. Perhaps someone with better eyes that me can weigh in on the date of the drawing (on the drawing), which looks like it may be even earlier.
Let's be crystal clear on this.
The "Church Pews" are not a series of bunkers, it is one bunker with a series of berms within it. That bunker is known as the "Church Pews Bunker." Singular. Not plural.
That bunker was created prior to the 1935 US Open. Before that time there were multiple bunkers that ran between the 3rd and 4th holes (playing on the left side of the third and the left side of the fourth, as noted in the article posted by Jim and as seen in the 1919 course map posted above). But those bunkers (plural) are not the same as the Church Pews Bunker (singular), which is portrayed in the 1938 course map.
Over the years, the number of berms has been altered, as has their height.
The
Sven
-
Sven,
I'd be very curious to see anything you have in regard to the evolution of the Church Pews bunker. Later today I'll post the hole descriptions from the 1925 article that mentioned the "cemetery mounds" to the left of the third fairway that need to be avoided on the drive and I'm thinking they were probably between each of the echelon of bunkers along that side as seen in the drawing.
Interestingly, I'm unable to find any information related to them being named "Church Pews" prior to 1962 US Open articles. Sources I've seen say they weren't there when the course originally opened (which we know) but that it was there by the 1935 US Open, citing a 2007 Golf Digest US Open article, but I'm still not sure the original source of that information and have no clarifying information on when this actually happened. I'm thinking possibly someone drew this conclusion simply from an aerial photo from that time.
It seems from the drawings that there were originally 8 bunkers down the left, which would mean 7 rows (pews) between them, even if the sandy areas weren't connected. If there were "cemetery mounds" between each it's easy to imagine it evolving into a single bunker over time. Here's one thing I came across in terms of number of rows, etc. as well as progression over time, although none of it is originally sourced. Thanks for any additional info.
According to the June 2007 issue of Golf Digest, the Church Pews bunker did not exist in the original Oakmont layout but was in existence by the 1935 U.S. Open, when it had seven "pews" and was only four inches deep.
The Church Pews was extended to eight berms in 1973, and today has 12 berms. It is around 3.5 to 4 feet deep, and the "pews" are covered in shaggy fescue. The Church Pews bunker is 102 yards long. Its width is tapered, 18 yards wide at its narrow end and 43 yards at its wider end.
Each of the "pews" is approximately three feet high, according to Golf magazine, and there is about five yards of sand between each berm.
And although today's Church Pews bunker is much more formalized and somewhat on steroids compared to the original, I do think those rows of in-line bunkers in the 1925 aerial look remarkably similar to those same type of features seen in this 1920 Pine Valley aerial.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7599/16455248304_5ccb70d600_z.jpg)
-
Mike:
As you know, I sent you the very 2007 Ron Whitten authored Golf Digest article you cite in your last post. Here is the pertinent language for everyone to see:
"The famed bunker between the par-4 third and par-5 fourth--that supersize patch of sand with skinny parallel islands of grass long ago dubbed the Church Pews didn't exist until the 1935 U.S. Open. It had seven pews until the '73 Open, when it was expanded with an eighth ridge of turf. For 2007, the bunker is deeper (a drop of 3 1/2-4 feet instead of four inches from top edge to sand) and has been expanded again, from eight to 12 pews, each covered in fescue, in hopes of corralling a larger congregation. (Fifty-one players hit into the Church Pews in the first two rounds in 1994.)”
We’re not discussing when the term "church pews" was first used, we are talking about when the series of flanking bunkers were altered into a single bunker with grass berms.
If you believe that occurred prior to the time period described above, please offer your proof. Until then, I stand my original point that you took issue with, namely:
"The church pews were put in place prior to the 1935 Open. Prior to that there was a series of bunkers along the side of the fairway."
Sven
-
Mike, Here is an aerial to match up with your 1938 drawing.
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Oakmont%201938sepcv_zpsq2ljighj.jpg)
Also, found an interesting article written by Mr. Loeffler in 1994 for Golfdom talking about bunkers.
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Loeffler%20on%20Traps%201944oct17_Page_2_zpsjg95adeg.jpg)
-
One more article from 1927 talking about "furrowed" bunkers, not sure if that is a church pew, but certainly the players did not like them. See the portion titled "Tricky Traps" below. Also giving credit to both Fownes and Loeffler. Interesting read.
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Oakmont%201927jul42_Page_1_zpskeajm6fk.jpg)
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Oakmont%201927jul42_Page_2_zpsw9cf7i9u.jpg)
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Oakmont%201927jul42_Page_3_zpscsahmrqa.jpg)
-
The furrowed bunkers were the result of a particular manner of raking at Oakmont, where small furrows were created in the sand.
They are not the same as the church pew concept.
-
Thanks Sven. Kind of like Nicklaus did at the Memorial one year, and the players hated it.
-
Josh Bills,
Thanks very much for the additional information as well as the aerial photo. It's interesting that Loeffler remained an advocate of not bunkering courses until play was carefully observed as the most "practical" way to bunker effectively late in life.
Sven,
Sorry, I haven't been able to keep up today with the flurry of email as well as posts and just now read the 2007 Golf Digest Ron Whitten article you sent. Thanks! Still, I'm curious to know the source of Ron's information as there is virtually nothing I've come across in that regard. Of equal interest would be when the bunker acquired its name, which he seems to suggest was synonymous to its creation. Still, there is not a single newspaper mention of "Church Pews" at Oakmont in any newspaper I've seen, including in Pittsburgh, until 1962, as mentioned. As promised, here are descriptions of the 3rd hole from the 1925 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as well as the 1922 Brooklyn Daily Eagle. We know from photos that the string of bunkers existed but interesting to see the "cemetery mounds" noted.
I'm not trying to prove anything but simply to understand the timing and evolution of that famous hazard. From a practical perspective, it seems the essential elements were already there for almost two decades before 1935 and simply needed formalization into a single entity by extending the sand along the sides to connect the bunkers. Would you agree?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7590/16894800519_48b7316c76_z.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8788/16893228578_c3f1945302_z.jpg)
-
I am unclear on now various articles which neither mention nor describe the church pew bunkers are being offered in support of the conjecture that the church pew bunkers existed as early as 1910.
-
Mike:
Thanks for posting those articles. I note with interest the mention of:
1. The blind shot into the third from the fairway (necessitating a direction pole), which seems to run counter to your point from the other thread that the course had no blind holes; and
2. The mention of a "continuous chain of bunkers" on the left of the 3rd. Bunkers, plural.
Seeing as you're now backtracking to a stance that the "elements were all there," I think you should pay heed to how this conversation started. Namely that a third party made an offline claim that the Oakmont Church Pews were an inspiration to Crump in some of the early work done at Pine Valley.
I'm willing to humor the assumption that the chain of bunkers that existed were moderately (this being a strong qualifer) close in form and function to what was eventually put in place prior to the 1935 US Open, if you'll concede that there is no way Crump could have borrowed the Church Pews concept from Oakmont, as it was built well after his death.
Sven
-
Sven,
While I understand your point that the formalization of an in-line echelon of bunkers into a single bunker (with remaining separations of turf making up the "pews") is what makes for a (singular) "Church Pews Bunker", do you really see no direct link between the original 8 bunkers in line down the left, with 7 separations of turf between them, which may or may not have been the "cemetery mounds" referred to in 1925 and the single bunker with 8 sandy areas/7 "pews" later known as "Church Pews" in what looks to be the exact same location?
Despite some here possibly misunderstanding or intentionally mischaracterizing my question, I'm not sure when the formalization/consolidation into a single bunker took place, and I'm not sure what evidence Whitten's article claiming that it was put in place for the 1935 US Open relies on, do you? I think it's strange that there isn't a single mention of "Church Pews" that I can find in any major US newspaper (or Pittsburgh paper) before 1962, as it's now one of the most famous hazards in the world.
Just saying it was put in place for the 1935 US Open because a Ron Whitten article in 2007 made that claim isn't supported by anything else I can find on the matter. I wonder if it's based on aerials that the club has?
These are questions, about one of the most famous hazards in the game and I wish the tone was more collegial and less competitive. I'm really not trying to steal anyone's lunch.
-
The answer is clear as day on this 1938 aerial. It shows the Church Pews Bunker between the 3rd and the 4th as well as a similar style bunker at the 15th. There are also numerous examples of rows of bunkers on other holes, which were what the Church Pews Bunker replaced.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Oakmont%201938%20Aerial_zpsaxzenwzi.jpg)
Here is an undated photo showing the Church Pews Bunker, as well as other rows of bunkers in the background. You cannot confuse one for the other.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/zoom_3000205_zpskhrd1xzm.jpg)
-
As for other alterations to the course, here's one example of some pretty drastic changes at the 15th and 16th holes (taken from the clubs newsletter, The Oakmont Links) -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-07%20at%2010.02.15%20PM_zpsjufz0ym2.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-07%20at%2010.02.48%20PM_zpszrx1ksvk.png)
-
Seeing as you're now backtracking to a stance that the "elements were all there," I think you should pay heed to how this conversation started. Namely that a third party made an offline claim that the Oakmont Church Pews were an inspiration to Crump in some of the early work done at Pine Valley.
I'm willing to humor the assumption that the chain of bunkers that existed were moderately (this being a strong qualifer) close in form and function to what was eventually put in place prior to the 1935 US Open, if you'll concede that there is no way Crump could have borrowed the Church Pews concept from Oakmont, as it was built well after his death.
Sven
Sven,
To be honest, I do think we're splitting hairs here a bit. I think the Lurker suggested that Crump could have borrowed the Church Pews concept from Oakmont by simply referencing the rows of multiple bunkers in line on both sides of the 2nd hole at PV. Like the early Oakmont, they aren't a single bunker but instead a long straight row of multiple bunkers as seen on this aerial.
I do think these bunkers look remarkably similar to bunkering seen in the 1925 Oakmont aerial and the 1919 drawing (seemingly dated either 1915 or 1916) shows them to be in place at Oakmont back then, during Crump's lifetime and during his development of the course if my eyes aren't deceiving me.
Once again, I do understand your distinction of it being a single bunker with multiple rows, but think what people call "Church Pews" at Pine Valley today is simply a related, less formal concept.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7599/16455248304_5ccb70d600_z.jpg)
**EDIT** Sven, thanks for that 1938 aerial and I agree that the multiple bunkers in that spot were formalized into a single bunker by that date but I'm still wondering how anyone knows that this didn't already happen by say, 1927?
As far as the photo showing both the Church Pews bunker with other "in line" bunkers on the other side of the fairway, it seems to me that the sandy parts were simply widened and connected into a single entity and I think that's fascinating on multiple levels. That's why I'm asking the questions trying to see if there is any record of when and why it happened.
Also, the changes to 15, 16, et.al. were referenced earlier by Jim Kennedy from articles and it's nice to see the exactness of the changes in that newsletter.
Thanks!
-
Mike,
This aerial is the same one you posted from an article. The back of the photo gives a 1927 date.
If your article is from 1925 the date must be when it was copied.
Anyway, it's a clearer view. ;D
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7688/16467818994_3b82308e97_o.jpg)
(http://tinyurl.com/p9vdtkf)
-
The descriptions of the course from 1927 discuss multiple bunkers on the left side of the 3rd.
Ergo, the change to one bunker containing the several grass berms occurred some time between 1927 and 1938, which fits Ron Whitten's assertion that it occurred during the lead up to the 1935 US Open.
-
Jim,
Thanks for finding/posting the original photo. As mentioned, it was in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette in 1925. Any chance of getting a better (bigger?) view of the area in question on that photo?
-
Appears in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an article by W.H. Duff, there is a photo, which I am unable to copy which shows Loeffler standing on what they call "snake mounds" that lies between 3 and 4 in play for the upcoming Open. Date of the newspaper is April 19, 1935 and the other entries from Duff are entertaining to read. Go to page 17 to see the photo of the snake mounds.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=gL9scSG3K_gC&dat=19350429&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
-
Thanks Josh.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-09%20at%203.08.03%20PM_zpsnzza83id.png)
-
Thanks Josh. And thanks to Sven for capturing the photo.
-
Josh (and Sven),
Thanks for finding and posting that photo, respectively. No wonder there's no mention of "Church Pews" if they were originally known as "Snake Mounds"! ;)
I wonder if the term had something to do with "snakes" hiding in the grass? I say that because there is a bunker to the right side of the 13th hole at Seaview that used to have an island of turf that to this day is known as the "snake pit". In any case, great find!
I should also mention that news articles accompanying the 1935 US Open coverage mention 202 bunkers at that time, although the course drawing accompanying those articles is the same one I posted earlier that was reproduced in 1938. I haven't counted them.
All,
I think this has been a terrific thread to date and I know I've learned much more about the origins and evolution of Oakmont. However, I'm not sure my original question/contention was either well explained or widely understood when I hear some characterizing my comments as saying Oakmont was a great course (as we know a great course today) from the get go.
Actually, my question was a bit more nuanced than that. What I asked was at the time Oakmont opened in the 1903-1905 timeframe, which US courses were actually better architecturally? I suggested that based on my knowledge of the property that a raw, unbunkered Oakmont with essentially today's routing would have been superior to almost every other course in the United States at that time, particularly since almost all of them (including those hosting the US Amateur) were of the rote Victorian steeplechase genre.
Certainly Myopia was an exceptional course early on and perhaps Garden City was on its way but what else? Ekwanok?
That is the measure of initial greatness inherent in my question. Thanks again.
-
One last thought while I'm at it.
How many courses from that era (1895-1905) are today considered great that still have their original routing basically intact? How many courses from that era are today still considered great, period?
It's sort of like the foundation of a house, isn't it? You can add on all of the accoutrements you want over time, paint it different colors, decorate it in whatever seasonal splendor or fashion statement you wish, but if the basic structure is faulty or ill-conceived it doesn't work functionally.
-
You are assuming courses didn't survive because they were bad courses, and this was not necessarily the case. You are ignoring the fundamental changes which were taking place in golf and in America at this time. The Haskell revolutionized the game. Most pre-haskell courses were too short and so were abandoned or significantly changed because of this. This doesn't mean they were bad, no more than it means courses being changed today because of technology were bad before. Likewise, cities were rapidly growing, real estate was booming, demographics were changing, many courses were created on leased land, and it was not economically feasible to continue those relationships. So the courses were moved/abandoned. Again not necessarily because they were bad, but because of other reasons.
Oakmont was long. Long doesn't mean great. But long did help it survive the changes in the game.
As for the foundation, it may be mostly it the same place, but it sounds like it has been repeatedly rebuilt.
-
Thanks for posting the info about the greensites moving, Sven.
-----
Dave, in your own way, you strike me as clinging to your version just as those you criticise for clinging to other flawed history. The routing is virtually unchanged, a relatively small number of greens were moved (and is there anyone who actually said the prior greensites were poor? <--- honest question, I haven't had the chance to read through all of Jim Kennedy's links or some of the others). Anyone who has played or even walked Oakmont knows that the length is the smallest part of what makes the course great.
I dont' see Mike claiming Oakmont came out of the box as the greatest course ever and that it has maintained that lofty perch. The fact that Fownes wasn't satisfied with the course as originally built is evidence of very little other than that it wasn't what he wanted.
How many courses that are 100+ years old haven't had any significant work done? That's another honest question, btw, you're the historian, I'm not.
-
George,
First, I didn't say Oakmont was great because it was long. I said that one of the reasons it survived was because Oakmont was long. This isn't a new idea on my part. Oakmont was built with the new ball in mind.
Second, Mike is trying to argue that Oakmont "came out of the box" as a great course, at least as compared to what else existed at the time. Read what he has written since the beginning. I agree with you that "Fownes wasn't satisfied with the course as originally built" but view this as more significant that you do. No one, not even Fownes, seems to have thought the original version was anywhere close to a great course, and so how can we go back and say we know better?
Third, you keep saying that the routing is "virtually unchanged" but various articles indicate that there have been changes. And even where the holes are in the same basic place, the holes and greens are sometimes very different. Again this comes from various sources, many of which have been posted by Jim and Sven. Have you read the excellent article written by Schlossman on the changes to the course, linked by Jim? If not, I recommend it. It gives a good sense of how extensive the changes were throughout the early history. When I read contemporaneous articles indicating that by around 1911 there had already been a “thorough remodeling of the links” and that the changes continued long after, I tend to question how much we can lean on fact that the most of the holes are in basically the same location.
In this regard, I keep thinking of the seventh Hole at Rustic Canyon, which was remodeled after flood damage. The tee is in the same place, the green has been shifted slightly, but at least part of the new greensite overlaps with the old green site. The old and new fairways (split) are in roughly the same locations, or at least they'd appear so on a stick routing. If one looked at stick routing from day one and a routing from today, one could say, as you do about Oakmont, that "the routing is almost exactly the same." But the nature of the new hole is entirely different, mostly because the green has been built up, and a different, more aggressive and blatant bunkering scheme has been added, and completely different contours have been inserted. In short, while there is a vague similarity between certain aspects of the old and new, the new hole is fundamentally and unmistakably different.
My point is that because of all the changes to the hole - especially changes to the green - it would unreasonable to judge the quality of the old hole based on the quality of the new old hole. The old and new holes at Rustic were in the same place but they are nothing alike.
As for your questions:
1. I don't think I've read that anyone said the old greens were poor. But Fownes and/or Son were apparently not satisfied with them. As importantly, I don't think we can look at the greens today and infer what they were like in 1905.
2. All 100+ year old courses have had significant work done. But some much more than others.
The thing I keep coming back to is that Oakmont was not widely considered to be a great course when it opened. I was considered to be a good course that was very much a work in progress. Over time, it became a great course. Mike wants to talk about the "architecture" of Oakmont in 1905, but the "architecture" was nowhere near complete. The potential may have been there, but it had yet to be developed.
-
Have you read the excellent article written by Schlossman on the changes to the course, linked by Jim? If not, I recommend it. It gives a good sense of how extensive the changes were throughout the early history.
No, I haven't read that one, thanks for pointing it out. I will try to read it soon, though this weekend is bad for me.
Interesting points about Rustic, I can't comment as I have no clue about its specifics. Looking at how closely the routings posted resemble the current course - and keeping in mind how virtually every other early routing vs. current course for many of the greats don't look nearly as close - I can't imagine I will find the changes anywhere near as significant as you do, but that's parsing words.
I have a really hard time accepting that because Fownes wasn't satisfied and because no one has found universal acclaim in early writings that the course wasn't special from the beginning. I will admit my own preconceived notion is in favor of this; I just think that others' preconceived notions of the course not becoming great until later work was done is way overblown.
I'm curious - would you argue Pinehurst #2 wasn't a great course from the beginning? It seems to have undergone far more change than Oakmont, and I'm not even referring to the current efforts by C&C.
The bones are what makes a course great, to me personally. I realize that is entirely my own standard, but I stand by it.
-
George, I understand why you think the course may have been special from the beginning, and as I tried to say many pages ago, I really can't argue with your opinion on the matter. But, as always, my concern is more with what they actually said and did then, rather than what our opinions of the course might be now. And as I read it, the historical record seems to indicate that Oakmont became great over time. That isn't to say that the potential wasn't there from the beginning, or that I wouldn't have loved it initially, it is just to say that it doesn't appear to have become historically significant until later, after many improvements.
Maybe after you read that article you might have a better idea of what I mean.
I'm curious - would you argue Pinehurst #2 wasn't a great course from the beginning? It seems to have undergone far more change than Oakmont, and I'm not even referring to the current efforts by C&C.
I hesitate to lock myself into a position on Pinehurst because there is a lot I don't know, but if I had to take a position, and based on my limited knowledge, I'd argue that Pinehurst was not a great course from the beginning, and that it too was a course that became great over time. I'd say the same thing about a number of other courses from that early era, including Merion.
The bones are what makes a course great, to me personally. I realize that is entirely my own standard, but I stand by it.
I know what you mean, but think it sometimes depends on the course and also the reason we think it great. Also I think it possible for a so so course to have what we might call "great bones," or for a course to have potentially great bones but only develop into a great course with years of hard work.
-
Pinehurst didn't have grass greens until 1937?, so even a good routing would be compromised by that.
Pennsy's finest, down in Pinehurst in '04.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8816/17077375346_7a0449c15e_o.jpg)
-
George, I understand why you think the course may have been special from the beginning, and as I tried to say many pages ago, I really can't argue with your opinion on the matter. But, as always, my concern is more with what they actually said and did then, rather than what our opinions of the course might be now.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Dave. I understand your position better now. We're obviously different in our approach, as I don't much care what people - other than Fownes - were thinking back then, and even with Fownes, I'll only concerned to the extent that it influenced what his choices were, as opposed to whether or not he was thinking about what others thought. I'm less concerned with Oakmont's place in history and more concerned with the specifics of the course. That's not say either approach is better, they're just different.
-
I would still like to understand which courses people feel were better in 1905 and why.
-
Come on, Mike. In 1905 Oakmont wasn't even in the conversation. The question doesn't even make sense because the course was so far from finished that it wasn't even on the radar at that time. At best it might have been considered by some a course with potential.
Perhaps it might help your understanding if, instead of just throwing out conjecture after conjecture based on cliche and wishful thinking, you spend a substantial amount of time and effort familiarizing yourself with the state of architecture in America in the middle of the first century. You might find that it was a bit more nuanced and interesting that you present it.
-
Here is a blurb from the December 1909 American Golfer which gives some idea of where Oakmont thought it stood:
Much work has been done upon hazards at the Oakmont course during the last year, and after considerable discussion it has been decided that the proposed system shall be completed without delay. As stated by the Board of Governors, the course "has been brought to a very high standard of excellence as far as the turf and putting greens are concerned and to make Oakmont one of the classic golf courses of the country we only need the traps and hazards that are the completement of every first-class course.
From various reports it sounds like it took a few years for the "system" to be completed and extensive changes continued for decades. Regardless, as of the end of 1909, Oakmont still seemed to think it had some work to do to in order to match the standards of other first class courses.
-
I just think Fownes had exceptionally high standards bordering on obsessive perfectionism. Great artists are frequently their own harshest critics and I struggle to objectively think of more than one or two courses that would have been better at the time.
-
Objectively? Funny stuff.
-
Interestingly, as early as the spring of 1906 the Brooklyn Daily Eagle indicated that there was a high likelihood that Oakmont would be a candidate to host the US Amateur the following year, even though the course had only been open less than eighteen months at this point.
More interestingly, this article gets into a question I asked on a related thread as far as Fownes "influences" at this early juncture in American golf, mentioning that the course is the result of study of several years on the part of "experts" that influenced the design/layout.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7629/16950128929_f181265353_z.jpg)
-
And what you know Mike is that the club did not go for the Am in '07, still felt it wasn't ready to host the Am in 1911, declined to ask for it in 1912, and finally put in for it in 1915 (I think it's likely they didn't apply in 1916 because Merion asked for it).
-
Very true, Jim, but again, I think that was largely due to Fownes being an obsessive perfectionist who wasn't ready to unveil his creation until he was ready. With courses like Euclid Club and early Chicago Golf and Midlothian and Atlantic City hosting the US Amateur, it surely wasn't because the course was incapable of standing up against that company early on.
If you think about him adding hundreds of bunkers while tinkering endlessly over the next decades I think it gives an indication of the type of guy he was and why the timeline for a US Amateur stretched out almost 15 years.
-
Mike, your psychological profiles and your constant and unnecessary bashing of the existing courses don't change the fact that, as your latest article states, Oakmont needed development.
How many bunkers did Oakmont have in 1907?