[Chris_Clouser]

George,

I knew that the second was much shorter hole and that this might be a hole that would buck the idea of Oakmont being just a series of "nutcrackers".  Well, in looking at this hole I can see where the fun can be had with this hole but two things really have me worried.  

It seems that the hole would be plenty difficult with the green contouring that exists, but the from the storied relayed earlier it looks like the speeds are over the top.  Regardless of the quality of the course, in my opinion if the greens are over the top speed wise then that takes away a lot of the fun.  Which is one of the things that seems to be lacking at Oakmont as Tom H. points out.

The second thing is I am wondering how wide the fairway is short of the bunkers and then what is it between the ditch and the bunkers.  

But on the whole I agree that this hole is much more appealing than the first to my eye and quite a constrast.  I could live with the beginning portion of the fairway being a little wider.  I can see why the narrow part of the fairway is the most dangerous to achieve and provides a much better shot into the green.  

[George Pazin]

Chris -

The over-the-top speed question is probably too subjective for me to answer. If someone is not used to it, it is certainly overwhelming. Heck, I normally play on muni courses that stimp about 8, so anything upwards of that is quite a shock to me.

But golfers at Oakmont, and the many tournaments I have observed, seem to adapt pretty well, so I think it would be somewhat unfair to characterize it as over-the-top. More than anything else, it is eye-opening. Tom Paul often says that architecture comes alive under the right maintenance meld. Oakmont is always alive!

Huck -

I guess it all boils down to what you find fun.

To me, fun is hitting interesting shots, unusual shots, and, yes, even difficult shots. Fun is not "What's my carry yardage to that flat area over there?" Fun is not "Every green should hold my short irons and wedges because I spin them so much." Fun is not hitting only dictated shots.

To me, Oakmont is very much the former and very little the latter.

Do you find Pebble in any way easy?

[JohnV]

Chris, the green slopes and speeds at Oakmont are scary.  But, they are also part of the fun of the course.  You really have to laugh at some of the putts you hit, either way past because you got just a little aggressive or way short because you got scared.

I was on #10 putting from back right to front left.  My caddie told me to putt to stop the ball 20 feet left of the hole and it would drift down.  Unfortunately I was too good a learner and stopped the ball right where he had pointed.  I had a good laugh at that as I faced a 20 foot straight downhill putt.

Oakmont is definitely a course where you are never guaranteed a two-putt once you hit the green.  You can take that as hell or fun depending on your point of view.

The fairway short of the bunker/ditch line has to be at least 30-35 yards wide, possibly wider.

[JohnV]

A quick check with Google Earth says that the fairway is 27 to 37 yards wide depending on how you measure it and look at the angle.

[Jim Franklin]

Huck -

I have said this before and I will say this again, you need to trust me and come play Oakmont. It is as hard a course as you will play, but a ton of fun. Lots of different shots needed and can be played. I love #2, but #5 is my favorite hole even though I eagled #4  . Hell, there are lots of fun holes there.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

I agree with this completely:


 Fun is hitting interesting shots, unusual shots, and, yes, even difficult shots. Fun is not "What's my carry yardage to that flat area over there?" Fun is not "Every green should hold my short irons and wedges because I spin them so much." Fun is not hitting only dictated shots.

And I be shocked if you didn't know that already.  But please also understand I do get the fun of hitting weird, odd, out of the ordinary shots - and it would appear Oakmont requires this in spades.  That is, the runner to the back of #1, the many ways of trying to reach and hold the green on 2 and the seemingly infinite ways of trying to manage shots around and on that green, etc.  I get that - that is fun.  But that's a function of conditions more than anything else... and lots of courses are firm and fast and/or have a lot of contour, such that a variety of shots are required.

The truly great courses have MORE than this...Rustic Canyon and Wild Horse are each exceedingly fun and each allow for a very wide variety of shots.... One has to assume Oakmont is greater than these... but if so, why?

See, I'm not seeing many shot choices so far - in terms of strategic decisions - at Oakmont.  And I find that to be a VERY fun part of this game.  I trust they exist - it's just going to take explaining for me to see them.  But also, a key part of fun is a decent chance at success, however one defines that.  If a course is so hard that one just gets beaten up, it's hard to find that very fun.  And of course that is the rep that Oakmont has.

Believe me, I am trying to find the fun and see the greatness... it just concerns me that so far, 99% of what's been said has to do with how tough the golf the course is... with the rest not being mentioned at all until I ask about it.

Jim - I trust Oakmont is a great golf course - hell the history alone makes it such for me.  I'm just having a hard time seeing the fun... I'm seeing a lot of pain and very cool conditions... but the fun putting this into the realm of greatness has not yet arrived.



TH

[Jay Carstens]

I don't believe the walking bridge from 1 green to 2 tee has been mentioned yet but maybe it should be.  In '94, it was difficult for everyone to get across down there.  99F, 99% humidity, and no wind might have had something to do with it too.  Oakmont was boiling (nearing Congressional levels-- I thought), but I talked to a guy that attended both and he said it was much worse in '64.  Whew!  

[Garland Bayley]

It is unfortunate that George cannot report on anyone playing bomb and gouge on this hole. It seems that the modern player could bomb it down the right and gouge it on with a wedge. If the green is significantly sloped as reported, then stopping the ball should not be so difficult. The other obvious option is to lay back to full PW distance and take dead aim.

Does that sound like fun Tom?

[Tom Huckaby]

It is unfortunate that George cannot report on anyone playing bomb and gouge on this hole. It seems that the modern player could bomb it down the right and gouge it on with a wedge. If the green is significantly sloped as reported, then stopping the ball should not be so difficult. The other obvious option is to lay back to full PW distance and take dead aim.

Does that sound like fun Tom?

Garland - as you see, that was pretty much my first question in this thread... seems to me bomb and gouge would work just fine... but perhaps that green is just wacky enough to preclude this.. it does seem that's what they are saying.

In any case, to me that's also just a side-note - I'm way more concerned with how the other 99.9% of golfers play the course.  

TH

[Chris_Clouser]

John,

Thanks for your response.  The fairway width then isn't an issue for me.  I'm still skeptical on the green speed thing but that is something that one can adapt to and actually increase the fun on the course if it isn't too outrageous.  

The story about putting twenty feet away from the hole reminded me of when I was at Kingsley and tried the same thing on the punchbowl par three.  The ball stopped at the edge of the slope and didn't move.  I felt like an idiot for trying the line.  I'm sure Mike DeVries was laughing at me the entire time we were walking to the next tee.  

Tom,

If I'm one of the 99.9%, depending on how I'm feeling I would try to hit driver into narrow fairway (I can't carry the bunkers) or lay back with a long iron or utility club short of the first bunker.  If I got to play the course it would probably be my only chance so I would more than likely go for the gusto.  Plus a bunker shot of that distance isn't the worst thing that can happen to you on that hole from the sounds of it.    

[George Pazin]

See, I'm not seeing many shot choices so far - in terms of strategic decisions - at Oakmont.  And I find that to be a VERY fun part of this game.  I trust they exist - it's just going to take explaining for me to see them.

It depends on what you believe are options.

The prevailing modern view seems to be alternate fairways, carries over water hazards, desert, etc. (Or the always popular and exciting, choose a different set of tees....)

I believe a much more spohisticated type of option is the classic dogleg with a bunker on the inside of the corner. Each time, the golfer tries to cut it closer and closer, until he fails, then hits his next tee shot further away, and starts the process over again. (Tom D describes this at a hole at North Berwick in The Confidential Guide.)

The modern view lacks subtlety and the decisions are usually far too obvious, imho. I can't comment on Rustic or Wild Horse, sadly. I will say, you would have more "options" if the rough were simply gone at Oakmont, but you probably wouldn't want to attempt most of those angles, so they're kind of redundant.

On the 2nd, you could play an iron off the tee as close as possible to the right side of the fairway, while avoiding the bunker cluster, with the reward being a better angle to the green. You could try to snake a driver or 3 wood up into the area where the new bunker is, with the reward being a shorter shot into the green. Heck, you could tee off with a 6 iron, short of the bunkers and into a wider part of the fairway, and leave yourself with probably no more than a 6 iron into the green.

I saw a lot of excellent players in the Am struggle going 3-5 iron, wedge, and I think it's because they chose not to favor the right side, thinking they could hit and hold any target with a wedge.

How many clear options do you see playing many of the holes at Pebble? When I walked those holes years ago, the strategies seemed rather straightforward upon first view. The beauty is in noticing the fine distinctions between favoring landing spots, favored shots, and then executing the shots (not to mention the scenery!).

[George Pazin]

It is unfortunate that George cannot report on anyone playing bomb and gouge on this hole. It seems that the modern player could bomb it down the right and gouge it on with a wedge. If the green is significantly sloped as reported, then stopping the ball should not be so difficult. The other obvious option is to lay back to full PW distance and take dead aim.

Does that sound like fun Tom?

Garland - as you see, that was pretty much my first question in this thread... seems to me bomb and gouge would work just fine... but perhaps that green is just wacky enough to preclude this.. it does seem that's what they are saying.

In any case, to me that's also just a side-note - I'm way more concerned with how the other 99.9% of golfers play the course.  

TH

So you guys think you're better than all the people who said their wedge came back off the green?

You think you're better than all the guys at the Am?

You think you're better than Ernie Els, Colin Montgomerie and Loren Roberts?

Bomb and gouge is the obvious strategy - and yet no one seems to try it, pre or post restoration of the bunkers.

[Garland Bayley]

George,

I don't think bomb and gouge even existed during the other events you refer to, did it?

Also, I assume the 317 tee would be the one recommended for me, which brings me closer to bomb and gouge range.

[Chris_Clouser]

George,

As much as I criticized the first hole, I like this hole.  Several options off of the tee make this a better hole in my mind while also being difficult if you screw up.  As for my wedge game, not nearly as good as the big boys.  But I don't get nearly as much spin as they do, so that might be to my benefit.  

I'm still leary of the green speeds being beyond the point where they are fun.  But that might be the only thing I can point to on this hole as a possible knock.  

[wsmorrison]

7-wood, lob wedge, birdie.  And that's with Tom Paul telling me he wouldn't give me a ride home if I missed the 8-foot putt.  Nothing to it  

[George Pazin]

George,

I don't think bomb and gouge even existed during the other events you refer to, did it?

Also, I assume the 317 tee would be the one recommended for me, which brings me closer to bomb and gouge range.

The Am was in 2003. Bomb and gouge is/was the preferred strategy for many of the young guns.

And on a 350 yard hole, bomb and gouge has always been an option for the tour pros.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

That's good stuff, and more what I need to really understand this course - because while never say never, well... let's just say it's exceedingly doubtful I play this golf course any time in the foreseeable future.

So I see the options on 2... but given the green is SO difficult as you and others have said, what's the difference where you put the tee shot?  Options are only fun if there's a reward.  Is there really any reward on this golf hole?

I look at the diagram and the picture and think I just want to avoid the ditch and the bunkers, getting myself far enough down so that I have at least some sort of short iron in.  The shot is going to be a tough one, for sure... and I want the short iron just because I'm better with those - standard strategy for ANY golf hole.  Throw in that this green is so damn difficult, and well...

Again I'm not seeing the fun options nor fun shots.  Of course once I miss the green, the fun begins... but that's only fun in an abstract way also... it can't be that much fun to get down in 5 from 3 feet off the green...

Re bombing and gouging, remember I was only speculating on what the pros and other greats might do.  If the rough is too awful, of course they won't do it.  But if the rough is that awful, then pooof there go all fun options also....

Let's leave Pebble out of this for now, OK?  We've beaten that comparison to death... I only mentioned it because it is the context behind the discussions you and I have had.  If you want to talk Pebble I can do that til the cows come home... that will just massively sidetrack this thread.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

I wasn't particularly impressed with Black Mesa #2, so I give this one to Oakmont.

All square.

[George Pazin]

7-wood, lob wedge, birdie.  And that's with Tom Paul telling me he wouldn't give me a ride home if I missed the 8-foot putt.  Nothing to it  

Thanks for sharing the story, Wayne.

2 holes and 2 good stories - now that's a great golf course!

In a way, this story also illustrates the beauty of the hole, and the difficulty of judging design: one guy might hit an indifferent wedge and see it return to his feet, while another might simply get lucky and hit a perfect shot and not realize how close he was to disaster.

[George Pazin]

So I see the options on 2... but given the green is SO difficult as you and others have said, what's the difference where you put the tee shot?  Options are only fun if there's a reward.  Is there really any reward on this golf hole?

....

Let's leave Pebble out of this for now, OK?  We've beaten that comparison to death... I only mentioned it because it is the context behind the discussions you and I have had.  If you want to talk Pebble I can do that til the cows come home... that will just massively sidetrack this thread.

It's obviously just my opinion, but I think the shot really is much better from the right. Hence, it's a subtle option. I really don't think most appreciate or understand the distinction.

As for the Pebble thing, that was not meant to compare the two, it's meant to illustrate the difference between the subtle options of the old guys and the new approach of many modern designers.

I like the old guy way, whether it's Pebble or Oakmont.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George - gotcha.  And I too like subtle options.  In fact I said before the tougher they are to figure out, the more fun it is.

So again you are winning me over re #2....

But not so fast my friend.  If the green is that wacky, I still don't see any benefit from any side or distance.  Hell it seems to be just a lot of luck if it really is that absurdly fast and contoured.

And of course there is also something to be said for that...  but I'm not sure it adds to the greatness factor.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

So you guys think you're better than all the people who said their wedge came back off the green?

You think you're better than all the guys at the Am?

You think you're better than Ernie Els, Colin Montgomerie and Loren Roberts?

Bomb and gouge is the obvious strategy - and yet no one seems to try it, pre or post restoration of the bunkers.

For me and my lousy game, it would not be bomb and gouge. I feel that bombing with my driver could take me over the right side bunkers, and I would welcome an angle into the green that did not take me over the greenside bunkers. From there I would try to run the ball through the gap onto the surface as I am not a talented gouger. With my propensity to miss my shorter clubs right, taking less club would be just as dangerous as it would bring the right side bunkers into play. So I am not better than anyone mentioned. I am most definitely worse, and most assuredly different. (see the sinister lefty thread)

[George Pazin]

But not so fast my friend.  If the green is that wacky, I still don't see any benefit from any side or distance.  Hell it seems to be just a lot of luck if it really is that absurdly fast and contoured.

And of course there is also something to be said for that...  but I'm not sure it adds to the greatness factor.

I don't know that anyone said the green was wacky.

Imho, I think the slope distinctly favors an approach from the right. I don't know that many golfers see that, so it could simply be my own opinion.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Come on man, you're not going to go Mucci on me, are you?

Of course only I used the word "wacky."  But several have told stories about how difficult the green is... balls rolling off that seemed to be stationary, etc....

And if that's the case, well... I continue to have a hard time seeing that it matters much where one puts the tee shot.

And you ought to treat that as a good thing... it makes the hole difficult to figure out... because of course the green can't be that absurd, can it?

Anyway, could it be just as I postulated way at the beginning - that is that for good players, they just want to miss the trouble and don't care where they leave the tee shot... but for us mortals, we'd be better off coming in from the right?

That is, they see it George - they just don't need it like you and I do.

TH

[George Pazin]

Anyway, could it be just as I postulated way at the beginning - that is that for good players, they just want to miss the trouble and don't care where they leave the tee shot... but for us mortals, we'd be better off coming in from the right?

That is, they see it George - they just don't need it like you and I do.

My only experience with top players was observing the action at the Am. I watched maybe a dozen groups on this hole, and the players who favored the right side (and there weren't many) generally fared better. I saw A LOT of guys who are probably +2s and 3s who struggled to get the ball close from the left side (it's totally blind, also, which I don't recall anyone mentioning), and I think they were on the left side of the fairway because of: 1) the bunkers on the right and 2) they didn't see the need to get it close to the bunkers. But, obviously, I can't read their minds, so I don't know that that is why they were on the left.

Wayne birdied the hole - maybe he could share which side of the fairway he was on and if it was a conscious decision.

Hopefully we'll have more discussion fodder next year. I won't be surprised if Tiger lays up to the right and dead hands a 9 iron in there every day, happy to walk away with par.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()