Just kidding...kind of.

Anyway, week 2 in our series finds us at a type of hole that is rapidly disappearing from the scene - the highly interesting sub 350 yard par 4 that isn't really driveable.

From the website:

Green   340
Blue    325
White   317
Red    309



On this short par 4, a long iron off the teeing ground avoiding the ditch on the left and the bunkers on the right sets up a short iron to an infamous green.  You must approach your putt from below the hole; three putts are common from above it.

#5 handicap hole for the men

The bunker on the diagram just short of the green is a newly restored bunker. I was somewhat surprised, during my days at the Am, that no one I saw simply drove it long up the right side, allowing a better angle into the green. Everyone I saw laid up with a long iron, leaving one of the more treachorous wedge approaches in the game.

When discussing this hole with a friend, he related to me that the 2nd hole sometimes has a higher stroke average than the first, during the many tournaments which Oakmont is generous enough to host. I'm not surprised - the green has to be among the most sloped in golf. Many a poorly judged approach shot results in the ball coming off the green, ending up well short of the putting surface.

More to follow.

No stories, of course.  Hopefully some day.

But re your wonderment why the big boys didn't go long up the right for a better angle in, well... isn't it simply because they are so damn good with short irons that angle doesn't matter to them?  Even on this ungodly sloped green, it doesn't surprise me they just hit it to a comfortable distance.  Those guys can make short irons dance so much with today's equipment, angles to them are meaningless except from way way far away.

Now us normal guys, well... I know I'd want to have a decent angle in.  But I also do NOT want to be in that bunker that looks to be about 80 yards short.   Can't tell the distances for sure but I'd hit a club that gets me past the last one of the bunkers on the right while staying short of the nasty center one.   Then I'd pray to the golf gods for help on the approach shot.

VERY cool-looking golf hole, btw.

TH

My best Oakmont playing story involves the second hole:

The pin position on the day I played it was particularly difficult, I believe back right.  I had a fifteen foot putt straight up the hill, the two members I was playing with told me the only way I could make the putt was to hit it past the hole and let it roll back in.  Well I didn't listen and after making it to the edge of the cup I watched my ball roll back about twenty feet.   They told me that the pin position isn't used very often.  What a fantastic green, can't wait so see how people handle it in the Open.

George - in all seriousness - is the angle from the left really that bad?  Ryan's pics don't show that, but of course photos do level things.  Given they're gonna have wedges in pretty much no matter what, the slope off the left bunker would have to be very severe... And it would seem to have to be concrete-firm for this to matter... is Oakmont really going to get that way?

TH

George,
   It is interesting that in the pix the green doesn't seem to be sloped towards the golfer. What would you estimate the elevation change to be from back to front? Of the golfers at the Am who you saw play this hole was there a particular sort of shot or approach that seemed to work well? Or do you just want to get on the green?
    What is the most difficult hole location?

Ryan - so for the great players, is angle in a consideration or not?  Or is it indeed that they just want to miss the ditch left, bunkers right?

Seems like another hole that looks purely penal... but I was convinced that #1 is far from that... so what gives this hole its strategic worth?

TH

Great analysis great photos

Tom, we are talking about Oakmont Country Club here. The name of the game is Penal. Like I said before its all about knowing where not to miss throughout each hole, you need to know when to try and carry, split, or play short of the hazards. If I was to recommend an angle for a PGA Tour player on #2 I would say right. They would not have any trouble clearing the bunkers on that side but then again they are going to grow the rough out 6 inches so the tee shot comes down to what distance you want for your approach. As far as a where not to hit the ball I would say left off the tee and long into the green. I will say the par 5's are the most strategic holes on the course but it is not the dominant theme at Oakmont, that’s just the way it is. Does anyone think that makes it a bad course?

SPBD,

The reason the pictures and sketches don't match up is because the sketches are from the official yardage books done by George Lucas.  He simply sketches the holes in the parts that have relavance to the golfers and caddies (tees on the 3's, landing areas on the 4's and 5's, as well as possible lay up positions on 5's, and the green structures).  His books are the gold standard of yardage books and you won't find more accurate information, but if you are looking for sketches made to scale, its not happening from a book done by George....

George Pazin,

This is a great thread, and I look forward to the discussions on all 18 at Oakmont in advance of this year's US Open.  

Mike

Cut the fairway out to the ditch. The hole seems almost TOO narrow with the fairway cut as is.

Never seen it, just from Ryan's angles there should be some danger on a firm and fast day of an overzealous hook running into trouble.

#2 is a wonderful hole.  Kyle, the fairway really is pretty wide if you layup with an iron.

As to how steep the green is, consider this.  At the 2003 US AM, a player hit a shot that stopped about 5 feet above the hole.  He came up, lifted the ball, cleaned it and set it back down where it was at rest.  Suddenly it started to move, rolled down the hill and into the hole.  The official who was there was called in and said that since the ball was at rest and nobody cause it to move, he had holed his previous shot for a 2.

This along with #5 are probably the most severe greens on the course, not that many if any could be considered anywhere near flat.  Since both are on short par 4s that seems like the right mix to me.  Oakmont has as great a set of short par 4s as any of the great courses I've seen.  Holes 2, 5, 11, 14 and 17 are all wonderful holes and all under 400 yards.

The changes since the Book that George has copied are probably the greatest on this green.  It is quite a bit bigger on the back left.

The last time I played there, I hit a good wedge to the green.  The next player hit and I saw a ball run off the green.  I said I was sorry that his ball didn't stay on there.  He turned to me and said he came up 20 yards short.  It was my ball which had rolled around for about 45 seconds before coming off the front of the green.

Ryan/George:

I guess my questions go toward trying to see if this hole is GREAT.  See, I know it's TOUGH - that's the assumption for every hole there at Oakmont.  But tough does not equal great, at least not as I see things... and I don't think George sees it that way either.

So this is a difficult golf hole, especially for it's short distance.  The green sounds incredible... I'm going to assume there are areas on which the ball will stay at rest.. because of course if not we've crossed the line into the absurd.

So yes, this sounds like a very tough golf hole.

But is it GREAT?  And if so, why?

BTW, just being so tough at such a short distance might be enough to make it great... Let's just hope that every hole on the course isn't like this, with the difficulty being the main selling point.  

See, George wants me to believe that Oakmont is better than Pebble Beach.  So far, I believe #1 is a great golf hole.  We'll see how it goes....  

George - gotcha - but you may have to indeed expand more.  So far at Oakmont, I am seeing a lot of hard.. but the greatness is more difficult to see.  Challenging for all levels of players is very cool... but fun reigns supreme for me.  And so far I am not seeing the fun at Oakmont, only the pain.  Although like I say, I was convinced by #1.  Still too many brutally hard holes strung together does not make Tom a happy boy.