Fazio comes to Oakmont

[TEPaul]

"Are you positive that the fairway lines have been kept constant?
And, are you positive that there is no intent to narrow the fairways at Oakmont?"

I don't think any of us are at this point, particularly you. So let's not have any more of this shouting on your part that Oakmont is doing the same thing Baltusrol is before someone finds out about the relative fairway lines at Oakmont in the last 55 years since Fownes.

As far as my analysis of Oakmont tee to green as primarily a distance strategic golf course just go out there and look at it and play it as I have and see for yourself.

[SPDB]

Rick Wolfe's summary of the Baltusrol Master Plan specifics include the following germane points:

"Rough lines were redirected and fairway lines shifted to tighten the landing areas in the drive zone for championship play"

It includes pictures of the 10th, with the caption:

"The trademark Tillinghast approach on 10 Lower may be open into the green, but the near rough has been narrowed in the drive zone"

In contrast, here is the relevant excerpt from the PPG article on which you are basing the similarity:

"In addition, all the fairway bunkers will eventually be enlarged and brought right to the edge of the fairway, narrowing the landing area off the tee."

I see nothing in there about narrowing the fairways.

[SPDB]

TEPaul -
 
I don't think it is relevant (at least as it pertains to this thread), whether the fairway lines have narrowed since the 1950s. In fact, for present purposes, I'll assume that they have. My only concern is whether (further) fairway narrowing is part of the plan. At Baltusrol, it most assuredly was. At Oakmont, it is unclear, though nothing from the article compels the conclusion that it is, despite Pat's protestations.

[T_MacWood]

"One must also realize if Fownes had 300 bunkers on that course and the course now has 186 bunkers perhaps some of the bunkers that are being relocated are restorations of those app. 114 Fownes bunkers that were removed at some point, perhaps by the remodel/redesign projects of RTJ, Garbin, Palmer/Seay, Hills et al. Check Cornish and Whitten for architectural input following the reign of W. Fownes that ended in 1950. A good deal of that redesign following Fownes has been removed in the restoration project Oakmont went through under Green Chairman Studer and following him."

TE
What bunkers were removed? Are you certain it was done after 1950?

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Pat - From the Pitt. P-G article you divined that the same thing that happened at Baltusrol is happening at Oakmont.

That's not true, and that's not what I said.
I didn't say it was the same thing, I said that the results would be similar, despite the difference in the order of the process.[/color]

I merely pointed out that fairway line narrowing was articulated by the club as part and parcel of Rees Jones's work. No such enunciation was included in the Pittsburgh P-G article, nor any of the interviews I've read with John Zimmers and others.

No such enunciation said it wouldn't happen.

Would you say that the USGA has a history of narrrowing fairways in preparation for US Opens ? [/color]

So if we are to limit our discussion to the article posted here, how can you be so certain that the work at Oakmont even vaguely resembles that of Baltusrol? I don't, but I'm going off the same source you are, which makes no such indication, despite your conclusions to the contrary.

Your lack of understanding of maintainance practices and the results of those practices as they affect fairway/rough lines when obstacles/bunkers traverse them limits your ability to understand cause and effect.  As night must follow day, those lines will move when the bunkers are moved.

And, It's logical to conclude that the fairways will be narrowed.  To think otherwise is to deny the history and tradition of the USGA, The US Open and Oakmont.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TE
What bunkers were removed? Are you certain it was done after 1950?"

Tom Macwood:

I am not. I've never done a study of Oakmont's architectural evolution. I am quite certain that Mark Studer, Zimmers and some other interested parties at Oakmont have though. It was Mark Studer who mentioned that at one point the course had around 300 bunkers and today it has app 186 bunkers. If you're interested in finding out whose they were, when they were put in and when they were removed and what's being put back why don't you call him and ask him? He seems quite willing to talk about Oakmont with those interested in it's evolution and restoration. He just doesn't seem that interested in coming on here all the time and having arguements with people who don't know the course very well but who for some reason seem to act like they know more about Oakmont than Oakmont does or who act like they know what's better for Oakmont now and in the future than Oakmont does.

Perhaps you could solve all this by supplying us with one of your excellent expert research articles of the entire architectural evolution of Oakmont and its entire evolutionary bunker number and placement from 1903 to date without actually even going there. Perhaps the archives of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette can supply you with all the documentary material you need. I'd advise checking with Pat Mucci as well---he seems to have determined a good deal of architectural information from a one line blurb in a recent Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

However, whatever's happened at Oakmont recently---just as with Baltusrol, Merion, PVGC and a number of other golf courses this has nothing to do with Tom Fazio---he's only doing what the membership asks him to do--and as Pat says whatever happens at any golf course it's always the membership's fault.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Why so defensive? I don't know Mark Studer, but I seriously doubt he would react half as defensively as you have about questions regarding Oakmont.

If you have a personal relationship with any person involved at any of these clubs are we to refrain from discussing them? As long as we remain objective and refrain from personal attacks....I don't see the problem in asking questions and discussing changes to important architecture--I advocate looking at these things critically.

PS: I have been gathering info on Oakmont over the years (some of it even coming from newspapers..a taboo in your neck of the woods ), and I suspect some day I will share what I've found. The architectural history of the course is not very well documented.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Oh no, I'm not being in the slightest bit defensive---that automatic retort of yours to me is really getting old---I feel some of my responses to some of the remarks and anaylyses on here of Oakmont and some other courses is much more in the way of humor because I feel a lot of the remarks and analyses made by some on here are frankly laughable!

But I surely don't want to minimize or stultify discussion and criticism of any course or any architect on this website---I have nothing at all against a good laugh, as you know. It's simply that I feel too often the discussions and the analyzes on here are just ridiculously doctrinaire and inaccurate at the same time. Not always, to be sure, but probably too often anyway.

And then one has to add to that how doomishly serious some on here get with their opinions and analyses that aren't even accurate. Nothing defensive on my part, why should it be? I think a lot of this discussion is just funny.

Now, you're telling me not much is known about Oakmont. Not much is known by whom? By you? Well, then why don't you call Studer or Oakmont and ask them because they certainly do know the architectural evolution of that golf course, I've been there with them and I've seen what they use. But there doesn't seem to be any point in telling that to somebody like Pat Mucci, or maybe you. You guys obviously have your own way of doing things and analyzing the golf courses of others you don't know very well. I'm sure you two put a huge amount of credibility in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette---and why wouldn't you--it seems to be your sole source of information.

That's all just fine in my book---because Mark Twain was probably right;

"Nothing in the World can withstand the onslaught of humor."

Golf course architecture is surely subjective, and I'm sure that will never change, I hope it doesn't but thank God I don't have to rely on the analyses of some on here for accuracy. And thank God Oakmont doesn't either.

"PS: I have been gathering info on Oakmont over the years (some of it even coming from newspapers..a taboo in your neck of the woods  ), and I suspect some day I will share what I've found. The architectural history of the course is not very well documented."

Well, isn't that wonderful. I'll tell that to Studer & Co at Oakmont. I'm sure they'll be elated that someone like you can finally unravel the evolution of their golf course for them and tell them exactly what happened all these years as well as tell them what they should do with their golf course in the future. It's just a shame, I guess, you couldn't have done that beginning about ten years ago so they wouldn't have had to make all these mistakes with their latest restoration project!  

You should also know that Oakmont is a national landmark. That should certainly make your day.

[George Pazin]

There is a recent history of Oakmont, but I don't know how much detail it covers regarding architectural evolution. Maybe JohnV can help out with this answer.

One of the first articles I ever read on Oakmont was in the US Open preview issue in 1994. I'll try to dig it up, but my recollection is the number of bunkers peaked sometime in the 30s.

There is no better course in the good ole USA than Oakmont. There may be others as good, there are certainly others that are "prettier" and closer to the ocean (being perched above the Allegheny is as close as Oakmont gets), but there is none better. It's physically impossible.

 

P.S. I wouldn't consider the Post Gazette to be a tremendous source. I didn't see the article, but I assume it was written by Gerry Dulac, the PG's golf writer. He isn't exactly at the level of any of the writers on this site. Just a personal opinion.

[T_MacWood]

George
It was written by Marino Parascenzo, who I believe is local sports writer. I've only looked at it briefly, so I can't say what its architectural content might be.

TE
"Now, you're telling me not much is known about Oakmont. Not much is known by whom? By you?"

If this thread is any indication...little is known about Oakmont's architectural history.

"Well, then why don't you call Studer or Oakmont and ask them because they certainly do know the architectural evolution of that golf course, I've been there with them and I've seen what they use."

I can appereciate his knowledge, and I could call him I suppose...what's his phone number?...its kind of sad he has no interest in sharing that knowledge with this group, because, as you say, he is not "interested in coming on here all the time and having arguements with people who don't know the course very well but who for some reason seem to act like they know more about Oakmont than Oakmont does or who act like they know what's better for Oakmont now and in the future than Oakmont does."

I personally don't think that is the case or would be the case, especially based on recent history...if anything, he and the club have been praised by most on GCA over the last few years...on the other hand Fazio has been roundly criticized here for his attitude toward classic golf courses, so perhaps, the negatives outweigh the positives.

Here is old picture of the course...sorry that it is a little blurry.

[George Pazin]

That's better - Marino's a better writer, IMHO.

In the past, Mark has indicated a desire to wait until the work is complete, out of respect for the green committee chairmen who have followed him.

Oakmont does have quite a few photos of the course during many different eras - one of the benefits of being a top choice of the USGA for all these years.

[Tyler Kearns]

Tom Paul,

From an article on the Lesco (irrigartion, seed, fertilizer company) website, it appears John Zimmers and his crew are restoring Oakmont to a specific year, based on an old aerial photograph of the course. Do we know what year? At one point the landscape was dotted with 300 bunkers, and the article seems to be implying that they will not all be restored. How have they determined the "architectural high point"? I thought Fownes had been responisble for all of those hazards.

Lesco website article:
At the time Oakmont was built and for many years afterward, it was a wide-open golf course. In fact, the famed Bobby Jones once commented that a golfer standing at the rear of the clubhouse could look out over the course and see 17 of the 18 flagsticks.

“If you think about that for a minute, that’s pretty unique,” Zimmers said. “His comment pretty much tells you it was very open and more of a links-style course. But in the 1960s a beautification program came along and the club planted all kinds of trees. The fairways were literally lined with trees and you could no longer see each hole.”

 With the restoration program now in progress, some Oakmont bunkers that were added over the years have now been removed. At one time there were close to 300, but now there are slightly less than 200.    
 
But now, as the club endeavors to take the club back to its original look, approximately 4000 trees have been removed and another 70 or 80 will soon follow. Prior to any work being done, every tree on the course was carefully evaluated using old aerial photographs.

“We’re very sensitive to making sure that when we try to take it back and restore it that we are really getting it right,” Zimmers said. “The fact that the course is a National Historic Landmark makes the restoration especially important.”

Bunkers – something Oakmont is famous for – and the reshaping of certain greens to their original square-like appearance are other areas of concentration for Zimmers and his crew. Again the aerial photos proved valuable for studying the shape of the original greens as well as restoring old bunkers and eliminating some that had been added over the years.

“We have just under 200 bunkers now, but at one time there were close to 300,” Zimmers said. “The bunkers here are very, very penal. There are some big holes in the ground out there. Some are over 12-feet deep.”

TK