Oakmont's New Bunkers

[cary lichtenstein]

I played Oakmont today for the first time and found the coourse to be very difficult, especially the fairway bunkers. I did not play particularlly well, and found myself in 5 or 6 fairway bunkers, I hit one green and the balance I hit 40 to 60 yard sand wedge shots.

There was a large construction crew on the course, and they were deepening bunkers and deepening and widening the ravine area's.

I thought the finished fairway bunkers were  penal, pretty mcuh a full shot plus, they were deep green, fairly closely cropped, vs. some of the bunkers that had long fescue.

Curious to what others think of these changes

[Steve Lapper]

Those bunkers have been deep and 1-1.5 shot penalties for over 50 years....any new deep digging is likely just drainage-related. The fescue has also been germane to those bunker lips for over the last decade. Fairways, fairways, fairways.

 Very penal hazards, considerable length and lightening fast greens are the dynamics in play and the long-standingtradition at Oakmont, Get used to it. Like other courses that pride themselves on water, trees or flowers to visually define their lines of charm, Oakmont uses it toughness to intimidate and beat down the golfer. The membership prides itself on that test of perserverance and character.

Your primary error of perception is that Oakmont is a links course....couldn't be farther from the truth...just an older parkland that recognized the unneeded encroachment of those big weeds...too many trees.

Other than all the above...great fun

[gboring]

I had the privlege of working at Oakmont for two years while I was seeking my turf degree.  One thing that I learned while I was there, is that their is no such thing as too penal for that membership. The tougher the course plays the happier the membership is.

Greg Boring

[Bill_McBride]

"The tougher the course plays the happier the membership is."

Boy is that right.  It all goes back to Mr. Fownes, who apparently had bunkers constructed overnight if a player hit the ball where Mr. Fownes thought he shouldn't have been able to!

The members are very proud of the green speeds, which I guess are 11++ on a regular basis, and the caddies are very good at reading the subtle  breaks and encouraging visitors to just get the putts started on line.

I haven't played there for 10 plus years, and would love to see the course sans all those trees!

[Paul Richards]

Mr. Fownes would be SO proud!!!

 

[SPDB]

Cary -

What did your member friend think of the work?

[TEPaul]

gary lichenstein said;

".....they were deep green, fairly closely cropped, vs. some of the bunkers that had long fescue.
I thought the fairway bunkers looked kind of out of place, too deep, too modern for a links type course."

gary:

While I don't know the state of the work being done at Oakmont at this particular point I do know who to ask (Mark Studer who obviously knows as much as anyone about the details of what's gone on architecturally there for the last number of years and continues to).

But I think any of us need to be careful in making remarks at this point that some of the bunkers may be too deep green and fairly close cropped compared to some of the other bunkers on the course that have longer fescue surrounds. In other words, perhaps we should not be too critical of the look of some bunkers at this point assuming their look right now is a permanent look.

We do not want to make the same elementary mistake that most on here did when they initially criticized the bunker project at Merion East before those bunkers were AT LEAST given a year or two to let the grass surrounds grow out and mature some. Perhaps the same is true of those bunkers you mentioned at Oakmont that are deep green and close cropped. Perhaps those grass surrounds are just very immature at this point.

Again, I do not know at what point the years long project (including all that tree removal back to the way the course looked when Fownes was still alive) at Oakmont is in at this point but a year or so ago Mark Studer did mention that when Fownes was alive there were approximately 200 bunkers on that course and today there are something substantially less than that. Perhaps Oakmont is still in the process of replacing or restoring some of those old Fownes bunkers. And to critique them accurately and constructively we do need to give them the time to mature some just as at Merion East.

[A_Clay_Man]

Cary, I assume It's not in your top ten?

[T_MacWood]

Cary
Could you please give us your revised top twenty?

"...essentially at least doubling the depth of each bunker."

I find that hard to believe. Are they putting latters in ever trap?

[rgkeller]

Cary
Could you please give us your revised top twenty?

"...essentially at least doubling the depth of each bunker."

I find that hard to believe. Are they putting latters in ever trap?

If Oakmont is deepening a two foot deep bunker by a foot and increasing the height of the mounding toward the green by a foot, they would have effectively/essentially doubled the depth of the bunkers and would have no need for ladders.

[George Pazin]

One of the benefits of being a championship venue for all these years is that there is ample photographic evidence of how the course has evolved. Suffice it to say, everyone involved is doing his level best to restore the course to Mr. Fownes' vision.

Oakmont is a textbook case in how to make a course play really hard without resulting to water hazards, trees and OB. High handicappers won't score well there - heck, low handicappers don't - but they won't go through 5 sleeves of balls, either.

It's about as perfect a course as I've seen. Of course, I haven't been overseas yet!

[TEPaul]

gary:

I believe it was the architectural philosophy of William Fownes that the effect of areas of the architecture of his course COULD BE exactly that---very penal, and that definitely always did include areas of those bunkers at Oakmont.

I generally make a very basic distinction on the philosophy of the play (out of bunkering) and that is do the sand areas play "iffy" or does the actual architecture of bunkering make them play "iffy"----or perhaps both?

I think we do know today and can admit that very rarely in the modern era are the sand areas of bunkers anywhere still allowed to play "iffy". The test of that obviously is how often and how much bunkers are raked. We do know that an old architect such as Tillinghast said that what he would recommend is that on tournament day a herd of elephants should be run through the sand areas of the bunkers on a golf course. I think that shows quite clearly how Tillinghast felt the sand areas of bunkers should play---eg extremely "iffy".

The fact is PVGC may've been the last great course on earth that did not regularly rake their bunker areas but that's all changed now.

However, on the "architectural iffy" side of bunkering there's no question that that is the way Fownes wanted his bunkers to play (don't forget his highly controverial experiment in "grooved sand areas"). One could not find a better example of that than the "Church pew" bunkers. The fact is if your ball just happens to get in a postion in those bunkers that's either right up against a face going out or even one just behind the ball a SW out or even out sideways is the only reasonable play for anyone.

That's the way Fownes wanted the bunkers to be and that's the way they've always been and seemingly have been restored to today. There was never anything in Fownes's philosophical mind-set about bunkering that says a player should always be given some heroic possiblility out of one of those bunker all the way to a green. (Hugh Wilson may've said that about Merion East but Fownes never did about Oakmont). That might be somewhat possible at Oakmont if you were lucky enough to have your ball end up in the middle of one of those bunkers but only "IF" that happened to happen.

[T_MacWood]

rg
What are some of the two feet deep bunkers at Oakmont?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary,

I've been an advocate of deepening bunkers for some time.

With L-Wedges, and special utility clubs, bunkers have lost some, if not a good deal of their purpose and/or functionality over the years.

Hi-tech and distance have combined to render them like the Maginot Line, and, not nearly the threat to play that they used to be, or were intended to be.

I think it's a great way to preserve the original intent of the architecture by preserving the bunker's relationship to the other features on the golf course.

I would hope that other golf courses adopt Oakmont's philosophy when it comes to their bunkers.

I've always felt that certain courses serve as a center of influence for other courses, and Oakmont has clealy been one of those special courses.

[TEPaul]

"Oakmont uses both a deep green bunker look and a long fescue look, usually on opposite sides of the hole."

gary:

How do you know this look is intended to be a permanent one?  

(In other words, are those bunkers you describe as 'deep green' bunkers that have just been worked on whose grass surrounds have not yet had the time to mature?).

[TEPaul]

"I also felt that the holes were out of balance, which may have attributed to my poor play today, so I was uncomfortable addressing the ball for most of the day."

gary;

You felt the holes were 'out of balance'? What do you mean by that?

[cary lichtenstein]

I love deep bunkers when they are around greens, these are fairway bunkers. Hit in one of those, and all you can do is advance maybe 50 yards. I was in 6  of those. They were very effective.

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
If Fownes and Loeffler had their way, the bunkers at Oakmont would be even deeper than they are now.  At one time there were upwards of 350 bunkers on that golf course.  The soils were the reason they could not build the original bunkers deeper.  Also Oakmont’s famous ditches were built originally for drainage (not for strategy as many people think).  The furrows in the bunkers were designed to “compensate” for the lack of depth in the bunkers.  Fownes and Loeffler wanted the bunkers to be true hazards and penal!  

Both men believed that, “The charm of the game lies in its difficulties.  Keep it rugged, baffling, hard to conquer; otherwise we shall soon tire of it and cast it aside.”  Both are well known for their belief that, “A shot poorly played should be a shot irrevocably lost.”  Fownes also pointed out in speaking about Oakmont that, “The bunkering system is continually being adapted to meet the requirements of longer hitting and more exacting play to the green.”  No better story epitomized that statement than the one about Sam Snead’s Bunker.  The story goes as follows:

No less a player than Sam Snead found out to what lengths W.C. would go to protect the integrity of his golf course.  The occasion was a one-day Big Four war bond tournament in the summer of 1945, involving Snead, Harold (Jug) McSpadon, Byron Nelson, and Gene Sarazen.  As the story goes, W.C. and Dutch Loeffler had decided that spring to put in a new bunker on the seventh hole (as though the 10 or a dozen there were not enough) in honor of the tournament.  During a practice round, Snead cleared the new bunker and birdied the hole.

Afterward, Loeffler called Fownes at his summer home on Cape Cod and told him what had happened.  W.C. reportedly asked Loeffler if there was any way they could build a new bunker in that landing area over night, to which Loeffler responded, “I thought you’d say that sir, “adding that he had made arrangements to do just that.  Thus is the glow of automobile headlights, a hole was dug, and the new bunker put in place in the rough where Snead’s drive had landed.  

The next morning, in the first of two rounds, Snead came to the seventh, took out his driver and proceeded to put his ball in the same location as before.  When Sam came up the hill and looked for his ball, he was shocked at what he saw.  His ball was in the middle of an bunker that seemed to have appeared as if by magic.  Obviously, a little unstrung by this, he went on to bogey the hole.  

Fownes and Loeffler are problably smiling up there as the bunkers at Oakmont get deeper (just like they had wanted)!
Mark

[George Pazin]

Sounds like the fairway bunkers acutally played like hazards. Maybe if more courses took this approach, we wouldn't need 7500 yards overly water-filled courses.

I really don't get the out of balance comment at all. I can't think of a single hole that didn't fit the landscape. #1 flows nicely down the ridge, #2 is a wonderful short par 4 tucked into a corner of sorts, #3 has an amazing greensite that looks like someone just cut the grass and put a hole on top of a hill. #4 flows nicely back down the hill, and then over a little ridge, down to the greensite. #5 plays across a wonderful ravine. #6 is an amazing par 3 set on a sidehill that is really amazing. #7 flows up over a ridge to a wonderfully natural greensite. #8 is a bombers par 3 with a neatly deceptive bunker that looks greenside but actually is to the side and well short of the green, allowing the ball to chase in. #9 is another wonderful par 5/4 (members/tournament play) with a terrific greensite that melds somewhat frighteningly (in a good way) into the practice green.

Do I need to go through the back 9? 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 - not an unnatural hole among them, and not a weak one either.

 

Oakmont has to be one of the toughest courses it's unlikely you'll lose a ball on. I'd say the toughest, but I haven't played enough of the other contenders (yet ).

[Mark_Fine]

I agree George.  After Oakmont took out all the trees, my personal rating of the course went from a Doak 9 to a 10.  Is it perfect, no.  But it is about as good as golf gets on this planet.  

[JohnV]

Cary,  wait until 2007 when the Open is there and they build huge British Open type grandstands around the place.  It will look so much like the Open that people will think they went to Scotland by mistake (at least until they walk over the turnpike and all the cars are on the wrong side of the road.)

I'll be out there next Friday and will try to get some pictures to post.

[David Druzisky]

I too had a chance to visit Oakmont a couple weeks ago - during the Katrina weather that went through there.  I spent about half a day out there so all I can lend is some initial impressions and not intimate feelings or inside info details.

knowing that the Open will be there in a couple years I made a point to study it mostly from that level of play and then back off to a member perspective.  I can see the points you make about the bunkers swales and unbalance.  The construction has made its way through the front nine and was held up on the par 3 13th because of the rain for a couple days.  Bunker sodding had just finished on 12 and 13 the days before the storm.

Yes the bunkers are deep but as most have said here that is the intent.  The bunkers on the holes completed earlier had allready matured much more than those more recently completed and looked very good.

I had read an article about the work and was intereseted in seeing the work on the swales.  They have been cleaned out to refelct original depths and sizes in general with playable type grasses used in soding them.  That was how it was described in the article and that is what it looked like.

More important than how the bunkers looked was their placement in guarding just about everything.  In looking at the holes with tour level yardages in mind it really apears that the players will be facing some real interesting situations in landing areas out at 300 yards.  The unbalanced feeling you mention may be in part due to awkward landing areas that are narrow and sloped (sometimes harshly)towards hazzards in many cases it seems.  While these are even more awkward at the 300 yard zone they are still difficult back at the typical landing areas.  The holes sort of almost fall off the terrain.  The routing appears to twist over the terrain.  Neat stuff that today we would be lynched for.

It will be interesting to see how the tour players approach the course.

George -  you recollect the holes well.  Like I said I really only have a cursory understanding of the course per my 1/2 day visit.  One of my impressions of holes 1 and 9 is that we know they were, they "look" like they were shortened when the turnpike came through.  The 1st green sits down at the bottom of the hill in a low while the 9th is an awkward short length.  Just an impression.

Mark -  As for the work on the ditches, from a construction instinct rationale, I would have to wonder if they did some of the ditch excavation originally purely for the material needed to build up the bunker support, not solely for drainage reasons.  A lot of the ditches are adjacent to the bunkers.  Yep, they do not look like they were done for stategic reasons at all based on were most of them are.  Maybe excused for additional penal reasons.

John - Sorry we did not meet up when I was there.  I agree with the look you imagine for the US Open.

[TEPaul]

"My comment that some of the holes were out of balance refers to the natural topography of the land. There were lots of angles and counter-angles that left me with a uncomfortable feeling as to where to hit the ball, where the ball will roll to. I am sure that with repeated play I would feel much more comfortable."

cary;

Didn't you know that great architecture like Oakmont's is SUPPOSED to do that to the golfer? It seems you must be reading too much of Tom Fazio's new architectural philosophy of making where to go with architecture patently obvious to the golfer. That was definitely not always the old way---and Oakmont is unusually old. But there are a number of holes at Oakmont where it is patently obvious where to go. That would include #3, #4, #9, #10 and #18. On those holes there's little question pretty much right down the middle will do any golfer just fine!  

[T_MacWood]

Oakmont did not make my top 20 list

It certainly is no Lakota Canyon!

[Bill_McBride]

Will #9 play as a par 4?  Really not much choice there as there is no where back to put the tee except across the interstate.

Hmmmm.