Changes at Oakmont

[THuckaby2]

George:

I should first say this: thanks for trying.  This can't be easy and must be frustrating.

But I am asking the questions, seeking the help from you and others, precisely because I don't believe I ever will play Oakmont.  You guys are my only hope at gaining some understanding.  So whereas I do surely grant that this "opening of eyes" that occurred to me at WFW could happen at Oakmont, well it doesn't matter, because we can never prove it one way or the other.

So can we agree to just drop that as a consideration?  Or just consider it "stipulated" as they say in litigation.  That is, I grant that you are right about that.

I just want MORE.  So bear with me.

So as for the lost ball issue, we can stipulate that as well.  I understand how that sucks, and how that's no fun.  It's as much not fun for me as it is for you.  Yes I'm a decent player but not THAT good.  I lose golf balls also on very penal golf courses.  I understand that's not going to happen nearly as much at Oakmont as at truly penal golf courses with desert/lakes/other unplayable stuff to the sides.  Why do you think I hate THE RANCH so much?  Potential for lost ball on both sides of every hole.  I get this, George.

And yes, that's not gonna happen at Oakmont.

But are you truly that masochistic that you LIKE decent shots so severely penalized, as you say, just because you can find the golf ball?

That can't be all there is to it.  There must be more than just a difficult golf course at which one can find his golf ball.  Because hell, one can say that about many, many golf courses.  One never loses a ball at Bayonet, but it is tough as nails... one also just never puts it among the world's greats.

So George, work with me here.  Your take is important to me.  Why is it that you'd find Oakmont fun to play?  What puts it so high as to be among the world's greats for you?  It can't be just this masochism.  Come on man, you have to enjoy when you have golf success....

TH

[George Pazin]

But are you truly that masochistic that you LIKE decent shots so severely penalized, as you say, just because you can find the golf ball?

Maybe this is our disconnect. I don't see decent shots being severely penalized at Oakmont. Maybe occasionally, but not as a general rule. Indifferent shots, poorly thought out shots, bad shots, sure, but not decent shots. Decent shots will likely not be faced with a simple 2 putt, but that doesn't bother me. (In fact, I don't think there is a simple 2 putt on the course, but that's another thread as well.)

I can't say Oakmont is among the world's greats, because I don't have the depth of experience to say that. What I can say is that it is a special place, and if there are more courses that exhibit its level of sophistication, I hope to experience some of them.

What makes Oakmont unique to me is that is seems like the result of really clear thinking in the area of design. Everyone often says things like "Of course Pebble is great. Who couldn't build a great course there?" And you could obviously insert Cypress, Pac Dunes, Shinnecock, etc., in there - probably a ton of overseas courses, too. Most of the world's great courses feature dramatic settings. (I don't subscribe to this philosophy, btw, I think it's insulting to the geniuses that built these masterpieces.)

No one that I know of would say that about Oakmont.

We have land like Oakmont all over western PA, heck, all over much of the world, and yet I don't see many other parkland courses like it. Why Fownes was able to build a masterpiece, whereas no one else has built anything in western PA of even remotely the same level of sophistication, is what fascinates me most. Well, that, and why few seem to have learned the lessons Oakmont can teach us.

Many other courses rely on length and rough as their only defenses, with some water thrown in as well. Oakmont relies on unbelievable green complexes, terrific fairway contours, penal bunkers, and, to a much lesser degree, penal rough. I bet a lot of money that if you mowed it all at one cut like ANGC (formerly was), it'd play damn near as difficult as it does with rough. Only the very best players would benefit from the added control afforded by less rough, and even they would likely struggle with the added run of the ball. Too bad we'll never know the answer to that one.

Someday I'll bore you with a hole by hole analysis of what makes Oakmont special, but that's gonna take some time and patience, and right now I have little of either, as I'm heading home for an early evening with my two angels at home.

[George Pazin]

One last quick example before I roll:

I thought it was incredibly cool that during the recent Open at Shinnecock, golfers would stand in the middle of the fairway on the 10th (? I think, the relatively short par 4 that swooped down, and then back up to the green perched on the top of the hill) with a short iron or wedge and be thinking, how the hell I am gonna scratch out a par here (with no water or penalty-type hazard around)?

At Oakmont, almost every hole is like this. Yes, they are extremely difficult, but Oakmont's members manage to figure out how to get around, and I think you'd be up to the challenge.

Now I'm rolling. Have a good weekend.

[THuckaby2]

George:

Wow.  Many thanks.  That was extremely helpful.  I am almost there.  I get all that.  I also like the example.

This is why I love the 14th at Bandon Trails, which a lot of people hate... it is a confounding golf hole, and the approach is often just a tiny little wedge.

So that's what I keep missing about Oakmont - the fantastic green COMPLEXES and approaches to them.  I get too caught up in the "worlds fastest/toughest greens - can't get around in less than 36 putts" aspect that others do trumpet.  That to me also screams out stupid more than fun.  Hopefully you recall my thoughts on infinite putting.  But I digress....

Examples like the 10th speak loudly to me.  I like to be confounded by wedge shots.  That to me is fun.

I am definitely seeing the light about Oakmont.  It's just tough, you know?  It has SUCH a rep as a torture-test... and telling me it doesn't suffer fools only underscores this.

Have a great weekend - thanks, my friend.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Hereid,

What do you think is the average handicap of the membership at Oakmont ?

11.1

Which means for every 1 handicap, there's a 21 handicap playing the golf course.

For every 4 handicap, there's an 18 handicap playing the golf course.

For every 7 handicap, there's a 15 handicap playing the golf course.

Which means that a broad spectrum of golfers play the golf course day in and day out and enjoy the experience.

It's not such a ferocious golf course that only zero or plus handicaps tee it up every day.[/color]

[THuckaby2]

It's not such a ferocious golf course that only zero or plus handicaps tee it up every day.

Patrick - I am on a quest for understanding about this undeniably great golf course.  I'd be shocked if every Oakmont member was a great golfer - few if any clubs are like that, thankfully so.  

But can you shed enlightenment, as George just did, on what makes it fun for the average golfer?  Because for whatever reason, right or wrong, I had the impression that such golfers just got beaten to death there and thus fun for them didn't include actual chance at success.

One can never have enough knowledge.

Thanks.

TH

[TEPaul]

Oakmont is definitely not everyone's cup of tea. Some say there's sort of a cold and unfriendly aura to it and I guess I can see that.

Apparently, it was always supposed to be that way. That's the way William Fownes wanted it and over the years apparently he just kept making it harder and harder in all kinds of interesting way. His green speeds which he demanded were apparently completely revolutionary for that early time. His idea with bunker sand was beyond belief and that was so criticized by respected players that might have been the only thing he actually backed off on.

But why is the course so hard for some? I guess basically it's because it just demands precision pretty much thoughout. I would call that course the way Fownes designed it as very "center directed". In other words you just need to keep the ball in the fairway because if you get in the wrong places in some of those bunkers and other dangerous features on either side of most holes such as ditches, you can really get screwed up if you try for too much trying to recover.

I think I played in two state amateurs there in maybe the 80s and early 90s and I've officiated two other state Amateurs there. I see what happens on that course to many players.

The bunkers are what I'd call "architecturally iffy" in that if you happen to get too close to most of the faces you just need to be sure you just get the ball out with anything to get over those faces and even very good golfers seem to make mistakes that way.

Then there's those greens. When I first played there they were the fastest greens I'd ever seen and by a lot. That's nerve-racking as hell right there. And then just try pitching and chipping on some of those things at those speeds.

Strokes can just endlessly slip away on that course even with shots that are seemingly OK. Some of the fairway bunkers collect balls right off the fairways better than I've ever seen so there's that too.

Is Oakmont strategic in the way some to most on this site think of "strategic"? No, I don't think so. Again, I'd say the course is very "center directed" and for really good players some of the strategy in playing the course well probably is to just take off the tee whatever club you can hit the straightest into those fairways. But then the course is long too so if you're too cautious on distance off the tee you're kinda behind the 8 ball on distance on the next shot.

In my opinion, the reason the course was and is that way and in many ways is seemingly the opposite of the wide open old courses we call strategic is because Fownes as much as anyone---about as much as Crump, was into this idea we sometimes call "shot testing". Most don't seem to understand what that really was, and frankly if they did would probably criticize it as unstrategic.

"Shot testing" was a series of basically shot requirements from hole to hole that were really demanding and if you failed in the test at any point along the way you could get fairly heavily penalized. Fownes very much believed in that concept too---severe penalty for a misplayed shot---he wrote about it and spoke about it.

Some of the other architects of those early eras wrote about what an "ideal" golf course was supposed to be and how to be "ideal" the course and it's architecture had to accomodate every level of golfer, in some ways.

Fownes, Crump, and maybe even Wilson and some of the other early amateur architects who were basically building a course for themselves (they built them and they were the client too) didn't care about that "ideal" label of those other architects. Matter of fact, Crump and probably Fownes too actually said they didn't really want hackers on the course because it wasn't designed or intended for them.

What those two courses were designed for, and there was never a doubt about it, is that old fashioned philosophy of severe "shot-testing". The basic strategy involved in that rather rare "shot-testing" style was that if you didn't feel like accepting the "shot-test" then you just laid up somehow and hoped to get lucky and maybe scramble for a par somehow or just accept bogie.

Most players, even good ones, may not have ever understood that "shot-testing" philosophy that well. One of the real ironies of courses like PVGC and Oakmont is if you're sort of on your game but not quite and you try to get aggressive on those courses you'll get handed your hat a whole lot worse than if you decided to just play the course extremely conservatively and just accept some bogies as the best to expect.

Oakmont and PVGC have this unique thing about them that seems quite different than on most other courses for even really good players. That unique thing is what they call "others" and they are a lot of the reason those two old fashioned "shot testing" courses are often so hard to score on.

That's the best I can do to explain Oakmont, TomH. It's different, it's hard and in my opinion, it's really great architecture and a great golf course. In my opinion, it deserves to be where it's pretty much always been---eg somewhere in or around the Top 10.

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Great stuff.

But you see, this "shot testing" philosophy, and Oakmont being the absolute paragon of such, is the impression of I have of the course (again seeing it only in pictures and on TV).

Now of course one could dismiss my premise that the truly greatest courses are both difficult and fun... but let's say one accepts that.

How is Oakmont any fun, for those of us NOT into shot-testing as the be all and end-all in golf?

Or is the answer in the question?  That is, it's SUCH a paragon of shot-testing that that alone is what makes it great?

I could accept that.

I'd just not want to hear any more about it being fun to play, however.  

George Pazin gave me some great stuff to help understand this.  But I seek more....

And let this be a challenge:  I also asked Pat Mucci.

 

[TEPaul]

"Now of course one could dismiss my premise that the truly greatest courses are both difficult and fun... but let's say one accepts that."

That's probably why many over the years have said Oakmont has an aura of being cold and unfriendly.

This idea of "fun" is probably too general and too amorphous  a description when it comes to that old so-called "ideal" that a great course had to accomodate everyone.

It never failed to amaze Crump and PVGC and maybe Fownes too that even if he actually told hackers the course was not for them they seemed to just love playing it even though they were getting clobbered score-wise.

I don't know why that is. Maybe they just like the idea of playing something that really was specifically designed for the best of the best just to see what it's like or how different it is from the rest of architecture.

[THuckaby2]

AHA!

Fun through being different... I get that... that's how I used to treat a bitch of a course out here calledf Bayonet (before they emasculated it, which they did recently)... That is, it was so over-the-top hard, it was fun in a masochistic way.

So I can understand the average golfer feeling that way about Oakmont.  It's just so different, in a "golf test" sort of way... that it is fun.  Playing something specifically designed for the best of the best... that speaks loudly also.  Well done.

Just one more question:  I guess I should just give up on the idea that one has a realistic chance to achieve success there?  People keep beating around the bush about this... But is it just that way?

I can certainly live with a paragon of difficulty being in the world's top 10 - there is room for that.  Especially as you describe it, being so unique in this, espousing this shot-testing philosophy.

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH:

No, just being masochistically hard is not what an Oakmont (or PVGC) is about. I've seen a number of modern courses (a number by Palmer) that are masochistically hard and they are also pretty dumb. They just don't make a lot of architectural sense in their shot values. Oakmont makes a ton of sense that way--even if it's hard.

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

I mischaracterized that.  Let's call Oakmont masochistically difficult, but in an interesting, not overtly and immediately penal fashion.  Is that closer?  And that would make it unique and allow for the greatness (as I see things).  Of course that was what George Pazin was trying to get me to understand, but sometimes it takes me awhile.  

Full concurrence that we've all seen lots of masochistically difficult courses, none of which any of us would call "great."

I don't think you've seen it yet, but think #14 Bandon Trails or #6 Pacific Dunes.  Both just sit there, short and not overtly terrifying... one licks his chops and thinks three.  One then leaves the green with 6 or worse all too often, wondering why.  I'm getting the picture there are a number of holes at Oakmont that are like this.

And that is GREAT.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Huckaby,

Didn't we have much the same conversation awhile back regarding Oakmont and Pebble?  

[Jim Franklin]

Huck -

One of the last times I played there, one of the guys in my group, a 6 handicap, shot a 77. Not a long hitter, but a decent ball striker and decent putter. 77 at Oakmont for a 6 handicap is fun stuff and a great round.

When I played there last, my buddy told me about the club championship where one guy shot 68 in the morning to the toughest pins my friend had ever seen. He said it was the greatest round of golf he witnessed. I think the guy shot 86 in the afternoon though. But good scores can posted. It requires concentration on each shot. (One thing I lack)

[George Pazin]

I think I disagree at least somewhat with the notion that Oakmont is "center directed". This may be true off the tee, I'll have to think about that some more, but it is most certainly not remotely true when it comes to the greens.

"Center directed" implies to me that a golfer should simply aim for the middle of the fairways and greens. And the best play for Oakmont's greens is rarely just aiming for the center. In the first 3 greens alone, this is a dangerous play, nearly impossible on #1, in fact. It's not necessarily the right play on 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ... either. Witness Jim Franklin's 130 yard shot that his caddie told to play 105. On other courses, you might play short with the intention of hitting a bump and run into the green. On #1, Jim hit sand wedge, not a punch wedge or 9 or something like that. That is a highly unique hole, IMHO. The last time I was at Oakmont I saw someone putt from about 3-4 yards in front of the 1st green and he barely touched the ball, and it rolled about 2 feet past a front hole location.

Huck, you're somewhat right about your thoughts re: BT #14 & PD #6 - there are many holes at Oakmont where your approach is of a length that, on almost any other course, you'd be thinking of a birdie attempt. The main difference is that you quickly realize at Oakmont that you might want to consider playing for the par, rather than just gunning it at the pin for birdie. That is what folks mean when they say "Oakmont does not suffer fools". It is an admittedly defensive concept, but one that I find fascinating.

I haven't seen Winged Foot (hope to next year, but then again, I hoped to see Merion this year and didn't make it to that, either ), but it strikes me as a more "center directed", straightforward brutal test than Oakmont. Oakmont possesses a great deal of subtle torture, if that makes any sense whatsoever.

[Matt_Ward]

Since the issue of Winged Foot and Oakmont have been mentioned a good number of times on this thread I have to say the greatest strength of each course is the absolute unrelenting pressure you get with your approach shots.

With that said -- the tee shot elements become magnified because success in getting near the putting surfaces in the regulation stroke from the rough is virtually a long shot proposition -- save for the strength of the respective player and the actual lie you draw.

Clearly, what stands Oakmont above Winged Foot / West IMHO is the complexity and variety of the putting surfaces. For example, at the 1st at Oakmont you had best be long rather than short -- even if that means giving up 40-50 feet past because being short is more than likely an invitation to a fast three putt -- sometimes even more.

Ditto with the nature of the 10th -- although I hate to see what is normally done with the hole when an Open is played --the fairway slopes from left-to-right and in ways mirros what you see happens with the uphill par-4 17th at The Lake Course at Olympic. With a v-e-r-y narrow landing area the 10th at Oakmont can be a real terror because the effective landing zone is then reduced to no more than 10 yards across.

The green at #10 is also extremely demanding as it too slopes away from the player. When you stand back in the fairway and are contemplating your approach you had best make sure you don't end up short of the green again and face the same predicament you see with the 1st.

My only suggestion for Oakmont as the '07 Open approaches is for the uphill short par-4 17th to be played just under 300 yards so that you can see the players tempted to go for the green at the tee. The hole offers so much in terms of reward but the risk is ever present should you short-side oneself.

[JohnV]

The hole offers so much in terms of reward but the risk is ever present should you short-side oneself.

The 17th green is so narrow that both sides are short sides and now that the bunkers on the left are as tough as Big Mouth on the right, there really is nowhere to miss.

[AndrewB]

From middle tee on #18, looking back across the #15 fairway (near-ground), past the work around #14 green, across #12 tee, #10 fairway, to #9 fairway in the distance in front of the tree-line (you can't see the 1st fairway which is right in front of the tree line)

Wow, that is quite some picture.  I don't remember that area being so open when I was there watching the 2003 US Amateur.  I know there has been talk of some tree removal, but it appears they have removed quite a lot of trees in the areas shown in the picture.  Have there been significant tree removals elsewhere on the course, like 2-8 across the road?

Apologies if this has been previously discussed on the site (I was AWOL for a few years).

[AndrewB]

This idea of "fun" is probably too general and too amorphous  a description when it comes to that old so-called "ideal" that a great course had to accomodate everyone.

I think this is a key point in this whole discussion, and in reading this thread I found myself wondering what each person meant when they used the word "fun", and whether each person meant something different.

I do see a few places where people have given specific examples what things they find fun, but how about a more general description of what makes course characteristics fun/not-fun.  I think the closest to this is George's statement in reply #74:

When I face a really difficult shot, I may or may not find it "interesting". If the penalty for the mishit is reload and try again, I probably won't find it especially interesting. If it means that I might face an even tougher shot from a difficult lie, difficult bunker, something like that, that I find that interesting. I call that fun. That is why I think Oakmont is appealing to more than just ace players on top of their game.

I personally like this description of fun, since it equates fun with interesting challenges. I have gotten the sense that for many people having fun is directly attached to shooting a low score; when I was finally able to detach the two for myself, I started having more fun playing and better appreciating interesting challenges.

Another thing is that pitting fun against difficult seems to imply that a fun course is not a difficult one.  I'd expect this is not what was meant, but it seems as if people (Huck, in particular) feel there is a point at which a course becomes "too difficult" that results in it no longer being fun.  It sounds like hazards that result in lost balls, rough that is "too" long, and holes that are "too" long all contribute to making a course "too difficult" and no longer fun.  Is this an accurate assessment of the feeling out there?  If so, what about these characteristics no longer make a course fun to play (for you)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I'm afraid I can't shed any light on the play of the golf course.
Everyone's unique game interfaces with the architecture differentlly.

I didn't find any element of "unfairness", I didn't find it unreasonably difficult.  Like many golf courses there's a premium on being below the hole, and a deft touch is required.

[THuckaby2]

Huckaby,

Didn't we have much the same conversation awhile back regarding Oakmont and Pebble?  

Yes indeedy.  I've referred to it several times in this thread.

Still trying to get a handle on the place, not sure if I ever will.  But these guys have been a great help.

And Andrew, yes you have me correct to some extent - please don't take this to the extreme that it's all about score for me, as it really isn't - but if a course is SO difficult that there is really no chance for any sort of success, than to me it's fun only in a masochistic sense. That is, I might enjoy it as a supreme test, and return to it at times as a state of my game check, but I doubt I'd ever call it truly "great."  Like I say, for me course greatness allows both for the test and the success.  I'm not saying it "has to accomodate everyone", I'm just saying there has to be a chance at success.

I'm getting that Oakmont is that way - and also has a lot more to it than just the torture-test rep it otherwise seems to have.

TH