Week 1 - The toughest opener in golf? Oakmont #1

[Mark_Fine]

Jon,
That is a hard hole as well but I'd still rather have to make par on that one vs. #1 at Oakmont.  

I was quickly scanning some of the top 100 lists of courses and I could not think of one that has a more testing starting hole than Oakmont.  The one course I haven't played is Augusta and even with the new length, I don't think it would be as hard (though I'll hold final judgment until I play it)  

[Garland Bayley]

Such a simple and inviting looking large target yet oh soooo deadly  

You say the green is large, well it sure looks easy!
 

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
Yes it does look easy.  Care to take my bet  
Mark

[peter_mcknight]

Oh, there is no debate--Oakmont's opener is the hardest opening hole in golf.  Only Winged Foot's opener can be in the same paragraph of Oakmont as it relates to openers.  It is quite an opening tee shot knowing full well there is OB down the right and deep rough and a (mostly) dry drainage ditch down the left.  Hopefully, there isn't a crane on the left interfering with play in 2007 creating an interesting ruling situation like Els received in 1994.

I checked the Oakmont website today just for kicks.  Needless to say, the 8th hole is now 288 yards par 3 and the 12th is 667 yards par 5.

I'm guessing the yardage set up for next year will be as follows:

480
340--love this green!
430
610
380
195
485
285 (255 for at least 2 rounds)
480 (now a par 4)
3685 yards par 35

460
380
665 (605 or 625 for at least 2 rounds) (love this green, too)
180
360
500
235
315
490
3585 yards par 35

7270 yards par 70
Slope 147
Rating 77.5

[Ryan Farrow]

Just to answer a few questions. The greenside bunker on the right was filled in. The graphics on Oakmont’s website are post "restoration". If you notice bunkers in places they were not before like in front of the approach on #2 at some point in Oakmont’s history there really was a bunker there.

The landing area on #1 is relatively flat and should not send a ball offline after it hits the fairway.

For those of you who have never played the course length is very deceptive here because of the F&F conditions.

For those of you saying how is there is no strategy,  you will find out that almost every tee shot must be placed between fairway bunkers, get used to it. But as you get to understand the course and its greens you begin to find out where not to hit your ball. Missing a green like #10 to the right side could be a difference of a double bogey or an up and down if you miss left. I would be cautious judging Oakmont’s strategy by bunker placement, there is just so much more to this great course and it takes a while to figure it all out. A hole by hole analysis is not fair either because the variety and uniqueness of all 18 holes is what makes Oakmont so special.

Here are some more pictures; these were all taken over summer. Unfortunately I do not have many of #1.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

It's pretty hard to make birdie or par when your drive sails out-of-bounds.

I'll bet that the average score for amateur golfers is higher at Prestwick than it is at Oakmont.

Patrick,

Although not quite as tight as the right side of Prestwick, the 1st at Oakmont has OB down the right side as well.

I remember a couple of competitors during the 3rd round of the 1983 US Open having to re-tee and hit three.

Not a good way to start the third round of any major, and certainly more psychologically damaging knowing what lies ahead at Oakmont.

[David_Madison]

I played Oakmont two times about ten days before the recent Am. First time my drive, which was hit pretty straight, landed maybe halfway between the center and the left edge of the fairway, and ended up 6" left of the first cut, in very deep wedge-out rough.

The second round I hit the right center of the fairway with a 3 Wd, and then had 9-iron, ending up about 4' left of the green, dead pin high which was in the middle of the green. Hit what I thought was a very good chip, with the ball very slowly trickling as it reached the cup. On a 10 stimp green the ball ends up in tap-in range. Here, the ball rolled about 3' past the cup and then took a dead left turn and rolled off the back. Somehow made the straight uphill 30' for par.

I'd say as difficult a first hole as I'd ever seen. Length not at all an issue unless it's mudball. But with undulating fairways rolling as fast as some courses' greens, it's hard to keep it in the fairways. Very difficult green to hit - - not hard to land it on, but tough to keep it on. Intentionally hitting a downhill short-iron past the cup, even being willing to hit it over the green is just not an easy thing to do. Not so tough an up and in from behind the green, as long as you can control where the balls ends up over the green. But getting it to the right spot over the green requires a good drive and then a very well controlled approach.

[Kevin Pallier]

Prestwick is tough for the average golfer as are a couple of other openers in the UK off the top of my head = off the plates Muirfield, Saunton, Royal Portrush, TOC etc.

Two tough openers in Australia = Brookwater (Qld) and Kingston Heath

[David Stamm]

I haven't played Oakmont, but for toughest openr I have played, I'd have to agree w/ Jon. Pasa. is a very tough opener. I'd also nominate Torrey Pines South.

[Bill_Yates]

"A large green that sure looks easy" is precisely the genius behind the difficulty of Oakmont's holes #1, 10 and 12.  

When you look at Mark Fine's picture of #1, you must realize that you are playing downhill to a green falling away from you that is regularly stimped at 11+ feet.  You also must understand that your target is not the green.  Whether your second shot is about to be played with a short iron, long iron or fairway metal, your target is the area just short of the green where you see the shadow in Mark's picture.  And, by the way, a shot longer than about 170 yards will be a blind shot to that target of about 5 square yards. The ball has to hit there, then "trickle" down and to the left to get to the hole.  Any shot actually hitting the green will likely disappear off the left side or off the back of the green.  Missing it a little short will leave you with an extremely delicate chip and missing it right will allow you to practice a downhill bunker shot to a green falling away and to your right.

Yep!  It looks easy, but as with the greatest courses, looks are deceiving.

[Jerry Kluger]

I am wondering if the point of this is that "toughest" in any way means "best"?  There are some opening holes which can be very difficult and are great but I don't think the difficulty is what makes them great.  I played Pine Valley with a scratch golfer who took an 8 on number 1 - it is recognized as a great opening hole but I don't think that the recognition is because a really good player can make an 8 on it.  

Are you referring to a hole as toughest because it is difficult to make par or is it because it is difficult even to make bogey? The first at Plainfield is tough because of the location of the tee box, the feeling that the hole is very tight, and the green is so steeply sloped that anything but the very best shot will most likely lead to a three putt. It is one of the best opening holes I have ever played as it gives notice that position will be critical in playing the course.  

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Well described!

Jerry,
You are correct in that toughest does not at all always equate to best.  However, in the case of #1 at Oakmont, it is not only a tough hole, it is an excellent one as well.  

Speaking of Plainfield, I have a great story to tell about the first time I played there.  As we stood on the #1 tee, my caddie explained to our foursome that this hole was considered by many to be the toughest starting hole in NJ.  I managed to hit a decent drive in the fairway and left myself with about a 180 yards to the flag.  I took out a 5I, hit a nice draw into the slope of the green and the balled rolled into the cup for a 2!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
I would take your bet in a heart beat.  
Prestwick doesn't require a driver off the tee even for an average length golfer.

No hole requires you to take driver off the tee.

Why wouldn't you use a driver off the 1st tee at Prestwick ?  

Answer, because of all the trouble that abounds.[/color]

I'd be willing to take a bet that if you put 10 amateur golfers on the tee at #1 at Prestwick and had them play the hole and then took the same 10 and started them in the middle of the fairway 150 yards from the hole on #1 at Oakmont, more would make par or better at Prestwick.  In fact, I would bet that only 1 or 2 at best would make par at Oakmont.  Zero would not be too far fetched a guess.  Those who were lucky enough to hit the green (and stay on) would probably 3 putt (or more)  

That's not the bet.
The bet is that the scores would be higher at # 1 at Prestwick than at # 1 at Oakmont.

And, since we're/you're talking about average amateur golfers, they wouldn't be playing from the back tees at Oakmont.

Why do people have the tendency to equate the play of a hole from PGA Tour lengths, or from the perspective of the PGA Tour Pro, when discussing architecture and the play of a hole ?

Why not couch the exercise in the context of what most of us are, average amateur golfers ? [/color]

[George Pazin]

"A large green that sure looks easy" is precisely the genius behind the difficulty of Oakmont's holes #1, 10 and 12.  

When you look at Mark Fine's picture of #1, you must realize that you are playing downhill to a green falling away from you that is regularly stimped at 11+ feet.  You also must understand that your target is not the green.  Whether your second shot is about to be played with a short iron, long iron or fairway metal, your target is the area just short of the green where you see the shadow in Mark's picture.  And, by the way, a shot longer than about 170 yards will be a blind shot to that target of about 5 square yards. The ball has to hit there, then "trickle" down and to the left to get to the hole.  Any shot actually hitting the green will likely disappear off the left side or off the back of the green.  Missing it a little short will leave you with an extremely delicate chip and missing it right will allow you to practice a downhill bunker shot to a green falling away and to your right.

Yep!  It looks easy, but as with the greatest courses, looks are deceiving.

I'd like to add something, but I just can't.

This post is so crystal clear that if you don't understand it, you'll never understand or appreciate Oakmont!

The beauty of the first at Oakmont is the utter simplicity of the difficulty. No water hazards needed to jack up scores, no need to curve the fairway around a bend to take driver out of the big guys. Just hit the fairway, hit the right shot into the green and walk away with 4. Yep, it's that simple (insert sarcastic smiley).

Thanks, Ryan, for the additional comments. Hope you follow the series closely and add photos and comments as needed.

As for the toughest opener debate, that wasn't really the point, though it is an interesting question.

[Mike_Cirba]

Since we're also naming tough starting holes for comparison purposes, I'd say the 1st at Crystal Downs is right up there.

[David_Madison]

Oakmont #1 played harder than Pasatiempo #1, even though Pasa played much longer. Pasatiempo's green was smaller but it was an easier target to hit. The green at Pasatiempo was deceptively fast, quicker than it looked, but you could still keep the ball around the cup. At Oakmont, the cup was practically hidden right in the middle of the green, with the only place from which to approach with any degree of hope being from behind.

On a general note, I found Oakmont's fairways tough to hit and hold. Maybe they were set up to be faster than normal as it was the week before the Am, but I experienced a number of drives that I thought would remain reasonably centered rolling down to the first cut and in some cases ending up 6" into the deep rough. It seemed that the only way to keep tee shots in many of the fairways was to shape shots into the slopes, even on holes that were straight. If I remember correctly, the average score during the stroke play portion of the Am was around 79.5.

[Ryan Farrow]

David, I only played the back 9 but I noticed the same thing, most notably on #10, 12, and 15. I was looking for my drive on 15 about 100 yards short of where I found it. And the fairways are always rolling fast; the AM had nothing to do with it.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You don't read posts clearly do you.  I didn't say play was from the back tees at Oakmont.  I said the golfers could drop their golf ball at the 150 yard marker in the center of the fairway and play from there and their scores would still be higher at Oakmont than they would be at Prestwick!!

Furthermore, the reason you might not chose driver at #1 at Prestwick is because a mid to long iron still leaves you a short iron into the green.  How close do you need to get?  If I'm not mistake there is a bunker about 30 yards short of the green.  If you can't fly that bunker with a big tee shot, you are likely going to go in it and that is not the place to be.  The hole is under 350 yards even from the championship tees.  

It is ok to be wrong once in awhile Pat    

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
#1 at CD is a tough hole as well.  What an amazing green! But it is still not #1 at Oakmont.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You don't read posts clearly do you.

I read it clearly.
You wanted to alter the bet[/color]  

I didn't say play was from the back tees at Oakmont.  I said the golfers could drop their golf ball at the 150 yard marker in the center of the fairway and play from there and their scores would still be higher at Oakmont than they would be at Prestwick!!

I understood that, but, that wasn't what I originally proposed.
I stated that the average score at Prestwick would be higher than at Oakmont, without any hypothetical caveats.[/color]

Furthermore, the reason you might not chose driver at #1 at Prestwick is because a mid to long iron still leaves you a short iron into the green.  How close do you need to get?  If I'm not mistake there is a bunker about 30 yards short of the green.  If you can't fly that bunker with a big tee shot, you are likely going to go in it and that is not the place to be.  The hole is under 350 yards even from the championship tees.  

The reason golfers don't use a driver is because they feel it's too dangerous to do so, which reinforces my position[/color]

It is ok to be wrong once in awhile Pat    

I wouldn't know, but, I'll take your word for it. [/color]

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
All I will say is that if you still think #1 at Prestwick is a tougher hole than #1 at Oakmont you either haven't played #1 at Oakmont, or else you are scared to death of trains and think that somehow equates to tough golf holes.  There is no comparison my friend.

I have posted enough on this thread.  Sorry about that George  

[Sean_A]

I am wondering if the point of this is that "toughest" in any way means "best"?  

If we are talking about great tough openers I vote for Birkdale's.  Though I would like the opportunity to test out Oakmont's!

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I've never played Oakmont but there are several first holes in UK Championship golf harder than Prestwick.  Muirfield and Hoylake both spring to mind.  The reason you don't take driver at Prestwick is because you don't get much advantage if you do.  It's an iron off the tee and a short iron in.  

[Chris_Clouser]

After looking at all that has been written since my first post I still have the same questions but I am willing to wait it out and see what happens over the course of the round.  
 

As for the strategy on the hole, what is the best way to attack the green.  To me getting on the green is unlikely in two, as it would be for most players I would guess.  So if one were to be stay 15 to 20 yards short of the green and had a pretty good short game would it be more advantageous to play the hole that way than to try and bomb it at the green and hope to stay on the putting surface?  Or can one benefit from going for the green knowing that your ball may end up long and in the rough?  What position would those who have played it rather be in?  To me I still only see one way to play this hole and don't think that is a sign of great golf.

Someone earlier mentioned the first at Crystal Downs.  Perhaps not quite as difficult because of yardage, but to me it appears there is no comparison in the holes here.  Oakmont is perhaps more difficult, but Crystal Downs is far superior.  At least in my mind.

[cary lichtenstein]

I hit what I thought was a perfect drive on #1 and it bounces left and finds the rough about 1 foot in. My SW goes about a foot and I wind up making a double bogey.

By the time I finished the first 5 holes, I would have been very happy to hear the siren go off and go in.

Oakmont is unquestionably the toughest course I have ever played...and anyone who accepts an invitation to play in a 3 day member guest tournament must be so happy just to get in and hit the booze.

My question to the Treehouse is this: Why is this course celebrated? Is it fun? Hell, no. Is it good architecture? No, it is penal architecture and penal course set up. So why is this a top 5 course in everyone's ratings???