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

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Right out of the car (after driving from Phila and walking two golf courses--Bedford Springs and Sunnehanna) I blast one 370 down the middle, and man that is a narrow middle.  I think the fairway is only 24 yards wide between the bunkers.  I'm glad I didn't sense how narrow the LZ is from the tee.  I had 114 in to the pin and hit a 60 degree wedge.  It is a simple driver/wedge hole.  OK so I pulled it a bit (I have since solved that problem) but I did land a lob wedge just to the left of the pin (it was in about the same spot as in the photos Mark Fine posted) but it kept rolling left off the green.  I did not get up and down for my par but I tied you with bogey.  I think that was the last time we were tied as I recall as I proceeded to birdie the next seventeen holes  

[Mark_Fine]

Cary,
I am off to a project and have already said too much on this thread, but if you don't think Oakmont is great golf architecture, then you were too caught up in your golf game and just flat out MISSED IT  

Most here will admitt that Oakmont requires a certain level of ability to play it and enjoy it but that said, the members who play there at all levels absolutely love it.  They even like the greens to be obscenely fast.  Is it penal architecture, yes it is, and that is how it was designed.  

I suggest you don't play Pine Valley or you will be sadly dissappointed    

On the Doak scale - Oakmont is a 10 (excusing some of the stupid tees that were recently added).  

Mark

[TEPaul]

"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."

Jerry:

On the other hand, I believe that is precisely why PV opening hole is considered great. A good player knows he can sure make a birdie on it but if he knows PV and that opening hole he sure does know too that he can make an 8 in a heartbeat if he gets careless or too agressive with that green and some pins. I think that's precisely what makes it great and good players know that. It's all about its remarkable "scoring spectrum", a theory we've even mathematically tested on here to determine if it is some barometer for the greatness of a golf hole.

George Crump worked hard on that opening hole---he wanted it to be the type of hole that could cut off play-offs quick and I can tell you from experience that is precisely what it can do and does.  

With the concept of PV's opening hole Crump was apparently trying to mimic the concept of Hoylake's #1, a hole I'm not very familiar with.

[TEPaul]

"I did not get up and down for my par but I tied you with bogey".

I don't think so Wayno. My recollection is that I half shanked about a 5 iron approach, then chipped over the green slightly and proceeded to about nine putt from there.  

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: I think that #1 at PV is a great opening hole and a fair one.  My point was that the fact that the scratch player can make an 8 isn't why it is a great hole.  BTW he made an 8 because he hit his tee shot in the trees and got too aggressive with his second and hit a tree and put himself in jail.  PV #1 gives you a very fair tee shot with the option to play a safe line or a more aggressive line and then the green is a great example of what you will face as you play the rest of your round - undulating greens with a premium on where you land your shot on the green.

[TEPaul]

Jerry:

The real meat of PV's opening hole is the green itself. If you miss it on either side making an 8 is not all that hard to do.

The real theme of PV is basically if you miss a shot and get into trouble on that course, it's just best in the long run not to try to be a hero. That's the unique measure of Pine Valley that has been proven over and over and over again, even at the expense of some really great players.

There's even a term for it down there. They're called "others". And most every hole out there has the capacity to produce "others" in a heartbeat, even amongst really fine players.

[Tom Huckaby]

I was going to wait for more posts to say this.... and George, please believe me I want to get into the greatness of Oakmont... I am trying to learn, not trying to argue... but as I read this, review the diagrams, view the pictures, I can say with conviction that #1 Oakmont must be a very difficult golf hole, made even more difficult due to the deception involved and the fallaway green.

I'm just not seeing the logical connection between this and calling it a "great" hole.  Ryan artfully describes the difficulty involved... then George crystallizes that.. But that just makes me understand that it's a very, very hard golf hole.  But what makes it "great"?  Many have said it is... none have described why.  Is it purely due to the difficulty and the deception?  I guess that's enough... but a lot of golf holes are harder than they look...

Education, please.

TH

[George Pazin]

What makes it great is that, while there may be one ideal way to play the hole (though I'd bet against that statement), there are many other ways to play it; each simply requires a different perfectly imagined and executed shot, or the golfer will struggle to make bogey.

In other words, there is no prescribed, defined way to play the hole. The tee shot is defined by the rough, sure, but it's not clear whether you should favor one side or the other (or just blast it down the middle ala Wayne). I don't know if Tom P played with Wayne that day, but I'm assuming he's played Oakmont many times before and probably parred the 1st more than a few times. A 480+ yard par 4 that can allow a shorter thinker with a strong short game a good shot at par, while taking someone who blasts driver/lob wedge, chews 'em up and spits them out with a 7, that spells greatness to me.

If you like defined options - which in my mind are a much less appealing and sophisticated approach - you may not like this hole, and you might not like Oakmont on the whole (pun somewhat intended).

Lastly, this hole is but 1/18th of the puzzle that is Oakmont. And the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts at Oakmont.

[JESII]

Did you just call Tom Paul a "short thinker"?

[Adam Clayman]

One aspect that seems plausable is the golfer's uncertainty as to how firm the ground before, and on the greens is/are.

I know sometimes it takes me 17 holes to figure out the thumpmeter.

Hitting that approach to the first at Oakmont, sounds like it has to be perfect in it's trajectory and momentum.

This could qualify it for greatness, no?

[Tom Huckaby]

What makes it great is that, while there may be one ideal way to play the hole (though I'd bet against that statement), there are many other ways to play it; each simply requires a different perfectly imagined and executed shot, or the golfer will struggle to make bogey.

In other words, there is no prescribed, defined way to play the hole. The tee shot is defined by the rough, sure, but it's not clear whether you should favor one side or the other (or just blast it down the middle ala Wayne). I don't know if Tom P played with Wayne that day, but I'm assuming he's played Oakmont many times before and probably parred the 1st more than a few times. A 480+ yard par 4 that can allow a shorter thinker with a strong short game a good shot at par, while taking someone who blasts driver/lob wedge, chews 'em up and spits them out with a 7, that spells greatness to me.

If you like defined options - which in my mind are a much less appealing and sophisticated approach - you may not like this hole, and you might not like Oakmont on the whole (pun somewhat intended).

Lastly, this hole is but 1/18th of the puzzle that is Oakmont. And the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts at Oakmont.

George - that's great stuff.  I've said many times on here that the more difficult a hole is to figure out in terms of different ways to play it, the more fun it is, and to me, the greater it is.  Thus this is indeed one truly great golf hole.... which would seem to prove itself over time.  That is, at first glance it doesn't look like much... but then you get stung... and come to realize the greatness.

If the whole of Oakmont is like this, then it's a hell of a lot more than I had been led to believe... the general impression is that it's just brutally hard due to high rough, penal bunkers, insanely fast greens... none of which suggests thinking or fun to me.  But so far so good... the thinking required is being born out here.

I look forward to the rest of the series....

TH

[George Pazin]

Did you just call Tom Paul a "short thinker"?

 

Tom knows he's a giant in my mind.

[Tom Huckaby]

One aspect that seems plausable is the golfer's uncertainty as to how firm the ground before, and on the greens is/are.

I know sometimes it takes me 17 holes to figure out the thumpmeter.

Hitting that approach to the first at Oakmont, sounds like it has to be perfect in it's trajectory and momentum.

This could qualify it for greatness, no?

That would have to be part of it... but that alone certainly can't define greatness.  Lots of courses are firm in parts, soft in others.. and that's not necessarily a GOOD thing.    

[George Pazin]

Also, I would defy anyone on the planet to stand on that hill with a lob wedge and feel comfortable hitting that shot.

Excited? Yep. Concerned? Anxious? Definitely.

Comfortable? Nope.

Chris C -

I hope my last response clarified a bit my feelings on the hole. I didn't mean for my earlier response to be as condescending as it may have come across.

Re: Prestwick's opener -

I'd guess there are plenty of holes around the world that rely on a reload scare to induce fear. I prefer the fallaway green at Oakmont's approach.

[George Pazin]

One aspect that seems plausable is the golfer's uncertainty as to how firm the ground before, and on the greens is/are.

I know sometimes it takes me 17 holes to figure out the thumpmeter.

Hitting that approach to the first at Oakmont, sounds like it has to be perfect in it's trajectory and momentum.

This could qualify it for greatness, no?

That would have to be part of it... but that alone certainly can't define greatness.  Lots of courses are firm in parts, soft in others.. and that's not necessarily a GOOD thing.    

Oakmont is pretty consistently firm, certainly far more so than any course that receives the weather we do. But it's just not easy to judge where to land a ball, hitting from a downhill stance, to a green complex that slopes away from you.

[Tom Huckaby]

Aha!  I get it better now, George - and that must be what Adam was referring to as well.  Bear with me.  

[Adam Clayman]

George, Looking closer at the pix, Is that a slight rise at the very front? Isn't that the feature (Aspect) that's complicating matters?

For those who are repeatedly successful using a low trajectory shot on approach- Does the perfect shot use this apparent up slope to help slow the ball?
Are there any low ball hitters out there?

[George Pazin]

To the best of my recollection, there is not a rise on the front of the green, but the slope from the hill does lessen a good bit in front of the green.

Kind of like this:

xxxx
   xxxx
      xxxxxxx
             xxxxxxx
                     xxxxxxxxxxxx

[TEPaul]

Do you see what Wayne Morrison said above about the opener at Oakmont?

He said he hit his drive on that hole about 370 yards. Since we were on the tip monument and since that hole is 480 yards long that would be about right.

Maybe I am a short thinker but I'm definitely a short hitter on the amateur tournament level---always have been. Even when I played my best golf I doubt I hit it more than about 240 or 250 at most off the tee. But that was also back in the day when almost no course we played bounced and rolled.

But this story of Wayne's drive on #1 says a lot. Wayne is pretty long but certainly not as long as some of the guys I see on the tournament circuit.

I never hit it more than about 240-250 and I can't hit it as far as I used to but on that first hole at Oakmont even I only had about 185 in for my approach.  So that means I hit that tee shot close to 300 yards.

This is precisely what I mean by the Ideal Maintenance Meld. Oakmont was about as good that way as I've ever seen. The ball could've run 75 yards down that fairway and it looked like we hit it a long way but the point is how accurate do you have to be in those conditions with that kind of bounce and run-out to keep the ball on those fairways and out of the penal rough?

You have to be very accurate, you have to estimate the ground too and that's why the IMM on a course like that one is so important----even for touring pros in the US Open.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom Paul could you let everyone know what the color of the grass was?

A question for any of you who have played Oakmont and on the British Isles, how would you compare the firmness of those great courses with Oakmont?

[Chris_Clouser]

George P,

I perfectly understand your feelings on the hole.  And I didn't take it as condescending in any way.  We are just talking about a golf hole after all.  

Also, I think this is a great idea and a series.  I think Oakmont might even be one of the best courses to do this on as it will elicit strong opinions and flesh out some wonderful ideas of what is great about the course and golf in general.  Pine Valley would have probably elicited 18 threads of drooling and Augusta would have been 18 threads of flamethrowing.  With Oakmont I think we can have some real discussions.

But still after all the posts I still only see one way to play the hole which to me is the ultimate description of penal golf.  I'm still waiting for someone to tell me any other option besides what I mentioned in my first post and no one seems to have provided that yet.  I agree predefined options are not always the best, but I'm just wanting to hear what other options even exist here.  I agree the green is a wonderful complex and if this is the case on only one or two holes on the course then I don't have a problem with it.  But if Oakmont is a series of this on every other hole then my opinion will diminish on the greatness of the layout.  It might be the greatest penal architectural marvel in the world of golf, but to me that is not fun golf and if it isn't fun it isn't great in my mind.

After looking at this, I think this is the prototypical hole that a pro golfer would love.  It is very exact and almost eliminates luck.  Yes, it isn't all there in front of them visually, but they would know exactly what is required of them from an execution standpoint.  

I agree the first at Oakmont appears to be one of the most difficult holes on the planet, certainly among opening holes.  But individually I don't think that implies greatness on a hole or on a course.  So right now I am still holding out an opinion of unimpressed but very open to being swayed as we move through this exercise.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul could you let everyone know what the color of the grass was?"

Yes sir, I'd be very glad to. It was light green----that shade I sometimes refer to as the "light green sheen".

When I see that color on a golf course I don't even have to hit a ball on it to tell how firm and fast it is---I can smell it and feel it in my bones!

[TEPaul]

George P:

Oakmont being a recognized world famous golf course and also one that developed remarkably early in the history and evolution of American architecture, would you agree or disagree that its over-all architectural theme is quite different from any other course of its era and if you agree, perhaps you might explain what that theme was or should be in the eyes and mind of William Fownes.

[John Foley]

Can anyone post how the course changed when the interstate came though? I don't know if I have ever heard how the course changed. It seems odd how it is bi-sected by the road.

[TEPaul]

JohnF:

I believe that bisection of the course has always been there. Before the highway it was the train bed. We found very old aerials of Oakmont not long ago and that bisection was on them, and that was most definitely before the Pa Turnpike.

The odd thing about those early aerials of Oakmont was 12 out of 13 of them were labeled as my golf course in Philadelphia. When I started looking at them I sure knew they weren't my course even though there's an old trainline along my course too. But it took a while to finally figure out they were Oakmont. That cut through the course has been there a lot longer than the golf course, I'm quite sure.