[John Foley]

Tom,

Thanks. You learn something new every day here!!

Did Fownes draw any of his plans and does the club stilll have them?

I don't think I've seen any early renderings of Oakmont

[Garland Bayley]

...
Just hit the fairway, hit the right shot into the green and walk away with 4. Yep, it's that simple (insert sarcastic smiley).
...

The above was in agreement with a post that said the second shot had to hit an area five square yards in size in front of the green. George seems to have later made a complete about face when he made the following post.

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).
...

I'm with Chris. The hole looks like (and is reported to have) only one strategy that is available. It seems a good course to do an ongoing camparison with would be Black Mesa that gives you so many options on how to play a hole.
Right now it would seem to be Black Mesa 1 up.

[George Pazin]

Chris -

I will grant you that there aren't a whole lot of options on the tee shot of #1. I don't have enough experience at Oakmont to know if different hole locations would prompt one to favor one side of the fairway over the other.

However, a 480 yard par 4 that plays equally hard for the driver/lob wedge and driver/5 iron is nothing short of brilliance in my book. Heck, a hacker could even get lucky on his approach and walk off with a par on the #1 handicap hole on the course!

By way of contrast, the true cookie cutter approach is what we see on 90+% of the courses out there, where a 480 yard par 4 yields a tremendous advantage for the longer hitter. What few options exist are so clearly defined as to be almost trivial.

Much of the fun at Oakmont is the challenge of envisioning an unusual shot correctly and pulling it off.

[George Pazin]

Right now it would seem to be Black Mesa 1 up.

Only if your name is Matt Ward.

[George Pazin]

...
Just hit the fairway, hit the right shot into the green and walk away with 4. Yep, it's that simple (insert sarcastic smiley).
...

The above was in agreement with a post that said the second shot had to hit an area five square yards in size in front of the green. George seems to have later made a complete about face when he made the following post.

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).
...

I'm with Chris. The hole looks like (and is reported to have) only one strategy that is available. It seems a good course to do an ongoing camparison with would be Black Mesa that gives you so many options on how to play a hole.
Right now it would seem to be Black Mesa 1 up.

Garland -

As an engineer, I would hope you would read what I wrote more closely. I chose my words specifically for a reason.

Ideal does not mean, nor even imply, that it is the only option.

And I will not respond to further comparisons to Black Mesa, for personal reasons. I do not wish to offend people that I truly respect and enjoy.

[George Pazin]

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.

I don't know that I am really qualified to address this question properly, as I am one of the more historically challenged posters on the site.

My knowledge of Fownes' design philosophy is that he certainly seemed to be a member of the penal school of architecture, with his statement of "a shot poorly played should be irrevocably lost", yet I find the design at Oakmont to contrast quite sharply with a more traditional penal design. I find it quite ironic that a course designed under a penal philosophy has evolved into such a thoughtful design.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think the difference between Oakmont and what we think today of penal courses is simply that you have to try really, really hard to lose a golf ball at Oakmont.

No matter what punishment the course metes out, and no matter how high the tally on the scorecard reaches, you have a fighting chance on each shot, no matter how slim.

Contrast that with a 147 slope course I played very recently where the course was squeezed into some property very unconducive to a golf course and where red "lateral" stakes lined the both sides of most overly-narrow fairways.   Throw in some forced carries over ponds and wetlands, a few holes through dense woods, and conditions about as firm and fast as 4 year old motor oil in a Maserati and you get the idea and stark differences.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

It is pretty incredible the variety of outcomes that can occur from various distances on the approach... Seems to me the fun and interest on the tee shot would be trying to figure out exactly how far to try and hit it.  That is, given the penalties to the side and how tough the approach is even with a wedge, is it worth trying to hit driver?  But damn it's a long hole, so laying too far back gets problematic... but that green being so hard to hit, maybe sneaking up on it in three shots is the most effective way to play it... Seems maddening... and I mean that in a good way.  What other holes provide in angle of attack options, Oakmont 1 provides in distance from target options.  Correct?

Separate question though - as maddening and cool as this is, the interest is of a far more subtle nature than risk-reward or angle of attack choices.  So would it be fair to put this in the category of a separate thread going on now - holes made great by the 2nd shot?

TH

[George Pazin]

Well said, Mike.

George:

It is pretty incredible the variety of outcomes that can occur from various distances on the approach... Seems to me the fun and interest on the tee shot would be trying to figure out exactly how far to try and hit it.  That is, given the penalties to the side and how tough the approach is even with a wedge, is it worth trying to hit driver?  But damn it's a long hole, so laying too far back gets problematic... but that green being so hard to hit, maybe sneaking up on it in three shots is the most effective way to play it... Seems maddening... and I mean that in a good way.  What other holes provide in angle of attack options, Oakmont 1 provides in distance from target options.  Correct?

Separate question though - as maddening and cool as this is, the interest is of a far more subtle nature than risk-reward or angle of attack choices.  So would it be fair to put this in the category of a separate thread going on now - holes made great by the 2nd shot?

TH

I'd pretty much agree with this, although, as I said, I don't have enough experience to know the tee shot well. Perhaps another could comment on this.

I haven't read the other thread, but #1 would seem to fit the criteria.

[Garland Bayley]

George,

I am sure you know that course evaluation is very subjective. I was just trying to convey that I assume Chris and my subjectivity would prefer Black Mesa #1 to Oakmont #1. It is clear that you would prefer Oakmont. I see no need for you to respond to my subjective opinions, for that is all they are, opinions, not mistaken facts or misrepresentations.

If someone is offended by honest opinions thoughtfully expressed, then I am not worried about making offense. I believe the problem is with the offended, not the offendee.

[George Pazin]

George,

I am sure you know that course evaluation is very subjective. I was just trying to convey that I assume Chris and my subjectivity would prefer Black Mesa #1 to Oakmont #1. It is clear that you would prefer Oakmont. I see no need for you to respond to my subjective opinions, for that is all they are, opinions, not mistaken facts or misrepresentations.

If someone is offended by honest opinions thoughtfully expressed, then I am not worried about making offense. I believe the problem is with the offended, not the offendee.

You are utterly and hopelessly wrong.
















 

[Garland Bayley]

George,

I am sure you know that course evaluation is very subjective. I was just trying to convey that I assume Chris and my subjectivity would prefer Black Mesa #1 to Oakmont #1. It is clear that you would prefer Oakmont. I see no need for you to respond to my subjective opinions, for that is all they are, opinions, not mistaken facts or misrepresentations.

If someone is offended by honest opinions thoughtfully expressed, then I am not worried about making offense. I believe the problem is with the offended, not the offendee.

You are utterly and hopelessly wrong.
...
 

About everything?  

[Chris_Clouser]

Well you're wrong about me preferring the 1st at Black Mesa over Oakmont.  

Honestly, I think the example of Crystal Downs I provided is a much better example of what I would like in a longer par four to open the course.  

[George Pazin]

Chris, I can't argue that, as I have no knowledge of Crystal Downs.

I encourage you to start a series on it.

[Garland Bayley]

You are utterly and hopelessly wrong.
 

I take it that was an honest opinion thoughtfully expressed.
 

[Chris_Clouser]

George,

Maybe after you get done with Oakmont.  After 18 weeks of penal architecture the crowd might like a course with real options.  

HAHA!

[George Pazin]

You are utterly and hopelessly wrong.
 

I take it that was an honest opinion thoughtfully expressed.
 

I guess that's where we differ - I think everything I write is by definition objective and factual.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.  

I"ve played both[/color]

There is no comparison my friend.

They're certainly different.[/color]

Mark,

I disagree for a variety of reasons.

One is the lack of a nearby practice facility and the tendency to tee off "cold" at Prestwick.

The second is the weather at Prestwick versus Oakmont

The third is the head set derived from the narrow, penal presentation from the tee at Prestwick

The fourth is the proximity of the out-of-bounds.

The fifth is how the golfers attention is brought to, if not focused on the out of bounds by passing trains.

The sixth is the proximity of the clubhouse and observers, which, not unlike Merion's first tee, can rattle the nerves.

If one defines difficulty in the context of a score then Prestwick gets my vote.

If one defines difficulty in the context of a long hard hole, then Oakmont would get the nod.

But, since you only write "how many strokes" on the score card and not how you had to struggle to perform each one, Prestwick gets my vote.

[SPDB]

I tend to agree with Pat here, only because Prestwick usually requires a 3-4 iron, and without practice, a long iron cold is a dicey proposition for me.

[Ryan Farrow]

#1 at Oakmont plays no longer than 430 from the back tees. Patrick, I'm supirsed you would call the hole long. I don't care what the scorecard says.

[Mark_Fine]

I would recommend the book "Oakmont 100 Years" by Marino Parascenzo or the book "William Clark Fownes, Jr. - The Man, The Golfer, The Leader" by John Stewart for those who want to learn more about Oakmont and its evolution.  Both books include some great photos, stories, old aerials (one from 1925 of the golf course), etc.  

However, if you really want to understand Oakmont, you need to study Emil "Dutch" Loeffler as well as he is far more responsible for the design and evolution of the course then most people give him credit for.  It was Fownes working side by side with Loeffler that made that golf course the great design that it is.  

One of our projects is the restoration of a Loeffler design and we did extensive research on the man and his designs for our Master Plan and that included the study of Oakmont.  

Pat,
Now you are now arguing hole difficulty is a function of whether a golfer can warm up or not before playing it    If that is the case, maybe you should throw in Pebble Beach's 1st hole because most people will never find the range to warm up (it is a bus ride away).  

How many times have you played the 1st hole at Prestwick Pat?  I'm guessing once or twice at most.  Do you have a tendency to slice  

SPDB,
If you struggle with a long iron to start, just hit a 6I or 5I on that hole and you will leave yourself with a 7I or so into the green.  It is not that hard.  

[Garland Bayley]

Translations for those of you that don't know Pat.

Mark,

I disagree for a variety of reasons.

One is the lack of a nearby practice facility and the tendency to tee off "cold" at Prestwick.

"I am a really old fart and can't get the clubhead through the ball if I don't warm up for an hour or so. Usually a blonde will do for 1 minute 30 seconds of the warm up."

The second is the weather at Prestwick versus Oakmont

"Did I mention I need to warm up?"

The third is the head set derived from the narrow, penal presentation from the tee at Prestwick

"I am old and feeble minded."

The fourth is the proximity of the out-of-bounds.

"I can't see well anymore, so I didn't see any out-of-bounds at Oakmont."

The fifth is how the golfers attention is brought to, if not focused on the out of bounds by passing trains.

"Did I mention I was feeble minded and easily distracted?"

The sixth is the proximity of the clubhouse and observers, which, not unlike Merion's first tee, can rattle the nerves.

"Most of you won't believe this, but I am a really shy and private person, and don't like attention."

If one defines difficulty in the context of a score then Prestwick gets my vote.

"I shot some really high numbers on the first at Prestwick."

If one defines difficulty in the context of a long hard hole, then Oakmont would get the nod.

"All holes over 120 yards are long and hard for me and my walker."

But, since you only write "how many strokes" on the score card and not how you had to struggle to perform each one, Prestwick gets my vote.

"Did I say I shot some really high numbers on the 1st at Prestwick?

[Tom_Doak]

Mark Fine:  Oakmont was in fact rated on the Doak scale ten years ago, and it was "only" a 9.  And I also have to agree with Chris Clouser, that the first at Crystal Downs is a tougher hole than the first at Oakmont.

George P:  You have to drive it in the fairway to take this approach, but why doesn't everyone just make sure they fly their approach onto the green and let it run to the back and try to chip and putt UP the hill for par?  That's generally the way to attack any hole with a fallaway green, and it amazes me how few golfers ever figure it out.  Leaving yourself short of that green is impossibly touchy.  You are going to be behind the hole at some point before you hole out, it might as well be after your second shot instead of after your third.

[Chris_Clouser]

I can't believe Tom Doak agreed with me.  

That has to be the equivalent to the Pope kissing my ring...

Just kidding.

To return the favor, I also agree with the idea of running it through the green and going back up to the hole from the back, but no one would ever comment on how possible that was with this particular green and the surrounding rough.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
When you rated it "only" a 9, there were trees all over the place.  Since they cleaned it up, it has now jumped to a 10  

I have only played the 1st hole at CD two times but still give the edge in shear difficulty to Oakmont.  The green is very challenging at CD but at Oakmont it is terrifying and this fear resonates right back to the tee and every shot thereafter.  Also, there is no sure up and down from behind the green either and you know very well that most amateurs do not go long on golf shots.  You get them thinking they need to hit it long and who knows where the golf ball will end up.  Actually the most difficult up and down is from the sides.  I put this green in the catagory of hole #5 at Pinehurst #2.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()