Week 3: The wonderful 3rd at Oakmont

[George Pazin]

Left out the part about it being really tough.

From the website:

Green   428
Blue     390
White   378
Red      339



The famous Church Pews bunker on the left and severe fairway bunkers on the right make for a difficult driving hole.  A good drive sets up a short iron to an elevated, but fairly flat green (by Oakmont standards) that slopes slightly away from you.

The diagram does not do the topography of this hole justice. Flirting with the famed Church Pews on the left leaves a more visible shot, with the fairway bunkers on the right side set more into a climbing hillside.

The green is simply marvelous. It's like someone got to the top of a hill and just mowed the grass to a rounded inverted glass plate. The green looks big up close, but the effective playing area is much smaller.

Rumor has it that Trip Kuehne flew the fairway bunkers on the right and landed the ball in a little dipsy do before the final climb up the hill, leaving himself with a 75 yard wedge into the green. That would be one helluva carry, as the hill is not insignificant.

I'll try to dig up some photos that I took back in '03.

More to follow - let's hear some stories.

 

[George Pazin]

From The Book:

[George Pazin]

Here's a couple photos.

The first is from just in front of the tee. Obviously you can see the Church Pews on the left, and you can hopefully get a sense of the hill from the angle of the photo.



The second shot is from the right rough short of the green. In taking this photo, I was hoping that the spectators lining the left side of the hole and green would give the viewer a better idea of the slope up to the green and then the fallaway nature of the green.

[Garland Bayley]

Let's see, bunkers both sides in the landing area. The bunker on the left is especially ugly. Bunkers guarding the green left and right front. I say hit it down the center, by hook or by crook get it to the center of the green, see if you can make a putt.

Huckaby doesn't like this one.
 

[Tom Huckaby]

Now Garland, let's not get hasty.

I will say I am not seeing any strategic challenge here... you have to have pretty much nailed it.

BUT... I am a sucker for visuals, historic oddities and other intangible things, all of which drives Mucci crazy.  And this hole has the famous church pews... which alone makes it pretty cool by me.  The fall-away green at the top of the hill is pretty damn neat also.

To me this is actually the first clearly great hole on the course - I wasn't blown away by the first two, as you know.

[Garland Bayley]

Truth in advertising:

Langdon Farms south of Portland has reacreated the church pew bunker. If I remember correctly, it is between #8 and #9. I am on record as saying, one church pew bunker in the world is plenty, and it is an abomition to have created another one.  

[Garland Bayley]

I too like George's picture of the fall away green. Too bad it shares a hole with the church pews.  

[Ted Kramer]

I don't see much strategy in any of the 1st three holes.
And I'll also say that I think the first three holes look great!
I'm not as obsessed with options and strategy as some on this site.

I like a tough, no nosense test of a golf course sometimes.
These first three holes look like a pefect example of that kind of course.

-Ted

[Tom Huckaby]

Ted:

I too like a tough, no nonsense golf course sometimes.

I'd just have a hard time calling such a course "great".  George believes this course is great in a "clearly better than Pebble Beach" meaning of that term.  I feel confident he finds a lot more to Oakmont than a tough, no nonsense golf course.

In any case, to me it takes more than tough and no nonsense to achieve greatness, as that is exceedingly easy to design - that is, it's easy to make a course tough - it's difficult to make it also fun.

But to each his own, for sure.

TH

[George Pazin]

I don't have enough experience with this hole to say whether or not a certain side of the fairway is favored for the approach. I will say they yield fairly different shots. The flattening nature of photography makes the hillside on the right side look as gradual as the one on the left, which it isn't.

As for the green bunkering, I think it fits the hole rather well. On a fallaway shot, the golfer is often going to play short, thus causing him to flirt with the bunkers. Also, if you're on the right side of the fairway - or God forbid, those right fairway bunkers, the right greenside bunkers will cause some real consternation on the shot.

The back area of the green sees quite a bit of action.

Kind of hard for me to believe someone doesn't see the greatness on holes 1-2 and then sees it on this one. But, then again, the photos and diagrams don't even begin to tell the full story of Oakmont.

At any rate, they all play dramatically different, and pose very different challenges. The 3 holes work best as a threesome!

[Adam Clayman]

This is the epitome of penal GCA. Why would you guys expect strategy?

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

None of the three holes offers any significant strategic challenge... #3 at least throws in something pretty unique to golf - the church pews.  Combine that with the fallaway green, and I can see calling this hole "great."

I have a hard time giving that description to the first two holes.

In any case, once again, all I have are pictures and diagrams.  Would you prefer I not respond?  I thought the purpose of this was educational... It it's truly meant to be just story-telling by the quite small number of people who have played the course, then I shall shut the hell up.

Your call.

 

[Kyle Harris]

Mmmmm

George, you have them hook, line and sinker.  

We'll have to do a nine hole (maybe even a 6 hole?) review thread because Oakmont is definitely a BIG picture course.

[George Pazin]

George believes this course is great in a "clearly better than Pebble Beach" meaning of that term.  I feel confident he finds a lot more to Oakmont than a tough, no nonsense golf course.

To be perfectly clear, I'm a fan of the Goodale Michelin system of ranking, and I think Pebble and Oakmont are both 3 stars, or Doak 10s, or whatever. Each is outstanding in its own way. I think Oakmont may be a better design, by virtue of the unusual way in which it tests each shot.

Ted -

The strategies at Oakmont are much more subtle than the obvious option type holes. Once upon I time, I favored the latter approach, but my time at Oakmont during the Am came to see quite a bit of change in my own thoughts. Maybe someday I'll do a thread on the obvious versus the subtle; maybe even sooner rather than later.

[Mike_Cirba]

Huck,

I know you pretty well, and although I'm not sure you'd call the 1st hole at Oakmont great, I'm CERTAIN that you would call the 2nd hole great.

I spent probably 5 hours watching shots on and around the 2nd hole's green in 1983, and it was worth the price of admission.   I can't possibly describe to you how dicey it is, and how much pressure it places on the 2nd shot.

Sorry to weigh in late (I'll catch up, I promise ) on the 2nd hole, but David Moriarty and Tom MacWood had me chained to the Merion 10th hole thread for over two weeks.  

[Tom Huckaby]

This is the epitome of penal GCA. Why would you guys expect strategy?

Good question.

Perhaps that is enough for greatness.

But George, is that all there is?  Is it really just 100% penal and that's it?

It can be great as such... but it REALLY has to be the epitome... because purely penal is only fun in a very masochistic way, and there aren't many courses that can be fun in this vein... and very very very few that could be called "great" if that's all they are....

See Adam, as much as I loved the old Bayonet - which really was the epitome of penal architecture - I doubt I ever called it a "great" course.  It was fun for me in a masochistic way - and that's why I miss it - but no way do I call it great.

I have to believe that as great as Oakmont is said to be, there's more to it than being the epitome of penal architecture.

Or is this why it is great?

TH

[Matthew Schulte]

This is the epitome of penal GCA. Why would you guys expect strategy?

Exactly.  Take a moment and go through all of Oakmont's par 4s and 5s.  All but one or two have fairway bunkers on BOTH sides of the fairway.  Hit the fairway or else!

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

I too like a tough, no nonsense golf course sometimes.

I'd just have a hard time calling such a course "great".  George believes this course is great in a "clearly better than Pebble Beach" meaning of that term.

To me it takes more than tough and no nonsense to achieve that, as that is exceedingly easy to design - that is, it's easy to make a course tough - it's difficult to make it also fun.

But to each his own, for sure.

TH

Tough certainly doesn't have to be hard to design.
But my guess is that there is some real subtlety to the challenge at Oakmont. I've never played or seen the course so the following is meant mosly as a general idea of GCA . . .

That 3rd green looks really cool. I bet I'd call the view from the 3rd fairway beautiful. I don't need the ocean or rolling dunes alonside a golf hole to describe it as beautiful. The uphill nature of the approach combined with the green sloping away looks very attractive to me. It looks classy, and well structured.

Pebble is an incredible golf course, but it isn't at the top of my list. I can imagine liking a course like Oakmont better than Pebble. Again, I've never played or seen Oakmont, but I don't find it too hard to believe that someone likes a course like this better than Pebble.

-Ted

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Ok, change it to "as good as" Pebble Beach.  That's still an extremely tall order, and well... perhaps a penal death march can make it so... but man it's gonna need some selling.

Mike:

Hell, I'd wet myself to play the course - that's not the issue.  I know I'd find every freakin' shot there to be great for me as a player.  I just continue to have a very hard time seeing such a death march course as being great, as much as it does provide "varied shots", which all three of these holes do so far.  That to me does not make a course great, not if that's all there is....

If that's all there is to Oakmont, then fair enough, it's just not my cup of tea.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

George:

Ok, change it to "as good as" Pebble Beach.  That's still an extremely tall order, and well... perhaps a penal death march can make it so... but man it's gonna need some selling.

Mike:

Hell, I'd wet myself to play the course - that's not the issue.  I know I'd find every freakin' shot there to be great for me as a player.  I just continue to have a very hard time seeing such a death march course as being great, as much as it does provide "varied shots", which all three of these holes do so far.  That to me does not make a course great, not if that's all there is....

If that's all there is to Oakmont, then fair enough, it's just not my cup of tea.

TH

Huck-a-baby,

I think you may be looking at things a little too two dimensionally.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ted - agreed re the 3rd green - it does look very cool.  And I agree I can see some people preferring Oakmont to Pebble - hell take a poll of this group and I'd bet Oakmont wins.

I can also dig a subtle challenge... perhaps Oakmont does have more of that than it looks.  George has posited such, and I do believe him.

I just know that so far, I'm scared playing that course, and not inspired... that's can mean greatness, it's just a tougher sell, as I say.

TH

[George Pazin]

I have a hard time giving that description to the first two holes.

Pardon my condescension, but anyone who does not see the greatness is #2, where you can hit virtually any club off the tee and be left with a gigantically different variety of approach shots to the green, well, it's a little hard for me to see that point of view.

On many holes Oakmont is a second shot type of golf course. The primary strategy off the tee is obviously to keep it in the fairway (which is easier said than done - remember on one of the other threads, someone pointed out that he was more successful in holding the firm and fast fairways when he realized he had to work the ball onto them - wish I could remember who said that).

Only the better, more observant golfers, will understand and appreciate the subtle distinctions between two tee shots that may look on the face to be quite the same. I believe it is the ensuing decisions, after one hits his tee shot and looks at what he faces, that makes Oakmont special, and that makes any course of this nature special.

At any rate, my own experience at the course is rather limited, so it's hard for me to articulate the fine distinctions. I will also try to sum up some of my other ideas about the course at the end of the series (unless we don't make it that far!).

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - hell no, I have my special GCA 3-d glasses on!

But perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by that.  I really am trying to see all there is to see, keeping in mind I have never seen the course in person and likely never will.

TH

[John_Cullum]

I can see some strategery. Play driver down the left side with enough carry to get over the front row in church if you pull it, or lay back in the zone between the first bunker on the right and the church pews, leaving yourself 166 to the front of the green.

It looks like the trouble is the 3rd bunker, but that might not be as bad as it looks.

[George Pazin]

Ok, change it to "as good as" Pebble Beach.  That's still an extremely tall order, and well... perhaps a penal death march can make it so... but man it's gonna need some selling.

And the Pebble that we saw in the 72 (?), 83, 92, and 00 Opens was not a penal death march? I'd be curious to know if anyone who played in those events felt that way. The biggest difference is that Oakmont plays that way all the time!