Week 3: The wonderful 3rd at Oakmont

[JohnV]

Tom, I'm sure it would have been redundant to name bunkers at Oakmont in Fownes' days.  If St. Andrews has one bunker named "Progressing", how many would Oakmont have had?

[George Pazin]

Lots of good questions, and lots of good points by Bill, Ryan, JohnV and Sarge.

All the penalties seem to be right there slapping you in the face.... with no good ways to attack any of the holes so far... It's all defense and no offense...

I'm seeing penalty all over the place....

As I do at other courses.  But at these others, there are risks to be taken, with penalties for failure and gains for success[/b].

I would suggest to you that you are perhaps too influenced by score, even if it is subconsciously.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in subtle; perhaps I should say vexing. Yes, the choices at Oakmont are damn difficult - but I believe that is part of what defines great architecture. If the choices are not difficult, are they really choices, or simply options? (I'll leave you to discern the difference.)

Success at Oakmont is almost never a birdie putt, and even when it is, it's certainly not an easy birdie putt. Success at Oakmont is a hard fought, well earned par (or maybe worse, in the case of a golfer like me).

As JohnV has pointed out repeatedly, one of the truly remarkable things is that Oakmont creates its difficulty not through the conventional manner of most modern courses - length and death penalty hazards like water or desert. Rather, it creates its difficulty through a set of what are likely the most challenging set of 18 green complexes in the country, if not the world, bunkers that are actually hazards, and firm and fast conditions throughout. The opportunties for recovery are there, and they're even a bit tempting as well - do you suck it up and pitch out to safety from a bunker, or do you go for the shot and risk even further disaster? The decisions are similar to those faced by a golfer in a pot bunker at TOC (I imagine ).

If you are a fan of hard par, easy bogey, Oakmont won't be your cup of tea - there no such thing as an easy shot at Oakmont. But they are all highly interesting, even captivating, shots. One thing I noticed during the Am was that I didn't see one single tap in putt - the shortest was about 2 1/2 to 3 feet, and stroked with great care.

The greatest eye-openers for me, when it comes to architectural study, were watching the Am at Oakmont and watching the Open at Shinny. If one doesn't find a pro standing in the middle of a fairway, trying to figure out how to get the ball in the hole for a "simple" par interesting, then maybe Oakmont wouldn't be your cup of tea, either.

Different strokes....or maybe Rich's chickens and gooses thing.

 

[George Pazin]

One other thing re: the Pebble "normal" play thing v. the Open setup:

Oakmont could very easily choose to maintain its rough at a much lower level, and keep the green speeds much slower, and it might be more fun for the average golfer. But, as Tom P pointed out on another thread, the members at Oakmont don't believe that is what their course is about.

Eliminating the rough would result in more options, but not necessarily a better course.

[Chris_Clouser]

Bill Yates,

Thanks for the wonderful clarification of the strategy on this hole.  

From what I've seen each hole thus far has gotten better and more in line with the term "great" that has been bantered about for this course.  

George,

Kudos to the string of threads.  I look forward to them each week.

[Tom Huckaby]

George - thanks - I am understanding this far better now.

I don't think I'm too influenced by score... I just do like to have a chance to pull off shots that mean something.  That is, I get that Oakmont offers a world of possibilities, and perplexes pros - that's a great thing.  But for a guy like me, well... eventually I like to get the ball in the hole.  And if I pull off a great putt or a great chip, thereby at least temporarily solving a little mystery, I'd prefer it to be a meaningful shot, not my 8th or 9th stroke on a golf hole.  It seems at Oakmont that would occur far too often to allow for all that much enjoyment.

Oh well.  In the end this might come down to different strokes, cups of tea, chickens and gooses, whatever.  Just as I prefer NGLA to Shinnecock, I'm gonna have a hard time ever feeling much love for a brutally difficult course like Oakmont.  But I am trying, I swear I am.

I can now say without reservation that it must be a truly great golf course - you guys have convinced me.

You're just going to have a REALLY hard time getting me to love it.

But I assume you'll be fine with that.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

One other thing re: the Pebble "normal" play thing v. the Open setup:

Oakmont could very easily choose to maintain its rough at a much lower level, and keep the green speeds much slower, and it might be more fun for the average golfer. But, as Tom P pointed out on another thread, the members at Oakmont don't believe that is what their course is about.

Eliminating the rough would result in more options, but not necessarily a better course.

Understood completely.  'Twas you who called Pebble a death march, remember.  

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Chris.

There was a point last night when I got kind of PO'd and thought about stopping. But upon further reflection, I came to the conclusion that the questions were valid and deserved to be addressed. Hopefully the many views offered on the course have done so.

[JohnV]

George,  This is a great series of threads.  Please continue them.  I hope someone will do something similar next year for Torrey Pines.

After all, it has much more scenic beauty than Oakmont so it must be better, right Tom?

[George Pazin]

I don't think I'm too influenced by score... I just do like to have a chance to pull off shots that mean something.  That is, I get that Oakmont offers a world of possibilities, and perplexes pros - that's a great thing.  But for a guy like me, well... eventually I like to get the ball in the hole.  And if I pull off a great putt or a great chip, thereby at least temporarily solving a little mystery, I'd prefer it to be a meaningful shot, not my 8th or 9th stroke on a golf hole.  It seems at Oakmont that would occur far too often to allow for all that much enjoyment.

This is a weird paragraph to me. You start off saying you're not too influenced by score, then end up saying, in effect, you are.

I believe in the beauty of a well earned par, or even bogey.

You are, of course, entitled to your own preferences.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Thanks, Chris.

There was a point last night when I got kind of PO'd and thought about stopping. But upon further reflection, I came to the conclusion that the questions were valid and deserved to be addressed. Hopefully the many views offered on the course have done so.

I guess it was me who must have angered you... and if so I humbly apologize.  That was never my intent.  But come on, you had to expect I'd have continued questions....

In any case let's make one thing VERY CLEAR:  I really, really appreciate your efforts here - because I've been wanting for a long time to try to understand your take - and that of others - trumpeting the greatness of a course that so looks like anything but to my way of thinking.  Unlike others here, you have to also understand that I assume it must be ME who has it wrong... thus my aims are to learn.  But in learning I also have to ask questions... it's tough to just take everything seemingly at face value.

So George, please do keep this up - it's great fun and great learning for me.

You just have to expect there are going to be questions....

But likely less from now on.  I'm getting the course a lot better now.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

My point was I am not nearly as influenced by score as you seem to state.  And if YOU are not influenced by score, why state something like:

I believe in the beauty of a well earned par, or even bogey.

Hell I believe in that also - very very much so.  But those are scores you're talking about, my friend.  Perhaps you're more into them than I am?  

I just don't see much worth in a well-played 8th or 9th shot, which seems to me what would occur far too often as one tries to unlock the mysteries of Oakmont.

JV - scenic beauty is just one part of the puzzle, not the entirety of it.  To overemphasize it is foolish; to deny it matters is asinine.  

TH

[JohnV]

Tom, you are a better player than I am and I have yet to make an 8 or 9 at Oakmont in my trips around it.  The 7s I've made have primarily been due to 3 or even 4 putts.

I wish I could say the same about a lot of lesser courses.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV:

Gotcha.  The rough, greens, bunkers are just described as SO severe, I just had the impression that could occur while still hitting decent shots.   I guess I just got the impression every hole was kinda like 7 at Shinnecock as it played in the Open... no way to get close, ball won't stay by hole, etc.

So it's really not THAT bad?

TH

[Bill_Yates]

Chris,
You're welcome! I love thinking and talking about Oakmont.

George,
Thanks for this terrific series.

All,
Thanks to George there are 15 great golf holes yet to be discussed and discovered.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill - if you wouldn't mind, please do try to chime in as we go through the remaining 15 holes.  As you can see, I'm a little slow on the uptake trying to grasp the greatness here... and your discussions of the strategies and rewards helped me a LOT also... and moved me to an acceptance now of how one can very easilyt call it "great."

I just thought of it as an unyielding unfun penal monster before...

TH

[George Pazin]

Tom, you are a better player than I am and I have yet to make an 8 or 9 at Oakmont in my trips around it.  The 7s I've made have primarily been due to 3 or even 4 putts.

I wish I could say the same about a lot of lesser courses.

More clarity from JohnV.

Huck, I never claimed to not be influenced by score. I would say that I don't attach my own personal self esteem to it, which is a good thing, or I would be long gone.

JV:

Gotcha.  The rough, greens, bunkers are just described as SO severe, I just had the impression that could occur while still hitting decent shots.   I guess I just got the impression every hole was kinda like 7 at Shinnecock as it played in the Open... no way to get close, ball won't stay by hole, etc.

So it's really not THAT bad?

TH

That's for you to decide. You have John and Jim Franklin, not to mention the many big names, telling you it's a wonderful course, one of the best. Only you can decide how much value to place on their opinion.

Here's a question I have for you:

Haven't you sung the praises on here about Winged Foot?

Upon cursory examination, I would say many would find WF and Oakmont to be similar - highly penal, monstrously difficult, few options, etc., etc. Yet you know that's not the case with Winged Foot. Why does it seem so hard for you to believe that about Oakmont?

(Re: WF and Oakmont - I personally would guess that the courses are dissimilar in how they challenge the golfer, yet similar in that they are both wonderful courses whose strategies are slowly revealed to the golfer.)

[Tom Huckaby]

AHA!

Bingo... very good, George.  I did love Winged Foot West, and it kicked my ass sideways.  I have zero reservations saying that's a great golf course.

So why am I having a hard time accepting it re Oakmont?

I really don't know... I guess it's just the reputation, and the fact I REALLY don't like the concept of a "stroke being irrevocably lost"... all the things Fownes seemed to say about it, want to make it... furrowed bunkers, greens meant to be insanely fast with severe contour also, give me a break.... it's all just TOO much, you know?

But that's all reputation and words.  What I am getting is the course - while very, very difficult - has a LOT more going on than just trying to punish the golfer... as does Winged Foot West.

But when one starts out with that as a purpose - which Fownes seemed to do, well....

It's tough to overcome, for a guy like me.

But I am trying, I swear.

TH

[George Pazin]

So why am I having a hard time accepting it re Oakmont?

I really don't know... I guess it's just the reputation, and the fact I REALLY don't like the concept of a "stroke being irrevocably lost"... all the things Fownes seemed to say about it, want to make it... furrowed bunkers, give me a break.... it's all just TOO much, you know?

I personally love irony, and I find it highly ironic that a course with this founding philosophy, has resulted in what I believe is a highly entertaining, highly strategic masterpiece.

I wonder if Mr. Fownes were around now, and just getting started, if he would've seen the logical extension of his statement in the abundance of death-penalty hazards on modern courses. I wonder if he would've changed his philosophy, or adopted the modern approach.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

[Tom Huckaby]

I just wonder if this irony has Fownes spinning in his grave.

 

Interesting questions, for sure.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

MSS - whoa - great pic - that brings out all that Bill said... one does need to hug the pews to have a view at the green... and right isn't exactly safe either... right also would seem to shorten the hole though, as if one can climb that first hill a bit the 2nd isn't so uphill.. and angle into green is better from right also... so that is one testing tee shot, with choices and rewards that are pretty darn vexing.

I like that word.

So OK, I was an idiot.

Let that be a lob for someone to use as a tag line....

 

[George Pazin]

Great photo, great addition to the thread. Thanks.

The only thing I'll add is that the photo kind of flattens the contours (as all photos do).

[Bill_Yates]

Tom,
Thanks for the comment.  I will be chiming in as we continue our round at Oakmont.  We've got 15 more great holes to go.

Regarding your response to the great picture above, you are now literally seeing the options that face every golfer that has ever played Oakmont.  Fownes was a genius and he spent time on the course observing play and making changes (ie adding bunkers) to make it even more challenging.  By the way, nobody likes being flogged unfairly, but all golfers love to be challenged.  

Spinning in his grave?  I'll bet Fownes is enjoying seeing the USGA bring the Open Championship again to his course.  This is a course that has hosted more Opens than any other, and we're just beginning to find out why.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill - fantastic - thanks again.

I guess my "spinning in his grave" thought was at how "easy" today's course is compared to what how he once had it.  But you have to be right - he'd love seeing his course host another Open - and likely would also love the challenge it gives these great players even still.

Another great thought:  no golfer does enjoy being flogged unfairly but all golfers do love to be challenged.  Due to your words and those of George and John and several others, I am seeing the light... Just bear with me as the "unfairly challenged" part is for some reason the reputation Oakmont had - in my mind.

Sometimes it does take pictures... and of course seeing in person transcends all.  I told George off-line:  what all this is doing is giving me another "must see in my life" golf course... I have quite a few, and most are unrealistic, but heck, a man does need quests.

15 more great holes to go - I am definitely looking forward to it.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

...the elevation changes, slopes and plateaus define the "strategy of play."  What Oakmont does is it forces the player to find them.  Not only does it require the player to ask, "what side of the fairway should I play to,"  each hole and each shot demands the right distance to position the player for the the best chance of making par. ...Oakmont is a very strategic course, but one must play it enough to discover the right strategy for each hole. ...

To illustrate, let's look at again at the first three holes.  On #1, a tee shot landing anywhere on the fairway is good, the longer the better, a short drive will leave a blind second shot.  Then, just land your second shot on the front right corner of the green.  

I guess I'm not getting it and I am surprised that Tom seems to think he is. There are millions of holes with this amount of strategy (hitting the green in the right spot). Why then is this great?

On #2, the tee shot needs to find the right side of the fairway as close to the bunkers as possible.  This will open up the severe second green and give you a view up its centerline to its contours and the bottom of the flagstick.  

Once again, there are millions of holes that give you and advantage if you hit to the correct side of the fairway. Why then is this great?

Then on #3, you are playing from a runway tee that aligns the player to the bunkers on the right side of the fairway (see hole diagram that opens this thread) where the fairway slopes right, is steeper to the green and thus gives the player a blind second shot (note in the photo that there is a directional marker behind the green). However, for the strategy that makes a par more probable, the player needs to play a tee shot away from the direction that the tee alignment encourages, and land it on the flat section of the fairway that borders the "churchpews." This position offers a level stance and a view of the top of the flagstick.

Same reason same question.