Week 3: The wonderful 3rd at Oakmont

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

I guess what I did was re-think each hole based on Bill's summation AND the pictures provided.  Turns out Kyle was right in that I wasn't fully assessing the elevation changes, and Bill's comments re opening up visuals to the green (particularly on 3) hit home with me as well.

In any case I wasn't really re-visiting 1 and 2... I pretty much had those correct anyway, and could see at least some of the greatness on each.  IOn 2, I didn't realize how blind it would be from the left - and that does matter.

What really struck me was 3 - Bill's words and the picture.  That is one hell of a golf hole with a LOT going on.

But Bill (or others) can hopefully explain a lot better if we can prevail upon them to do so yet again!

TH

[Garland Bayley]

Bill's explanation of #3 reminded me of Rustic Canyon. When I played there all the tee markers were aligned so they showed you the wrong shot to play. By chance I hooked up with a decent player that knew the course well. He went around realligning the tee markers on every hole.  

Perhaps part of what Bill meant, but didn't explicitly say was that you had to risk getting into a bunker on 2 and 3 to get into the best position.

[George Pazin]

Perhaps part of what Bill meant, but didn't explicitly say was that you had to risk getting into a bunker on 2 and 3 to get into the best position.

This was pointed out several times on both threads. For Hole #3, Bill & Ryan - and even me in the initial post on this thread - indicated that one must play to the left side of the fairway and flirt with the Church Pews if one wants a clearer view of the green (can't really be totally clear because it sits atop the hill).

I am totally at a loss as to what you are looking for - alternate fairways? St Andrews width? You're not going to see either throughout this tour, so if it's those, I suggest you check out now.

What did you like about Black Mesa #1 that made you prefer it to Oakmont's 1st? To me, BM #1 was just "hit it over the small mountain, hit it onto the correct level of the green". Where were the options there? Which set of tee markers to play?

Each of the holes allows you to make your own choices as to what driving club to choose, where to aim your tee shot, what to do with the ensuing approach, etc. There are no forced carries that limit options. There are no water hazards that rule out places to hit the ball. Heck, there aren't even any trees anymore.

[Bill_Yates]

Garland,
Precisely!  Risk-reward doesn't always mean hitting a bold 2 iron to reach the 13th green at Augusta then reaping the reward with a potential eagle and most certainly a birdie.  Risk-reward also reveals itself as a strategy in deciding to play a tee shot on #3 to land just 5 yards to the right edge of the Churchpews in order to be rewarded with a view of the flagstick.

They are both risk-reward options with differing degrees of reward outcomes.  All great shots aren't made over forced carries.  At Oakmont, a great tee shot on #2 might simply be one that leaves you in a position to clearly see the hole location and the nearby green contours, in order to play a half wedge to the spot (that you can now see) where your chance of making a birdie even exists.  

[Andy Troeger]

I appreciate what all of you are saying regarding the angles of approach, but looking at the most recent picture...wouldn't anyone not named Fred Funk (or someone closely related) simply aim down the middle of the fairway and hope like hell that they actually manage to hit any part of the fairway...then go from there!  

George,
I think you're oversimplifying #1 at Black Mesa. You can label any hole as you did, or as I did above (hit fairway, hit green, make putt). The allure of #1 at Black Mesa is convincing yourself to aim out over the "mountain" to where the fairway is instead of at what you can see (which turns out to be death). The two fellows I played with decided to take their chances with death instead of the mountain!

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill/George:

Would it be true to say that while the view is better from the left, the playing angle is perhaps better from the right?

So a player has to decide what's more important to him... then try to execute to his strengths?  

And all the while, over the course of repeated play, perhaps he never decides completely which is better for him....

If so, this is indeed truly vexing and the greatness quotient is ramping even further up....

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

I appreciate what all of you are saying regarding the angles of approach, but looking at the most recent picture...wouldn't anyone not named Fred Funk (or someone closely related) simply aim down the middle of the fairway and hope like hell that they actually manage to hit any part of the fairway...then go from there!  

Andy:  in the end, that might be the choice, and might also just be the result (hit and hope) for the vast majority of players.  It would seem obvious one doesn't want to be in bunkers on either side.

BUT... that approach is gonna be damn tough from any part of that fairway.  I can absolute see trying to maximize one's chances to get a good shot at the green.  

Then what's cool to me is it's not 100% clear where those chances are maximized... if I have this correct.  One has to pick one's poison... blind with no carry over bunkers from right; clear with carry over bunker from left.

Of course I have turned around 180 degrees in this thread... but I am now seeing a penal and strategic aspect to this hole... and it's getting cooler and cooler to me.

TH

[George Pazin]

George,
I think you're oversimplifying #1 at Black Mesa. You can label any hole as you did, or as I did above (hit fairway, hit green, make putt). The allure of #1 at Black Mesa is convincing yourself to aim out over the "mountain" to where the fairway is instead of at what you can see (which turns out to be death). The two fellows I played with decided to take their chances with death instead of the mountain!

You are most certainly correct that I am oversimplifying - I am trying to illustrate what I believe is the absurdity of Garland's criticism. He refuses to accept anything anyone says about the various Oakmont holes, and I am trying to understand why.

Thanks for the thoughts on BM#1, though - I wasn't aware that there is an advantage to playing to the higher side of the mountain.

 

[George Pazin]

Bill/George:

Would it be true to say that while the view is better from the left, the playing angle is perhaps better from the right?

So a player has to decide what's more important to him... then try to execute to his strengths?

I didn't spend enough time on this hole to be able to tell. My gut tells me a hole on the left would generally be easier to approach from the right, and vice versa for the hole on the right. Maybe someone else can say.

I can say that hill looks a helluva lot bigger in person than in that photo, as good as that photo is. What is also unclear in the photo is that the tee shot is a little downhill, so one can realistically play the shot with a hybrid or iron if so desired. It leaves a long shot if you're not long with those clubs, but the fairway is much wider short of the bunkers.

Incidentally, in the photo above, you can also just barely make out the little ridge that hides the dipsy do I mentioned in the opening post, while referencing Trip's practice round tee shot. That carry is flat out insane to me - but it does bring up another option!

[Andy Troeger]

George,
  I can't speak directly for anyone else, but fairly or not, I think the "challenge" your going to get on these threads from a lot of people who are not familiar with the course is not us wanting to understand why Oakmont is great, but what makes it special/unique enough to be one of the absolute best courses in the country; Golf Digest for example has it in the top five in the country. That's the impression I get from Tom's comments (right or wrong??) and I'm interested to find out for myself too. I certainly hope you do go through with 18 holes, its a great way to learn more about the golf course, whether or not you manage to convince anyone/everyone!

[Tom Huckaby]

Great stuff, George.  And I was gonna ask it it was possible to get all the way to the top of the hill and thus negate pretty much everything, but then I remembered you mentioning that Trip did so... Of course this makes it possible, but also to me renders it out of consideration.  That is, his reality is one thing, such for mere mortals is another.

Very few golf holes are vexing for guys who can hit it that far.  But then again, they don't really count.

I'm standing on that tee vexed as all hell.  I think I want to hug the pews, but good call - I need to know pin position.  If it is on the left that might not be such a good idea after all.  

Vexing, vexing, vexing.

And we haven't even gotten into what happens when I inevitably miss the green with my second shot... I can imagine the world of possibilities for a 3rd shot approach are rather limitless.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

George,
  I can't speak directly for anyone else, but fairly or not, I think the "challenge" your going to get on these threads from a lot of people who are not familiar with the course is not us wanting to understand why Oakmont is great, but what makes it special/unique enough to be one of the absolute best courses in the country; Golf Digest for example has it in the top five in the country. That's the impression I get from Tom's comments (right or wrong??) and I'm interested to find out for myself too. I certainly hope you do go through with 18 holes, its a great way to learn more about the golf course, whether or not you manage to convince anyone/everyone!

Andy - you have that right - the issue here is what makes it stand in that rarefied best of the best air.  That's why I am being such a hardass... But I am starting to see why.  The challenge is subtle in places, in your face in others, uniquely so.  It has history out the wazoo.  It's still going to be a tall order to convince me it's top five overall or better than Pebble Beach, but we are most definitely getting there.  I am starting to see a lot of greatness I was having a hard time with before.

TH

[George Pazin]

George,
  I can't speak directly for anyone else, but fairly or not, I think the "challenge" your going to get on these threads from a lot of people who are not familiar with the course is not us wanting to understand why Oakmont is great, but what makes it special/unique enough to be one of the absolute best courses in the country; Golf Digest for example has it in the top five in the country. That's the impression I get from Tom's comments (right or wrong??) and I'm interested to find out for myself too. I certainly hope you do go through with 18 holes, its a great way to learn more about the golf course, whether or not you manage to convince anyone/everyone!

More fair points.

I have zero problem with anyone questioning the merits of the holes, or questioning the ranking of Oakmont, etc.

I have a very big problem with someone who has neither played nor seen the course in person dismissing the comments of those who have.

I believe Oakmont can best be summed up by saying that it asks 18 different questions - it's up to the golfer how he chooses to answer. They are indeed very difficult questions, but I believe they are very unique, and allow a myriad of responses beyond hit it here or else.

[George Pazin]

Here's another photo (not very good quality - sorry - I was concerned someone might confiscate my camera at a USGA function, so I took a small disposable - I only used it where there was little or no action, or the action was very far away, in the case of the spectactors lining the left side of the fairway).

As viewed from the 5th fairway, looking right across the 4th fairway. The 3rd fairway is in the background, beyond that string of trees (that is no longer there). You can see how the hill flows, and how the fairway is canted left (which places more pressure on the tee shot - where is the perfect place to drive it and keep it in the fairway? - and also creates a difficult shot, if one is forced to layup out of a fairway bunker).

[Doug Sobieski]

George:

I wanted to lend some support to your camp   I explain it thusly... You
could pay all my expenses to go play Pebble, or I could foot my own bill to go to Oakmont, and I'll always choose Oakmont.  

I think the difficulty is getting overblown. It's not like a decent player is going to go out there and make double after double (as a matter of fact, I don't think I three putted there until my 3rd or 4th round). You can shoot a good score IF you strategize where NOT to miss it. This is a major strategic factor at Oakmont, and forces you to think endlessly. And there's no water or OB in play (save the tee shot on one)!! That makes it very playable, even for the 36 handicap player. I've played behind a group of high handicap ladies there, and it was fun watching them maneuver their way around (although it was hard to keep up with them!). Even though it is a penal course, the extreme challenge and firm and fast conditions are so great, that I wish I could play every hole over and over again. There are a couple holes at Pebble that are nice (in addition to the great ones), but they fall short of stirring MY soul e.g. #1, #2, #12, #15.

I'm still hoping to find a business reason to get over to Pittsburgh so I can buy you a beer and we can discuss this more.

All the best,

Sobe

P.S. Plus, I think the highly contoured greens would negate any advantage a good putter would have over a poor putter, thereby making it more enjoyable for the lesser putter. That was for you, Huck  

[George Pazin]

Wonderfully put, Doug, and I thank you for your support. First beer's on me.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Sobe:

I appreciate that last part without a doubt - so very well said.  As an on again off again putter, I am liking my chances more and more at Oakmont.  

Re the Pebble comparison, well... as I recall you are on record as being quite anti-Pebble.. and you are our resident Palmer man... so I am taking your assessment with as much salt as that in the water next to #8 Pebble.  I continue to believe those who downgrade Pebble miss a lot there or haven't played it sans tourists or outrageous delays... but Pebble remains not the point.  We are here to discuss Oakmont.

And when you say holes stir your soul, at least we're speaking the same language - to me that's what means true greatness.  Moving east again, I can see that #3 stirs my soul.  As great as I do see #1 and 2 being, I'm not sure I'd say that for either of those holes.  Maybe #2... but the world has a lot of short par 4s that can be played many ways.  That one's likely a great version of such, but soul stirring?  That I can't see.

But then again, when you say it's the extreme challenge that makes you want to play it over and over again, well... we're coming from different viewpoints.  Extreme challenges make me tend to want to give up... I know my limitations.  History and feel and spirituality-inducing views, along with challenges that allow for success from time to time, well... those stir my soul more.

Here's the kicker:  I can see a GREAT player having his soul stirred at Oakmont.  I can't see that occurring for anyone else, unless he has a very keen sense of history.

So bottom line:  of course Oakmont is great.  And I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I'd surely pay my way and give a bodily appendage to play it.

It just still has a ways to go to reach the rarefied air of top of the lists, better than Pebble, as I see things... but I do look at things far beyond a challenge in this game.

But I am being convinced more and more as this goes on.  As I say, there does seem to be a hell of a lot more going on at Oakmont than a brutal test.

TH

[Bill_McBride]

Is there strategy without penality?

To me the difference between strategic and penal is that an error on a strategic hole costs 1/2 to one 1 stroke.  An error on a penal hole costs 1 to 3 strokes.  Big difference.

Strategic hole - drive in the wrong side of the fairway and have an awful approach.  Result, a bogey.

Penal hole - drive into the barranca.  Result, a double or triple bogey.

[Doug Sobieski]

Extreme challenges make me tend to want to give up... I know my limitations.  History and feel and spirituality-inducing views, along with challenges that allow for success from time to time, well... those stir my soul more.

Here's the kicker:  I can see a GREAT player having his soul stirred at Oakmont.  I can't see that occurring for anyone else, unless he has a very keen sense of history.

Huck:

I think you'd be very surprised at the challenge. It's not "beat your head against the wall" hard, but something else I can't quite describe. There is almost always a chance to recover with a very good shot since you aren't pinned in jail or dropping out of a hazard. Some mid- to high-single digit handicap friends that I've played there with have scored really well, sprinkling a few birdies between them. It does give you the chance to score (there are plenty of birdie-able holes). As a matter of fact, I was -1 through 14 my last go-round, and I'm the WORST ball-striker on the planet, so it can be had (even by a guy who features a duck hook as his "bread and butter" tee shot). You just have to plan where to miss, so you have a chance to get it up and down. It's cool that so many of the best places to miss are long!

The feel as you look across the property from near the clubhouse is Awesome. It's like you are standing at the entrance to the museum of American Golf. You can't stop thinking about how EVERY great that's ever played has been there. And you get the chance to tackle the course with a level of difficulty as close to true Championship golf as you'll ever have. I literally get goosebumps when I'm standing there, like you probably do at Pebble.

And I wouldn't say I'm necessarily anti-Pebble. I'm just pro-CPC

(While I was typing this, I saw Bill McBride's post above. I think that's a good assessment of Oakmont. If you put the ball in the wrong place, you end up struggling to make par, but can make a lot of easy bogeys. You don't have that many "others" because of the lack of penalty shots.)

[Steve Burrows]

Here is a picture of the third from just short of the green on the right side.  One can see the downward nature of this hole off the tee, as well get a small sense of it coming back up the hill to the green.  The effect of these contours on the following holes is also evident

[Andy Troeger]

I have a very big problem with someone who has neither played nor seen the course in person dismissing the comments of those who have.

I think this is fair as well, I know this for certain is a thread I'm going to learn a lot from and contribute very little to...but then again that's probably nothing new!  

[Tom Huckaby]

Sobe:

That's great stuff... and my resistance is at an all-time low.  OK, perhaps it's because I am very pro-Pebble that I even bother to resist... and remember, the whole thing between me and George is he says Oakmont is better than Pebble, I say that can't be so... and you have to remember Pebble has been the site of many important, meaningful things in my life... thus the resistance here...

But when you say:


The feel as you look across the property from near the clubhouse is Awesome. It's like you are standing at the entrance to the museum of American Golf. You can't stop thinking about how EVERY great that's ever played has been there. And you get the chance to tackle the course with a level of difficulty as close to true Championship golf as you'll ever have. I literally get goosebumps when I'm standing there, like you probably do at Pebble.


That is music to my ears.  THAT is the "inspiration" I've been searching for, questioning about.

And I get it.  It's there at Oakmont without a shadow of a doubt.

So OK, I can believe that Oakmont would inspire the hell out of me.  And it is truly great.

There's just one remaining hurdle, for me anyway....

I really prefer seaside links to parkland.

So as great as this course is... well... it's gonna be tough to get it up in my own personal pantheon.

But I'm sure George can live with my acknowledgement of its greatness.

Which I am seeing more and more and more as we go through this series.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

...
I am totally at a loss as to what you are looking for - alternate fairways? St Andrews width? You're not going to see either throughout this tour, so if it's those, I suggest you check out now.
...

My question was simply there are tons of holes that have the same features as the holes discussed. Many, if not all, of these would be considered good. What elevates these hole above merely good?

Obviously St. Andrews has width, which allows a hole like #14 to have so many strategic options that it is clearly a great hole.

Mike Cirba seems to equate hard with great for #2. But there are tons of hard holes. Is #2 the hardest of the hard? (Probably not, I think that distinction already went to #1) Is that what makes it great?

I suspect that #3 would be first top notch hole we have seen so far. The much ballyhooed church pews, the fairway terrain, the false front, the front to back slope of the green, the risk of trying for an advantage by getting near the church pews all combine to make this the best hole so far.

Before #3, I suspect we have seen little of what makes Oakmont considered great.

[Matt_Cohn]

In general at Oakmont, if you drive the ball into a fairway bunker, how likely is it that you'll have a shot to the green? How often are you just blasting back into the fairway?

Is it possible that the course would play harder for the US Open with fewer bunkers (and therefore more 5-6 inch rough)? Or are the fairway bunkers generally punishing enough you'd rather be in the rough than the sand?

I know this is a general question, but maybe someone can provide a very general answer.

[JohnV]

With the rework of the bunkers of the last couple of years, if you hit it in a fairway bunker, you are going to have to take a wedge and get it back in play somewhere up the fairway.  Most bunkers there are deep enough that going for the green isn't an option.