[Phil McDade]

If you want to know a poorly kept secret about the recent revisions in Oakmont, here's one.

The USGA is concerned with all the trees removed there are now exposed unwanted possible lines of attack.  Specifically they are sweating bullets over the tee shot at nine.  The far safer way to now play nine (to avoid those new hideously penal fairway bunkers) is to nuke your drive up one's fairway.  The angle of your approach in from there is much less protected and considerably easier.

The USGA has discussed making one's fairway an "internal" OB for hole nine (never been done before in US Open) or REPLANTING lost trees on the left off the tee to block this avenue.  When I was last there Ford told us they still haven't figured out what they are going to do.

Allow them to play it like it is and we'll be in for 7 hour rounds during the Open.

JC

Jonathan:

All the more reason for George to post holes 7 and 8 so we we can move on to the holes 1/9 discussion.

I assume the USGA is inviting Lon Hinkle in for advisory discussions...

[Ryan Farrow]

Is it possible to land and stop a ball at that back-right corner? Or is that just an absolute no-go pin?

The back right corner is extremely steep, there is no way a pin could be placed there.

[George Pazin]

I completely understand my friend Jonathan's point, but I'm more influenced by the others who point out that they may never have a chance to play the course or see it in person.

Also - and I do not mean for this to sound immodest, please accept my apology if it does - I hope the series will inspire similar analysis of other great courses. There are a lot of fascinating historical threads on here, lots of fun OT stuff, and even the ratings stuff can be enjoyable to read if you ignore the invective, but I don't think there is enough pure hole/course analysis. And that happens to be what I personally find most interesting, and where I think I learn the most about golf course architecture.

As always, thanks for the additional contributions, everyone.

Someday I hope to convince Mike Keiser to build a complete replica of Oakmont, sans trees and rough. We'll call it The Old Course on Steroids.

 

[Mark Chaplin]

George,

As a Brit with very limited experience of US golf this is an excellent series giving me a real insight into Oakmont, each week I look forward to the next instalment.

Just as I'm highly unlikely to ever play Oakmont, Merion, NGLA, etc these pages improve my understanding and knowledge of these great course. Hopefully many of our overseas friends enjoy reading about TOC, Dornoch, RCD, Deal (indulge me!), Pennard and the like even if they never intend to cross the pond.

Mark

[Phil McDade]

I completely understand my friend Jonathan's point, but I'm more influenced by the others who point out that they may never have a chance to play the course or see it in person.

Also - and I do not mean for this to sound immodest, please accept my apology if it does - I hope the series will inspire similar analysis of other great courses. There are a lot of fascinating historical threads on here, lots of fun OT stuff, and even the ratings stuff can be enjoyable to read if you ignore the invective, but I don't think there is enough pure hole/course analysis. And that happens to be what I personally find most interesting, and where I think I learn the most about golf course architecture.

As always, thanks for the additional contributions, everyone.

Someday I hope to convince Mike Keiser to build a complete replica of Oakmont, sans trees and rough. We'll call it The Old Course on Steroids.

 

George:

Exactly my thoughts that I forgot to type in this morning. I know (and appreciate) the work involved in this on your end, but my hope is that other regular posters with intimate knowledge of major tourney courses -- the folks who know Shinnecock and Merion and others -- may do similar threads in the future. I was intrigued, for instance, to see that Shinnecock appears to be embarking on a green expansion project that may led to some interesting (and new) pin positions the next time it hosts the Open.

[Garland Bayley]

Well, I hope George keeps it up for all 18 at Oakmont. Here's why:

Those of us (like, me) who have never played the course, and never will, and care about golf architecture, find much of this stuff pretty interesting. I like the descriptions, the photos, the discussions about how best to play the holes, and some of the evolution of these holes.

It's particularly relevant, given that it's hosting the US Open this year. It's really, really neat, because Oakmont -- beyond that of probably every single other major-worthy course in the country -- embarked on a fairly radical tree-removal project that most courses probably wouldn't have the guts to even discuss (like, Winged Foot or Oak Hill), and did so with the intent of presenting its course as nearly as possible to its original state, as envisoned by Fownes, in preparation for the Open.

In and of itself, that's a pretty cool thing. To have George on-hand to describe that process, hole by hole, and have others weigh in, is something to grateful about.

What he said.

If reading these threads detracts from your enjoyment of the course, stop reading them.  For those of us who have never and are unlikely ever to visit Oakmont these threads are fascinating.

What they both said.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Someday I hope to convince Mike Keiser to build a complete replica of Oakmont, sans trees and rough. We'll call it The Old Course on Steroids.

 

Methinks  there is no relationship between the Old Course and Oakmont. Methinks they are almost opposites.

[George Pazin]

Guess my points still aren't gettin' through.

12 more weeks to get things cleared up!

[Garland Bayley]

By the way of proving I am not inbred (since there is a thread going on about us being inbred), let me say that although I have not been there to play this hole, I don't see anything other than difficulty and density of bunkers that make this a great hole. I would admit that the combination of length, bunkering, green slope and speed, and difficulty makes this a good hole. However, it lacks a dramatic setting, options on choices how to play the hole, and options on play when you miss since most misses would seem to put you into a bunker.

Golf Digest used to get their ratings from their raters and then apply a post rating adjustment for traditional classics. A GD rater has informed me that this practice has been terminated for the next set of ratings that come out. I would predict that this would cause Oakmont to fall in the ratings as it serves a limited fan base, the fan base that loves a monster.

[George Pazin]

By the way of proving I am not inbred (since there is a thread going on about us being inbred), let me say that although I have not been there to play this hole, I don't see anything other than difficulty and density of bunkers that make this a great hole. I would admit that the combination of length, bunkering, green slope and speed, and difficulty makes this a good hole. However, it lacks a dramatic setting, options on choices how to play the hole, and options on play when you miss since most misses would seem to put you into a bunker.

Golf Digest used to get their ratings from their raters and then apply a post rating adjustment for traditional classics. A GD rater has informed me that this practice has been terminated for the next set of ratings that come out. I would predict that this would cause Oakmont to fall in the ratings as it serves a limited fan base, the fan base that loves a monster.

Re: your first point, keep in mind that #6 is a par 3. Many great par 3s are more one dimensional than par 4s or 5s. I think even vaunted architects/gca thinkers like Thomas and Tillinghast advocated par 3s that are a bit more challenging.

Look at the wonderful 11th at The Old Course - does it have tons of options? How about the 12th at ANGC? Just thinking off the top of my head, I'd guess the majority of great par 3s that have "options" are very long par 3s that need to have bailout areas, ala the 16th at Cypress Point (the redan holes being notable exceptions). How many options does the 15th at CP have, for that matter?

Re: your latter point, I'd be flat out shocked if Oakmont was a course that was boosted much via Tradition points. There are very few people who've played there who do not consider it an absolute masterpiece, and certainly deserves to be mentioned in the best course discussion. I haven't yet read a post, or heard anything from folks offline, from anyone who's played the course that said it was overrated.

P.S. Keep in mind that my Keiser-funded Oakmont knock-off would be sans rough and trees. That means pinching bunkers are no more. And certainly the bunkers at TOC are rather stern, no?

[Garland Bayley]

Re: your first point, keep in mind that #6 is a par 3. Many great par 3s are more one dimensional than par 4s or 5s. I think even vaunted architects/gca thinkers like Thomas and Tillinghast advocated par 3s that are a bit more challenging.

Look at the wonderful 11th at The Old Course - does it have tons of options? How about the 12th at ANGC? Just thinking off the top of my head, I'd guess the majority of great par 3s that have "options" are very long par 3s that need to have bailout areas, ala the 16th at Cypress Point (the redan holes being notable exceptions). How many options does the 15th at CP have, for that matter?

Re: your latter point, I'd be flat out shocked if Oakmont was a course that was boosted much via Tradition points. There are very few people who've played there who do not consider it an absolute masterpiece, and certainly deserves to be mentioned in the best course discussion. I haven't yet read a post, or heard anything from folks offline, from anyone who's played the course that said it was overrated.

P.S. Keep in mind that my Keiser-funded Oakmont knock-off would be sans rough and trees. That means pinching bunkers are no more. And certainly the bunkers at TOC are rather stern, no?

11 at OC. The biggest option is being able to miss a bunker when you miss the green.  
12 ANGC, 15 CP, did you miss the comment about dramatic setting.
My recollection (which admittedly fails me once in awhile) is that the GD article I read, said all traditional courses needed their bonus to achieve their rankings.

I played David Toms' Carter Plantation. That is what I saw at every hole, pinching bunkers. That is what I see in the Oakmont course layout. As I have noted before, it is boring. It is also completely absent from the Old Course.

[Ryan Farrow]

Garland your argument against #6 is pathetic. I for one wouldn’t think of comparing Oakmont to St. Andrews but let’s let George be George. For the sake of variety #6 faces a completely different direction from the other par 3's, offers distinct advantages to missing to a certain side of the green and has a very interesting green with a lot of character for being so small. I am really lost at what you think makes a great par 3. Like others have said they are more one dimensional than par 4's and 5's. Just wait until we get to #8 I promise you will not be disappointed.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland your argument against #6 is pathetic. I for one wouldn’t think of comparing Oakmont to St. Andrews but let’s let George be George. For the sake of variety #6 faces a completely different direction from the other par 3's, offers distinct advantages to missing to a certain side of the green and has a very interesting green with a lot of character for being so small. I am really lost at what you think makes a great par 3. Like others have said they are more one dimensional than par 4's and 5's. Just wait until we get to #8 I promise you will not be disappointed.

Ryan, you can be forgiven as you are in college where they grade on the "curve" and everyone gets As.     For old timers, grading on the curve means you have to be 2 standard deviations above the average to get an A.    Notice that I did not say the hole was average - C. I said it was good - B. Great - A - is reserved for a few holes that are far better than average. You said my reasons are pathetic, but I can't detect any of what you said as a counter argument to them.
What is the dramatic setting?
How often does a near miss end up anywhere besides in a bunker?
How do you get close other than flying it in to the proper place on the green preferably moving left to right?

[George Pazin]

That is what I saw at every hole, pinching bunkers. That is what I see in the Oakmont course layout. As I have noted before, it is boring. It is also completely absent from the Old Course.

I'll try this again. With no rough, those pinching bunkers are no longer pinching bunkers. You can play around them at will. As for the comparison between such dramatically different courses, I'll have more to say about that on another day.

As for the setting, I thought it looked pretty dramatic standing on the tee, but I am admittedly biased. You have to see the hillside and topography to really appreciate it, I guess.

I for one wouldn’t think of comparing Oakmont to St. Andrews but let’s let George be George.

This might be the funniest thing I've read on here in awhile. It should be my new excuse.

 

[Garland Bayley]

...
I'll try this again. With no rough, those pinching bunkers are no longer pinching bunkers. ...

They are in the same place every time! I don't care whether they are pinching or not. There is no variety! One might even say they are the ultimate in disrespect on this site, they are fair.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
The USGA is concerned with all the trees removed there are now exposed unwanted possible lines of attack.  Specifically they are sweating bullets over the tee shot at nine.  The far safer way to now play nine (to avoid those new hideously penal fairway bunkers) is to nuke your drive up one's fairway.  The angle of your approach in from there is much less protected and considerably easier.

The USGA has discussed making one's fairway an "internal" OB for hole nine (never been done before in US Open) or REPLANTING lost trees on the left off the tee to block this avenue.  When I was last there Ford told us they still haven't figured out what they are going to do.

Allow them to play it like it is and we'll be in for 7 hour rounds during the Open.

JC

Put up a large stretched canvas on the driving line from 9 to 1. Perhaps divide it into 9 panels and let Mike Miller paint 9 of the holes on it. After the open, auction it at Sothebys.

[Ryan Farrow]

let me say that although I have not been there to play this hole,

Pat should like that quote, I finally get to use it on someone. Why are you talking about a course you have not played, have you no decency?

I just don't see what dramatic scenery has to do with quality of greatness? This is Pittsburgh we are talking about. Of course there is none of that. Although I will show you some pictures later where the hole looks "nice".

How often does a near miss end up anywhere besides in a bunker?

The majority of the times a missed shot does end up in the bunker. What’s your point? Again, I don't see the relevance to greatness. This hole has some bunkers that are better to be in than others. And if you go to Oakmont and can't play out of bunkers you are going home in a foul mood.

How do you get close other than flying it in to the proper place on the green preferably moving left to right?

A fade or in my case a draw. Is it too much to ask that a player shape his tee shot to get close to the pin? How is any player supposed to get close to any pin on any shot? Take advantage of the greens features and hit good golf shots

[Garland Bayley]

let me say that although I have not been there to play this hole,

Pat should like that quote, I finally get to use it on someone. Why are you talking about a course you have not played, have you no decency?
...

Who is there to criticize a hole if it isn't those of us who haven't played the hole?    If I got an invite to play Oakmont, I would have to praise the holes so that I wouldn't offend my gracious host!    It is clear that public courses are far better than private courses, because many of them are revered even though there is no host that would prevent criticism.    It is all these lackluster private courses that need schmoozing to achieve great ratings that polute the pages of GCA.com.  

[Ryan Farrow]

[Anthony_Nysse]

I don't like the free form tee in the front-Either make them all square (my vote) or all free form.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Ryan Farrow]

I have the same feeling. Just imagine how akward this thing is to mow. #2, 14, and a little bit of 8 are irregular shapes along with 6 but this is the only one which is not flat.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()