Oakmont with no rough - compare with an ideal Augusta National

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, the rough was not high on 12, 15, 17 for shits and giggles. It was for the USGA to see/analyze the playability of the grass. Those holes had the graduated cut and hopefully they realized that is not necessary at Oakmont."

Ryan:

Thanks for that. Interesting. I'm glad to hear that's what it was all about. You seem to know well what's going on so you tell me what you think the ideal rough height would be to put those guys into a real "what to do zone"? Tell me in inches. Remember Pinehurst when Payne Stewart won? I think the USGA nailed the rough height that year to put decision making into that really interesting decision making gray area.

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
The gentleman I played with was involved with the process.  If you look at a few aerials it should be very easy to see what was done and what was changed.

Tom Paul,
I never meant to say that the rough will be the only hazard.  When golf balls roll off the narrow fairways, they will find much more than just rough.  Furthermore, contrary to what some here think, the greens at Oakmont are the biggest hazard, right there with the bunkers/ditches.  Also, if you hit the ball in a fairway bunker, it is "a shot lost".  I think Mr. Fownes said something like that once  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

What aerials are you talking about?  Is there an aerial that shows the current state of presentation?  When was the narrowing work completed?  The Google Earth aerial is not post renovations.  It is evident that it was taken during the bunker restoration/remodeling process.  On hand, I have the Google Earth photograph, a 2003 aerial and many early ones that we got from various sources.  Please tell me what was done on the holes mentioned and when it was done so that I can search for aerials that will answer my questions.  The 2003 and Google aerials do not appear to support your claim, although I do admit that is all I have to go on...and that of my host's report.  I need current aerial to decide the issue.  Sorry to disagree with you and Brad, but I would be surprised if all the par 5s and 4s were permanently narrowed.  I apologize in advance if I am wrong about this.

Were any of the slopes softened on the greens?  I would hope not and wouldn't expect they would need to since the greens are always quick and rather large with multiple pin position possibilities.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Obviously the rough height never could be the only hazard at Oakmont. The fact is those fairway bunkers' flatish floors and vertical grass faces are about as "iffy" and random (depending on where one's golf ball gets to in them) as risk/reward recovery shots from bunker hazards can get in golf. In that way they are pretty linkslandish in effect and in play.

If you get in those fairway bunkers it's all about estimating how close to the face you are with the initial trajectory/distance one can get on a recovery shot as much as any bunkering I've seen over here. Those who estimate too close to or over that line, even if they are tour pros, will end up hitting those faces with the consequent penalty.

[Ryan Farrow]

As far as an exact number of inches, I am not completely sure what it takes to affect the pro’s shot making ability. Right now, I think they maintain their rough around 2.5". So I would say no more than 4". As long as it is long enough to make them want to keep it in the fairway without having to make them pitch out of the rough and eliminating any shot to the green.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
John Zimmer gave a talk at Atlantic City about all of this.  I am hesitant to post too much here.  If others want to, they are more than welcome.  Furthermore, if you can find a 2000 or so aerial (they exist) and a current one, they will answer many of your questions.  The 2003 is not current.  I can email you offline.
Mark

[TEPaul]

"As long as it is long enough to make them want to keep it in the fairway without having to make them pitch out of the rough and eliminating any shot to the green."

Ryan:

I don't see why anyone would disagree with that, even the USGA, even if they don't seem to be able to affect it particularly well in some US Opens. The reason they may not is possibly because then tend to err on the side of excessive penality simply because they realize they can't totally control various things as quickly as they'd like to like the weather leading into a tournament.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

If John Zimmers gave a public talk in Atlantic City why in the world do you suppose he or anyone else would mind if what he said in it was made public and discussed on here? Did he happen to say to the audience, "please don't tell anyone what I'm telling you here."

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If someone else here heard the talk, maybe they will chime in.  I'm not up for a big debate.  What I was told was that all the par four and par five holes were narrowed and hazards moved accordingly.  From my own observations, I'd have to agree.  And unlike Pinehurst #2 and some other Open sites where after the tournament they will bring back the width, at Oakmont everything will remain where it is.