Tiger Says Oakmont is a Much Tougher Members' Course than Winged Foot

[Phil Benedict]

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on scores in majors as a benchmark for member difficulty, since these scores are affected by year-to-year differences in USGA setup and the impact of the weather.

Tiger wasn't quoted on the difficulty for the pros; he spoke specifically about difficulty as a member course and his comment clearly indicates that there is a distinction between member and tour pro degree of difficulty.

Winged Foot and Oakmont are interesting (to me at least) because they are built-to-be hard Golden Age Courses.  The question is whether Oakmont's features - bunkers galore and ultra fast greens - are tougher on the typical member than what Winged Foot has to offer.

Tiger is evidently discounting the impact of trees (which are still pretty abundant at Winged Foot) on members, which I find a little surprising.

[Matt_Ward]

Guys:

Hello out there -- does anyone remember the charge THE MEMBERSHIP gave Tillie before starting his work there -- we want a MAN'S SIZE LAYOUT.

Adam M:

You make it sound like it's nothing to it -- simply hit short all day at Winged Foot / West and you can up'n and down for par at-will. C'mon -- that's a big time stretch and a fairly wide oversimplification don't you think?

I also have a bit of news for you to consider -- hitting the greens at WF / West -- even from so-called dead-flat fairways is not an automatic proposition.

Phil McDade:

Thanks for posting the results from previous majors at both courses -- although the member's aspect is still an open question for a number of people.

Garland:

Don't know what you know or don't know about the US Open but I can tell you this -- I've been to nearly all of them since 1980 and I've seen other courses with even narrower fairways than WF / West had last year.

Want a few examples?

Try Oakmont in '83 as just one case. I can remember vividly when Seve Ballesteros -- then in his prime -- played many of the holes with a 1-iron simply because the narrowness in his mind compelled such an option. I can also remember watching countless players seeing balls run off the 10th fairway -- even when hitting into the far left corner of the cuts and still seeing the balls release all the way to the rough on the right side. If you have a fairly decent memory -- you can see similar such episodes with The Lake at Olympic in '87.

The idea that Winged Foot / West plays much easier when the US Open / PGA is not in town is simply silly stuff. I am not here to dispute the overall greatness of Oakmont -- I am a big time proponent of the course and have said so many times over. I am simply saying that day-to-day Winged Foot / West is an absolute terror to play unless your game is on all cylinders for both members and the world's best.


Jay F:

I was there when Nelson shot the superb 36 final holes in ;83 and you have to give Mother Nature a slight pat on the back because the course was just soft enough for him to make such an assault. True -- others didn't exactly shoot anywhere close to his numbers even with the conditions. The same thing happened eleven years earlier when Miller torched the layout with a 63.

I have said beforehand that I see Oakmont as the better overall golf course -- I just think when sheer difficulty is applied there are far fewer legitimate birdie opportunities at the NY-based layout than the Pennsy counterpart.

[Jay Flemma]

Matt:

If there are fewer birdie ops at Oakmont, why has Oakmont given up 63, 65, 67 and only Fuzzy Z gone that low to win at WF?

Are you telling me that in the last three opens there wasn't a wet day at WF?

Is the answer that Oakmont might be shorter?

[Phil McDade]

Jay:

Love went 66 three of his four rounds at WF, although some might argue that the PGA set-up may have had something to do with it. I do think length -- not just overall length, but the shortness of some holes at Oakmont (all of this discussion is pre-06 WF and pre-07 Oakmont) -- lends itself to perhaps more birdie opportunities and less strenuous par holes. WF played 6930 in '84 (par 70) when Zoeller won in '84, compared to Oakmont's 6972 (par 71) in '83, when Nelson won. WF played 6987 in '97 (par 70) at the PGA, compared to 6946 for Oakmont in '94 US Open (par 71). I distinctly remember Nicklaus shooting an opening 69 at Oakmont in the '94 US Open (age 54!), only one stroke off the lead, and someone asked him how he did it. He said (paraphrasing): Well, it's not that long of a course.

Having never been to either course, WF strikes me as demanding long iron after long iron approach for nearly the entire round, where Oakmont has more of a mix of holes, short and long, and thus (combined with one more par 5) the opportunity to use a short iron for at least a few approaches.

[George Pazin]

Who cares which is tougher for the members, other than a few members at each? It's a meaningless statement. No one is even defining "tough".

[Steve_ Shaffer]

"There aren't too many driver holes for him."

Here's an interview with Bob Ford, the Oakmont pro, who played with TW:

www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/golf/s_504098.html

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

The title of this thread is "Much Tougher" -- WF / West never suffers fools -- members or world class professionals. I concede Oakmont is a very demanding and tough course -- but the idea that it is MUCH tougher (define it as one will) doesn't add up to me.

Jay:

This is what I said -- "far fewer legitimate birdie opportunities at the NY-based layout than the Pennsy counterpart."

Keep in mind also that until this year's Open the 9th played as a par-5 and clearly caused a spike in birdies because of the opportunity to have three par-5 holes in Oakmont to 2 at WF / West when big time events are played.

In regards to wet weather conditions at WF / West -- yes the '97 PGA Championship had a good bit of foul weather -- Davis Love III was the first and only person to break 270 at the course and his play -- IMHO -- has to be one of the more unbelievable four-round totals ever played -- in my mind it easily trumps what Tiger shot that same year at ANGC in winning The Masters.

Phil M:

The key at WF / West is that the pear-shaped greens have very small openings in the front and when the pins are placed in the far corners it takes Herculean nerve to come after them. If you miss by just a whisper -- the net result could easily be a short-sided situation -- the end game being a sure bogey or worse.

WF / West has few birdie holes -- especially after you leave the par-5 12th and head for home over the remaining stretch.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Interesting observation about WF's greens; I hadn't thought about green shape as an attribute that would make the course tough when the members ordered Tillie to give them a man-size layout -- I always associated that with greenside bunkering, long approach shots, and internal green contours. I just remember the course from previous Opens as being unrelenting in its demands on 2nd shots.

[Adam_Messix]

Ok Matt--

In reading my previous post, I come off as saying that hitting the greens in regulation at Winged Foot is slightly more difficult than Oakmont and that's what I wanted to say.  Those greens are a smaller and better defended than Oakmont and are more difficult to run the ball into the greens at Winged Foot.  

When you are talking about a typical "membership" player, they tend to miss their irons shots short of the green.  At Winged Foot, that generally leaves a chip or pitch shot to a green that has a fair amount of uphill slope.  At Oakmont, leaving it short of the green can be the worst possible miss to the 1st, 10th, and 12th greens.  Remember that Billy Casper had so much respect for the 3rd green at Winged Foot West that he laid up short of the green all four days and made par each day because it is a pretty easy chip straight up the hill.  Think about it like this, what shot would you prefer, the chip from short of the 10th at Winged Foot West or short of the 10th at Oakmont.  I'll take the Winged Foot shot every time.  

I think we can agree that both courses are really difficult and present a stern test to just about anyone.  

[Matt_Ward]

Adam M:

Fair enough.

Just try to realize that members don't always get into the same position -- the wherewithal to get their ball just short of each green and then proceed to up'n down for a par.

That was my point.

It's hard to use the name of Billy Casper and then project that members can easily follow that formula and as well as he did in winning the '59 US Open -- particularly his play at the 3rd hole on the West.

Let's also be a bit more fair when you mention the 10th at WF / West and the 10th at Oakmont. Any person who UNDERSTANDS Oakmont knows that being deep at the 1st and 10th is the way to go in order to score consistently on those two holes. Being short on either of them is a complete error in execution.

Let me also point out that being short in front of a number of WF / West holes is no bargain -- partticularly when the pin is cut tight to the front -- ergo, the 6th, to name just one example, when it's placed in the tongue frontal area.

[Phil Benedict]

Not that it's definitive, but does anyone know the respective slope and course ratings?

[George Pazin]

The thing about Tiger's statement is that, absent further explanations from him, it's almost impossible to evaluate.

He may have meant the course is maintained at a more difficult standard, day in and day out. He may have meant it's more taxing from an unusual shots standpoint. He may have meant the fairway bunkers present a more difficult challenge. He may have meant the decision making is consistenetly tougher. Or he may have simply been pumping up the membership, in conjunction with his round and his event the next day with the Amex cardholders.

Who knows? Both courses are brutally tough, and the scores shot at various Opens have nothing to do with which is tougher, nor do they have anything to do with Tiger's statement.

Absent an 18 week analysis of The Foot, I'll simply prefer to wallow in my own ignorance and believe that Oakmont's far superior in every respect.

 

[Tommy Williamsen]

All I know is that I score better at Oakmont.  The shots into the greens at WFW tend to beat me up.  

[Phil Benedict]

This link provides a smidgen of information on why Tiger thinks Oakmont is a tougher members' course.  Also talks about courses he hasn't played yet, which includes Pine Valley, Merion and Seminole.  On the other hand, hasn't he played NGLA with a noted GCA contributor?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLF_ON_THE_FRINGE_042407?SITE=PAGRE&SECTION=SPORTS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[TEPaul]

Wayne Morrison, I knew you were rude but I didn't know you were this rude.

Tiger Woods has never played Merion.

What the hell's the matter with you? You call him up right now and invite him to play.

In return maybe he will give us a ride on his Gulfstream.

[TEPaul]

From Tiger Woods;

"He also had heard the debate whether Oakmont or Winged Foot was the toughest championship course on any given Sunday morning for the members. "Of all the tournaments I've ever played, no golf course was harder than Winged Foot," Woods said late last year.

He was reminded of that comment when he walked off the 18th green Sunday morning after his first trip around at Oakmont.

"It's not even close," Woods said. "It's this one."


Listen, since the participants on this website now appear to be obligated to expose the BS, I must say that Tiger Woods has to be completely full of shit with that remark that Oakmont is harder than Winged Foot.

How do I know Woods' remark is complete BS?

Because Matt Ward said so in no uncertain terms. Just refer to his post #6 on this thread.

Should any of us assume that a wonker like Tiger Woods knows more about the comparative difficulty of Oakmont and Winged Foot than Matt Ward does?

OF COURSE NOT!!

Cut the BS Woods!

Or better yet, why should I say so? You tell Woods he's full of shit Matt.

[George Pazin]

How do I know Woods' remark is complete BS?

Because Matt Ward said so in no uncertain terms.

Maybe we could get one of the moderators to add this to everyone's tagline. Or maybe it could just run across the top, like a stock ticker.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Thanks for the plug -- I'll be sure to send you a small stipend for your considerable support on this matter !

[Tom Huckaby]

Not that it's definitive, but does anyone know the respective slope and course ratings?

From the respective club websites:

Oakmont:
Ratings and Slope
Green 147 / 77.5000
Blue 134 / 74.0000
White 130 / 72.8000
Red 136 / 75.6000


Winged Foot West
 Blue Tees  76.1/145
Black Tees 74.7/140
White Tees 72.9/138
Red Tees 70.4/133
 
Seems like Tiger might have a point... At least by these numbers it would appear Oakmont is a tiny bit tougher.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Don't get me wrong. I just want to know if there's any reason you can think of why we shouldn't tell Tiger Woods that he's full of shit on this issue? After-all who the hell does he think he is with an opinion like that? How the hell would he know particularly since he didn't even make the cut at Winged Foot?  

[Garland Bayley]

TEPaul:

Thanks for the plug -- I'll be sure to send you a small stipend for your considerable support on this matter !

Tom doesn't want no stinking stipend. He wants a ride on your corporate jet!

[Mark_Fine]

Not sure if this was mentioned yet or if it was in any of the articles, but if anyone is wondering, Tiger shot 4 over on Sunday morning, 2 over Sunday afternoon and then another 2 over on Monday.  

[Ryan Farrow]

Nice info Mark, The article Shakelford had posted listed the green speeds at a 10.5 due to snow a week ago. Double digits are a real possibility. I don't think under or over par is a question anymore. This makes me feel real good about my 44 on the back, this comming from about a 15 handicap.   Not to mention the greens were much faster rolling at about a @#($&@#!

[Doug Siebert]

Tom H,

The rating/slope you posted shows Oakmont as tougher from the back tees, but I'll bet most members aren't playing back there on either course.  From the next two sets up WFW appears to be a bit tougher.

If those green tees Oakmont got its 77.5 rating from don't include the most recent tee construction, then that number will go even higher, but it will be even less relevant for most member's day to day play.  I play my home course and most other courses from the back, but from the sounds of things I doubt I'd do that on Oakmont on a day to day basis if I was member.  I'd probably get tired of never being able to break 80 even on my very best days, and having to worry about the possibility of not breaking 100 on my very worst

[George Pazin]

Do they ever rate or guesstimate a rating for a course like Oakmont or Winged Foot under Open setup/conditions?