Oakmont - out of control?

[Sean_A]

"Some of the fairways are really tight (on average 28 yards wide), and to be honest, one of my concerns is that they get too fast," Davis said.  "They've got so much roll, that if they get too fast its not going to be a good Open.  We don't want it turning into '87 at Olympic.  We're going to ask John to hand water the drive zones to keep good drives from landing in the intermediate rough."

So says Mike Davis of the USGA.  Does anybody else think this quote is crazy talk?  Narrow the fairways then water them to create width.  This sort of reasoning could only come from the USGA.

Ciao

[Mark_F]

...to keep good drives from landing in the intermediate rough."

I thought good drives were supposed to hit the fairway.

No wonder the US Open isn't really a Major.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

eh, widen the fairways and keep it fast giving you the same result?.... perhaps?    

[Matt_Sullivan]

Crazy talk from the USGA -- who would've thought it?

[JESII]

The logic backing up that statement is really scary considering this guy has THE job with the USGA...

If the person in that position really understood and believed in width, the golf courses we all play could be wholly different 10 years from now...it's a shame.

Let's just hope the rough is relatively short and they keep the syringe wizards away from the greens...

[JESII]

Sean,

What exactly was the context of that quote? Any chance it was somehow out of context?

[cary lichtenstein]

If the rough is anything like when I played it a few years ago, there will be a bunch of guys with strained wrists and backs in the rehab facility.

I remember htting a perfect drive on #1, the ball hitting the right center of the fairway with a slight draw and having a nearly unplayable lie in the rough and moving the ball about 3 feet.

I guarantee you will see that dozens of times during the Open coverage and I don't think that is the way golf should be played...Sorry

[wsmorrison]

Given the conditions you were playing in, how can you define your drive as perfect on the first hole if it ends up in the left rough?  It may have been well struck and shaped nicely, but it could not have been so for that particular hole demand.  By my definition it was not perfect.  A good hit isn't necessarily a good shot.

Your disfavor of this course is well known by your many posts that attest to this.  If you think you hit perfect shots that end up in the rough and where you could not advance it, it would seem that would certainly skew your view of the course.  It seems reasonable to reassess the way you play the course so that the results are more directly linked to decision making rather than compartmentalized by a narrower frame of reference; that being your ball striking.

[Mark_Fine]

If the course is firm and fast, they might not finish some of the rounds.  Sad to say, you almost hope for some rain so +5 has a chance to win  

[cary lichtenstein]

Given the conditions you were playing in, how can you define your drive as perfect on the first hole if it ends up in the left rough?  It may have been well struck and shaped nicely, but it could not have been so for that particular hole demand.  By my definition it was not perfect.  A good hit isn't necessarily a good shot.

Your disfavor of this course is well known by your many posts that attest to this.  If you think you hit perfect shots that end up in the rough and where you could not advance it, it would seem that would certainly skew your view of the course.  It seems reasonable to reassess the way you play the course so that the results are more directly linked to decision making rather than compartmentalized by a narrower frame of reference; that being your ball striking.

I guess it wasn't perfect, I should have hit a stinger fade, but I don't have that shot Maybe my ego got brutualized so that my thinking is skewed.

I just don't think that is good golf architecture because I didn't have any fun, and that is pretty rare for me to say on a golf course.

Perhaps it just showed the weaknesses in my game, but in any event, it brought me to my knees and when I see all this p.r. about how great a course this is, it gets my goat.

Sorry to be negative.

[Andy Troeger]

Did the USGA further narrow the fairways or are they always kept that narrow? The first thing I noticed on most holes during George's series was the (lack of) width in the fairways.

[Jerry Kluger]

It would seem to me that if the fairways are fast then it is critical that a drive not only land in the fairway, but that it should be properly shaped to deal with the contour of the fairway.  Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but I would analogize it to dealing with a cross wind - do you shape your shot to ride the wind or do you shape it to hold it against the wind.  We have to keep in mind that these are the best players and they will have available to them the best technology to deal with the conditions.  Last week, Mickelson carried two hybrids and his longest iron was a 5, so these players are capable of adapting.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I realize "these guys are good"  but hitting 22-28 yard fairways time after time is even too much for the touring pros.  Who enjoys seeing them hit out of rough hole after hole? They could reign in their drives but if the course does indeed play f&f the Open will not Identify the best players it will embarass the best players.  Softening the fairways is one option, but not the best one.  Widen the fairways so they can get the best angles.  Tuck the pins and see if they can get it close. What does hitting  a narrow fairway prove?  That a player hits a straight tee shot?  There is more to the game than accuracy off the tee.  My guess is that they want to reign in the 300 yard+ tee shots.

[Mike Hendren]

The reason being, Oakmont's fairways were running about 11 on the Stimp after Zimmers put the rollers on them.

Is watering fairways any worse than rolling them?  Artificial either way.  

Today's riddle:  What do Oakmont members have in common with the Village People?  Answer:  They're all macho men.

Mike

[wsmorrison]

In general, I believe the architecture should be left alone and let nature once again have her role in the way things play out.  Trying to subordinate nature is expensive and artificial.  Let it be.

[Jerry Kluger]

Allow me to make a suggestion - let's say the USGA  determines on the Tuesday of the event that the fairways are running so fast that a well executed drive will still not stay in the fairway - they can't widen the fairways, watering the fairways will still not cause a consistent result - what about cutting down the rough? I don't mean all the way down but down to a level where a player can choose to play a longer club - of course, the greens will still be firm, but they will have a chance to go for the green and not simply lay up.  

[JESII]

Or...stop cutting the fairways...why do fairways need to roll 11 feet?

[Rich Goodale]

To paraphrase Yogi, sounds like the Ben Curtis Open at St. Georges all over again.......

[George Pazin]

The Ben Curtis Open was one of the best in recent memory - would that all courses with such topography play so firm....

As for Oakmont, I can only say that I thought it played damn near perfectly during the '03 Am. It's hard of a far different type than most are accustomed to, but in a good, fair way, imho.

[TEPaul]

"So says Mike Davis of the USGA.  Does anybody else think this quote is crazy talk?"

If Mike Davis didn't really believe in 28 yard wide fairways would you still think his remarks were crazy talk?

Didn't think of it that way did you?

Of course not.

[Rich Goodale]

The Ben Curtis Open was one of the best in recent memory - would that all courses with such topography play so firm....

As for Oakmont, I can only say that I thought it played damn near perfectly during the '03 Am. It's hard of a far different type than most are accustomed to, but in a good, fair way, imho.

Yes, George, and you probably would have fawned over the guy who re-arranged the deck chairs on the Titanic.....

I personally hope, for the sake of golf and Oakmont, that it will be possible to have well thought out and executed tee shots end up in short grass from time to time.  That's all.

Rich

[George Pazin]

I think I may even be related to that Titantic guy in some way.

At any rate, plenty of good shots during the 03 Am stayed in the fairway - if the setup is similar, I think the championship will be phenomenal. I will be disappointed if they go much beyond that setup.

[Mark_Fine]

I know the USGA does not "try to target a score" or so they say, but look for +5 to +8 to be in the winner's circle.  If the winning score is lower, it rained.  If it is higher, the golf course got away from them which it very well could.  I expect some train wrecks out there but it should be a very exciting and entertaining tournament to watch.  We all have to remember that this course was designed by Fownes and Loeffler to be PENAL and that it will be.  I do not like the narrow fairways (especially the fact that they will remain that way after the pros pack up and go home) but that is apparently what the members out there like.  When you finish a round at Oakmont it is like you just returned from a battle.  You are exhausted mentally and physically.  But that is the way Fownes and Loeffler wanted it - tough!

As I implied earlier, if you are a pro playing in the Open, it would be best to go to church and pray for rain!  Oh, and don't forget to just kneel in the aisle and stay out of the pews.  You want to get used to staying in the aisles  

[TEPaul]

I don't believe I'm aware of a golf club, and by that I mean a golf club's membership, that seems as genuinely proud of the extreme difficulty of their course as Oakmont's.

One wonders both how and why that happened so completely at Oakmont, and also apparently happened so long ago.

There's no question that the club rides the reputation and philosophy of W.C. Fownes and will probably continue to, to promote and justify this kind of ethos of extreme difficulty.

Are they historically correct in their estimation of Fownes' philosophy and reputation on architecture and set-up? I'd say from everything I've read and know about W.C. Fownes in this vein that they certainly are.

In some odd way I'm hoping that this 2007 Open at Oakmont will be perceived somehow more as "Oakmont's Open" than just the USGA's Open at Oakmont.

And if that happens we will all be in a most interesting position to see where the chips fall, so to speak.

Oakmont's golf course is a very special thing, no question, but it almost seems like something one shouldn't stare at long for fear of getting one's eyes burned.

It may also be about the best outside edge example of my "Big World" theory on golf course architecture---eg that the art form needs some real differences to stay interesting and vibrant---that there should be something out there to suit the tastes of someone!  

My ultimate wish, though, is that during this Open the commentators and particularly the USGA will say over and over and over again that the rest of golf should do what they say and not what they do---and that what they say is to not try to do what we do with everything in a US Open (particularly at Oakmont) with your golf course.