News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Peter Pallotta

Oakmont, a bit (more) history
« on: June 05, 2007, 09:49:48 PM »
It’s interesting to me to read the history of a course/the game not as it’s come down to us through later observers but from those writing about it at the time: what was thought important to mention or worthy of praise sometimes is and sometimes isn’t what I’d have expected. Here’s a short bit from an article on the 1919 US Amateur at Oakmont.  

“….There were assembled at Oakmont 136 golfers from all parts of the country, California, Massachusetts, Georgia and Iowa sending their best with the number of golfers who might have a real chance at the title almost negligible.  All but two to our knowledge had taken a round of the course, Messrs. Evans and Gwathmey electing to try their luck at first sight. For the first named the effort met with the expected success, but for the latter, failure was the lot. It would be thus for most golfers since the Oakmont Country Club is a links which needs extensive knowing, familiarity there is the only method in which to breed contempt and there was very little of that during the entire week.

There was good reason. Take a glance at this card of the course which was if anything by no means under-measured.

Out – 482 (5) 363 (4) 428 (4) 516 (5) 371 (4) 172 (3) 370 (4) 233 (3) 462 (5) -3397

In - 461 (5) 365 (4) 601 (5) 164 (3) 349 (4) 420 (4) 266 (3) 282 (4) 442 (4) – 3310

Total: 6707, Par 73

The number of traps on the holes and the narrowness of the fairways made straightness imperative, a feature which was lacking at Detroit, that other extended and lengthy course where the championship in 1915 was played. The average number of bunkers and traps at each hole was in the neighborhood of eight, with some having as many as fifteen, and a few as low as five, these on the short holes. But there was rough everywhere, except in the fairway and it was the intertwining sort which makes it difficult to play a shot any distance. In a word what with the length and the condition and the fact that there were but three mashie shots after drives all the way round, and when the wind blew from a certain quarter there were but two, not counting the short holes of course, it can be said without a shadow of a doubt that there never was a championship in this country held on a course which could be regarded as an equal to Oakmont, which is praise indeed. Whoever was responsible for the excellencies of the course deserves the highest sort of praise, for to the initiated the chances are three to one against even near perfection on courses which are of this length."

Peter
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 10:02:50 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Ryan Farrow

Re:Oakmont, a bit (more) history
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2007, 10:07:19 PM »
Thanks for the post, It would be interesting to see some of the first scorecards for the course when there were par 6's and a lot of other crazy things going on.

Peter Pallotta

Re:Oakmont, a bit (more) history
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2007, 10:25:06 PM »
Ryan
yes, it would. I still found it interesting, though, that in 1919 Oakmont was "set up" to play long, with narrow fairways and gnarly rough....and that, apparently because of that, an observer of the time would say that "without a shadow of a doubt, there never was a championship in this country held on a course which could be regarded as an equal to Oakmont". I just hadn't expected that.

Peter

PS - Walter Travis is the observer/writer - and from what I've read here about his Garden City, it's a much different course than the Oakmont he's praising so highly.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 10:55:00 PM by Peter Pallotta »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Oakmont, a bit (more) history
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2007, 02:39:53 PM »
"The number of traps on the holes and the narrowness of the fairways made straightness imperative.... The average number of bunkers and traps at each hole was in the neighborhood of eight, with some having as many as fifteen, and a few as low as five, these on the short holes. But there was rough everywhere, except in the fairway and it was the intertwining sort which makes it difficult to play a shot any distance."

Peter -

A good working definition of a penal golf course. And the description remains apt, as far as I can tell.

The distance is interesting. Given how far they hit it in 1919, how long would Oakmont have to play today to achieve the same ratio of course distance to average driving distance?

6700/230 = X/290. Solve for X. I get 8,448 yards. An extra 55 yards per hole.

You can quibble with my average driving distances if you want. But however you mess with the numbers you still come up with a much, much longer course than the modern Oakmont.

For example, assume driving distances of 240 (1919; that strikes me as very long for an average in 1919) and 280 (2007), you get a course that has to be 7,816 yards today. That's still about 23 more yards for every hole.

At 7,400 yards, Oakmont plays today as a short course, relative to historical distances and b&I. Let's not get too worked up about how hard Oakmont will play. At least in one respect it is easier. It used to be - effectively - a much longer course.

The wages of failing to regulate balls and clubs.

Bob  

« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 06:19:01 PM by BCrosby »

Peter Pallotta

Re:Oakmont, a bit (more) history
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2007, 06:12:59 PM »
Bob
a good and interesting take. I hadn't thought of it that way, and your 'numbers' make sense to me, and they are telling.

What struck me was how the course appears to have been set up for a modern day US Open, which style of set-up I'd always imagined was born in 1950 or so, with RTJ.  

That period of golf, i.e. 1910-20, seems to have allowed for all sorts of 'streams' and approaches simultaneously.

Peter
Oh, and no mention of the greens or of green speeds (though the latter is not surprising).
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 06:13:55 PM by Peter Pallotta »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Oakmont, a bit (more) history
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2007, 06:48:42 PM »
Peter -

Because of its express penal objectives, Oakmont has always been something of an outlier. Not many courses beat their chests about how their course humbles good players and makes bad players quit the game. Which is refreshing in a way. But that's always been the Oakmont thing.

But let me pose this question: Is there any other top ten course that has had less influence on the development of gca than Oakmont? Other than being the type of course people try not to build? I don't hear about a lot of developers out there trying to sell new courses with the advertising theme -"Designed to humiliate you in the tradition of Oakmont."

Though given all pablum written about new courses, maybe that would separate your project from the crowd. ;)


Bob

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back