For Serious Discussion Only.....

[paul cowley]

I feel that this past week of viewing Oakmont has made an impression on many....Tiger has even expressed that the course will have an effect on what he might NOT do as part of his designs in the future.

So.....what are some of the impressions you have come away with this past week?


I will go first, but I also want to moderate.
If I feel a response is not genuine or serious, I will reply with a 'Ding!'....after which you are expected to drop out of the thread.

OK Gents, lets go....

I think that by utilizing similar strategies, combined with widening the fairways, or even eliminating the rough altogether, and getting the greens to roll at about 9.5....you could create an ideal challenge for the masses.
I might leave out the church pews and make the bunker depths a little less penal, but overall I think there is something about Oakmont that I will try to effect on some of my designs in the future.

[Willie_Dow]

Maybe this is why I like to think back to playing with hickories.

[paul cowley]

I feel that this past week of viewing Oakmont has made an impression on many....Tiger has even expressed that the course will have an effect on what he might NOT do as part of his designs in the future.

So.....what are some of the impressions you have come away with this past week?


I will go first, but I also want to moderate.
If I feel a response is not genuine or serious, I will reply with a 'Ding!'....after which you are expected to drop out of the thread.

OK Gents, lets go....

I think that by utilizing similar strategies, combined with widening the fairways, or even eliminating the rough altogether, and getting the greens to roll at about 9.5....you could create an ideal challenge for the masses.
I might leave out the church pews and make the bunker depths a little less penal, but overall I think there is something about Oakmont that I will try to effect on some of my designs in the future.

Ding!

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul,

Oakmont-Lite?

I guess you just felt compelled to "ding" yourself.

Peter  

[Mark Bourgeois]

I haven't watched much, so forgive me if this is off base: driveable par 4s aren't just "fun," they're a valid strategy for championship golf and for every level of player. (Might even include the eighth in this category!)

What does it say when "the world's toughest course" has a few of these things?

[paul cowley]

Oakmont Lite....that's a good one Peter ...and the gist of what might be good for the more average club memberships needs.

We seem to get very few requests to build courses 'just like Oakmont'.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

There are definitely a few characteristics and architectural features of Oakmont you have to see up close.

When I looked at those drainage ditches again, I definitely thought of you and there is no question you need to see the 1st and 10th and particularly the 12th greens to completely understand what I was talking about in Maryland (4th).

#1 and #10 definitely just run with the way the land was but #12 despite really running away and down to the right actually needed to be built up some in the back in original construction just to make it playable.

Why don't we just cruise out there? We need to stop at Bedford Springs too because there's an up-tier on the back of #6 green (and old Ross green) that's gently concave to the line of approach and that's the very thing that needs to be built into Maryland's #1 to complete the strategic tee shot and approach shot concept of that hole.

I'm sorry to be so sure of myself but that's just the way it is.  

[paul cowley]

I will be there next Tues and Wed. stop....need direction. stop....lets do one. stop....can't wait. stop.

[paul cowley]

I will be there next Tues and Wed stop....need direction stop....lets do one stop....can't wait stop.

Ding.........Dong!  [I have a problem with Moderation]

Any other impressions out there?

[George Pazin]

If you're serious about coming, let me know, I'll provide directions all the way from Georgia!

There's a lot to learn, you just need to know where to look.

1, 10, and 12 are all fascinating examples of how to utlize a downslope without resorting to the drop shot par 3 that exists on so many thousands of courses.

There are plenty of half par holes.

#2 has to be the toughest 350 yard hole in America.

3's greensite is phenomenal.

17 is wonderful.

18 is a brutal bear finish, but a thoughtful one, I believe.

The unfortunate thing is that what most people will take from the test is that penal rough is the defining characteristic of Oakmont (and virtually all US Open venues), especially with Phil's problems.

The entire course builds on the thought process of how do you really minimize your score.

[Adam Clayman]

I love the angles created off some of the tees and the varied shapes of the greens surfaces, as well as the way the green is an extension of the fairway on many holes. With wonderful terrain, and those well gaurded greens, it does seem a shame to cover it all up with long rough. I feel the same way about Prairie Dunes, so what the heck do I know?

Andy North did make an interesting comment about the tree removal. He said something along the lines of how driving the ball is now more difficult because the tree lined version made it easier by telling the golfer where to drive the ball. Now without the defined corridors, the golfer is less confident on exactly where to place their tee shot. Sounds alot like the reason there should be no rough at ANGC.

[paul cowley]

George...you're right, one really has to see it in person. I almost made it this week, but had a Cabo conflict....my unavoidable loss.

I find the half pars and short fours most intriguing, as they are  becoming more important in my own design philosophy

[TEPaul]

I ran into Forrest Richardson this week in Pittsburgh (Man alive does that guy need to develop a sense of humor---he is just so super serious ).

Anyway out of his bag of tricks came some copies of a really interesting Oakmont course drawing from 1939 by Jack Snyder.

I was pretty surprised to see that Oakmont's #1 back then was the same distance it is now---482 yards but back then it was a par 5!

That I never knew. I thought Oakmont's #1 was always a long par 4 opener.

On the other hand, #10 back in 1939 was a 461 yard PAR 4!

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul
not so much an impression as a question:

It seems to me that Oakmont isn't an ideal venue for match play. It strikes me as the ultimate stroke play design.

Why would I be thinking that? (I have no idea.) Am I way off- base there?

Peter  

[paul cowley]

Adam....the rough concerns me too, as I am generally not a  proponent of its use strategically. I would rather see a hole work well for other reasons.

How would an absence of rough affect the scores of those playing the course today?

[George Pazin]

Peter, I think it's even better as a match play venue, as one does not tend to get caught up in total score relative to par.

And there's just nothing like seeing a par 5 routinely won with par, and sometimes even bogey, as 12 did repeatedly during the 2003 Amateur.

There's so many half par holes that it's almost unusual to halve a hole with someone. Someone always seems to be gaining or losing.

[JohnV]

On the other hand, #10 back in 1939 was a 461 yard PAR 4!

#15 was a 475 yard par 4 and 18 was 473 par 4.

The course was only about 249 yards shorter than it is at the US Open.  It was a par 72 while it is a par 70 this week and par 71 for member play.

[Greg Beaulieu]

I'm probably not qualified to comment since I'm not an architect nor (at this stage of my life with injuries) a very good player. But you asked for impressions so I'll give you mine.

I love the look of the course as I see it on television. I think removing the trees was a wonderful thing. I recall watching the '94 Open and thinking that the trees made it just too claustrophobic.

Without trees I suppose the rough needs to be more penal. But I know I couldn't play out of that rough and I wonder how many players can. If we are talking about impressions of a course where average players will play, I would think the rough would need to be reduced somewhat.

The church pews and other bunkers don't bother me. The pews could be considered gimmicky but I like them for some reason.

The greens don't bother me either. I like fast greens and the contours of these, while extreme, still seem to allow a thinking person to play them.

The main thing that would concern me -- and I can't speak to this without having been there -- is whether the design allows someone like me to have a reasonable attempt at par if played from the appropriate set of tees. A course here (Glen Arbour) has a hole that illustrates what I think is an example of not offering a reasonable chance. The par-5 6th has an "environmental hazard" (a wetland) spanning an area extending about 190 to 160 yards from the green. The approach shot is sharply uphill. Hence the hole requires me to hit a career drive and a career second shot to clear the hazard to leave me with a feasible chance to hit the green in regulation. I'm not very good at 200-yard uphill shots from a downhill lie. For a tour (or even a single-digit handicap) player this hole would not offer much difficulty but for ones like me it is a par-6.

Too many holes like this, along with the inevitable lost balls from the penal rough, would make the course one to avoid for someone like me. But if it offers me a chance to play then I'm sure I would enjoy it. I don't dislike tough courses, just ones that make me feel overmatched because of excessively penal design.

[paul cowley]

John....you seem to be there...how much lower do you think scoring would be this week if Oakmont was mowed the way Augusta National used to be?.....no rough.

Around par maybe?

[JohnV]

Paul,

I don't know, the players would play it so differently and the course was never designed to be played without rough.  The interesting thing is how many players I've seen get themselves in more trouble by hitting irons or hybrids off the tee into the rough than when they hit driver.

I was with Lee Westwood and Anthony Kim yesterday here is a recap of their tee shots on the non-par 3 holes:

1 Kim - iron to left rough, Westwood - driver to left edge of fairway
2 Kim - Driver to greenside bunker, Westwood driver short of center bunker
3 Kim - Driver to middle of FW, Westwood Driver to middle of FW
4 Kim - Driver to church pews, Westwood Driver to middle
5 Kim - Iron to left rough, Westwood, hybrid to right FW bunker
7 Kim - Driver to fairway, Westwood Driver to Fairway
9 Kim - Driver to fairway, Westwood Driver to Fairway
10 Kim - Iron to right FW Bunker, Westwood, 3-wood to right Lateral WH
11 Kim - Iron to left rough, standing in bunker, Westwood hybrid to left FW bunker
12 Kim - Driver to FW, Westwood Driver to FW
14 Kim - Iron to FW, Westwood Iron to FW
15 Kim - Iron to mini-church pews, Westwood Driver just off right FW in first cut
17 Kim & Westwood went for green with driver.  Kim hit it, Westwood trickled off into rough left of green
18 Kim - Driver to first bunker on left, Westwood driver to second bunker on left

Look how many times they got in trouble with irons, hybrids or FW woods vs drivers.

Today I go with Lee Janzen and Nick Dougherty at 1:20.  I'll be interested to see how they play the course.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Other than that ruling with Goosen in the drainage ditch on #10 on Thursday, what kind of rulings have you been involved in with your group's players?

Dougthery looks like he might have a pretty good sense of humor. Why don't you tell him on the first tee you're considering penalizing him at least a shot for a really bad hair week?

Oh, right, DING, DING!

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

I had intended to get to Oakmont this week for some study, because whenever I eventually design a course for the Tour, I figure it will be a great case study.  But I've had to be in Oregon all week working on present contracts instead, and just watching a bit on TV.

At the moment though, I'm not sure that I don't agree with Tiger Woods.  Oakmont is a great test for championship play, but I'm not sure that a lot of people would enjoy the difficulties it presents on a regular basis.

There are a lot of holes I like, the 12th probably most of all.  One I'm not so sure about is the 17th.  What is so good about a driveable par 4 where you can't tell where you are going off the tee?  If it didn't have a lot of deep rough near the green, everybody in the field would be trying to drive it, and most guys would be making 3's and 4's with impunity.

PS to John V:  Thanks for that analysis.  I think you're right, today's players are just as straight with a driver as with a long iron or hybrid (which they don't hit nearly as often), and for most, just pulling one of those out on the tee signals a lack of confidence.

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter, I think it's even better as a match play venue, as one does not tend to get caught up in total score relative to par.

And there's just nothing like seeing a par 5 routinely won with par, and sometimes even bogey, as 12 did repeatedly during the 2003 Amateur.

There's so many half par holes that it's almost unusual to halve a hole with someone. Someone always seems to be gaining or losing.

George - thanks. I defer to your thoughts on this, especially because of your experience with the US Amateur there. I don't exactly know why I can't shake the feeling, though - maybe it's because, in my mind, I think of TOC as a great match play venue, and, in my mind, Oakmont seems such different a course.

Peter  

[paul cowley]

JohnV:

Other than that ruling with Goosen in the drainage ditch on #10 on Thursday, what kind of rulings have you been involved in with your group's players?

Dougthery looks like he might have a pretty good sense of humor. Why don't you tell him on the first tee you're considering penalizing him at least a shot for a really bad hair week?

Oh, right, DING, DING!

Mr Paul....please do not try to usurp my authority.

If you persist you might find yourself in 'time out'.

[TEPaul]

"Mr Paul....please do not try to usurp my authority.
If you persist you might find yourself in 'time out'."


Oooops, excuse moi.

JV, would you mind giving Paul a complete architectural description of that drainage ditch on the right of #10 Goosen hit his ball into?  I want a total and very accurate description of its width, depth and overall length. I want the type of grass and the length of it in that ditch measured too.