Best U.S. Open set-up in memory?

[George Pazin]

I think what I find most fascinating is the many people commenting on the rough, having watched only the TV side, while ignoring the many people who were actually at the event and saw play that wasn't televised, such as the many insights offered by JohnV. I saw people hack out, I saw people go for shots, same as the Amateur in '03. People generally have selective memories, only remembering that which supports their own opinions, imho.

I loved Shinney '04, so my opinion is clearly an outlier! In a perfect world, I'd prefer less rough, but that's not going to happen at any US Open, save possibly Pinehurst Opens, so I won't hold my breath wishing. This was about as close to perfect as I could realistically expect. As I stated on another thread, I think the ability to perfect the setup and perfectly engineer a score is far more difficult than most on here seem to think.

And on a side note, because I never pass up the chance to bash Augusta National , I find it very curious how little talk there is of the people in charge at Oakmont and the consulting architect, Mr. Fazio, while Hootie and the same Mr. Fazio were simply omnipresent before and during Masters time, year in and year out. A clearly different approach, one that I personally prefer greatly.

Lastly, to Sean, if there had been any hint of bad weather in the forecast, the setup folks could've adjusted and kept the course playable. We don't generally get Carnoustie-like wind in the Burgh, but I have no doubt the folks at Oakmont could've adapted if need be.

[George Pazin]

Steve Smyers was not in charge as I understand it. However, he made daily trips out at 4:00-something in the morning when tee and cups were being set, and also participated in meetings about set-up. I think it was a positive leap to involve a golf course architect (and player) in these decisions even if his involvement was a small percentage.

Very interesting. As I'm certain many noticed, Frank Nobilo said on Friday evening that the USGA needed to get a top player to help out in this regard, noting that David Eger used to perform the function better, since he was a better player.

[AndrewB]

ETA: the USGA gives the Cost of Rough numbers for every individual hole, except par 3's, and also the average for all 18.  Lots of variation.  Rough took the lightest toll on 17 (0.261 strokes), 15 (0.331 strokes) and 2 (0.367 strokes).  Rough took the heaviest toll on 18 (0.749 strokes) and 9 (0.748 strokes).  Anyone have ideas why the rough played tougher or easier on these holes?  

The length of the holes and, therefore, the loft of the iron the players are trying to hit out of the rough.  Two and 17 are short, potentially drivable, par fours.  Nine and 18 are very long par fours.

This comment completely ignores the fact that 15 is the longest par four on the course.

[Jordan Wall]

I know I am late in this thread but I really do agree with Ran..strategy was evident throughout, with players hitting irons, drivers, fairway woods, a multitude of clubs, from most tees.  Players constantly using the green slopes to get close to the green, running the ball up was an option, and one used, on longer holes.

It was truly great and fun to watch.

[tlavin]

I think what I find most fascinating is the many people commenting on the rough, having watched only the TV side, while ignoring the many people who were actually at the event and saw play that wasn't televised, such as the many insights offered by JohnV. I saw people hack out, I saw people go for shots, same as the Amateur in '03. People generally have selective memories, only remembering that which supports their own opinions, imho.

I loved Shinney '04, so my opinion is clearly an outlier! In a perfect world, I'd prefer less rough, but that's not going to happen at any US Open, save possibly Pinehurst Opens, so I won't hold my breath wishing. This was about as close to perfect as I could realistically expect. As I stated on another thread, I think the ability to perfect the setup and perfectly engineer a score is far more difficult than most on here seem to think.

And on a side note, because I never pass up the chance to bash Augusta National , I find it very curious how little talk there is of the people in charge at Oakmont and the consulting architect, Mr. Fazio, while Hootie and the same Mr. Fazio were simply omnipresent before and during Masters time, year in and year out. A clearly different approach, one that I personally prefer greatly.

Lastly, to Sean, if there had been any hint of bad weather in the forecast, the setup folks could've adjusted and kept the course playable. We don't generally get Carnoustie-like wind in the Burgh, but I have no doubt the folks at Oakmont could've adapted if need be.

George

I think where we differ is that I saw a truly great setup at Pinehurst (and I likes Shinny too!) and this place has the dreaded trees.  The US Open could and should be an opportunity for the course to shine.  There should be no sideline debate about rough - period.  Let the players play - thats where the entertainment value kicks in.  Otherwise, the US Open is just a freak show for the die hards out there.  

Concerning bad weather - are you telling me the USGA was gonna quickly widen the fairways and/or cut the rough down if harsh weather was predicted?  That would be something to see!

Ciao

Sean,

Cut the rough at Oakmont and the Open becomes just another tournament.  There is just too much history about the penal nature of a US Open setup and if they veer away from it, the jackals will call the course too easy (ref. Medinah and Olympia Fields, to name a couple.).  Oakmont has narrow fairways and a bunch of bunkers.  Oakmont has a great variety of holes that call for all sorts of shots.  But if you cut the rough, the pros would eat it for lunch, just like they eat every other course up.  Whether it's good or bad, the USGA doesn't want to make these guys look good.  They want to test them, to stress them and to distress them.  Without deep rough (on the appropriate course, not Pinehurst which is a different animal), the Open could quick become just another tour event.

[Jim Nugent]

ETA: the USGA gives the Cost of Rough numbers for every individual hole, except par 3's, and also the average for all 18.  Lots of variation.  Rough took the lightest toll on 17 (0.261 strokes), 15 (0.331 strokes) and 2 (0.367 strokes).  Rough took the heaviest toll on 18 (0.749 strokes) and 9 (0.748 strokes).  Anyone have ideas why the rough played tougher or easier on these holes?  

The length of the holes and, therefore, the loft of the iron the players are trying to hit out of the rough.  Two and 17 are short, potentially drivable, par fours.  Nine and 18 are very long par fours.

This comment completely ignores the fact that 15 is the longest par four on the course.

Yes, 15 is the fly in that otherwise neat ointment.  

[Jason Topp]

Kudos as well to the USGA and Oakmont for a job well done.

I have a small bone with the overall nature of the rough -- I wish it would have played as the USGA defined it years ago --the so-called "1/2 shot penalty."

Actually, according to the course statistics, rough was almost exactly a 1/2 shot penalty.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I too think it was a great year for the USGA and the Oakmont Club and team.

[Cliff Hamm]

Cut the rough at Oakmont and the Open becomes just another tournament.  There is just too much history about the penal nature of a US Open setup and if they veer away from it, the jackals will call the course too easy (ref. Medinah and Olympia Fields, to name a couple.).  Oakmont has narrow fairways and a bunch of bunkers.  Oakmont has a great variety of holes that call for all sorts of shots.  But if you cut the rough, the pros would eat it for lunch, just like they eat every other course up.  Whether it's good or bad, the USGA doesn't want to make these guys look good.  They want to test them, to stress them and to distress them.  Without deep rough (on the appropriate course, not Pinehurst which is a different animal), the Open could quick become just another tour event.

In that case the rough negates the architecture of the course.  By narrowing fairways it really doesn't matter what the architect had in mind.  I agree! Let the scores go lower and let the course play as designed.  

BTW one of the interesting comments on the telecast yesterday was that Oakmont was playing .2 shots more difficult for putting than the average tour event (something like 1.95 vs 1.75).  Thus the greens by themselves would account for 3.6 more shots than is typical on tour.  Even if the  fairways were widened a bit Oakmont would remain a formidable test.

I just  checked USOpen.com and Oakmont averaged 1.75 putts per hole.  Don't believe everything you hear, especailly from NBC

[tlavin]

Cliff,

I don't know that growing the rough negates the architecture; they are just making that which is already penal more penal for their championship. Same for narrowing the fairways.  It's always speculative to wonder what the original architect would think about the modern tournament setup of his original layout, but in the case of Fownes, a well-chronicled golf sadist, methinks he'd be pleased!

[jim_lewis]

Please know that I am a big fan of Oakmont and consider it to be one of the 5 or 6 best courses in America. I am not suggesting that the rough be cut down very much, just to maybe 3-4 inches. Whatever it takes to create the following situation. On a long par 4 the player is in the rough 175 yards from the green. He can pitch out to 80 yards and try to make par from there, or he can try to reach the green. The rough is just short enough that with a great shot he can reach the green and have a birdie putt. With anything less than a great shot, he probably misses the green and will likely make a bogey. The shot to the green is tempting, and the odds of success is about 50-50, about the same if he pitches out to the fairway. The difference is that by gambling he introduces the possibility of a birdie and a double bogey. Tough decision.
That's exactly what was accomplished at Pinehurst. I don't think that rough (whatever heigth it takes) will substantially change the final scores. I would like to see the players faced with that tough decision at all Open (and PGA) championships.
Actually, I like that setup everyday at my home club.

Jim Lewis

[Mike_Cirba]

Where's my buddy Huckaby, who asked repeatedly to be shown the greatness that is Oakmont?

I'm wondering if he's still a Doubting Thomas?  

I would agree with most here, but particularly Joe Hancock.   I would have liked to have seen the rough a bit spottier and inconsistent...perhaps less lush, but that's more a matter of weather and agronomics.

All in all, it was the most interesting viewing of golf course architecture on a grand scale in a long, long time.

[Garland Bayley]

...
BTW one of the interesting comments on the telecast yesterday was that Oakmont was playing .2 shots more difficult for putting than the average tour event (something like 1.95 vs 1.75).  Thus the greens by themselves would account for 3.6 more shots than is typical on tour.  Even if the  fairways were widened a bit Oakmont would remain a formidable test.

I just  checked USOpen.com and Oakmont averaged 1.75 putts per hole.  Don't believe everything you hear, especailly from NBC

Cliff,

I believe you got that wrong. The stat quoted as higher on NBC was putts per greens in regulation. Whereas you are reporting putts per green.

[RJ_Daley]

I only just watched a tape of the final.  I'm in the Pinehurst 99 camp.  Is Oakmont the best set-up in memory?  It is just a matter of taste I guess.  I beleive the crew did the best set-up according to the desires of the USGA committee.  I believe they delivered the best course in what was asked of them, in memory.  

But, at the end of the day, I'll go with those that would have liked to either see a bit more width in the first cut of rough at 2" or what ever it was. (maybe 6-8ft on each side)  Or, a few more FW bunkers cut within the mowing line of FW. That would be enough to make the approaches to those remarkable greens slightly dicey but encourage them to go agressive and hit a golf shot.  Then another cut 3-4" 8-10ft or so wide for second cut also a bit wider and still a lure to go agressive and hit a remarkable golf shot.  Then let them go nuts with the outer rough where undeniably no one should go.  If the 3-4 inch stuff would have been where Furyk hit his tee on 17, rather than what looked like 8" and totally thick and lush, he'd have had an honest but difficult chance.  I really didn't like to see the tournament coming down to a stupid stick your wedge into the ground stab that he on his third or Tiger needed after getting out of the bunker pretty well on 17.  That wasn't a golf shot in my opinion.  It was a crap shoot.

I guess in hindsight, Furyk and Woods very well may have tied Cabrera with a 6 or 5 iron off the 17 tee and loft a wedge on the green for a realistic putt at birdie.  So, they do have themselves to blame as much as the overly penal rough that they both knew was left, or the strategy of it is OK in the bunker, only to blast out with a pretty nice shot and run off into an overly lush collar.  

Cabrera was a good champion, and played the same course they did.  He deserved it.

I still would rather watch an Open on proper links than a grinder, penal rough decided U.S.G.A. mentality set-up.  

[Tim Pitner]

Cut the rough at Oakmont and the Open becomes just another tournament.  There is just too much history about the penal nature of a US Open setup and if they veer away from it, the jackals will call the course too easy (ref. Medinah and Olympia Fields, to name a couple.).  Oakmont has narrow fairways and a bunch of bunkers.  Oakmont has a great variety of holes that call for all sorts of shots.  But if you cut the rough, the pros would eat it for lunch, just like they eat every other course up.  

I'm not so sure about that.  My sense is that if you widened the fairways some, and cut the rough some, Oakmont would still be a very tough golf course.  -5 might win instead of +5, but that would be alright with me.  

I don't really care for the graduated rough, certainly not from an aesthetical perspective.  I understand the thinking behind it, but I'd rather see less cuts of rough--maybe two instead of three.  

[Garland Bayley]

I believe I have come to the opinion that Oakmont was an opportunity missed. The telecast showed the nature of the contours of the land (which are outstanding) much more than the still pictures we have seen here. I would prefer a different course there, but that is only my preference and others are welcome to disagree.

The discussion of the penal nature of the rough calls to mind the hazards that are supposed to be penal, the bunkers. It would appear that the fairway bunkers were quite penal too. Therefore, it would seem that golf at Oakmont is much more about the line of instinct than the line of charm. Bunkers (and rough) there are to be avoided by following the line of instinct for the most part. If the bunkers were on the line of instinct, then the job would be to find the line of charm, and one would hope that the rough would not serve as a huge impediment in doing so. But since the bunkers were at the sides, as was the rough, after further reflection I have come to the surprising conclusion that the penal rough suits Oakmont just fine. And, if that is what the USGA wants for its open, then they should return to Oakmont more often.

Oakmont will never be mistaken for a St. Andrews.

[RJ_Daley]

Also, I do believe strictly on the architecture, Oakmont is great.  As a matter of routing, pace and distance variety of holes as they pop up along the 18 hole journey, how the short and long holes play into the strategy of the full round, when to challenge and when to back a player off, Oakmont is truly a great course.  

I can't imagine how much mental exhaustion must be within the player while being so intensely challenged by every hole at hand, yet never being able to stop the background calculation within your head of what is to come, and where is the proper time to be conservative or agressive.  Oakmont actually has that multiple option off so many tees at such critical junctures, that it is a real puzzle factory for the best players in the world.

[Kalen Braley]

Where's my buddy Huckaby, who asked repeatedly to be shown the greatness that is Oakmont?

I'm wondering if he's still a Doubting Thomas?  

I would agree with most here, but particularly Joe Hancock.   I would have liked to have seen the rough a bit spottier and inconsistent...perhaps less lush, but that's more a matter of weather and agronomics.

All in all, it was the most interesting viewing of golf course architecture on a grand scale in a long, long time.

I'd have to go with Mikes take on this one.  The course looked very nice with that Wow factor, which was much more than I was expecting.  

[George Pazin]

Concerning bad weather - are you telling me the USGA was gonna quickly widen the fairways and/or cut the rough down if harsh weather was predicted?  That would be something to see!

I have no idea how they would've handled. I simply have confidence in Oakmont's crew and their ability to adapt and have the course playable. I believe Terry has indicated the USGA came in and knocked down a good bit of the rough right before the 03 Open at Olympia Fields, which is why it didn't play as tough the first two days and then toughened up over the weekend. Perhaps he can share.

I'd prefer less rough, too, but I don't think it was nearly as bad as some are indicating. As JohnV has related repeatedly, there were golfers wedging out from the rough, and golfers going for the green.

And I would've liked a hair more firmness as well. But after the torrential downpour of criticism following Shinnecock - largely undeserved, imo - I can understand why the USGA was a little gunshy.

I will simply add that cutting the rough would not result in any other tourney. The bunkers, the green complexes and the firmness would provide plenty of challenge.

But I'm satisfied that the setup was about as good as I could hope for.

And Garland, I don't think anyone would ever dream of relating Oakmont and St. Andrews.

Except me!

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

I'm here... and hey, Oakmont's greatness was proven to me in George's series.  I had a little doubt of it before that series, none after its completion.  Nothing I witnessed the last four days changed anything for me.

It is a great, great golf course without a doubt.  It's beastly tough, a perfect site for our national championship.  On top of that it looks like it would be a lot more fun than I thought for an average joe like me to play... assuming correct tees and less than crazy rough.

It's still not better than Pebble Beach though... and I'm sure even George wouldn't expect me to change my tune there.

TH

[Cliff Hamm]

...
BTW one of the interesting comments on the telecast yesterday was that Oakmont was playing .2 shots more difficult for putting than the average tour event (something like 1.95 vs 1.75).  Thus the greens by themselves would account for 3.6 more shots than is typical on tour.  Even if the  fairways were widened a bit Oakmont would remain a formidable test.

I just  checked USOpen.com and Oakmont averaged 1.75 putts per hole.  Don't believe everything you hear, especailly from NBC

Cliff,

I believe you got that wrong. The stat quoted as higher on NBC was putts per greens in regulation. Whereas you are reporting putts per green.

I'm sure you're correct then.  When they made the statement they indicated that it accounted for a 3 shot difference for the round.  It is certainly worth noting that Oakmont's greens, as is well known, are its best defense and the stats would therefore appear to bear that out.

[George Pazin]

It's still not better than Pebble Beach though... and I'm sure even George wouldn't expect me to change my tune there.

Heck, nobody on here changes his mind about anything....

They're both remarkably special places. The fact that Oakmont does it without the ocean and Monterey scenery makes it even more incredible to me, but not necessarily better.

It's the architecture that makes it better.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

I've changed my mind many times about many things in here.  I learn all the time.

And to each his own.  You study architecture, I play golf.

TH

[George Pazin]

You play golf?

Jeez, I just post about it on here, I didn't realize anyone out there actually played.

[Tom Huckaby]

You play golf?

Jeez, I just post about it on here, I didn't realize anyone out there actually played.

Good point.  That is a bit of an exaggeration.  Let's change that to I like to play golf.