Why do we lovers of strategic courses love Oakmont?

[mike_malone]

 Why don't you share some of that knowledge with Wayne Morrison; he has plenty of space left in his head.

[Brent Hutto]

I agree that Oakmont is a great penal golf course.

If a course is designed to Fownes' dictum of poor shots resulting in irretrieivably lost strokes (the very definition of penal architecture) and if the course is praised for its brilliant implementation of that philosophy then it can only be described as a penal course.

There's a classic group-think mechanism at work here, IMO. Start out by noticing that everyone in certain group loves a certain set of courses. Come up with a label that is supposed to encapsulate the common elements that are loved in those courses ("strategic"). So the label and the courses get interchanged in conversation for a while and pretty soon everyone in the group has a positive association with the mere invocation of the label.

Then a course comes along that doesn't fit the mould but is loved anyway. To describe Oakmont as a great "strategic" course removes any possible utility from the word yet most members of this forum really appreciate it. Inevitably someone will declare that the label "strategic" must apply because that's the word we have for courses that fit our group-think mould. The syllogism goes something like:

a) We like great strategic courses
b) We like Oakmont
c) Therefore Oakmont is a great strategic course

Some of our well-educated bretheren no doubt learned a label for this particular fallacy in their rhetoric classes, I've not much of a memory of Latin phrases but I recognize a bogus line of reasoning when I see it.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, with a course like Oakmont that really does have those in-line "distance" strategies one needs to be very careful with a design like that when doing things like adding tee length.

Generally, the way that course was designed a well struck and accurate driver tee shot can skate by and past the really penal flanking bunkers and hazard schemes.

But if they add too much length to any of those holes they can create sometihng of a strategic "disconnect" that way.

I feel they have probably done that on the 7th hole. That tee is just too far back there now to allow even a long player to get it past those flanking fairway bunkers.

On the other hand the new bunker (not original) within the fairway about fifty yards short of the 2nd green is a brilliant addition on that hole----a hole that does not have any capacity to add tee length.

[TEPaul]

Brent:

Regarding Oakmont, I don't agree with your post or your logic in it at all.

It appears that you merely think any of this stuff just turns on the definitions of various words, such as strategic or penal.

Oakmont in a strategic sense turns on the unique "distance" strategies of its design.

If the design of the course offered a golfer no ability to skate a well struck and well placed driver PAST most of the penal flanking hazards and bunker features I would not say what I am saying about Oakmont and its unique "distance strategic" makeup.

[Rich Goodale]

Brent:

Regarding Oakmont, I don't agree with your post or your logic in it at all.

It appears that you merely think any of this stuff just turns on the definitions of various words, such as strategic or penal.

Oakmont in a strategic sense turns on the unique "distance" strategies of its design.

If the design of the course offered a golfer no ability to skate a well struck and well placed driver PAST most of the penal flanking hazards and bunker features I would not say what I am saying about Oakmont and its unique "distance strategic" makeup.

So, Tom, exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Brent Hutto]

Tom,

Well, all right then. Just be careful out there skating the edges of those definitions. A argument poorly made should be an argument irretrievably lost, you know.  

[TEPaul]

Brent:

The argument that Oakmont is in fact a inline "distance" strategic design is not poorly made. It's the absolute truth and if one plays it enough or studies it carefully it's definitely not hard to figure out.

Frankly, it's probably the reason that long hitting (and accurately) driver reliant Angel Cabrera won the 2007 US Open.

[JohnV]

Doesn't the penal nature of certain features of a course cause you to adopt a strategic approach?  After all, if there were no penal features, why would you have to play strategically?

For example, if I can hit the ball over a bunker and gain a better angle to a hole, shouldn't the bunker, by nature, be penal in order to make me think about that approach vs alternatives or I would always give it a go as there would be nothing to lose.

Having watched 10 players up close playing Oakmont last week, I can say that the only hole where they all hit the same club from the tee was #7, where all of them hit driver.  Even the par 5s had some players who knew they couldn't get there in two hitting 3 wood.   I was surprised by the number of irons or hybrids I saw hit on long holes like 1, 9 and 15.  18 was all drivers or 3 woods.

Moving the tees up on #2 on Saturday and Sunday led to three different plays from the four players I had.  One drove it into the greenside bunker (and it looked like he was aiming there), two more laid up short of the center bunker, one with a 3-wood and one with an iron and the fourth player laid back to where the usual layup from the back of the tee was to the left of the first bunkers with a very short iron, possibly a 7 or 8.

With the tees back on Friday and Saturday, 5 of 6 laid up to that spot, while the other took driver and hit it just short of the center bunker.  He was 9 over starting that day and played more agressively trying to make some birdies.

[TEPaul]

On the other hand, I certainly will admit that an inline "distance" strategic design like Oakmont's is inherently nowhere near as democratic a design or as much of an all accomodating strategic design as most of the best "directional" strategic designs of this world.

The reason for that is pretty obvious---eg the best of the "directional" strategic designs allow ALL golfers of any level the options of using directional choice that suites their abilities.

The fact is with an inline "distance" strategic design like Oakmont's many to most golfers simply aren't capable of hitting the ball far enough to take advantage of its best strategic rewards way down those fairways.

I'm quite sure this fact was not at all lost on either Fownes. However, the point is they designed this course to be a championship test for good players just as George Crump did at Pine Valley.

They were not necessarily concentrating on accomodating golfers of lesser skill or ability.

I realize a lot of golf architecture analysts both past and present have a real problem with this kind of championship design but the fact is the likes of H.C. and W.C Fownes and George Crump simply did not have a problem with it.

That fact alone, in my opinion, makes these types of golf courses and designs, particularly from the old days, extremely interesting in the history and evolution of golf course architecture in America.

This was just part of the "Big World" theory even back then, I guess.

[Sean_A]

Generally, the way that course was designed a well struck and accurate driver tee shot can skate by and past the really penal flanking bunkers and hazard schemes.
/quote]

Tom P

Have you had your coffee this this am?  Isn't the above true for any course - penal or not?  

So far as I understand it, strategic courses are those in which many of the shots which are hit can be played short, long, right, left, in between or over hazards (or any trouble so far as I am concerned).  Now, I am not saying that all six options need to be available for all shots, but a good selection of them should be available for most shots.  I don't see how a course with flanking bunkers on both sides of the fairway and greens for a majority of the holes can be called strategic.  On the continuum of strategy, with 0 being no strategy (no such thing really) and 10 being maximum strategy (again, no such thing), where do you place Oakmont?  I can't see it being higher than 5 and thats generous.  

Once again, its ok to like a course which is penal.  There are plenty of excellent penal courses about.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Sean, you kind of had me till you chose the numbering thing.

If a "penal" (in the strict architectural definition of the word) course results in a great deal of thought about shot placement, I think it deserves a far higher number than a 5.

I find it wonderfully ironic - but also extremely revealing - that a course designed around the original architectural definition of penal results in a very strategic course (Rich, ignore the anthropomorphism, please).

Maybe everyone needs to give more thought to what it truly means to be penal, and what the resulting course can offer.

Brent, the only group think present is the recognition of the thoughtful play that Oakmont requires. Strictly applying labels is far closer to group think than recognition of what actually works, imho.

[TEPaul]

"Isn't the above true for any course - penal or not?"

No it is not. Not in my experiences.

On far too many golf courses, particularly of the modern age style, there really isn't much strategy to think about. The idea is to just hit tee shots out into fairly unencumbered LZs with not much risk other than a really wide drive right or left.

If you look carefully at Oakmont's design, for a number of reasons including topography one pretty much needs to run a distance gauntlet and get past it for the maximum reward in less distance for the following shot.

One can lay short of that gauntlet to be left with a really long next shot (which surprisingly or ironically some of the holes like #1, #10, #12 (without that last fairway bunker) and #15 accomodate) or one can compromise and hit something really accurately right into that gauntlet. But almost always the high risk, high reward long and accurate driver can skate past those gauntlets.

Perhaps that just doesn't occur to you, Sean, with Oakmont. If not I guess I need to ask you if you've ever played it. If you have I think it wouldn't be hard to tell what I mean.

The course is so different that way from most all other modern age courses of which I'm aware or familiar with that have various flanking hazards that just aren't so well thought out in distance, directional or topographical placement as Oakmont's.  

[Brent Hutto]

So take everybody's favorite strategic tee shot, a long hole with a lake to left of the fairway and a left-curving shoreline. You can bite off as little or as much as you like but if you come up short on whatever line you choose you're in the drink. If there is acres of fairway to the right you can play it safe and completely avoid coming close to the water at the expense of making the hole play much longer. And a properly placed bunker up by the green can enforce an additional cost of playing safely to the right. Strategic as hell.

Now let's make that fairway just 18 yards wide by installing five inches of bluegrass rough with a curving border that parallels the shoreline of the hazard. So you now have to pick the line on which you want to carry the hazard but if you hit it 20 yards too far right or 30-40 yards too long you're in the rough and have to chip out. In my estimation that hole is penal as hell with that rough.

The fact that there's a "strategic" decision to be made is trumped by the fact that a difficult shot must be perfectly and expertly executed in order to avoid a stroke or more penalty for being slightly off-line or off-distance. I like and understand Tom P's addition of Strategic Distance Control to our arsenal of concepts. However, a thoroughly implemented set of ubiquitous penal features represents Rock to the Scissors of strategy.

[George Pazin]

However, a thoroughly implemented set of ubiquitous penal features represents Rock to the Scissors of strategy.

Again, I disagree entirely with this premise, at least the feelings that it implies.

You seem to be repeatedly saying, by definition, penal courses cannot be strategic. Yet, everyone who has played and/or seen Oakmont seems to agree that Oakmont requires a great deal of thought to play.

That seems like a mighty narrow definition of strategy, to me.

[Brent Hutto]

I find it wonderfully ironic - but also extremely revealing - that a course designed around the original architectural definition of penal results in a very strategic course (Rich, ignore the anthropomorphism, please).

George, I think labels can be perfectly useful tools. If we can just say "penal" instead of quoting Fownes' entire catch phrase that really streamlines the discussion. But if Oakmont is a strategic course rather than a penal one then in fact there are no great penal golf courses at all and the label should be retired altogether.

Here's my repsonse to Tom's, John's and George's invocation of various wrinkles on the label "strategy". In as much as you consider it "strategy" to hit the ball to a spot that Fownes would consider to be a well played shot, that's not a strategy it's just perfect execution. And in as much as you consider it "strategy" to lay up short of the most penal features, you're simply chickening out and if Fownes had suspected that an elite player would do that he would have dug a bunker there.

Consider this with regard to long holes (and I think this might fit at Hoylake as well as Oakmont). Distance is not just off the tee. Fownes wanted the long holes to force the player to hit a long tee shot extremely accurately with extreme penalties for misaim or mishit shots. Some modern players can lay back short of the "gauntlet" and still reach and hope to hold the green from there. Hitting 250-yard iron shots on approach is a form of bomb-and-gouge just as surely as hitting 320-yard driver shots off the tee. Is it possible we mistake a capability not forseen by the designer of the course for clever "strategy"?

P.S. George, I think a penal course by my definition would still require careful consideration to play. If there is little room for error and severe penalties for small misses then you'd better be darned sure you're choosing the lowest risk shot that will find a playable spot. Great stategic design allows you to think your way to a better score. Great penal design demands that you think correctly to avoid a worse score.

[TEPaul]

"Once again, its ok to like a course which is penal.  There are plenty of excellent penal courses about."

Brent:

Once again, that type of remark and thought process is not very useful, in my opinion. All it really tries to do, it seems, is easily fit most any golf course into a few easily explained categories.

The architecture and inherent design of an Oakmont is not given the justice it deserves by just easily fitting it into one or two categories.

There were once upon a time some really penal golf courses and designs, particularly inline penal (perpindicular penal features). Today, many golf courses, particularly some of the modern age ones, just aren't particularly penal or strategic. Basically they just don't require much thought or descision making of direction or distance, they merely require a golfer to hit the ball into relatively generous LZs.

And if for some reason they don't do that they are almost automatically and directly (not indirectly) penalized somehow.

Frankly, that latter type of which there are so many, I wouldn't exactly call penal or strategic. I'd be more inclined to just call them fairly uninteresting, or even boring.

[George Pazin]

Here's my repsonse to Tom's, John's and George's invocation of various wrinkles on the label "strategy". In as much as you consider it "strategy" to hit the ball to a spot that Fownes would consider to be a well played shot, that's not a strategy it's just perfect execution. And in as much as you consider it "strategy" to lay up short of the most penal features, you're simply chickening out and if Fownes had suspected that an elite player would do that he would have dug a bunker there.

This is where we have a disconnect: you are entirely wrong if you think that's the only element at play at Oakmont, and that is why I think your labelling is highly misleading.

[Brent Hutto]

Tom P,

That last quote was from Sean not me but since I agree with it completely, for my part there's no harm done.

George,

For the best of the guys playing last week there were certainly strategic choices in play at various points around the course (on various days depending on tee and hole locations). Granted. So even a Great Penal Course (tm) can be set up so as to offer some strategy.

I still maintain that there were many holes at Oakmont last week that were pure tests of execution. To me, those are the holes that I envision when I hear the famous Fownes phrase quoted. Hit your tee shot to smallish safe areas and avoid the gauntlet of bunkers and rough. From there try to hold a devilishly sloping green, perhaps with a half-blind shot, and avoid an unplayable miss in the rough (occasionally bunker). Test of execution, high penalties for failure, that's penal golf architecture.

So here's my point. For those holes, with that setup, meeting the very definition of penal design...that trumps strategy. You can have penal bunkers or penal hazards in order to enforce a strategic hole design. Lots of courses do that, even some holes at Oakmont do that. And the instances at Oakmont are brilliantly done. But what Oakmont also has are flat out penal holes and that is why Oakmont is more famous than a dozen other tough courses we might name.

And there's nothing wrong with being famous for flat-out penal design.

[TEPaul]

"In as much as you consider it "strategy" to hit the ball to a spot that Fownes would consider to be a well played shot, that's not a strategy it's just perfect execution. And in as much as you consider it "strategy" to lay up short of the most penal features, you're simply chickening out and if Fownes had suspected that an elite player would do that he would have dug a bunker there."

Brent:

That is just such a total rationalization on your part and if you are even half using your head you'd understand both that it is and why it is.

Try to give a unique architect like Fownes and Oakmont a bit more credit than that.

If Fownes really did only intend to one dimensionally REQUIRE that all golfers particularly good ones ALWAYS must use the maximum distance club with no possibility of the option of laying back then he probably would have put nothing but bunkers and hazard features in the shorter landing areas.

But he didn't do that did he?  

Perhaps you should just try to understand better why he didn't instead of torturing every explanation just to fit it into what you think should be easy definitions of only two categories of architecture.

[Sean_A]

Tom & George

Let me describe two holes.  

A. A 400 yard hole which has a bunker 230 yards off the tee (say 240 to carry) in the middle of the fairway (which slopes to the right) with say a 40 yard gap to the left leaving the player an approach over a left greenside bunker to access the flag - the further left one goes the worse the angle.  There is also a gap to the right say 20 yards wide which offers a clear approach to the green - the further right one is the better the angle.  

B. A 400 yard hole with with 3 bunkers down the left rough at 220 yards and 4 down the right rough at 245 yards.  The fairway is 30 yards wide and slopes the same amount right as Hole A.  The further right the player is the better the angle to skirt two greenside bunkers that are right centre.  There are also 3 bunkers on the left side of the green starting 20 yards short of the green.  

Both holes have the same angle off the tee.  Forget all this talk of thinking (we have to think on each and every shot), which hole presents the most options?  

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

TomP,

Well, it was my intent to allow for the possiblity that something other than a long driver shot can comprise what I called a "well played shot". As I said, if the hole demands that you hit it straight and hit it 260 yards and you damned sure better make sure you don't hit it 265 then a player hitting that spot with a 3-iron is executing perfectly and deserves a playable shot at the green.

What would make that "penal" and not "strategic" by my definition is if a straight 265-yard shot or a slightly crooked 260-yard one means pitching out of an unadvancable lie in bunker or rough. I appreciate the fact that Oakmont places great demands on choosing and achieving good distance control as well as fine directional control. In as much as it does that (plus has some excellent half-shot holes to boot) it is certainly far superior to other one-dimensional (i.e. hit it long and straight, period) Open/PGA setups.

[EDIT] And with that...I'm out. Gotta get at least a half-days work done today so I can't keep speed-typing in this fascinating thread. Y'all have fun.

[George Pazin]

And there's nothing wrong with being famous for flat-out penal design.

But there is something wrong in missing the finer points of a course.

Oakmont is not famous because it's the best penal design. It's famous because it is a fantastically interesting and challenging golf course.

I shouldn't really be participating, either, I have 2 guys on vacation, so I'll try to catch up later as well.

[Sean_A]

And there's nothing wrong with being famous for flat-out penal design.

But there is something wrong in missing the finer points of a course.

Oakmont is not famous because it's the best penal design. It's famous because it is a fantastically interesting and challenging golf course.

I shouldn't really be participating, either, I have 2 guys on vacation, so I'll try to catch up later as well.

George

I have no problem with this.  However, it doesn't mean the course isn't penal.  Besides, isn't "challenging" code for tough and "tough" code for penal?  I still think you and Tom are hung up on the term penal and perhaps assuming the term implies Oakmont is inferior or something similar.  That is not at all what I am getting at.  

I am only trying to differentiate between strategic and penal.  If you like, you can think of it as a continuum, but where a course places on the continuum doesn't imply quality so far as I am concerned.  The continuum sorts and categorizes courses for ease of conversation - of course there is nothing which is black and white and the best courses have elements up and down the continuum.  Again, if we are gonna say Oakmont is primarily strategic, then the term strategic has no meaning across the board.

Ciao    

[George Pazin]

Pulling me back in....

I'd say it's you and Brent who are hung up on the term penal, and that calling Oakmont strategic in no way diminishes the term, but rather enhances it. It in no way renders it meaningless, imho.

Now I gotta go get some stuff done!

[TEPaul]

"Both holes have the same angle off the tee.  Forget all this talk of thinking (we have to think on each and every shot), which hole presents the most options?"

Sean:

I'm a big believer in the more reasonable, effective and functional options a hole has the better it probably is. That's why I'm so fond of a hole like Riviera's #10 that has a series of both distance and direction options and choices, most all of which are frequently used by golfers. On the other hand, I think a course needs some balance from holes of multiple options like that. If any course had 18 holes with as many distance and direction options as Riviera's 10th it would probably just wear out any golfer.

But this subject and this discussion about Oakmont or even about what's strategic is not really about how MANY or how MULTIPLE the options of the holes of the course are, it's about what the options of Oakmont's holes ARE, and if they constitute choices (options).  

When I see a course that has little in the way of interesting options or choices I say the course isn't very interesting and not very strategic although it surely could be penal.

Oakmont, however, is not a course devoid of interesting options and choices at all and that's why I call it a strategic course, albeit it of an interesting and unique type---eg "distance" options, not really "directional" options.

This is certainly not to say that Oakmont isn't also very effective at penalizing players of all abilities. But that fact does not at all mean that it isn't a course that also offers them interesting choices (options), particularly in distance risk and reward.