Why do we lovers of strategic courses love Oakmont?

[TEPaul]

"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. "

Sean:

Not at all. I don't think George or I are hung up on anything, certainly including hung-up on some exact definitions of terms like penal and strategic, at least the way you and Brent seem to be trying to define them or use them.

I think you and Brent, however, certainly are hung up on those terms or how to use them.

I'm certainly not saying that a course like Oakmont or Pine Valley or even Merion East isn't extremely penalizing in various ways.

That however, does not at all mean that those courses and their architecture cannot also be very strategic.

It seems the two of you are trying to make the point that penal and strategic need to be somehow completely mutually exclusive from one another. Or you are trying to get us to admit that it must be that way.

That is just not the case. I, for one, do not believe that. If that's what you're saying I don't agree with either of you at all.

It's certainly possible to have a golf course and architecture that's highly strategic (optional choices) and not much in the way of instant and direct penalty.

And it's certainly more than possible to have a golf course and architecture that is almost exclusively penal with no real choices or options, only one dimensional shot requirements that offer no thoughtful CHOICES, only one dimensional physical demand execution.

That to me, is not strategic architecture, although offering a few holes like that on a great golf course I do not view as bad at all. Frankly, I view holes like that as interesting architectural variety and shot value balance. Holes like Merion's great 18th is not a strategic hole in that there really aren't any shot options or choices on the tee, simply a very high risk one dimensional shot requirement.

Trying to define Oakmont as just penal or strategic without any of the other does not describe the architecture of Oakmont very well, in my opinion.

It seems you two are just trying to describe it one way or with just one term and i don't think one can do that with Oakmont.

Saying a course like Oakmont is extrememly "challenging" or "Tough" means it has to be strictly penal and not at all strategic does not work for me either, so I don't agree with your "code" word analogy either.

I think all these tortured analogies and rationales on your part are merely an attempt to prevail in some debating context.

I think a debate judge at this point should tell you to get back on the subject of Oakmont's architecture and whether it has interesting choices and options and off the subject of some precise definitions for the terms penal and strategic to make them appear mutually exclusive. That's not exactly the subject of this thread anyway.

[Garland Bayley]

Shades of grey!

Oakmont is not a completely penal golf course. A completely penal golf course would force carries on every shot over the most score ruinous feature  such as OB, water, and bunkers.

A strategic gem like Sand Hills is probably not a completely strategic golf course. There has to be at least one or to penal shots out there.

However, Sand Hills allows strategic decisions of all dimensions. Oakmont restricts those dimensions more than Sand Hills. Therefore Sand Hills is more strategic than Oakmont.

Oakmont puts more penalties from bunkers in play than Sand Hills does. Therefore, Oakmont is more penal than Sand Hills.

I hope that this demonstrates that there is a continuum of penalty and strategy. When evaluating you have to decide what level of each you will accept and how much they counterbalance each other in determining greatness.

The excellent golfers of Oakmont prefer a higher degree of penalty. The members of Sand Hills probably prefer a higher degree of strategy. I hope no one prefers the complete absence of both.

Another way to look at this is slope rating. There is a whole continuum of slope ratings for golf courses. The complete absence of strategy and penalty will probably result in the lowest slope. The total dominance of penalty will probably result in the highest slope. Strategic features will increase slope, but not as much as penal features (therefore Shivas labels strategic courses easy). I will be better able to compete with a lower handicapper at Sand Hills than I will at Oakmont. The members of the respective clubs probably prefer it that way.

In conclusion, I would like to say that both Brent and Tom are correct.

As a caveat, I would like to say I have played none of the courses mentioned.

If any one is curious, I would prefer the course higher on the strategic continuum over one higher on the penal continuum. This lead me to earlier state that Oakmont is a wonderful golf course site, but to me it appears to be an opportunity missed.

EDIT: I guess Tom was composing his last message at the same time I was mine, and we ended up drawing very similar conclusions.