[Bill_McBride]

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

This is what just kills me.  Why does Oakmont HAVE to be better than Pebble?  It's just completely different.  I've played several rounds on both, and I wouldn't turn down either and I would make a special trip for either.  Doak 9s?  You bet.  Even in all its brutality, Oakmont is a special course to play.  There is a feeling of vintage golf with the ancient clubhouse, beat up metal lockers and no AC, still have spike marks in the locker room benches.

[Jim Nugent]

I've been pointing out the Cost of Rough stats show about a one-half stroke penalty, on average, at Oakmont.  But that might be misleading, because I bet it includes shots from the 1st cut.  If so, the higher stuff must have cost a lot more.  And I think that's what guys like Ogilvy were talking about.  

Similar to what Sean asked: how would Oakmont play with no rough at all, except maybe in those ditch/hazards?  Would the scores have been a lot lower?  Would the course still challenge the world's best players?  

[Doug Siebert]

Every player would have hit driver on every hole, and there would have been no penalty for being wildly offline.  You really don't think the winner would have been double digits under par if there was no rough at all?

[Glenn Spencer]

They could have played that tournament for a month and I would have watched every minute of it. I thought the course was great. The accentuated ditches from 94 looked very cool to me. I haven't played it, but from TV, #5 was my favorite hole. I disagree about moving tees though, I feel that the course is the course and that is why you play it at that course. Wind, weather, scores are no reason to move tees up in my mind. I think the weather keeps it interesting. 2 was fine. The tee up at 14, I was not a fan of. It can potentially eliminate more players than any other strategy.

[Jim Nugent]

Doug, I don't know the course at all, that's why I asked.  Would more drives go into the ditches?  Would more features of the land come into play?  Would the pro's hit into more fairway bunkers?  Would the ball roll down slopes around more greens, the way they did at number 3?  

How much of Oakmont depends on the heavy rough?  

[George Pazin]

Similar to what Sean asked: how would Oakmont play with no rough at all, except maybe in those ditch/hazards?  Would the scores have been a lot lower?  Would the course still challenge the world's best players?

Every player would have hit driver on every hole, and there would have been no penalty for being wildly offline.  You really don't think the winner would have been double digits under par if there was no rough at all?

I disagree with Doug on this point entirely.

Look at The Masters, pre-2nd cut - they didn't always finish double digits under par, and Oakmont is one of the few places that has green complexes every bit as difficult as Augusta. The bunkering at Oakmont is certainly more penal, and in June it is firm and fast to the extreme. If they chose not to have rough, they could make it even firmer to compensate. This year was only brutally firm on one day, Friday.

Look at the results from the middle of the fairway at this year's Open. I don't know that they compiled anything anywhere, but when they would flash that graphic up with the little balls out in the landing areas, there were always a good percentage of fairway shots that ended up as bogeys or worse.

You wouldn't see the hack-out penalty, of course, but approaching those green complexes from the wrong side is absolutely a penalty.

[JESII]

After watching how intense the greens were and how much undulation the fairways had, all I could think about was the rough - and specifically that they could have lost every bit of it if they wanted.

Remember, they got loads of rain Wednesday afternoon and watered significantly Friday and Saturday night...with no rough and no water noone breaks par, even with no rough at all...especially if the bunkers are a little less maintained...


The trouble is that we're in the real world and the USGA has to set up the course with a real world view...

(1) What if it were an extremely wet spring and early summer?
- Really soft landing areas and greens take the need for control of the driver away in a flash...and I agree with the USGA that the Driver should be a substantial part of the test to find their champion...

[George Pazin]

Sean, I'm not saying they'll do it, or even consider it, I'm simply answering Jim's question about how Oakmont would play sans rough.

We won't know until I convince Mike Keiser to make the 5th course at Bandon an Oakmont replica, sans rough.

[Garland Bayley]

Sean, I'm not saying they'll do it, or even consider it, I'm simply answering Jim's question about how Oakmont would play sans rough.

We won't know until I convince Mike Keiser to make the 5th course at Bandon an Oakmont replica, sans rough.

Please don't destroy our wonderful Oregon coastal landscape with an Oakmont replica.
 

[Tom Huckaby]

To Bill McBride:

Of course Oakmont doesn't have to be better than Pebble, and of course they're both Doak 9's (or higher if one is inspired to hyperbole).

It's just that my friend George and I have been arguing about this for at least 5 years now... he started it, calling Oakmont better than Pebble.  I've been on the defense ever since.


 

[Kalen Braley]

To Bill McBride:

Of course Oakmont doesn't have to be better than Pebble, and of course they're both Doak 9's (or higher if one is inspired to hyperbole).

It's just that my friend George and I have been arguing about this for at least 5 years now... he started it, calling Oakmont better than Pebble.  I've been on the defense ever since.


 

I'd like to know what Oakmonts answer is to the stretch of 4 thru 10 as it follows the coastline all the way down to the furthest point on the property.

[Doug Siebert]

Jim,

I had a lengthy post talking about angles, trees and fairway slope at Oakmont versus ANGC but then I realized it was pretty simple to make my point that Oakmont without rough would have the winner shoot double digits under par.  Just a bit of simple math.

What was the field fairway hit percentage?  I don't know but I'll assume here it was 50%.  I do know that the rough penalty has been listed as .58 strokes.  So if you don't hit the rough those 7 times and incur those 4.06 strokes, then the field average of about 74 strokes goes down to 70.  If the field is averaging par, it sure sounds to me like the winner should be -10 or better.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

I had a lengthy post talking about angles, trees and fairway slope at Oakmont versus ANGC but then I realized it was pretty simple to make my point that Oakmont without rough would have the winner shoot double digits under par.  Just a bit of simple math.

What was the field fairway hit percentage?  I don't know but I'll assume here it was 50%.  I do know that the rough penalty has been listed as .58 strokes.  So if you don't hit the rough those 7 times and incur those 4.06 strokes, then the field average of about 74 strokes goes down to 70.  If the field is averaging par, it sure sounds to me like the winner should be -10 or better.

Maybe it's that simple, maybe not.  Without the rough, where does the ball run to?  Into more fairway bunkers?  Into more of those ditch hazards (where btw the grass should NOT be cut)?  Down more crazy slopes around the greens, making par and sometimes bogey real hard?  Do your tee shots end up at such lousy angles to the greens, it's nearly impossible to hit your approaches to the right spots, thereby guaranteeing more 3-putts?

I don't know, just asking the questions.    

Pinehurst didn't have much rough, as I recall, or at least not much high rough.  Tiger missed lots of fairways, but still hit 75% of the greens there.  Winning score was 280.  Is Pinehurst without rough 10 strokes tougher than Oakmont without rough?  

[George Pazin]

I'd like to know what Oakmonts answer is to the stretch of 4 thru 10 as it follows the coastline all the way down to the furthest point on the property.

1-18.

 

There's more to golf than oceans, which is what your post implies.

[Phil Benedict]

Does anyone know how Doak scored Oakmont in the  Confidential Guide?

[George Pazin]

9.

He actually posted the little blurb on Oakmont a couple weeks ago on here.

[Doug Siebert]

Jim, with the big crowns and fall offs on the Pinehurst greens that the Oakmont greens mostly don't have (certainly not to the extent Pinehurst does) and the lack of trees at Oakmont now I'd say Oakmont probably does play 10 shots easier than Pinehurst if you take away Oakmont's rough.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()