Oakmont CC 1938 VS. 2007 (updated w/ back 9)

[Ryan Farrow]

So I ran across an old aerial of Oakmont country club in the late 1930's that really shows the negative affects of either 1.letting your course get ruined by the USGA or 2. hiring and incompetent architect to perform a restoration. On many holes it looks as though every fairway was at least shrunk in half. In turn, this has transformed Oakmont into a one dimensional golf course from the tee box. Instead of giving players options for better angles off the tee, Oakmont is now limited to options of distance and nothing more. Luckily the golf courses legendary greens have survived over the years or Oakmont would have been just another great course lost.



So heres to what used to be and what will probably never be again.









p.s. I don't give a damn what courses Tom Doak blacklisted.  

[Ryan Farrow]

#1

[Ryan Farrow]

#2

[Ryan Farrow]

#3

[Ryan Farrow]

#4

[Ryan Farrow]

#5

[Ryan Farrow]

#6

[Ryan Farrow]

#7

[Ryan Farrow]

#8

[Ryan Farrow]

#9





The back 9 tomorrow.

[Kyle Harris]

You CAME ACROSS an aerial?!

Farrow, when I sent you that website I think you were about to propose to me you were so happy.

Just pickin' kid... let me take a look and comment.

[JSlonis]

Ryan,

Nice post.  The differences are pretty easy to see.  Technology in today's game is a tough thing for a championship course like Oakmont to deal with.  The ball is flying straighter than ever, which leads to narrowing of the fairways, but with that comes the loss of width, angles and options for the golfer.  It is a hard thing to balance.

[Kyle Harris]

It seems that the 4th and 7th lost the most in terms of strategic options. The bunkers guarding the approach on the 4th are particularly sad to see. I like the look and feel of an open approach from the LZ daring the golfer to go for the green.

NEAT centerline bunker complementing Sahara on the 8th.

[cary lichtenstein]

Ryan:

Very nice post, it makes it so easy to see the differences. I like the old course better for the most part, more irregular shapes, more random, less structures
Cary

[Mike_Cirba]

As someone who has been critical here re: the narrowing of the fairways at Oakmont, as well as the moving of bunkers closer to the center, I have to say that I would have expected to see more egregious examples.    

Still, it makes for a very interesting comparison.   Thanks for taking the time, Ryan.

[Ryan Farrow]

Mike you will see later with the back 9, hole like 10,14,15,17 used to be extremely wide. As far as pinching bunkers, I think you have been mislead by some people. I know for sure #5 was pinched but I don't think it happened on many other holes, but I could be wrong.

[Ryan Farrow]

It seems that the 4th and 7th lost the most in terms of strategic options. The bunkers guarding the approach on the 4th are particularly sad to see. I like the look and feel of an open approach from the LZ daring the golfer to go for the green.

NEAT centerline bunker complementing Sahara on the 8th.

Kyle I think you have to throw number 1 in there also. I could see some distinct advantages in either being on the left or right side of that 1938 fairway depending on how you play the hole.


I'm also a big fan of the extra room at the landing area on number 3.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree the biggest question mark is the loss of fw on the second landing area on 4.  Everything is set up to challenge for the spot and its taken away.

Other than that, I don't see huge differences. Bunkers are obviously moved back and in similar, but not exact positions, but who knows what drainage or circulation problems are on the ground we can't see in these photos that made whoever the consulting architects were (there have been several) and the USGA and club to figure the replacements captured the original intent.

BTW, was Oakmont EVER known for its strategic options off the tee?  I think not.

Why blame the USGA for narrowing, when the shadows on the trees on Number 1, for example, are clearing showing?  Blame the club members of 1938 back for planting them and/or allowing them to grow.

[Kirk Gill]

Thanks, Ryan, for your work in presenting those aerials in this fashion. The differences, particularly from the tee on 7, are just as interesting as how much has not changed. Looking forward to more...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ryan,

I forgot to say thanks, too, so, well, thanks!

Another interesting note on 4 is how the left side of the second shot layup area was apparently narrowed a bit at the last minute.  In my mind, if you are laying up that far left, with that angle, whats the difference?

Could it be that they felt that was perfect max spin distance and felt the needed to correct?

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks again, Ryan and Kyle...this is a really cool study.

I'm also thinking that drainage ditches have a bigger part to play as an architectural feature.

Sentimentally, three of the first 5 courses I've ever played used them both functionally as well as penally/strategically, and that's stayed with me as something eminently sensible, as well as a bit unconventional.

[David Stamm]

Thank you so much Ryan for this effort! The right fw bunker on 2 and the left fw bunker on 7 look like they were magnificent! This is sad but interesting. Looking forward to the back nine!

[John Kavanaugh]

The trees are clearly there in 38.  That does not coincide with the propaganda.

[Jeff Doerr]

#7

Ryan,

Thanks for this one alone! I wish they could have recaptured the options on this hole. What a tee shot that would have been.

[David Stamm]

The trees are clearly there in 38.  That does not coincide with the propaganda.

Propaganda? How so? Maybe we are looking at 2 different set of pics, but there aren't that many trees in the '38 pics. Remember, the course was completed in 1903.