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

[JNagle]

What is nice about the comparisons is to see how little has changed in some regards.  However, and not knowing what the course looked like around 1950 as Mark S. mentioned, the one thing that jumps out at me is the scale of many of the bunkers.  The are a large number of bunkers that seem to take on the same shape and size.  Personally, I like the look of the older, 1938, bunkers as there is greater variety in shape and scale.  This seems to be an often forgotten aspect in bunker design and reconstruction.  

[Kyle Harris]

Re: the bunkers.

If one looks at a bunker such as the one to the front right of the 18th green in 1938 and today it can be determined just how acute some of the bunker shape changes have been.

In 1938, that bunker ran along the edge of the fairway in the approach which made run up shots a bit more treachorous into that part of the green.

Today, the bunker is far less integrated with the fairway, and only serves as a hazard for shots flying to the front portion of the green.

The angle of the bunker with the fairway and green in 1938 reminded me of many Flynn bunkers in similar positions and how that extension down the approach makes the bunker appear more formidable and enter into the shot equation much more "naturally."

[Joel_Stewart]

"TEPaul,
I'm unclear about something.
How did RTJ get past the front gates ?
Did he just drive down the street and make a wrong turn ?  
You've got so much to learn, and I just don't have that much time.
Fortunately for Oakmont, a man of wisdom overrode the penchants of the membership>


Patrick:

Your UNCLEAR about how RTJ got past the front gates???  

Leave it to you to ask a stupid question like that. Do you think perhaps it had anything to do with the fact that he was just the most famous architect in the world at that time??  

Just like they allowed Fazio in on this last go around.

[TEPaul]

"HELLO, McFly .... is anybody home ?

After all the work you did, and your in depth awareness of the architectural history of the golf course, for you to be removed from the Green Committed is an insult and an indication that the club doesn't value your knowledge and imput, and perhaps, that the club may want to go in a direction that distances the golf course from its historical roots ?  ?  ?
TE, after all the work you did, all the time you put in, and the terrific book you wrote for the club, the least they could have done is to have made you a green committee member, emeritus."

Patrick:

Perhaps I didn't say that very clearly. When I said I didn't get booted off the green committee I meant I didn't get booted off the green committee---eg I'm still on it. Maybe the least they've done is make me emeritus. Does emeritus mean I have to be really old and have been on the thing for a million years? If so I'll fit right in to emeritus.  

[Curt Coulter]

Mark is more the expert than I as to the goings-on at Oakmont. As to Joel's question on the bunkers on #1, they are of a different shape and I am only guessing but to the left of them was used as a spectator corridor last year so that is probably why they are configured as such...there's not much room for people to move towards the bridge. As for #2, those bunkers are different in every aerial we have but the oldest one we have shows a series of bunkers down the right which is why we went that way.
As to other comments I have read, Fownes said that "the course is a living, breathing organism and must adapt to the times." So he was very much in favor of rolling up fairway bunkers to adapt to the longer distances the golf ball was travelling, and you will even see the depressions still there from where the old bunkers were. And I really do not think we narrowed the fairways too dramatically for the last Open as only the 5th fairway was radically reduced in size, and we went to great lengths to maintain maybe the best set of fairway bunkers on the left hand side of the fairway. The 1938 photos in black and white make it difficult to distinguish the rough lines vs. the 2007 version.

[George Pazin]

Mr. Jones had also suggested adding a pond in front of #5....changing the par 3 16th into a par 5 and making #17 into a par 3.  The green chair at the time, Mr. Stewart, was quoted by Mr. Brand that "no major changes would be made to Mr. Fownes' masterpiece under my watch", and these major proposals never materialized.

Three cheers for Mr. Brand. Every club with a strong historical pedigree like Oakmont's needs strong leaders who act as custodians, placing the club ahead of themselves, and Oakmont's are as good as anyone's.

Terrific thread, thanks for starting it, Ryan.