Oakmont (pics)

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I thought my standards were high!  Wow.  None of them on their own are great    I could think of hundreds of courses (many in the top 100 in the country) that would take anyone of them and it would be an improvement.  I realize this is all subjective stuff but how many times have you guys seen and/or play this golf course.  #6 for example is an amazing golf hole and its complexity dramatically changes depending on the hole location. 

Maybe we just agree to disagree   
Mark 

[John Foley]

Mark,

All my point is they are not memorable. When I think about the course, I remember many many great shots, great strategic plays, just none of them came on the par 3's.

They are good, they are very good, but are they great??

They're not 17 @ Merion, 7 @ Pebble, 10 @ Pine Valley or even  #13 @ Sand Hills.

I agree #6 is very very good, but list the top 50 par 3's you've seen and does any of Oakmont's fall on that list?

You like blonde's I like redhead's we can agree to disagree thats what makes this place so great.

That and we both know, CB Mac never designed it!!!

[Ryan Farrow]

Yea this all seems kind of silly, I don't think anyone is wrong here, sometimes people say some pretty bonehead things that you can really say no, your wrong. But one thing is for sure, Oakmont is a great golf course which may or may not have great par 3's, to each his own!

[George Pazin]

I haven't played Oakmont, so I can't say how good the par 3's are. They certainly look very good as does the rest of this magnificent course. But 4,6 and 16 at Riviera are all world. Riviera's par 3's are amongst the very best that one can play, IMHO. Are they WAY better than Oakmont's? I don't know. Thanks for the pics Chip.

So what makes Riv's 6th better than Oakmont's 6th?

How about Riv's 4th vs. Oakmont's 8th?

How about Riv's 16th vs. Oakmont's 16th?

[David Stamm]

I haven't played Oakmont, so I can't say how good the par 3's are. They certainly look very good as does the rest of this magnificent course. But 4,6 and 16 at Riviera are all world. Riviera's par 3's are amongst the very best that one can play, IMHO. Are they WAY better than Oakmont's? I don't know. Thanks for the pics Chip.

So what makes Riv's 6th better than Oakmont's 6th?

How about Riv's 4th vs. Oakmont's 8th?

How about Riv's 16th vs. Oakmont's 16th?

I haven't played Oakmont, so I can't say how good the par 3's are. They certainly look very good as does the rest of this magnificent course. But 4,6 and 16 at Riviera are all world. Riviera's par 3's are amongst the very best that one can play, IMHO. Are they WAY better than Oakmont's? I don't know. Thanks for the pics Chip.

So what makes Riv's 6th better than Oakmont's 6th?

How about Riv's 4th vs. Oakmont's 8th?

How about Riv's 16th vs. Oakmont's 16th?

George, as I said, I don't know if they are better or not. It would be impossible for me to say since I have never played Oakmont. However, the guts it took to do a hole like 6 at Riviera and for it not to come off hokey is pure genius. As far as 4, unfortunately a player cannot get the full Redan effect because of the Kikuyu. Be that as it may, it is such a stern test. The green is hidden and is uphill and there is a ocean breeze that you must account for. 16 , while not the prototypical Short hole length, it works. And what a green! 

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the thoughts, David.

I can assure that if you saw the 6th at Oakmont in person, you would certainly say it took guts to build a par 3 with such a strongly sloping green, guarded by such severe bunkers, and a stern test for a mid iron. And yet it's not over the top, at least imho.

Likewise, the 8th is certainly a stern test. The green looks like a sliver from the tee, and appears to be fronted by a large bunker. Then when you get to the green, you see the bunker which appears to front the green in fact has a great deal of approach area behind it, certainly allows the running shot (as do Oakmont's maintenance practice, hat tip to the crew).

Again, I'm not trying to rip anyone, nor am I trying to criticise the Riv's terrific set of par 3s or even say Oakmont's are as good or better. I just happen to believe Oakmont's par 3s are darn near as good as it's magical par 4s and 5s, and I'd really love to hear the reasoning behind anyone claiming otherwise. It's not enough to me to just say they don't stand out as particularly memorable or whatever.

[David Stamm]

Again, I'm not trying to rip anyone, nor am I trying to criticise the Riv's terrific set of par 3s or even say Oakmont's are as good or better. I just happen to believe Oakmont's par 3s are darn near as good as it's magical par 4s and 5s, and I'd really love to hear the reasoning behind anyone claiming otherwise. It's not enough to me to just say they don't stand out as particularly memorable or whatever.

I hope I didn't suggest this, George. I typically don't try to make a claim like that unless I've seen it first hand. My apologies if I conveyed this.