[Thomas MacWood]

The history of Oakmont is not well known, at least to me. The course was founded in the early 1900s but I don't believe it hosted its first major event until 1919 and the US Am. In the early years it was not mentioned with the other elite courses in the country; from what I understand there was a major redesign prior to it being chosen for the Amateur.

What was that early course like and what changes were made over the years?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I believe it was George who put together some great threads on this last year while you were away.  They are very much worth a look and even included a number of posts that did a compare/contrast with aerials of todays course vs the course back in the 20's I believe.

I'll see if I can't find that thread...

Kalen

[John Foley]

Tom - Did Oakmont suffer through some difficult periods in trying to grow grass (as NGLA did) early on and could that have effected it's reputation?

If I recall haven't the routing of the holes themselves been pretty much unchanged (other than lengthened & bunker work) since then? The Turnpike didn't change anythiong as the RR was already there.

[TEPaul]

I don't think it's that accurate to say that Oakmont went through some major redesign early on. It seems to me that golf course was always under "design" as long as W.C. was alive and that was right up to around 1950. In that way Oakmont was probably a lot like Myopia under Herbert Leeds---eg he was always doing things to the course as he continued to observe play on it and particularly interview good players as to their opinions. At one time, Oakmont ended up with something like 220 bunkers on it and the Oakmont historian told me yesterday #14 at one time had 24 bunkers on it. Like Leeds, Fownes seemed to be a bunker fanatic.

After that some things really changed but now a lot of them have been changed back, like the lack of trees at the end of Fownes' life

I'll be there on Friday to meet with the historian, the super and some others to at least get an architectural material inventory for the USGA Architecture Archive that'll be coming on stream. If anyone on here wants me to keep a lookout for some particular type of historical architectural info, by all means let me know by IM. I guess that'd be OK with the club--- but I'll certainly check first. I don't think anyone is going to adamantly claim between now and Friday that they can prove C.B. Macdonald routed and designed Oakmont but one never really knows these days,    

[TEPaul]

"If I recall haven't the routing of the holes themselves been pretty much unchanged (other than lengthened & bunker work) since then? The Turnpike didn't change anythiong as the RR was already there."

JohnF:

Actually, I believe the turnpike did change things a bit from the old railroad bed. I think I heard yesterday the turnpike required something like an additonal forty feet. I don't know whether that was on both sides or total. I'll ask if you care. That may've been the reason the original 8th green was moved left and redesigned some.

[Thomas MacWood]

Between 1909 and 1913 a "new bunkering system" was implemented. I know there were fifty added in 1909 and I think similar numbers in 1911 and 1912. But for whatever reason the course was still thought to be too easy in 1912. I suspect it was too short. By 1917 it was being considered by the USGA as a championship venue. How much credit should Peter Robertson (of Carnoustie), the pro between 1909 and 1912, be given, if any?

Of all the great courses in America I'd say Oakmont's architectural history is probably the least known.

[TEPaul]

"Of all the great courses in America I'd say Oakmont's architectural history is probably the least known."

Not by Oakmont it isn't. The club's primary historian sounds to me (on the phone) like a very interesting guy. I'll be seeing him on Friday. I'm not sure, at the moment, what year Emil Loeffler who was so important to the architectural evolution of Oakmont came on board but I'm told the greenskeeper who proceeded him (I have his name around here somewhere but I can't find it at the moment) under the father and son Fownes team was as important to the early architectural phase as Loeffler was later. But basically the concepts were from the Fownes----another in that fasicinating group, from that time, known as "amateur/SPORTSMEN" designers----a breed and genre I really do think needs to be so much better understood as to their importance in the sweep of American architecture.

One of the most interesting people I've run across to do with the history of Oakmont and its maintenance pracatices is Bill Stitt, a man from Merion I served on either GAP or the PA Golf Association with. Bill was a fairly long time green chairman at Merion and took that course through at least one US Open and maybe two. Bill is Emil Loeffler's nephew and he grew up right at Oakmont and he cut greens I think as far back as the late 1940s.

Pete Dye tried to do a video stimp analysis of Oakmont's greens from the 1960s because he couldn't believe that the greens could be as fast as the US Open as the players (like Nicklaus) said they were. Pete maintained the reported speed was impossible because a particular piece of machinery had not yet been invented.

But Bill Stitt said Pete was wrong about that because Emil was jury-rigging mowers, filing bedknives before anyone thought to do that and keeping those blades like razors. Bill said there was just nothing in the world like it maybe all the way back to the '40s.

And then I think everyone knows W.C. was something of a maniac about penality in architecture and play---coigning his own term that "a shot missed should be a stroke lost forever." Loeffler's invented "furrowing" rakes was another example reportedly demanded by Fownes. That particular maintnenance technique inspired some really uncharacteristic criticism from even the great Bob Jones!

[Thomas MacWood]

I had read Leoffler was very important too. According to C&W he was caddie master in 1912 and became greenkeeper in 1913.

[George Pazin]

I believe Oakmont's history is available for purchase; in fact, I think JohnV has it. Perhaps he'll see this and comment. My recollection is that he said it doesn't have a whole lot about the course, but I could be wrong.

Oakmont does have a website that has areas of public access.

[Thomas MacWood]

George
I hope he does this thread, I'd be curious what it says about how the course evolved.

[TEPaul]

Do you think a design evolution report should be done tracking the evolution of the course from beginning to date? Certainly the first half century of the course's architectural evolution under H.C. and W.C. Fownes, amateur/sportsmen architects both, along with their apparently architecturally participatory greenkeepers is a unique one. Is there even a father/son combo anything like this in the history of American architecture? Being the noted amateur golfer (1910 US Amateur chamapion), golf administrator (USGA president) and one with a fairly unique outlook on the philosophy of penalty/strategy, W.C. Fownes is a real story as well. Probably an interesting tie-in would be to try to determine just how much of W.C.'s unique thinking about golf is represented in this great American championship golf course and its design?

[John Foley]

Tom - You can purchase the Oakmont 100 year aniverary club history from the pro shop directly.

I have it however I am on the road ight now. I do recall that the detials on the early course evolution was limited.

[TEPaul]

John Foley:

In my opinion, architectural history in an evolutionary sense that's rolled in with the other areas of the history of a golf club is not the best presentation. I think the best presentation of a course's architectural history is generally a stand alone presentation. Some of us have come to call them "Design Evolution Reports" or "Architectural Evolution Reports". Basically they use all the information and material available to track a course's design evolution----and the when, why, how and by whom of it all. They're really useful for master planning, restoration projects and architectural preservation going forward.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom - You can purchase the Oakmont 100 year aniverary club history from the pro shop directly.

I have it however I am on the road ight now. I do recall that the detials on the early course evolution was limited.

John
Thanks. Too bad. When you get back home could you give us a brief synopsis of what the book says about the early years?

[TEPaul]

John:

Don't worry about the Oakmont history book. I'll be there first thing tomorrow morning in our first USGA Architecture Archive contact with Pa Golf Assoc and GAP Exec. Director Mark Petersen. I've got some of the stickiest fingers you've ever seen and I'll flitch a couple of them history books without anyone noticing. You want me to send you one MacWood? If so, it'll cost you $117.95 and add $7.95 to that for S&H. I've gotta eat too, you know.  

[John Foley]

Tom,

Have you seen the design evolution report done by the historian at oak hill?

I saw some pics somehwere but they we're just as you have said they should be.

By hole - what happened and by whom.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Have you seen the design evolution report done by the historian at oak hill?"

JohnF:

I have and it might be the first one ever done. It's the earliest one I've ever heard of. It will be going into the USGA Architecture Archive.

[Thomas MacWood]

John:

Don't worry about the Oakmont history book. I'll be there first thing tomorrow morning in our first USGA Architecture Archive contact with Pa Golf Assoc and GAP Exec. Director Mark Petersen. I've got some of the stickiest fingers you've ever seen and I'll flitch a couple of them history books without anyone noticing. You want me to send you one MacWood? If so, it'll cost you $117.95 and add $7.95 to that for S&H. I've gotta eat too, you know.  

No thank you. I'm sure its a good book but John said it was a little light on early architectural details.

[TEPaul]

We were out at Oakmont today real early in the morning (before a meeting) looking at it as the crew was doing their morning maintenance. We had a putter and few balls and those greens today are probably the best I've seen in my life. They are beyond belief how much imagination they require. As much as I love architecture, I'm a relative dunce on grass type. Those Oakmont greens are total poa and they are just incredibly beautiful and exciting to putt! Golf with the flat-stick really doesn't get better than that.

As for the question of this thread---when did Oakmont become great, I'd say probably towards the late teens. The real question for me with Oakmont is how long did H.C's dominant influence on the course last (he died in the 1930s) and when did W.C's influence begin to take the fore (he died in 1950)? I also think a lot more needs to be known about the greenkeeper who preceeded Emil Loeffler. Loeffler's record is well known.

I also did not know that W.C. was an engineer, trained at MIT.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom MacWood,
Emil Loeffler was a critical part of the team that made Oakmont the great course that it is.  From very early on, he was heavily involved with the evolution of that golf course.  Emil also designed the Oakmont East course next door.  Most people don't know this, but there are a number of holes on the East course that are patterned after the Championship course.  They just don't have all the bunkering and ditches. 
Mark

[TEPaul]

The Oakmont history book is in many ways a very fine read. It was written by apparently noted Pittsburgh sports writer Marino Parascenzo.

In my opinion, Parascenzo is a delightful writer in that he seems to catch the essence and ethos of the club and the Fowneses, particularly in the early years. He has both an informative and sort of light and dry humorous style.

One thing I did not realize before reading this 2003 history of Oakmont (done for its centennial) is how central and in control of the club (and apparently the architecture) H.C. was until the end of his life (1935).

I hestitate to say this in light of the arguments and debates over the "amateur/sportsman" roll of Hugh Wilson and his member committee of Merion, but it just may be that H.C. (and W.C. Jr) may've been an even better expression and example of this remarkable early American architectural modus operandi (the member  or principal "amateur/sportsman" designer/architect).

The approximately first twenty years of the architectural development of Oakmont just doesn't have very much in the way of material evidence of who did what throughout that time. But since there is no evidence at all of anyone else's involvement and given how totally in control of the club and course H.C. was until 1935 it sure does look suspiciously like he did most all of this himself (with apparently a good deal of unrecorded involvement from his son W.C. Jr who interestingly was always considered more like a younger brother than a son).

I don't believe Emil Loeffler became involved until the early 1920s and so this first twenty years really is fascinating to contemplate how things were developed and how they evolved architecturally. Apparently H.C. had a greenkeeper who essentially filled the same type roll that Emil Loeffler did in the end of H.C.'s life and for most of the remainder of W.C.'s life. (I'll try to find this first greenskeeper's name----eg I had it around here somewhere last week).

There is this remarkable stick routing in the history book of the course the book says was published in 1903 (before the course was actually constructed). There is no name on this fascinating stick routing and no date. The thing is it's just remarkably like the golf course is today.

Who did this stick routing? I don't think anyone knows but all evidence seems to point to H.C. himself. The fact is Henry Clay Fownse really was a remarkably intelligent AND efficient man with some very strong ideas about what a golf course should be. It is probably most important to also note that there was an event in his life in the end of the 19th century that made him reevaluate how he wanted to lead the rest of his life---eg with far more in the way of relaxation and less of total business (H.C. was an extremely successful self-made steel and oil magnate).

I think this is just another great example of how some of these remarkably and inherently talented "amateur/sportsmen" designers of this very early era in American architecture did some of these great golf courses and their architecture themselves despite what some think today about some of these men being such novices that they just couldn't have done what they did do back then.

All evidence seems to point to the fact that they simply did do what they've been given credit for despite the recent protests and reinterpretations of recent "No-Can-Doists" who seem inclined to try to find someone else who did it for them somehow.

I don't think so. I think they really did do it themselves and the fascination for us today is to simply figure out and understand both how and why they did it so well.

There is also a wonderful description of how and why W.C. offered his resignation to the club in 1946 (a few years before he died) to the club's shock and disappointment. Essentially no one could even imagine Oakmont without a Fownse in control. W.C. did not just offer his resignation by sliding a note across the table at a regular board meeting but he also took his own son H.C. Jr (who was expected to be his successor and the next generation's on-going Fownse control of Oakmont) out of the control succession of the club's future.

Apparently this was basically a fairly non-vocal protest on W.C.'s part on what the club had become---a "country club" rather than just a traditional "golf club" (of the basic G.B. style) that W.C. felt it should always remain.

[Mark_Fine]

Emil Loeffler took over as groundskeeper in 1913 when John McGlynn left to start a golf course architecture business.  McGlynn and Loeffler later formed a design/build firm in the early 20's.  I did quite a bit of research on Loeffler for our Master Plan of Bucknell GC.  I have some great information about Loeffler's involvement with the course evolution including a taped interview with Arthur Snyder who was trained by Emil and McGlynn at Oakmont.  In the interview, Mr. Snyder goes into detail about the ditches, the pews, the bunkering system, trees,..., it is very fascinating.  Forrest found the tape going through things from his mentor Arthur Jack Snyder (who passed away a few years ago).  Jack served as Superintendent at Oakmont in 1951/1952.  I'm not sure if the club even has a copy of the tape.  During our due dilligence phase, I spoke at length with Bill Stitt as well as Kurt Fuhrer (Emil was Kurt's great uncle) about Emil.  I also tracked down Emil's one son (also named Emil) who was very accomodating.  I'm out at Oakmont again on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week doing work on the East course.  In my opinion, Emil deserves quite a bit of credit for the evolution of the big course.  However, I will not start another Merion type thread on line.  If someone wants more information about Loeffler, email me off line and I would be happy to share. 

[Joe Bentham]

When they took they trees out!

[TEPaul]

Mark:

It appears Loeffler became the Oakmont "groundskeeper" in 1916 (C&W said 1913 but it appears John McGlynn was the groundskeeper until 1916).

Loeffler was made the professional in 1927 and he held both positions until his death in 1948 when his son Bobby became the groundskeeper. Bobby held that position until 1951 when Jack Snyder took over.

As for the original construction of the golf course in 1903-1904 under the direction of H.C. Fownes the groundskeeper (foreman?) was a man by the name of Emil Frosch (of which I know nothing other than his name). Considering he was there at the beginning and certainly during the routing, design and construction and seeing as many of the greens are little changed, Frosch may be a man of real interest architecturally although I doubt much could be known about him at this point.

It appears Jack Snyder's tenure at Oakmont was definitely ill-starred as he presided over the course as the groundskeeper for app 18 month which saw a really bad outbreak of dollarspot going into the 1953 Open. By September 1952 Snyder was gone and he was replaced by Bobby Loeffler. In 1955 Lou Scalzo replaced Bobby Loeffler and remained at Oakmont until he retired in 1976.

[Thomas MacWood]

HC Fownes, Emil Frosch, Peter Robertson, John McGlynn, Emil Loefler, and WC Fownes ~ it seems they've done a good job identifying the cast of characters, now if they could figure who did what and when we'd really be on to something.

Like I said before, Oakmont has to have the least known architectural history of any of our famous course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()