I've changed my opionion of Oakmont. And, it's not about the putting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I last played Oakmont around the time they hosted the U.S. Open and found the rough to be so severe that I questioned how the membership could tolerate daily play without collectively taking up bowling.

Recently, I played Oakmont, which is preparing for the Women's Open in a few days, and found the course far, far more playable and enjoyable.

Contrary to public opinion, Oakmont is not about putting, it's about driving.

If you don't hit the fairways and find the fairway bunkers, you simply can't score.
And, if you hit it into the rough, while you can recover, getting it on the green and getting at the proper location on the green is more than a chore.

Despite a morning thunderstorm which dumped a good deal of rain on the course, there was little evidence that a storm had visited.

The fairways were tight and firm.
Someone stated that they were putting near 11 before the rain and within 40 yards of the green.

The course has an interesting blend of long and short holes.

# 2, # 5, # 11 and # 14 are fairly short holes for member play.
And, distance wise, the par 5's are manageable, with # 4, 9 and 12 easily reachable in 3 and sometimes 2.

I was fortunate in that the caddies we had were excellent readers of the greens, which made things a lot easier.

As I reflected on the rounds played by our foursome, almost every time someone drove it into a bunker of the tee, a bogey or worse was sure to follow.  The bunkers are deep, steep and the fronting berms a substantive impediment to advancing the ball.

Some of the putting surfaces are quite remarkable, in size, contouring and slope, but, they're large enough, such that getting the ball below the hole, is readily achievable.

If you don't drive it well at Oakmont, you're in for a long day.

[Bill_McBride]

I last played Oakmont 3X, about 20 years ago when I had a client who was a member.

What I liked:

Very firm, enhanced my distance

No doglegs of extreme angle so that added distance didn't lead to drives thru the fairway into the rough

Fall away greens at #1, #10 and #12 that required creative short game shots if you were short of the green in regulation (all 3 are LONG holes)

Smooth and fast greens; putts that started on line had a chance to fall

The putting green / back half of the huge 9th green

As Pat says, some shorter par 4's that offered opportunities

Traversing the bridge - twice

Great caddies

"Center cut" popcorn and ICL in the men's grill

Ancient locker room

Best practice area I had seen at that time

+++

It's a great day of golf.  Very difficult but being a realist helps.

[David_Madison]

Patrick,

You are so right about the course being a great test of driving. I was fortunate to have played the course twice just before the US Am a few years back. It often wasn't good enough to simply hit a drive and land it anywhere in the fairway, as the ball would often roll out and barely make it into the rough. I can't tell you how many times my ball was within one or two feet of the first cut, sitting down in impossible rough. Many of the the fairways were canted one way or the other, and to keep your drive in the fairway you either had to land it near the edge of the top side, or you had to shape the shot to land into the slope. Because of the speed of the fairways I didn't find length to be a big issue, but quality driving, hitting solid shots with the right shape to the correct part of each fairway was absolutely crucial.

[Ben Sims]

Pat,

I surprised at this post.  I am not trying to lend any sort of credibility to my experiences, but this is the opinion I have had of Oakmont from the start.  I actually kind of surprised to see you just coming to this conclusion. 

Kind of like Darryl Hannah's black mamba speech in Kill Bill 2, I feel like saying this about Oakmont.  "At Oakmont--and this has been true since the dawning of time--the saying goes, 'On the course, the bunkers can kill you, the greens can kill you, and the rough can kill you.  But only with the rough is death sure.  Hence its handle, Death Incarnate."

I was fortunate enough to have one of my best days with a driver in my golfing history.  This made the day much more enjoyable.  The times I was off the fairway, I knew it was over.  But at least there was a fleeting glimpse of par or better when I was on the greens in regulation or in a greenside bunker on par 5's.  That is what I found so cool about Oakmont.  I call it 'death with a smile'. 

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick/All,

There is another thread on here active about the 5 courses you haven't played that you are most interested to someday have the opportunity.

Presently, Oakmont is the course I find at the top of mine, simply because I walked it, pre-deforestation on the Saturday and Sunday rounds back in 1983 and under any criteria, it's a perplexing, sophisticated, and complex golf course.

In a recent discussion on yet another thread, one panelist argued that despite over 180 bunkers, it's a strategic course, not penal.   That certainly seems contrary to Mr. Fownes' contention that a shot carelessly played is a shot irrevocably lost, and the number of holes that feature (now) deep bunkers on both sides of the fairways certainly seems to err on the side of penatly.

I personally find some very penal elements, yet understand that panelist's contention to a degree.   To me, Oakmont is a strategic course in the sense of mostly vertical choices, not horizontal ones.   There aren't many holes where one "has" to choose driver from the tee, and indeed, one can often lay back from the most punishing bunkering, or the most narrowing of fairways.

Yet, if one chooses driver, there are very few places you can just sling it straightaway.   As was mentioned, the side canting of the fairways means most often one needs to precisely land on the very high side, or work the ball into the prevailing slope.

For Patrick and those who have played it, I'd be interested to hear your opinions of this whole "Penal vs Strategic" discussion as relates to the course as a whole.

Thanks for your thoughts and feeback...it looks amazingly intriguing.

[Chris Buie]

Pat, Oakmont has been described to me as being unrelentingly difficult and extremely exacting.  Would you say this is an accurate description?

[Ben Sims]

For Patrick and those who have played it, I'd be interested to hear your opinions of this whole "Penal vs Strategic" discussion as relates to the course as a whole.

Thanks for your thoughts and feeback...it looks amazingly intriguing.

Mike,

I've only got one play there, so take this how you may.  No doubt the golf courses presents itself as a "hit it or else" golf course, but oddly enough, I never played it that way.  I hit my share of 3-wood's and 3 irons throughout the day.  In fact, on #2 I hit 5 iron, 7 iron if my memory is correct.  

But Oakmont is more than penal in my mind.  There is a "strategy of missing".  I'm not good enough to hit all the fairways and greens.  But I had to have a leave.  Based on my ball flight and strengths--for example--my miss on #1 was right rough.  That way I could rip a mid iron and let it naturally fade and roll down the hill to #1.  The miss on #8 is also right--and short.  

Pat also touches on a great theme when he speaks of picking your spots.  2, 5, 9, 11, 14, 17.  These are all holes that can present places to breathe for a second, even if a breather at Oakmont is still tough.  

There is also an element which I found quite perplexing.  I was smiling, having fun, finding all my bad shots, even making a putt or two.  It wasn't until I was shoveling in some great tomato soup on the porch and adding up my score that I realized just how much I had been brutalized.  It was my highest medal play score of the year, by 6 shots!  And I had hit the ball as well as I had all season.  If your handicap makes you happy, maybe Oakmont isn't for you.  If a ridiculously fun/hard golf course and having to honestly concentrate and process every shot in your round sounds like your tea, then it's grand.  

[Mike Cirba]

Ben,

That's a very interesting, complicated description, and it's kind of what I was hoping for.

The days of me counting on a medal card I can be consistently proud of have since passed, but I really do enjoy trying to navigate it around a very difficult course, focusing on each shot and one hole at a time.    It sort of becomes match play against myself.

What you described in terms of still having enormous fun in attempting to meet considerable, and sometimes overwhelming challenges is really the way I try to approach each round, particularly on a course where the bar is set extremely high, as it obviously is at Oakmont.

The only time I get frustrated is when my swing is so not up to the task that I'm just playing from trouble to trouble, but thankfully that isn't the case much any more.   But, even then, trying to figure out how to dance with who brung ya on a brutally testing track can be a delightful chore.

Thanks for your insight.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

What you probably mean to say that its not only about the putting, but it's also about positioning the ball properly off the tee?

Maybe if you played there on a day where it didn't rain you would say that the putting is equally if not more exacting than the other aspects of the game? Or maybe you're just on to something with that Junior length blade that you have to crouch over all bent at the knees to hit the ball with these days?   You must have been putting the ball fairly close to the hole. The thing with those greens that I never experienced anywhere else is the sheer length of lag putts, and not only were they extrordinarily far, but they had so much contour to navigate, with two, and sometimes even three significant breaks.

But I agree, a bad drive is harder to recover from at Oakmont than anywhere else because of the ingenious bunkering. If you are sitting down in the first or second of a long chain of fairway bunkers in line, you just have to take a entire stroke and go sideways. It is folly to try to hit strait at the green and think that you have a chance of getting there. To answer Mike's question I would say that that's penal and strategic.

[Harris Nepon]

I wanted to chime in here after I read Ben mention how fun the course was.

I was there at the end of October the same year the U.S Open was played there in 2007(?). I personally stop playing golf pretty much just after the NFL season starts. Kind of sad I give up golf for football, but I’ve been playing for 6 or 7 months by then anyways. Back to the point. I played Oakmont and drove the ball horribly. Found myself in what seemed like every bunker. You can’t hit the ball forward out of those bunkers, so basically every one is a penalty stroke. I went in the church pew bunker, 3 off the tee, and proceeded to take 5 strokes to get out of it and ended up picking up with an 11. I didn’t make my first par till the 15th hole. That day I shot 115, the highest score for me since I was maybe 12 or 13 years old. I was a 4 handicap at the time.

I will say it was one of the most memorable and fun rounds I’ve ever played. I hit each and every shot with a huge smile on my face, and I remember every single one of them. The place is that special, that much fun. I laughed the whole way around the course.

I can attest to the fact that you must drive the ball well. We played the pro tees and if you are bad off the tee you are in for some trouble on every hole. The greens aren’t easy by any stretch of the imagination, but they seem like it after what it took to get to each of them. The bunkers are amazing, it seemed like there was a front lip coming back at you in each one. I don’t remember if I could see out of a single one of them they are so deep.

I loved Oakmont. I’m not sure anything will ever surpass it. Sand Hills was the greatest place on earth to be, but Oakmont may still be my all time favorite golf course. Now if I could just get back there one day to see if I can beat 115.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

As Sam Snead once told me, "It's tough to make par when you're in the rough or behind a tree."  Add "in a bunker" at Oakmont.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, Oakmont has been described to me as being unrelentingly difficult and extremely exacting.  Would you say this is an accurate description?

No.

It's not unrelentingly difficult.

There are a number of short holes and the par 5's are not onerous.

Mike Cirba,

That's not true about selection off the tee.

Holes # 2, 5, 9, 11, 14 and 17 provide the option to throttle back from the driver.
That's an amazing 6 out of 14 holes.
I chose driver on every one because normally I drive the ball fairly well and at a decent length.
I had a particularly bad driving round, probably because I got little or no sleep the night before.

As to the presentation of the fairways, most are canted or angled or both, so hitting the ball in the fairway with the PROPER flight/trajectory often determins your fate,

On # 1 I ripped a drive down the left center of the fairway, with a slight draw.
I was lucky that it avoided a bunker, which are ALL close to the fairways, and found myself in the rough, where I was fortunate enough to hit it 20 feet from the hole.

# 3 has a cant, as does # 5, 7, 10, 12, 15 and 18.

If you hit a fade/slice on # 12 right down the middle of the fairway, you'll end up in the rough.
Many holes are that way, hence ball flight AND accuracy off the tee are important.

Neither myself or the members of my group found the greens overwhelming.

I think I was better prepared for the greens because I play on a course that keeps their greens between 10-13 on a steady basis, with Mother Nature's guidance.

[Michael Taylor]

What do Oakmont tend to get their green speeds running at, Pat?

[Harris Nepon]

What do Oakmont tend to get their green speeds running at, Pat?

High. I walked on to the putting green when I first got there, dropped a ball to putt, and watched as it rolled 20 feet away from me almost onto the 9th green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Certainly, conditions influence play.

We recently played after a huge thunderstorm, thus, we didn't get the roll you'd want, and the rough was more difficult.

Since I tend to hit my driver straighter than my 3-wood, I elected to go with it on every shorter hole figuring that I'd rather be coming out of those fairway bunkers with a much more lofted club.

On # 2 I hit a good drive to the middle of the fairway and had 100 yards uphill
If I had gone in the hazard left or a bunker, I would have had a manageable recovery shot, verus one 30-50 yards further back

Same with # 5, I had 90 yards into the green.

On # 11 I choked a driver and hit it dead straight, through the fairway, 90 yards from the green, leaving me a sand wedge from a decent lie in the rough, but, Next time, I'll take an iron or 3-wood.

On # 14 I hit a good drive, but, it faded slightly with the wind, into a bunker right.
I hit a 9-iron in front of the green and made par.
Had I layed back 30-50 yards, I don't think I would have made par.

On # 17 I drove it a few feet from the green, figuring that if I drove it in the bunker, I had a good chance of getting it up and down, and if not, a par is not a bad score.   I made a 3 and LOST the hole to a fellow who holed out from 90 yards, from the ROUGH.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What do Oakmont tend to get their green speeds running at, Pat?

I'd say 10-13 depending upon Mother Nature's co-operation.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Thanks for the additional information.   It sounds as though you had a whale of a time.

I do know what you mean about "no sleep" golf, however.   This past week I drove six hours to play a course in Virginia on no sleep, and perhaps the three hours the night before that.   To say I wasn't sharp would be an understatement, but it's probably an unexplored area to consider athletic performance vs hours of rest.

Sometimes, I think that guys don't so much choke in the final rounds of majors or other important competitions as simply be physically unable to perform due to the mind/body confusion and imbalance caused by lack of sleep.

[Bill_McBride]

What do Oakmont tend to get their green speeds running at, Pat?

I'd say 10-13 depending upon Mother Nature's co-operation.

The legend is the club slows down the greens for USGA events.

[Chris Buie]

I'm glad to hear all this about Oakmont.  Through the years all I heard was how tough and penal it was.  It seemed the place really wore that on their sleeve.  Although I do prefer charm as a mainstay (never get tired of Mid-Pines or SPGC) I do very much enjoy tough courses on a semi-regular basis. I played a very challenging one Sunday that was longer than Pebble was playing that day.  I loved hitting mid/long irons into par-4's rather than short irons. A well struck long iron into a par-4 green is the most satisfying shot for me.
I guess I just don't like having no shot if I miss the fairway a little bit.  I don't mind the shot being tougher to pull off - but just stone dead and having to chop out for a slightly wayward tee shot - that I don't go for.
I always got a kick out of the story that Bill referenced - that Oakmont was the only place they had to slow the greens down for the US Open.  Another thing that amused me about the place is that they called those rakes with the wide set tines "the devil's backscratcher". 
So you guys have softened my aversion to the course.  I try to keep an open mind about courses and things in general.  A dogmatic, inflexible mindset is boring and unimpressive to me.

[cary lichtenstein]

If I had to split 100 rounds between Pebble and Oakmont, Pebble win 100 to 0 !!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

I forgot to mention that # 3 isn't that long from the members tees either.

I hit a decent drive and had 120 into the green.

The green on 3 is a challenge in terms of hitting it from an uphill lie, not hitting too short or too long.
The second shot requires precision from the fairway.

Cary,

Oakmont is an acquired taste.
I think the more you play it, the more you learn how to play it and the challenge is diminished by the acquisition of local knowledge.

One of the fellows playing with us was a 32 handicap, two others were twelve, and all managed the course quite well.

[Jim Nugent]

I last played Oakmont around the time they hosted the U.S. Open and found the rough to be so severe that I questioned how the membership could tolerate daily play without collectively taking up bowling.

Recently, I played Oakmont, which is preparing for the Women's Open in a few days, and found the course far, far more playable and enjoyable.

Contrary to public opinion, Oakmont is not about putting, it's about driving.

If you don't hit the fairways and find the fairway bunkers, you simply can't score.

Based on the last U.S. Open there, maybe a corollary is that if you find the fairways and greens, you still might not score well, because of the greens.

In his 3rd round, Tiger hit 17 greens.  While I don't recall exactly, I think he hit nearly every fairway.  Yet he still shot 69, with 35 putts.  The greens stumped the guy who was arguably the world's best putter. 

The average putts per round in that Open wer also real, real high.  Around 1.5 higher than the tour average.  And that was despite a considerably lower GIR. 

Pat, you found the course more playable/enjoyable this time.  Did they change the setup?  Were the conditions different?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

The conditions for the Men's Open and Women's Open appear to be substantively different in terms of the rough.

[Tom Birkert]

If they keep the course in "normal" condition for the women then none of them will come anywhere close to breaking par.

I presume they will be playing off very forward tees with shorter rough and slightly slower greens?

[Ben Sims]

If they keep the course in "normal" condition for the women then none of them will come anywhere close to breaking par.

I presume they will be playing off very forward tees with shorter rough and slightly slower greens?

Tom,

Two things.

1)  Members I spoke to when visiting a few weeks ago said the course was already in "women's open" condition.  The rough was probably in the 3-4 inch range, the greens were probably an 11.  Trust me, it's no push over in these conditions.

2) The women will play from the blue tees, which I think is what most make members play from.  It's about 6500 yards.