[Bill_McBride]

"Why so many people like to be beat up at Oakmont is beyond the ability of my small brain to understand."

cary:

That is a very good question indeed but it most certainly is the truth. Never in my life and travels in golf have I seen another club with a membership like Oakmont that sort of enjoys the idea of getting tortured in many ways by their course as apparently Oakmonters do and have for many, many years. It seems to be sort of an ethos there; perhaps the ethos of Fownes, if you will. One might consider though that there are an awful lot of good players there as was mentioned on this Women's Open telecast.

It's a bit like what people feel about Pine Valley or certainly used to feel about it even though not many members of Pine Valley in relation to the size of its membership ever played it as as steady diet as I'm sure Oakmonters play Oakmont. I would venture to guess that at any time in its history Pine Valley probably had well over 90% of its members that belonged to another club or clubs. It may even be more that way today and through the years than any other signifcant course in the world.

I suspect a pretty good rule would be to never give an Oakmont member shots according to his/her handicap.  I further suspect that handicap travels well.   

[TEPaul]

Ran:

All kidding about your 5% or 3% lapses and my red, red wine aside, you asked a serious question on this thread and with the following question to me and I owe you a serious answer:

“How good on a scale of 1 to 10 do you think the site was, especially given its heavy clay soil and a road cutting through it?”

You said a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 but I would say more like 8 or so for a couple of reasons:

1. Apparently I think the actual pre-construction (natural) site of Oakmont, its basic natural topography and natural features and even with its separation into two parts by a pre-existing railroad track (sunken) is more appealing than you do. It’s a lot more sloping up and down in both big and small ways than most realize. One good example of that is now accentuated since that they took the trees down behind #1----ie the view from the crest of the fairway on #1 down and across the entire 2nd hole on the other side of the Pa Turnpike.

2. I do not feel that anywhere near as much earth-moving or dirt work was done there by either of the Fowneses as apparently you do. And given what I just said in my first point and given what Oakmont actually is as a golf course by the Fowneses and still today I don't think its was necessary anyway. So as I understand your point and use of the term "delta" as some kind of difference between the preconstruction site and the golf course as built by the Fowneses I don't think the difference or delta was anywhere near as much as apparently you do.

3. Heavy clay soil sites are definitely not as easy to work with for construction men in any era compared to sandy sites or sandy/loam sites but that in and of itself certainly does not mean they necessarily have to be massively shaped or even moderately shaped if the over-all natural contours of the site were good for golf as I think Oakmont’s may have been before golf there. And even if to get the same affect with whatever earthmoving did take place out there, even if it was minimal to moderate, cost the Fowneses 10 times more due to the site's heavy clay soil compared to sandy soil, don't forget that H.C. Fownes was a very wealthy man!

In that vein, you said:

“Tons of work was done to the site to give it its golf interest; my point is the manner in which the work was done was so great that a green like the fifteenth looks natural. Ala Raynor, most of the dirt was moved for the tees and green pads which is the only/best way to remain true to the landscape while still providing the golfing interest.”

I’m not so sure it was but unfortunately it is and always will be very hard for us to tell because I’m afraid the golf course pretty much as it still exists today is so old (1903) it never had and never used a preconstruction topographical contour survey map as most courses did (at least having conferred with the Oakmont historians they are not aware that one existed). We do know Pine Valley which was only ten years after Oakmont had one and even Merion East that is a bit older than PV and about eight years younger than Oakmont had one.

The last time I was there for the USGA Architecture Archive, I did mention that I would very much like to go out on the course with Zimmers or anyone else interested, at some point, and try to determine what exactly was built around things like those greens. I find the best way to do that without a preconstuction topographical contour map is to just go out around any green to pick up what and where is undeniably pre-existing grade and to then come in towards any green to determine what and how much was changed, particularly originally with the Fownes family's app 50 year control of that club and course.

[TEPaul]

"I want a pair of sunlit upland-coloured glasses.

I'd see a Coore and Crenshaw everwhere.

I'd never fly a bunker, but they'd never be in the way.
The fairways would run like rabbits and the greens would stick like glue.

Max Behr would show up and congratulate me on my posts.

Drainage ditches would smell like roses and rain water taste like beer.

I'd shoot 67 at Oakmont from the tips, and never tell a soul.

I'd have no idea what I'm rambling about, and wouldn't care.

Best
Peter"




PeterP (There's a certain ring to that)

That's a keeper and it's printed out and filed in the Virtual Poetry folder.




PS:
I particularly like the possible typo (everwhere) in the second line. That sounds right and it actually makes sense and needs to be a word honored and explained in the dictionary with your name in etymological parentheses for all time to come.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I often wonder about how TOC, Muirlield and Carnoustee stack up in this discusion. They each have good sandy links land but are flat. Oakmount has undesirable soil and the highway etc.Many courses use the top of the Hill for the clubhouse location. Oakmont just plays off it better than most.  It also has pretty decent land movement. Oakmont does belong in the elite club as do the others. I find all possees incredible greens complexes as well strategy and more strategy. I am glad to see Oakmont discussed for it variation of holes, depth of strategy and incredible greens rather than just being hard.

[Phil McDade]

Tiger:

Having walked both TOC and Carnoustie, I think the land at St. Andrews is considerably better than Carnoustie. The land at Carnoustie is good, but not great. Its chief defense (at least in '99 for the Open there) is its narrowness, its very penal bunkers (raised from the fairway, as opposed to the often somewhat sunken, hidden nature of TOC's bunkers), and the burn that comes into play. The land itself doesn't lend itself to too many awkward or interesting lies or variations in the flow of the hole. TOC has some of the best land I've ever walked for a golf course -- the bumpiest, most uneven, quirkiest terrain I've seen for a course still used for a major.

[George Pazin]

One quick note to those who have never been there:

You really can't appreciate how downhill 1, 10 or 12 are and play from TV - 12 looks almost gentle, and it most definitely isn't. You also can't appreciate how pitched some of the greens are.

The site looks much gentler on TV than in person.

[George Pazin]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your misunderstanding...but, George, I don't think Ran was simply saying Oakmont is a great course (9 or 10 on the Doak scale) on land that could be found elsewhere...I think he's saying if given the choice, an architect wouldn't select that land to build a course upon and would pass on the opportunity...yet the Fownes created a 9 or 10 on it. I would tend to side with Ben in that the land looks pretty good to me with some elevation change but not so much as to make any particular part an unworkable challenge.

As far as the question at hand, what does TPC Sawgrass rate on the Doak scale? if it's a 7, it passes Oakmont's Delta because the land couldn't have been better than 0, could it?

Missed this the other day, sorry, Jim. I know you were probably up all weekend wondering why I ducked your question.

As I said in my previous post, I don't think TV gives one an accurate impression of how sloped the hills are and the greens are.

It's interesting to think about to me - Ran notes the architect did a lot of work. What's interesting is where he did that work - seems like much more was done with the bunkers than the green complexes. I have embarrassingly little knowledge of how golf courses are constructed today, but I'd guess, generally speaking, that much more work is done around the green complexes and that bunkers are merely dug out (maybe stretching a bit to make a point).

As for TPC Sawgrass, I'd say that's a pretty damn good choice. I think it's a phenomenal test and surely the land was pretty lousy to start. I guess the only question for me is the nature of the test. If you've read any of my recent posts on Pete Dye, you'll know where I stand in that regard.

-----

As for the many people who comment that Oakmont is too hard or that there is no strategy, just hit it down the middle, I think you need to play the course a few times to really appreciate how good it is. Or, really really pay attention to how people come to their scores. The difference between being in the right and wrong place at Oakmont is night and day, much like at Augusta. And it's not merely obvious play and poor execution that results in being in the wrong place.

[Phil McDade]

"As for the many people who comment that Oakmont is too hard or that there is no strategy, just hit it down the middle..."

George:

I was struck, in albiet limited viewing, how much Oakmont seemed to fit Creamer's game, how she really thoughtfully approached the course, and had obviously thought about how to do so. She's not long, but usually accurate with her drives, and didn't seem bothered to have longer approaches than many of her competitors. And she seemed to do a very good job of leaving her approaches in the right place, in particular past the hole on front-to-back sloping greens, and alongside or in front on back-to-front ones.

Jack Nicklaus, at 54, was one stroke off the lead after the first round at the '94 Open at Oakmont, and one reason he cited for his success that day was (paraphrasing), "Oakmont's not a long course." Creamer seemed to recognize the peril that existed off the fairways and on the wrong spots on greens at Oakmont, and played accordingly.

[George Pazin]

"As for the many people who comment that Oakmont is too hard or that there is no strategy, just hit it down the middle..."

George:

I was struck, in albiet limited viewing, how much Oakmont seemed to fit Creamer's game, how she really thoughtfully approached the course, and had obviously thought about how to do so. She's not long, but usually accurate with her drives, and didn't seem bothered to have longer approaches than many of her competitors. And she seemed to do a very good job of leaving her approaches in the right place, in particular past the hole on front-to-back sloping greens, and alongside or in front on back-to-front ones.

Well said, Phil.

I know it's easy to look at hole diagrams for Oakmont and conclude there is trouble everywhere, you don't even have any choices. I really don't believe that's true. The difference between Oakmont and many other courses is that damn near all of the choices are tough!

[Sean_A]

What strikes me as very curious is why folks keep insisting that this purposefully designed penal course is strategic. If this sort of talk continues there really is no meaning to the words "penal" and "strategic".  I understand the concept of the continuum of architecture and is there anybody out there that rally believes Oakmont is on the strategic end of that scale?  What is wrong a penal course and why all the flubber to avoid the obvious "penal" tag?  Do folks think "great" and "penal" can't co-exist on the same course?

Ciao

[Terry Lavin]

What strikes me as very curious is why folks keep insisting that this purposefully designed penal course is strategic. If this sort of talk continues there really is no meaning to the words "penal" and "strategic".  I understand the concept of the continuum of architecture and is there anybody out there that rally believes Oakmont is on the strategic end of that scale?  What is wrong a penal course and why all the flubber to avoid the obvious "penal" tag?  Do folks think "great" and "penal" can't co-exist on the same course?

Ciao

Sean,

I do think that "great" and "penal" can exist on the same course.  The fairway bunkering at Oakmont on many holes strikes me as quite penal, because they hit you on both sides of par 4's and 5's and leave you with a narrow fairway.  The greens are surely penal, if only because of their incredible speed and the concomitant slope.  But there is no doubt that the golf course is phenomenal.  It is a test of will and skill, an examination of every shot in the bag, but especially the driver, the putter and your favorite wedge.  And we can't forget that Mark Studer and his fellow members made one of the best contributions to gca by members of a private club when they passed the measure to cut down 3,000 or 4,000 trees.  If anybody looks at that golf course and thinks that it needs trees around the greens or alongside fairways, they are out of their mind!  What a place!

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Obviouly there can be great "penal" courses. Chacun a son gout... But overall feelings are decidedly mixed about them. Oakmont is an outlier. Which goes a way towards explaining why Oakmont has had so little influence on golf architecture over the decades. I can't think of a famous course that has had less. To repeat my post higher up, when is the last time an architect boasted that his new course had shot values like Oakmont's?

Bob

[Terry Lavin]

Sean -

Obviouly there can be great "penal" courses. Chacun a son gout... But overall feelings are decidedly mixed about them. Oakmont is an outlier. Which goes a way towards explaining why Oakmont has had so little influence on golf architecture over the decades. I can't think of a famous course that has had less. To repeat my post higher up, when is the last time an architect boasted that his new course had shot values like Oakmont's?

Bob

Bob,

There are plenty of "shot values" discussions held at Oakmont.  Like, "I shot myself in the foot out there ten times today."  Or, "if I four-putt one more green, I'm gonna shoot myself." 

[George Pazin]

What strikes me as very curious is why folks keep insisting that this purposefully designed penal course is strategic. If this sort of talk continues there really is no meaning to the words "penal" and "strategic".  I understand the concept of the continuum of architecture and is there anybody out there that rally believes Oakmont is on the strategic end of that scale?  What is wrong a penal course and why all the flubber to avoid the obvious "penal" tag?  Do folks think "great" and "penal" can't co-exist on the same course?

Ciao

The problem lies within the terms. The obvious implication within the terms is that "penal" courses require little or no thinking, they are merely hard. There's even a bit of an implied "unfair", too, imho.

Oakmont does not fit into the strategic end of the scale if one is using the original definitions of the terms. Yet Oakmont is a course that requires as much thought as almost any course out there. So it's not "Strategic", but it does require strategy. It's one of the many wonderful things about the course, again imo.

It's kind of like the terms left and right within the political realm, but I'd rather not go there...

[George Pazin]

Which goes a way towards explaining why Oakmont has had so little influence on golf architecture over the decades. I can't think of a famous course that has had less.

I'd argue that TOC and Augusta National are similar in this regard. While most everyone pays lip service to TOC, how many actually have applied the lessons? Likewise for Augusta. All anyone seems to learn from Augusta is green and super fast greens.

Very many architects praise TOC, guys like Thomas and Mackenzie - and then go out and build courses that are more along the lines of RTJ's formulas, imho.

All of which illustrates my oft made point that many people see the proper questions/problems/etc, yet very few learn the correct answers/solutions/lessons. And that goes for all of life, not just golf course architecture.

[Sean_A]

George

The terms come with some baggage, but that is part and parcel of everything.  We all bring our own experiences to bear and thus have a little twist in defining most things.

Well, at least no one came up with some dopey replacement phrase for "penal" which only means the course is penal.  To me, a penal course can still be great if has interest around the greens and one or two holes which pulls a person back from from completely comfortably with the tag.  I would probably draw the line somewhere where losing balls on a significant percentage of the course is easily done - and that line is different for all golfers.  Are their folks out there saying Pine Valley and Oakland Hills aren't great courses?  Both strike me as somewhere on the penal side of the continuum, but isn't that part of the point of these courses?  They are meant to bust balls, but both still have the ability to charm the willing golfer.  

Terry

I have never heard of penal greens before - what an interesting concept.  Can you expand?

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think you're all making the mistake of comparing a course set up for the Women's Open to courses set up for Men's Opens, TOC in the British Open and ANGC for the Masters.

The recent set up of Oakmont for the Women's Open was somewhat benign.
By benign I mean that the course was playable for every level of golfer.

Oakmont, prior to and immediately after the Men's Open was set up for but one golfer, the PGA Tour golfer.
It was next to unplayable for all other golfers.

When I played Oakmont at the time of the Men's Open I had no desire to play it on a daily basis.
When I played Oakmont at the time of the Women's Open I had the desire to play it every day.

Same routing, same hole design, same features, save one, the rough.
One was unplayable the other reasonable.

With the set up for the Women's Open the Delta narrows considerably.

[Terry Lavin]

Terry

I have never heard of penal greens before - what an interesting concept.  Can you expand?

Ciao

I see no reason why a green cannot be called penal.  Just looking at the two and three tiered demons at Oakmont and knowing that they usually keep them at 14 on the Stimp suggests that penal is an appropriate tag for their design and maintenance.  Lost Dunes has a set of greens that are a lot of fun if played at 10 on the stimp, but which would be beyond penal if played at 13++.  It might be more of a maintenance and setup issue, but there's no question in my mind that there are courses where the penal tag could be aptly used, especially if there are a lot of tiers and a lot of internal undulations and slopes.

[George Pazin]

George

The terms come with some baggage, but that is part and parcel of everything.  We all bring our own experiences to bear and thus have a little twist in defining most things.

The problem is that the terms are so overwhelmingly loaded that it causes a great deal of misunderstanding. I think many or maybe even most of the people who post on here - people who have a far greater knowledge of the subject - do not use the terms properly in regards to their original definitions. When that happens, it's time for new words, imho - but I can't say I have an idea of what they should be.

[Sean_A]

Terry

I have never heard of penal greens before - what an interesting concept.  Can you expand?

Ciao

I see no reason why a green cannot be called penal.  Just looking at the two and three tiered demons at Oakmont and knowing that they usually keep them at 14 on the Stimp suggests that penal is an appropriate tag for their design and maintenance.  Lost Dunes has a set of greens that are a lot of fun if played at 10 on the stimp, but which would be beyond penal if played at 13++.  It might be more of a maintenance and setup issue, but there's no question in my mind that there are courses where the penal tag could be aptly used, especially if there are a lot of tiers and a lot of internal undulations and slopes.

Terry

Yes, I was thinking nasty greens are usually more of a maintenance issue.  As you well know, I don't believe greens need to be in double digts ever if they are well designed.  Although, I spose guys could still build nutty greens which make even rolling at 9 seem silly - though I can't recall ever seeing a set.

George

I hope "penal" never becomes another way of saying "bad".  All good courses need some penal architecture here and there to separate the men from the boys.  There has to be some butt clenching moments where the guy with the stones is handsomely rewarded for hitting the REQUIRED shot. 

Ciao

[PThomas]

all i know is that Oakmont looks and seems to play like a great golf course should...one of those courses you want to look at every time it is on tv

[Patrick_Mucci]

Terry Lavin, et. al.,

I don't believe that the greens are kept at 14 on the stimp.

Some of you may recall the study done for the USGA by Arthur Weber, a chemical engineer and golfing enthusiast, that refutes that notion.

Here's the graph presented in Mr Weber's treatise on Green Speed Physics, published by the USGA in their March/April 1997 edition.


Figure 5'

Stimp
Speed    13
At          12
Level      11
Surface   10
              9
              8
              7
              6
              5
              4
              3
              2
              1
              0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

              Putting Green Angle at Which Golf Ball Will Not Stop Rolling, Degrees

At 13 on the stimp, a ball will not stop rolling on a 4 degree slope.
At 14 it's close to a 3 degree slope.

Anyone familiar with the golf course knows that some of the slopes at Oakmont can be significantly more than 3 or 4 degrees.

If one accepts the principle that the USGA/Oakmont is not mowing each green at a different speed, then, the claim that the greens are stimping at 14 or more appears to be a myth, especially when one considers the fall away nature of greens # 1, 10 and 12.
Any ball approaching that green with any forward momentum, no matter how slight, could not stop on that green, if the greens were stimping at 14 or more.  
In addition, this study does NOT include the impact of wind, which is significant as stimp speeds get higher.
And, I'm not sure if the coefficient of friction considered in the study allowed for moisture/humidity in the putting surface.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Did you know Arthur Weber who wrote that report in 1997 for the USGA you mentioned?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()