[TEPaul]

"So puzzle me this. How good is a golf course if at least one great player thought the best way to play it was to intentionally ignore its most important architectural features? Put differently, Nelson thought the less he knew about the hazards of the course, the better he was able to play it.

Nelson (inadvertently) backs into an interesting working definition of an anti-strategic course. On such courses, the less you think about the course's design features, the better you are likely to play it. It's MacK and Behr upside down."


Bob:

You're right. The philosophy of the Fownes, father and son designer team, and particularly W.C., the son, was decidely penal in a particular form. W.C. definitely didn't deny that; he frankly admitted it loud and clear and why he wanted it to be that way----philosophically in an architectural context and arrangement and actually in play.

If one wants to describe Oakmont as "anti-strategic" by defining that term as pretty much the opposite of the architectural philosophy of MacK and Behr or as MacK and Behr upside down that would be quite accurate. That's why I've always described Oakmont off most all its tees as very "center-directed."

Oakmont is not architectural penal in the sense of the prevalence of the old penal school model of a ton of cross hazards; most all its hazards are pretty much on both sides. It's always been that way or at least that's definitely the way W.C. wanted to evolve it and did evolve it over time.

There are basically only three holes out there where from the tee you can't see in a New York second where not to go---#5, #9 and #11 and that wasn't Fownes so much as those three tee shots go over the crests of natual topographical ridges.

Fownes did not subscribe to something like Behr's idea of "line of charm" (some hazard feature in the "line of Instinct") where a golfer directionally as well as distance-wise needed to contemplate and then decide which option to choose. Oakmont from the tee always was and is pretty much a very visible "Yellow Brick Road."

So all Larry Nelson needed to do is align himself to that "Yellow Brick Road" on the tee, close his eyes and let it rip, as you say.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - I'd never read that story before. Interesting. It's as if Oakmont's 'visual intimidation' was too much for Nelson, and so he decided to take that element out of the equation by 'playing blind' as it were. And in the end, he found -- in winning the tournament -- that the course wasn't as intimidating, playing-wise, as he first imagined it to be.  Which is not to say that you and TE aren't correct in that 'anti-strategic' label; just that it seems that sometimes "no choice" can play as many tricks on a good player's mind as "too many choices".  Was it at the 17th hole at the last US Open there that the ultimate grinder and tactician Jim Furyk made the (wrong) choice to drive it up as close to the green as possible? I thought at the time that it was another example of the exhuasting/brain-frying effect of a 'no choice' courses and Open set-up.  It was almost like watching world cup soccer instead of NBA basketball, i.e. at Oakmont, even once choice (like one goal) can make all the difference.

Peter   

[BCrosby]

Tom/Peter -

Nelson's tactic of closing his eyes and letting it rip (thereby beating the best golfers in the world who made the mistake of actually looking at the course's design features ) is another way of saying that Oakmont is about physical shot execution, full stop. Nelson figured out a way to play that was solely about instinctively executing his golf swing - keeping the thought process out of it. He embraced Oakmont's "no-choice" aspect (rather than fight it) and triumphed. Others, perhaps, didn't get that and played less well.

The other interesting thing about Oakmont is that it might be one of the few "penal" golf courses, as the term is used by MacK and Behr. It makes no pretense to being "equitable", as most hard courses do. There's no claim to proportionality, for example. You are dead whether you are one inch or thirty yards off the fw. Doesn't matter.

Oakmont is an outlier for a lot of reasons. That's probably a good thing. Nothing wrong with some outliers. But I can't think of a famous course that has had less less influence on the design of other courses. I mean, you've never heard (and won't hear in the future) people advertising their courses as "hard like Oakmont" or "if you liked posting doubles at Oakmont, then you'll love playing Fenwick Links" or whatever.

Bob 



 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I loved this quote:

"Perhaps if people were less quick to judge sites as poor, owners and architects would be less quick to start mucking about massively in order to 'improve' them, and/or less quick to lower their own expectations about what kind/quality of golf course could be built there."

Sounds like a much younger me.  And, of course, you're right.  A lot of modern golf courses have wasted oodles of money on earthmoving and landscaping, instead of grinding out the playing features which would actually make the course better.  [Amazingly, Oakmont themselves lost focus and did the same thing when they planted all those trees years back.]

However, if by "architecture" you want to include routing the course, then your test makes it impossible to separate the architecture from the site.  Perhaps this also explains why some people think some architects are "lucky" to always get good sites, when it may really mean they are just able to sort out the site's potential to produce a good routing.  It is not always that obvious ... as an example, Jack Nicklaus opined to me early on that Sebonack wasn't really a great site (!), because of the ridge that ran through the middle of it.  He saw it as a problem, not a feature, and he hadn't figured out a routing which overcame it.  Later, when we walked the clearing lines, he said the site was better than he had realized [now that the routing was in place].

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

I agree with your last point, although the discussion will always get bogged down if you keep using the word "penal," which no one wants to admit to.  [Maybe if you spelled it differently?]

What Oakmont is, is a "shot-testing" course.  It does not let you minimize its demands by being clever and playing to the correct side of the fairway, and it never lets down its guard, although Mike Davis tried to change it up a bit for the men's Open by shortening a couple of the par-4's to driveable length, which probably had the Fowneses rolling over in their graves.

What Oakmont is also, is the best "shot-testing" course in the world, with far and away the best set of greens on any course of that type.  Usually you do not find a set of great greens on a "shot-testing" course, because the designer's philosophy is rooted in tee-to-green play, and there is the belief that if you execute two or three good shots to get on the green, the green should not reject the shot or give you an impossible putt.  Mr. Fownes and son obviously knew more about golf than that.

The combination of those two things will always make Oakmont controversial.  Some people insist on the strategic element, and will never bring themselves to like a course that doesn't have it.  At the same time, Oakmont manages to piss off a lot of the very good players who would otherwise be its biggest fans, because the challenge on the greens is just as relentless as the challenge getting there, if not more so.  The only people who will ever love Oakmont are the ones who have won there, because nobody can argue that on that particular week, they WERE the best player in the world.

Which makes it REALLY confusing that Ran would like it so much. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Which makes it REALLY confusing that Ran would like it so much. 

Maybe Ran finally beat Mucci?

[Ben Sims]

With my relatively recent exposure to Oakmont, Ran's premise here kind of shocked me.  I read his post and was flabbergasted at how he could consider it's land as a "4". 

I am not a very good golfer.  But I loved Oakmont.  I felt like I had to concentrate on every shot, and I struck the ball well.  My score didn't reflect my ball striking that day, and maybe that is what Oakmont can do to a mid-capper like me. 

I haven't said this to many folks, but I compare Oakmont to my first exposure to Pac Dunes in many ways.  Pac Dunes, from the first time  played it, seemed like new technology.  It seemed like Tom and Jim and the Renaissance men built a course about 100 feet in the air, then twisted it around in the air like multi-touch on an iphone screen, and draped it over the land perfectly.  Imagine a sheet of clingwrap being held over a plate of food, then matching the three dimensions of the food once it's placed over the plate.  It wasn't until I played at Oakmont that I felt that way again.  It seems to fit so seamlessly, and is effortless in the way it floats on it's land.

I really only felt forced a few times on the course, and those times were on the back tees of 4 and 7, and the elevated tees on 17.  The course highlights for me, the extreme importance of quality green complexes, their tie in to the fairway and other surrounding land, and short but precise green to tee transitions.  These reasons--among others--are why Ran's OP seems almost ludicrous.  I don't see Oakmont's property any less suited--aside from the clay--to golf than Riviera, Pebble Beach (ignore ocean), or even Augusta National. 

[Garland Bayley]

My logical mind says the answer to this is NO!

Given that "anyone can build a difficult course" and its corollary "a difficult course can be built on any site" you find that the delta decreases rapidly as the number of holes goes to infinity.

Face it. The course gets its high rankings from being a "shot testing" test for the best players. It gives little enjoyment to the average player (or even the much better than average player like Cary). If you follow the dictum of the ODGs that a course should test the best, but give the average player an enjoyable round, the delta goes to almost zero.

JMHO

[George Pazin]

The part I can't understand is you are saying the site is mediocre at best,  but little earth moving ocurred to create a great golf course.  Something has to give here as you can't have it both ways or are you saying Oakmont is a marvelous engineering job because of drainage improvements?

The key to understanding this paradox is to think a bit further about your premises and Ran's.

Oakmont simply amazes me. The property is in no way flat, nor is it appreciably different than much of the terrain we have here in western PA. But there's only one Oakmont. Unlike many architects today, who would take the severe parts and lessen or change them completely with heavy equipment, Fownes utilized the varied terrain to maximum effect. Part of this was due to when it was built and the lack of heavy equipment, but more of it was due to Mr. Fownes incredible insight.

Oakmont is set on an incredibly piece of property, but one only realizes this after playing it. I wonder how many other courses that use the excuse of "it was a mediocre piece of property" could have been far better had the architect had one-tenth of the talent of Mr. Fownes. How many other incredible sites are there that are completely overlooked?

There will always be people who don't get or don't like a particular course, but I have to say, anyone who dislikes Oakmont, well, I won't seek out his or her opinion on golf courses any further. To each his own.

[TEPaul]

"Which is not to say that you and TE aren't correct in that 'anti-strategic' label; just that it seems that sometimes "no choice" can play as many tricks on a good player's mind as "too many choices"."


Peter:

In my mind, Oakmont off the tees is definitely not about "no choice." It's just fundamentally about "distance choice" and not "direction choice." But the "distance choice" out there is very real and extremely effective strategically. The only hole out there that is about distance AND direction choice seems to be #17. But in its present form I'm not too sure how true to Fownes that hole is today but I'm about to check that out from the historical material I have here.

But if one wants to get into the whole "penal vs strategic" discussion or even the "Joshua Crane vs Mackenzie/Behr" debate with Oakmont and Fownes, in my mind, particularly W.C. Fownes (maybe not as much his father H.C.) might have been the strongest philosophical ally and actual architectural practitioner of Crane's articulated ideas that I am aware of.  

[TEPaul]

Historical architectural note on #17:

I would say that even though #17 today is or can be a very distinct "direction option" choice to the like of tour pros (and given Mike Davis's interesting tee marker set-up wrinkles) to W.C. Fownes #17 was not effectively about a "direction option" choice of going for the green from the tee or laying back in the fairway, as the Arthur Jack Snyder 1939 drawing of the course shows the hole at 302 yards, and I doubt in 1939 anyone could drive a ball 302 yards up that hill (even though, somewhat like Merion East's #10 driving it in a straight line at the green would've been something less than 300 yards in the air).

[George Pazin]

Bob:

I agree with your last point, although the discussion will always get bogged down if you keep using the word "penal," which no one wants to admit to.  [Maybe if you spelled it differently?]

What Oakmont is, is a "shot-testing" course.  It does not let you minimize its demands by being clever and playing to the correct side of the fairway, and it never lets down its guard, although Mike Davis tried to change it up a bit for the men's Open by shortening a couple of the par-4's to driveable length, which probably had the Fowneses rolling over in their graves.

What Oakmont is also, is the best "shot-testing" course in the world, with far and away the best set of greens on any course of that type.  Usually you do not find a set of great greens on a "shot-testing" course, because the designer's philosophy is rooted in tee-to-green play, and there is the belief that if you execute two or three good shots to get on the green, the green should not reject the shot or give you an impossible putt.  Mr. Fownes and son obviously knew more about golf than that.

The combination of those two things will always make Oakmont controversial.  Some people insist on the strategic element, and will never bring themselves to like a course that doesn't have it.  At the same time, Oakmont manages to piss off a lot of the very good players who would otherwise be its biggest fans, because the challenge on the greens is just as relentless as the challenge getting there, if not more so.  The only people who will ever love Oakmont are the ones who have won there, because nobody can argue that on that particular week, they WERE the best player in the world.

Which makes it REALLY confusing that Ran would like it so much.  

Thanks for posting this, now I understand why you don't hold Oakmont in the same high regard as many others. I'd be curious to see if that opinion would change if you had the opportunity to play the course several times. (I mean this honestly, not as a subtle dig or anything.)

I hope JohnV shares his thoughts on the course, and in particular, how they evolved over multiple plays. If he doesn't, I will try to paraphrase them later, but it would be better if he shared them himself. I'll try to alert him to this thread.

I have had many people tell me the course is just too hard. I have also had many more tell me that was their first impression, but later that opinion evolved. I have to dig through my many messages to see if I can find some opinions people shared with me privately during the Oakmont weekly series (don't worry, I won't use names).

I think Oakmont will let you use utilize strategy to minimize your score. In my highly biased opinion, it does this in a far more subtle (and also imo, much better) manner than many or most modern shot-testing courses, even those by highly regarded architects.

My logical mind says the answer to this is NO!

Given that "anyone can build a difficult course" and its corollary "a difficult course can be built on any site" you find that the delta decreases rapidly as the number of holes goes to infinity.

Face it. The course gets its high rankings from being a "shot testing" test for the best players. It gives little enjoyment to the average player (or even the much better than average player like Cary). If you follow the dictum of the ODGs that a course should test the best, but give the average player an enjoyable round, the delta goes to almost zero.

JMHO

I don't think you'd feel this way if you played the course several times, but I don't know you well enough to say for sure.

[Jeff Dawson]

"As is the case with Friar's Head, the golfer leaves the course [Oakmont] actually thinking it occupies a very good site for golf."

Ran - I hope you don't mind some off-the-top-of-my-head riffing on that sentence, as follows:

And that golfer would be right, wouldn't he?   Those courses do occupy very good sites for golf.


While Friar's Head is my favorite course built since 1940, the architect actually took months walking the land before he would agree to do the job.  If the land was so obviously good I don't believe he would have done that.  While it looks obvious to us now, perhaps its because of the work done by the architect.

[TEPaul]

Tom/Peter -

"Nelson's tactic of closing his eyes and letting it rip......is another way of saying that Oakmont is about physical shot execution, full stop."


Bob;

In my opinion, there is no question about that at Oakmont off just about every tee; no question at all. In that vein, it is about as clear a case of "shot dictation" direction-wise as one can find. That's why I call the tee shot philosophy on that course "center directed."

But there sure is choice off those tees but it's all about distance choice. You can pretty much choose to try to hit it as far as you can as long as you can keep the ball on that "Yellow Brick Road."

There are very few cross hazards or semi-cross hazards on par 4 and par 5 tee shots on that course even though there are a few more on second shots and such.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - a real good post. And as a mid handicapper too, I think I'd have the same experience as you did. There's nothing wrong with taking an ass-kicking once in a while. (Reminds me of Richard Pryor's story about walking into a bar with football great Jim Brown.  Some guy wanted to show off, so he yells out, "Jim Brown, I'm gonna kick your ass!".  To which Brown calmly replied, "Well then, I guess that's one ass-kicking I'm gonna have to take" -- leaving the now terrified toughie to ease himself out of the bar very quickly).  

George, Tom P and Bob - good posts too, thanks.  

Tom D - thanks for that. I think what JN was about to do there is what others have done all too often (in North America, over the last 25 years) -- he was ready to throw in the towel a tad too quickly, and in the name of 'improving a poor site.'  I can't imagine that the architects who designed-built the best of the 'average Englsih courses' did that very often.  This reminds me: when I was 10 years old we went to visit relatives in Brooklyn. One of them was a big baseball fan, and I learned about and became enamoured with Mickey Mantle, especially his spectacular Triple Crown year in 1956.  Later, as I got older, I learned about and switched my allegience to Lou Gehrig -- the kind of man he was, but mostly his 2130 consecutive games.  The 'long-haul', the 'consistent performer', the 'consumate professional' had become more appealing to me than the spectacular. But THEN, I learned that Gehrig had ALSO won the triple crown with (I just went to look this up) 49 HRs, 165 RBIs, and a 363 average (and all this following Ruth in the batting order!!).  Sorry, rambling -- all of which is to say, it seems to me that if you AIM for the spectacular you're going to miss as often as you succeed (and in gca, that means ending up with many courses that look like amusement parks); but if you aim instead to be the consumate professional over the long haul (and in gca, this means always trying to route the best course you can on the land as it presents itself), you'll achieve that PLUS achieving greatness every once in a while.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"With my relatively recent exposure to Oakmont, Ran's premise here kind of shocked me.  I read his post and was flabbergasted at how he could consider it's land as a "4"."


Ben Sims:

There is a very good reason for that to people who know Ran as well as I do. It's because for a man who clearly has a remarkable bent, knack and intuitive sense of and for golf course architecture, as well as explaining it beautifully, which he can do about 95% of the time, there is that 5% or so of the time when, in basketball parlance, he throws a complete and utter "air-ball."

I can give you some of the best examples if you'd like and when it happens, yes, you're right; it is both shocking and flabbergasting!    



Ben:
I believe I should qualify that 5% of the time thing when he throws a complete and flabbergasting "air-ball." I'm convinced that about 3% of the time he does it as a complete put-on and with quite the straight-face to boot, probably just to see what kind of reaction it gets. But there is that other 2% of the time when it really is a total mental "air-ball." I saw it once in Oregon on the 15th hole at Pacific Dunes and again in Nebraska on the 14th hole at Sand Hills. I looked at him in amazement those two times and it was as if there was nothing back their behind his eyes and the Oregon and Nebraska winds were blowing right through both ears. Some people call that type of thing a "brain-fart" but personally I don't like that term and rarely use it because I just don't think that kind of semi-crude terminology suits a highly intelligent and extremely sophisticated man, such as myself.

[BCrosby]

TomD/Peter -

The Sebonack ridge/routing story brought to mind the ridge at Seminole. I  have trouble imagining that Ross thought it a problem for his routing. Or, maybe better put, if Ross had seen it as a problem, he wouldn't have been the great architect he was.

Bob

[JC Jones]

TomD/Peter -

The Sebonack ridge/routing story brought to mind the ridge at Seminole. I  have trouble imagining that Ross thought it a problem for his routing. Or, maybe better put, if Ross had seen it as a problem, he wouldn't have been the great architect he was.

Bob

I was once told a story that a prominent architect hated Seminole for the very use of that ridge the way Ross used it.  He thought the course better routed between the ridge and the ocean.  Back and forth, much like the sequence of 12-14. 

[TEPaul]

"[Amazingly, Oakmont themselves lost focus and did the same thing when they planted all those trees years back.]"


Peter:

You know there is a wonderful story contained in Oakmont's very good history book about that specific event. It is quite direct and attributable and the man who decided to do it, thought of it and then did it for a most unusual reason. Would you like me to tell it to you right from the history book?

[Anthony Gray]

My logical mind says the answer to this is NO!

Given that "anyone can build a difficult course" and its corollary "a difficult course can be built on any site" you find that the delta decreases rapidly as the number of holes goes to infinity.

Face it. The course gets its high rankings from being a "shot testing" test for the best players. It gives little enjoyment to the average player (or even the much better than average player like Cary). If you follow the dictum of the ODGs that a course should test the best, but give the average player an enjoyable round, the delta goes to almost zero.

JMHO

  Could be the best way to sum up Oakmont. It distinguishes the best from the worst more than any other course.

  Anthony

[George Pazin]

-- all of which is to say, it seems to me that if you AIM for the spectacular you're going to miss as often as you succeed (and in gca, that means ending up with many courses that look like amusement parks); but if you aim instead to be the consumate professional over the long haul (and in gca, this means always trying to route the best course you can on the land as it presents itself), you'll achieve that PLUS achieving greatness every once in a while.

Peter

I can see this, mostly because I believe someone aiming for the spectacular far too often has a myopic view and sees his own brilliance as the answer to all. I believe it's the philosophy of those who work with the land that creates the conditions necessary for spectacular success.

Respect, restraint, call it what you will - working with the land almost uniformly results in a superior product to those who feel they can improve the site. The unfortunate irony is that when said approach leads to success, it's often diminished with "well, he had a great site".

In spite of what Ben and others have said, I don't see anyone walking out to the site Oakmont graces before the course was built and thinking it would yield a magnificent golf course. Yet it did. And only in hindsight is it a great site.

[George Pazin]

My logical mind says the answer to this is NO!

Given that "anyone can build a difficult course" and its corollary "a difficult course can be built on any site" you find that the delta decreases rapidly as the number of holes goes to infinity.

Face it. The course gets its high rankings from being a "shot testing" test for the best players. It gives little enjoyment to the average player (or even the much better than average player like Cary). If you follow the dictum of the ODGs that a course should test the best, but give the average player an enjoyable round, the delta goes to almost zero.

JMHO

  Could be the best way to sum up Oakmont. It distinguishes the best from the worst more than any other course.

  Anthony

I disagree entirely, at least with Garland.

Plenty of people have built courses to distinguish the best from the worst or tried to build a really difficult course. Yet few if any have achieved the universal praise that Oakmont rightly receives. That should tell you and Garland something.

[Ben Sims]

"With my relatively recent exposure to Oakmont, Ran's premise here kind of shocked me.  I read his post and was flabbergasted at how he could consider it's land as a "4"."


Ben Sims:

There is a very good reason for that to people who know Ran as well as I do. It's because for a man who clearly has a remarkable bent, knack and intuitive sense of and for golf course architecture, as well as explaining it beautifully, which he can do about 95% of the time, there is that 5% or so of the time when, in basketball parlance, he throws a complete and utter "air-ball."

I can give you some of the best examples if you'd like and when it happens, yes, you're right; it is both shocking and flabbergasting!    



Ben:
I believe I should qualify that 5% of the time thing when he throws a complete and flabbergasting "air-ball." I'm convinced that about 3% of the time he does it as a complete put-on and with quite the straight-face to boot, probably just to see what kind of reaction it gets. But there is that other 2% of the time when it really is a total mental "air-ball." I saw it once in Oregon on the 15th hole at Pacific Dunes and again in Nebraska on the 14th hole at Sand Hills. I looked at him in amazement those two times and it was as if there was nothing back their behind his eyes and the Oregon and Nebraska winds were blowing right through both ears. Some people call that type of thing a "brain-fart" but personally I don't like that term and rarely use it because I just don't think that kind of semi-crude terminology suits a highly intelligent and extremely sophisticated man, such as myself.

Tom Paul,

I wouldn't presume to know Ran at a level that would explain this thread.  But I think he needs to reload and engage a bit further.  I thought Oakmont was one of the more enchanting clubs I've been around.  That is to say, that the way the ground rolls and heaves, yet remains so open and inviting is pretty stinking cool.  --Edit.  I think this is what makes other places like Shinnecock and others so inviting as a club as well--

The way Ran has started this thread--among others--is like the way fighter pilots mission plan.  A bunch of dudes are in the planning room working their tails off.  And in jumps one guy--usually a fast mover type--and says, "We're all f@^&ed!", then promptly leaves.

[Jim Nugent]

It gives little enjoyment to the average player (or even the much better than average player like Cary). If you follow the dictum of the ODGs that a course should test the best, but give the average player an enjoyable round, the delta goes to almost zero.

JMHO

Yet two self-described average players -- Ben and George -- both love the place.  

Have you seen any polling of average golfers who played Oakmont, to see how they like it?  

[Peter Pallotta]

"Some people call that type of thing a "brain-fart" but personally I don't like that term and rarely use it because I just don't think that kind of semi-crude terminology suits a highly intelligent and extremely sophisticated man, such as myself."

Tee hee - reminds me, Tom, of a line from "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie".  Someone suggests to our hero Cosmo Vitelli that he has "class", and Cosmo repies: "I've got style, not class".  A motto to live by I think...

Peter 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()