News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2010, 10:06:38 AM »
Thanks for the pix, jb. Very good stuff, you have a good eye.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2010, 10:12:42 AM »
Overall, I loved OH and the elevation changes were greater than what I was expecting.  Also, the greens were outstanding and had great variety.  But it's like by buddy Byron always says about any course that isn't Oakmont...."Well, it's no Oakmont!"

I don't get is why #16 is supposed to be so great?  I don't know, but I was underwhelmed on that hole.

I also posted a few photos of 18 the other day on the thread about holes where the land goes away from the dogleg.

George P - Thanks for the compliment....I seriously have no idea what I'm doing when using a camera!  ;D

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2010, 10:15:46 AM »
Paul,

When viewing my photos after the round, the cartpaths were the first thing that jumped out at me.

Jim Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2010, 10:20:00 AM »
Haven't been to OH since about 1994, but looking at Mr. Becker's picks I would have to say there has been some tree removal there. The several times I visited I never felt the course was overwhelmed by trees- in fact, there seemd to be plenty of room. Of course, that was before I really understood the significance of trees on GCA and agronomy.
"Hope and fear, hope and Fear, that's what people see when they play golf. Not me. I only see happiness."

" Two things I beleive in: good shoes and a good car. Alligator shoes and a Cadillac."

Moe Norman

Ron Csigo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2010, 10:29:52 AM »

I don't get is why #16 is supposed to be so great?  I don't know, but I was underwhelmed on that hole.


The 16th has not changed very much since Donald Ross originally designed the hole.  RTJ rebunkered the green and actually moved the fairway farther left which brings the water more into play on the approach shot.  Do you flirt with the water or play to a safe patch of fairway to your left? 

Where did you play your third shot from?   ;)
Playing and Admiring the Great Golf Courses of the World.

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2010, 10:34:00 AM »
Ron,

As you know damn well....from 10 yards short after fatting a wedge!!  :D

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2010, 10:37:40 AM »
Nice pics Richard!  

This was your tee shot -- wasn't it? 8)





And I know this one didn't scare you a bit either.




When I was there for the 96 Open, I thought the golf course was sublime.  These pics are a nice reminder, thanks for sharing them.

Eric




PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2010, 10:38:57 AM »

I don't get is why #16 is supposed to be so great?  I don't know, but I was underwhelmed on that hole.


The 16th has not changed very much since Donald Ross originally designed the hole.  RTJ rebunkered the green and actually moved the fairway farther left which brings the water more into play on the approach shot.  Do you flirt with the water or play to a safe patch of fairway to your left? 

Where did you play your third shot from?   ;)

was 16 considered great before Gary Player's shot in the 72 PGA??
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2010, 10:41:24 AM »
Eric,

Yes and Nope!!  :D

Ron Csigo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2010, 10:48:30 AM »
Ron,

As you know damn well....from 10 yards short after fatting a wedge!!  :D

For the record, it was the only bad shot you hit that day.  You had an impressive round at OHCC, Jonathan!
Playing and Admiring the Great Golf Courses of the World.

Chuck Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2010, 01:16:55 PM »
George:

Oakland Hills is really a beautiful piece of property for golf.  There are twenty-foot rises and falls, some gentle and others abrupt.


Sean:

The main difference is that Oakmont is a one-off design by Mr. Fownes, whereas Oakland Hills [despite its great set of greens] is much more similar to other Golden Age courses, and of course it was designed by a guy who did 400 others.

Tom

That is an interesting observation I hadn't thought of - value in one off and less value in production line.  I spose it makes sense, but in the end, are the courses really all that different in terms of presenting a high quality design?  Also, do you spsoe people actually think in terms of Ross being dime a dozen stuff and Fownes being a one off when they evaluate the designs? 

Looking further at the bunkering I notice that OCC is more varied in its bunker style and how they are generally placed around greens even if the concept tends toward quite/very penal in the overall design.   

I would like to know more about the par 3s.  OHCC are good without being outstanding, but neither has a truly short par 3 - a real design flaw imo. 

Ciao 

Sean, and Tom --
Tom is exactly right about the terrain at OHCC South.
I think the biggest difference is that OHCC has become rather landlocked in the Pro V era, while Oakmont (it reminds me of Muirfield in this regard) is settled onto an unusually generous piece of property, with room to move more tees, etc.  (The 9th at Muirfield a notable exception, although Muirfield's generous plot is what allowed them to trade for more 9th tee room...)
They are very similar in the amount of movement with the land.
Sean, I'd argue that OHCC does have a serviceable (as a "short") Par 3... 13.  What you do is put the flag in a touchy spot (there are lots of them) and move the tee up.  They did that one day at the Ryder Cup.  And as for short Par-4's, we all know about Oakmont's; it is one of the small handful of best short Par 4's in the world.  OHCC has Number 6.  And the emphasis on Number 6 being a short Par 4 has only increased with equipment technology, and with the loss of the biggest and most magnificent elm on the course.  (In the driving area to the left of 6 fairway.)

Matt Elliott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont and Oakland Hills
« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2010, 11:52:48 AM »
Ron,

As you know damn well....from 10 yards short after fatting a wedge!!  :D

For the record, it was the only bad shot you hit that day.  You had an impressive round at OHCC, Jonathan!

Thanks again for a great day Ron, it was a pleasure meeting you...and Becker your pictures are better than I would have thought given some of the shots you hit that day  ;)

As for the golf course, I thought it was great. I had been to Oakland Hills for a Senior Open and the 1996 U.S. Open and didn't remember the all of the slopes and elevation. They were a very pleasant surprise. Also the greens were fantastic, and I can finally understand why we see so many guys struggle during events there.  I too was a little underwhelmed by the 16th hole. It's not a bad hole but I was expecting more. Overall it was definitely one of the highlights of my year. I have yet to play Oakmont but OH will remain pretty high in my book.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back