[Sean_A]

I am curious about the love ratio between these two courses.  Both have long distinguished careers of holding championships.  Both are acknowledged to have world class greens.  Both are considered to have penal rough.  Both are considered to have penal fairway bunkering.  In fact I count 7 non par 3s at OHCC as penal fairway bunkering and 10 at OCC.  Neither looks to have an appreciable advantage with routing or terrain other than OCC has a motorway running through it.  It is my understanding that OCC has a few inbetweener holes which really throw a knuckleball at golfers.  I don't belive OHCC has these sorts of holes.  It is also the case where OCC may have more wind due to less trees.  Other than these issues, what makes folks love Oakmont much more than Oakland Hills?

Ciao

[George Pazin]

The Burgh.

Haven't seen OH other than on the tube, so take this for what it's worth (probably next to nothing), but the terrain at Oakmont looks more varied to me. The slopes at OH look more gently rolling. In that sense, OH looks more like WFW to me (again, this is from TV viewing, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Of course, I keep telling people Oakmont looks more severe in person than on TV, so maybe I'm making the same mistake with OH and WFW.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Phil McDade]

I've always had the impression that the GCA crowd here in the DG tends to like courses that have had fewer "outsiders" come in and tweak the course; Oakmont (George, correct me if I'm wrong) even during its heavily treed days was the product of the Fownes legacy work, longtime superintendents, and a membership that has pretty fiercely protected the course. I think the massive tree removal was at the iniatitive of a few renegade members who wanted to bring the course back to Fownes and son's original vision for the course.

Oakland Hills has, I believe, twice brought in "outsiders" to oversee some significant course re-dos to the original Ross design -- RTJ Sr. famously before the 1951 US Open, and in more recent years by Reese Jones.

[George Pazin]

George:

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

I was only kidding about the Burgh being the difference. OH certainly looks like it sits on an ideal piece of property, more so in many ways than Oakmont. It just looks more conventionally beautiful to me, but again, that is from the TV.

I like your description of the one-off versus the similarity.

[Sean_A]

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 

[Jay Flemma]

To me, as major venues go, #1 and #1A.  I love them both.  They have great internal green contours, they are both on exquisite pieces of severely rolling property, fairways slope side-to-side, and they have terrific routings.

[Carl Nichols]

This is probably just another way to say what Tom D said, but I could probably name 20 top-ranked courses that are somewhat similar to OH, but none that are similarly similar to Oakmont.


Of course, I've never played either, but you get the point....

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say.  It is not the fact that the "Fownes" label is more rare, it's the fact that there aren't any other designs quite like Oakmont, with its many fallaway greens -- though, funnily enough, the 14th green at Oakland Hills is probably the closest to an Oakmont green on another championship course.

Sean:

See above.  But no, the courses really aren't so different in terms of quality.  Both have been ranked among the top ten in America pretty much since the rankings began.  It is only on GCA [with several fervent Oakmont men and no Oakland Hills people] that the difference is as pronounced as you perceive.

[Jason Goss]

I have not been to Oakmont, but when I visited Oakland Hills I could not believe the contours on the greens.  I can't imagine playing those greens at any speed higher than 9'.  I was there for the US open in 96 and you simply cannot see the elevation changes or contours on TV.  I watched Davis Love three jack the 18th from less than 20' to miss a playoff with Jones.  Incredible.

[jonathan_becker]

Here's a photo of the 14th green from 15 tee.  It's one of the best on the course.



I'll post a few more in the morning.

[Mike Cirba]

Sean,

They both try to be monsters and succeed.

But to me, Oakland Hills tries to look too sophisticated, and suffers in that respect.

Oakmont just is.  It is stark, and bleak, and unapologetic.

It doesn't need bunkers to have some sort of fussy shaping.

It doesn't need trees.

It doesn't need water hazards, or famous willow trees.

It doesn't ask to be understood, nor does it need to be.   In fact, if you try to understand it, it will punch you in the face and knee you in the groin.

It's honest and it's out to get you, and your loved ones too.

[J_ Crisham]

I had the good fortune last Weds to play Oakland Hills. This was my second time there. I forgot just how good the routing is using the elevation changes on #10-12. I found the stretch of #13 thru 17 to be very strong. The greens at Oakland are as good as any I've seen. They are diabolical in spots but also played fairly. The conditioning was top notch-compared to the disappointing shape of most of our clubs in Chicago it was refreshing.            Jack

[David_Madison]

Oakmont seems a little quirkier as well, something many of us like here. Things like the Church Pews bunkers, and lots of long fescue native rough all add to Oakmont's just being different than the average bear. The short par-4's are neat and add character, especially #'s 2 and 17. The fall-away greens, such as the par-5 #12, or #3's crowned green. All might just be some specifics behind Tom Doak's broad comments which are dead on, but they illustrate the differences pretty well.

[George Pazin]

Sean,

They both try to be monsters and succeed.

But to me, Oakland Hills tries to look too sophisticated, and suffers in that respect.

Oakmont just is.  It is stark, and bleak, and unapologetic.

It doesn't need bunkers to have some sort of fussy shaping.

It doesn't need trees.

It doesn't need water hazards, or famous willow trees.

It doesn't ask to be understood, nor does it need to be.   In fact, if you try to understand it, it will punch you in the face and knee you in the groin.

It's honest and it's out to get you, and your loved ones too.

Wonderful post, well done Mike.

Sean, the 13th at Oakmont is a shortish par 3, though perhaps not as short as you seek.

[Sean_A]

Oakmont seems a little quirkier as well, something many of us like here. Things like the Church Pews bunkers, and lots of long fescue native rough all add to Oakmont's just being different than the average bear. The short par-4's are neat and add character, especially #'s 2 and 17. The fall-away greens, such as the par-5 #12, or #3's crowned green. All might just be some specifics behind Tom Doak's broad comments which are dead on, but they illustrate the differences pretty well.

David

Thank you.  I am beginning to see that these handful of special holes seem to make a world of difference and why not?  

George

Yes, Mike's post is wonderful, wonderful hyperbole which doesn't tell me anything!

Could somebody point in the direction of the special handful of holes?  I will go back and look at them on George's OCC thread.

Ciao

[Phil Benedict]

Would Oakland Hills' love quotient go up if they cut down all the trees the way Oakmont did?

[Sean_A]

Would Oakland Hills' love quotient go up if they cut down all the trees the way Oakmont did?

Phil

I don't know, but I never really thought of OHCC as having tree problems.  Either way, I don't think the long range views are on offer at OHCC.  Its very much a suburban club with houses all over the place and a few largish roads on its borders.

Ciao 

[Mark McKeever]

Sean,

They both try to be monsters and succeed.

But to me, Oakland Hills tries to look too sophisticated, and suffers in that respect.

Oakmont just is.  It is stark, and bleak, and unapologetic.

It doesn't need bunkers to have some sort of fussy shaping.

It doesn't need trees.

It doesn't need water hazards, or famous willow trees.

It doesn't ask to be understood, nor does it need to be.   In fact, if you try to understand it, it will punch you in the face and knee you in the groin.

It's honest and it's out to get you, and your loved ones too.

Well put Mike.  I sent this to a friend of mine who plays there a good bit.  He got a chuckle out of it.

Mark

[Ron Csigo]

Would Oakland Hills' love quotient go up if they cut down all the trees the way Oakmont did?

Phil

I don't know, but I never really thought of OHCC as having tree problems.  Either way, I don't think the long range views are on offer at OHCC.  Its very much a suburban club with houses all over the place and a few largish roads on its borders.

Ciao 

There has been a little bit of tree removal on the holes bordering the 7th and 14th holes.  Nothing that would significantly change either of those holes other than opening them up a little bit.  Other than that, Ross' original design and intent remain intact, "a very open and roomy course."

[jonathan_becker]

Here are a few more photos....par 3s to start

3



9



9 green



13



17

[Phil Benedict]

Would Oakland Hills' love quotient go up if they cut down all the trees the way Oakmont did?

Phil

I don't know, but I never really thought of OHCC as having tree problems.  Either way, I don't think the long range views are on offer at OHCC.  Its very much a suburban club with houses all over the place and a few largish roads on its borders.

Ciao 

It's not so much that OHCC has tree problems but that Oakmont created some separation between itself and other classic era courses by taking down virtually all of the interior trees.  Put another way, would Oakmont receive so much GCA love if, instead the radical tree removal undertaken, they just did some judicious culling like Winged Foot or other classic era courses.  

[George Pazin]

George

Yes, Mike's post is wonderful, wonderful hyperbole which doesn't tell me anything!

Could somebody point in the direction of the special handful of holes?  I will go back and look at them on George's OCC thread.

Ciao

I wouldn't call it hyperbole, I'd call it apt metaphor.

As for special holes, I'd say take note of 1 thru 18.

It's not so much that OHCC has tree problems but that Oakmont created some separation between itself and other classic era courses by taking down virtually all of the interior trees.  Put another way, would Oakmont receive so much GCA love if, instead the radical tree removal undertaken, they just did some judicious culling like Winged Foot or other classic era courses. 

Always tough to project something like this, but I think it'd be getting plenty of love regardless, though the extra certainly doesn't hurt.

[jonathan_becker]

Some more shots....by the way, 10 and 11 were awesome holes with tons of movement and contours.  11 is one of the best holes I've ever played.  Edit - Scroll to the right to see the full view of 11 tee.  I'm too lazy to go back and change it.

4 approach from the left



6 approach



6 green looking back



8 from the snack stand



10 tee



10 approach



10 green



11 tee



11 fw looking back



11 fw bunker



back of 9 tee looking down 11



11 green



12 tee from 30 feet up - bombs away!!



16 tee



16 approach



18 green from the left

[PThomas]

nitpick of the day:  those cart paths are not attractive

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()