Why can't someone build the next Oakmont?

[Bart Bradley]

It seems that nearly all of the new courses that receive praise as "great" are being built on truly inspiring sites (shorelines, sand hills, long island, cliff along the ocean etc) and/or have sandy soil.  Oakmont's property certainly has some rolling movement but is not an all world site and I don't believe the native soil is sandy.  So who is going to build the next great Parkland course on clay/loam based soil, where will it be, and how will it happen?   Or has it already been built and I just haven't appreciated it yet?  Have we moved to where only "links-style" and "epic" golf courses can receive the highest of praise among modern designs?

If I owned a slightly rolling property with something other than sandy soil, I would certainly ask my architect to consider what makes Oakmont great and see if we couldn't borrow, with modifications, on those themes.

Just the musings of a crazed loon.  Have at it  .

Bart

[Carl Rogers]

Hasn't Donald Trump "attempted" to do this at multiple sites across the world?

[Mac Plumart]

Pikewood National

I think this course is kind of new...it ain't links, it looks hard (like Oakmont), and I don't think is sand based.

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

Let's be honest.  Oakmont is not famous because it's an inspiring design [even though some people, including me, find it to be inspiring].  It is famous because it is brutally hard and doesn't mince words about it.

Whereas modern courses are built to appeal to all demographics.  That's why they're all alike -- they are all trying to appeal to everyone, so only the settings are different, and the best setting wins..  How far overboard has it gone?  Well, I'm in hot water on the current Streamsong thread because I didn't specify tee markers at 4000 yards for Bryan Izatt's wife.  

I have never had a client who wanted to go very far out on any limb.  [Rupert O'Neal was the closest ... and he went bankrupt.]  I have certainly never had a client who wanted me to build something like Oakmont.  Hopefully, someday I will.

P.S.  I haven't seen Pikewood National, but it is telling that those guys didn't even HIRE an architect to build what they wanted.

[David_Tepper]

Caves Valley?

[JESII]

Doesn't it have to be a privately owned course so the owner can go out and build a new bunker every time he sees someone gain an advantage he hadn't thought of previously?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Lord knows knows people have been trying to build the next ANGC for decades. Must be harder than it looks.

[Ron Csigo]

Lord knows knows people have been trying to build the next ANGC for decades. Must be harder than it looks.

Look no further, Mark.  And it's just a short ride away from you.  

http://www.baywoodgreens.com/golf/index.htm

[Joe Leenheer]

Bart:

Let's be honest.  Oakmont is not famous because it's an inspiring design [even though some people, including me, find it to be inspiring].  It is famous because it is brutally hard and doesn't mince words about it.

Whereas modern courses are built to appeal to all demographics.  That's why they're all alike -- they are all trying to appeal to everyone, so only the settings are different, and the best setting wins..  How far overboard has it gone?  Well, I'm in hot water on the current Streamsong thread because I didn't specify tee markers at 4000 yards for Bryan Izatt's wife.  

I have never had a client who wanted to go very far out on any limb.  [Rupert O'Neal was the closest ... and he went bankrupt.]  I have certainly never had a client who wanted me to build something like Oakmont.  Hopefully, someday I will.

P.S.  I haven't seen Pikewood National, but it is telling that those guys didn't even HIRE an architect to build what they wanted.

Mr. Doak,

Do you really find Oakmont that challenging?  I personally think your bunkers/sand at Streamsong are exponentially harder to play from than those at the "Okey-Doak" (as I like to call it).  If you play good (not great), smart shots and avoid the turnpike (which I've managed to do all but once), most can find their way around Oakmont.  Maybe not shoot a life low.  But still enjoy themselves.

In response to "Why can't someone build the next Oakmont"...

Well....maybe a 100 years from now we will be talking about another course like we do Oakmont.  But that's what it will take.  100 years.  8 US Opens.   5 Ams.   and a slew of history.

And for that matter...who needs another Oakmont?  I like the one we got just fine.  

and another thing...why keep building new courses?  There are plenty of classic gems that need some modernization/retro-zation before they are plowed under into extinction.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm willing to anoint them the Augusta Natl of Delaware. They're pushing it with "...of the North." I'd give them "...of small states" but I think a Rhode Island course has a stronger candidacy, complete with financial difficulties and a suicide.

Anyway, whither Oakmont fils?

[Mark Steffey]

seedless poa!   only grows there.

[Joe Leenheer]

Lord knows knows people have been trying to build the next ANGC for decades. Must be harder than it looks.

Look no further, Mark.  And it's just a short ride away from you.  

http://www.baywoodgreens.com/golf/index.htm

"The Augusta of the North"...and you can print $5 and $10 coupons none the less!  I wonder if those can be applied to the purchase of a green jacket?

[Mark Steffey]

Lord knows knows people have been trying to build the next ANGC for decades. Must be harder than it looks.

Look no further, Mark.  And it's just a short ride away from you.  

http://www.baywoodgreens.com/golf/index.htm

"The Augusta of the North"...and you can print $5 and $10 coupons none the less!  I wonder if those can be applied to the purchase of a green jacket?

i hope the $5 coupon is good for 3 pimento cheese sangys.

[Sam Morrow]

Didn't Nuzzo and Mahaffey already do it?

[Bill_McBride]

Do you really find Oakmont that challenging?  I personally think your bunkers/sand at Streamsong are exponentially harder to play from than those at the "Okey-Doak" (as I like to call it).  If you play good (not great), smart shots and avoid the turnpike (which I've managed to do all but once), most can find their way around Oakmont.  Maybe not shoot a life low.  But still enjoy themselves.

Joe, I'm just curious about where one could hit a ball onto the freeway below?   Off 8 tee?

[Joel_Stewart]

I have certainly never had a client who wanted me to build something like Oakmont.  Hopefully, someday I will.

This is a little confusing?  It seems to be opposite of everything you have ever stood for.   It's long and hard and only appeals to a very small fraction of golfers.  Long and hard golf courses are one of the main problems with golf today.

[George Pazin]

People learn the wrong lessons in life. Golf is no different.

Most people miss what makes Oakmont so special. Even the learned folks on this site disagree on what makes Oakmont special. If you can't see it, it's pretty hard to duplicate it.

I'll disagree, politely, with Mr. Leenheer. The golf world needs a lot more Oakmonts - provided they can actually get Oakmonts, and not misunderstood pale imitations.

[Tom_Doak]

I have certainly never had a client who wanted me to build something like Oakmont.  Hopefully, someday I will.

This is a little confusing?  It seems to be opposite of everything you have ever stood for.   It's long and hard and only appeals to a very small fraction of golfers.  Long and hard golf courses are one of the main problems with golf today.

Joel:

I would agree that long and hard golf courses are one of the main problems with golf today.  Although, Oakmont isn't unusually long.

My point was that I wouldn't mind building a project that was focused on a smaller portion of the market.  In fact, I'd like to build several of them:

a.  An Oakmont-type course where it was extremely difficult to score / get close to the hole
b.  A Pine Valley-type course where every hole was big and bold and you didn't have to worry about getting average players around
c.  A St. Andrews-type course which was turf wall to wall and could be played forwards and backwards
d.  A course that was designed specifically for women
e.  A course for men and women that was less than 6000 yards from the back tees
f.  Something completely out of the box that's nothing like anyone has ever done

I'm just looking for chances to build something different.  A great setting helps to make courses different, but not as much when all the clients want the same things out of their different setting.

[Brian Potash]

Tom,

Can you give an example or two of things you were able to do at Ballyneal because Rupert gave you that freedom, whereas with your more typical client you wouldn't have been able to do so?

Thanks,
Brian

[Matthew Mollica]

I think Greg Norman and Bob Harrison have already built the next Oakmont. They did it for Kerry Packer at Ellerston...

[David Lott]

If you can create clones of Fownes, you can. Strong unquestioned leadership. Also helped to be in Pittsburgh when it was one of the great centers of wealth creation in the world.

[Philippe Binette]

Mainly because modern golfers are "soft".

I loved Mike Clayton article in the Golf architecture, A worldwide perspective book, saying exactly that.

players don't like hard course if it's hard shot for shot.... but for some reason, they don't seem to mind having lakes everywhere..

[Greg Tallman]

Mainly because modern golfers are "soft".

I loved Mike Clayton article in the Golf architecture, A worldwide perspective book, saying exactly that.

players don't like hard course if it's hard shot for shot.... but for some reason, they don't seem to mind having lakes everywhere..

Losing a ball, taking an improper drop giving one's self 30-100 yard advantage over a proper drop is a badge of honor compared to hittting it in a "hell bunker" taking 3 to get out, slogging forward to a green with more contour than Dolly Parton then three putting for a creative "double bogey".

Honestly just listen to guys talk about hitting it in the water with a smile on their face.

[Bradley Anderson]

A few years ago I approached an NFL player who had some clout around Chicago and I floated this idea to him:

1. Build a very difficult golf course along the lines of Oakmont.

2. Provide free membership to famous, past and present, Chicago sports franchise athletes on the understanding that they will play 30 rounds per year with guests, and provide autographed paraphernalia in the Pro-Shop. Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, White Sox, and Bulls players. THE CHICAGO ATHLETES CLUB.

3. Pair up guests each day with the various athletes at a high greens fee. The revenue would all come from charging guests for the opportunity to play golf with a legendary Chicago athlete.

4. Each of the athletes would also hold their fund raising events at the course.

5. There would be cabins for the athletes to stay in, making it easier for them to travel and to visit from out of town. They would have their own locker room and grille room. The legends that would come out this environment would certainly grow with time.

Anyways, there were a lot other details which I won't go in to, but I still think that was a great idea. And that whole culture would have been perfect for a real ball buster of a golf course.  

[Joe Leenheer]

People learn the wrong lessons in life. Golf is no different.

Most people miss what makes Oakmont so special. Even the learned folks on this site disagree on what makes Oakmont special. If you can't see it, it's pretty hard to duplicate it.

I'll disagree, politely, with Mr. Leenheer. The golf world needs a lot more Oakmonts - provided they can actually get Oakmonts, and not misunderstood pale imitations.

Mr. Pazin can you please expound on your disagreement?  Oakmont is special on many different levels IMO.  For me it's the History of what has happened there and who did it.  The Locker Room.  The Club House.  The Memorabilia.  And of course...the Course.

From a GCA Standpoint, I don't think using Oakmont as a template for building golf courses is appealing.  If we are talking about making courses tough, firm, fast, and more open to the elements then sure...that's all fine and dandy.  But all of those elements wouldn't make a course the "next Oakmont" as suggested in this post.  I'm sure someone could find some similar land and make Foakmont complete with Pews, coffins, burns, and heather...but what's exciting about that.  I think they've tried this at the World Tour in Myrtle Beach with various courses. 

Let's look at Oakmont as a piece of art (which we all know it is).  Perhaps the Mona Lisa of golf.  Would you travel to _______ (fill in someplace) to see a really good copy of the it instead of hitting up the Louvre to check out the real deal? 

[Tags:]

Tags: