[jonathan_becker]

There's no doubt that Oakmont is a great golf course, but it's one of the few courses that I've played where a big miss off the tee is normally left with an open look for the approach.  It might not be a good angle, but it'll be open in many cases.  Whereas, a miss just off the fairway many times will result in a thick lie or having to play out of a very deep bunker.

What other courses have you played that are similar?  In my travels, I can't think of many.

[Bill_McBride]

There's no doubt that Oakmont is a great golf course, but it's one of the few courses that I've played where a big miss off the tee is normally left with an open look for the approach.  It might not be a good angle, but it'll be open in many cases.  Whereas, a miss just off the fairway many times will result in a thick lie or having to play out of a very deep bunker.

What other courses have you played that are similar?  In my travels, I can't think of many.

Are you thinking of BIG hooks off either the third or fourth tees?   

A lot of RTJ holes have bunkers tight to both sides of the fairway equidistant from the tee.  In those cases you are definitely better off going wide. 

[jonathan_becker]

Bill,

Just as an example, the last time I played #10 I blocked it right of the fw bunkers and was sitting pretty.  Same thing blocking it right on #12.

Your hook theory off of 3 and 4 would work, too

[Ian Andrew]

I wrote about the same thing after I played there and I had a number of angry emails from locals because I said the course was far more playable than I expected. They did not see it as the clear compliment that it was meant to be.

I think your right IF the rough is kept short, which it was the day we played this summer. My playing partner was "so bad" that he was often good. I had what I would consider a great driving day, long and fairly accurate and still had 10 fairway bunker shots to play! The caddy kept saying "that will be close" and it always found sand! It's the lack of trees that makes this possible.

And I say good for them for keeping it playable, because you can't score from those misses and they can ramp up the difficulty by growing that longer anytime they want.

Great place.

[jonathan_becker]

Ian,  the "no trees" part is pretty much the kicker.  Oakmont is a unique golf course and the big misses that have the potential to end up ok are a part of that.  I've played Oakmont twice and the rough out in no man's land was around 2 inches.  So, very manageable.

Maybe there are even less courses like this than I had imagined.  Maybe this is the only one!

[Thomas Dai]

There's no doubt that Oakmont is a great golf course, but it's one of the few courses that I've played where a big miss off the tee is normally left with an open look for the approach.  It might not be a good angle, but it'll be open in many cases.  Whereas, a miss just off the fairway many times will result in a thick lie or having to play out of a very deep bunker.
What other courses have you played that are similar?  In my travels, I can't think of many.

So many inland courses are treelined, treelined not just clumps and copses but treelined all the way in continuous avenues alongside fairways. A normally accurate player who misses the fairway by only a few feet will get punished with a slightly off-line shot, mostly to the value of a shot (chip-out time), whereas an inaccurate long hitting smash-n-bash type aggressive player can be over the trees and on an adjacent fairway.

I'm not keen on courses like this. Trees in clumps and copses are IMO much more preferable to long continuous avenues. More creative opportunities for shotmaking, better quality grass, more air flow, quicker drying, less tree maintenance, leaves blow away easier in the autumn etc etc. Fairer too, as a more 'open' course with not much in the way of tree avenues plays more equal for all, especially if there's limited or low cut rough alongside the fairways. This is one of the reasons I'm in favour of courses like Minch' Old, the cattle and horses course, not that I'm comparing it with Oakmont though, but I'm sure you get my drift.

One other aspect of treelined courses is safety. Trees are sometimes placed to avoid players being hit by a ball played from another hole, ie the assumption being that the ball will hit the trees. But, if a shot is hit over the trees folk frequently don't shout "Fore" because they can't see anyone on the other hole. If there were no trees, the player/partner of the wayward shot could actually see the other hole and if people were were there could shout the usual warning. Hit, look and shout "Fore" rather than hit and hear "Ouch" , followed a few minutes later by "Sorry mate, didn't see you there". I've seen this occur a few (painful) times.

As to a famous courses, although it's obviously not an inlander, but if your misses go left, TOC could perhaps qualify in relation to Jonathan's original post.

All the best.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian,  the "no trees" part is pretty much the kicker.  Oakmont is a unique golf course and the big misses that have the potential to end up ok are a part of that.  I've played Oakmont twice and the rough out in no man's land was around 2 inches.  So, very manageable.

Maybe there are even less courses like this than I had imagined.  Maybe this is the only one!

Jonathan:

Every links course in the UK and Ireland is pretty much like that.  A few of mine, as well.

[Peter Pallotta]

An interesting progression: a course that, as trees were planted and kept on growing, got even harder then perhaps even Mr. Fownes originally intended; and then, as times and technology and expectations about championship tests evolved, a course that was maintained with tough and penal rough off all the fairways, and with full grown trees, and with increasingly fast and famous greens -- and that severely tested the very best golfers in the world; and then a course that (with those trees and that rough and those greens intact) became increasingly desirable as a certain kind of members' course, with members very proud of the very tough challenge they managed to face every day; and then as tastes and aesthetics and sensibilities changed, a highly renowned private course and club that took the lead on cutting down trees all over the place and opening up new vistas, but that kept the rock hard and 14+ greens and thick rough, and even then continued to shine on the world stage against the best professionals -- but a course that now plays easier for the very poor driver of the golf ball than it does for the merely poor driver (and perhaps easier than Mr. Fownes or his son ever intended). I'm not sure that's an accurate picture of the evolution/progression (if it is, Jonathan's questions still stands); but it does strike me as an example of how architecture/design is actually a fluid and not a static experience, and how the architect himself can only have a certain role to play in this fluidity of experience.
Peter

[jonathan_becker]

Thanks for the thoughts

Tom D,

Right.    That last part was mainly in jest but after reading PP's post maybe it is the only course like that anywhere with huge stretches of mowed rough between holes because of the tree removal.  I should've been more specific because this was my originally thinking.  

In America, Oakland Hills is slowly becoming Oakmont-esque.  Not that it will ever go completely treeless (I don't know), but there are now vast areas of mowed rough between holes that are better to be playing from than one of the bunkers just off the fairway.

[Nigel Islam]

Just imagine Oakmont without any rough. I think it would actually play tougher because the bunkers would be even more in play.

[Ian Andrew]

Nigel,

The bunkers are right on the edge of the fairway, there is nothing there to save you. The margin between in and fairway is really, really small in almost all instances that I remember from this summer.

People are missing well outside the fairway bunkers and being saved by the area between the fairway bunkers and fescue.

[Nigel Islam]

I played there last week Ian, and they had all the fescue cut down. I was just thinking that if they got rid of all the rough as fast as that place plays it would be the ultimate golfing experience. Those bunkers often are just a splash out. I have no complaints because the way the course is now is terrific.  

[Thomas Dai]

Given a reasonable degree of overall terrain firmness, ie not soft hit-n-stick, the lower the rough is cut and the less tress/scrub there is then the further a wayward shot is likely to bounce and roll away from the fairway, which should create a more severe/awkward angle of attack into the green. The ball can also normally be found pretty easily, which should be good for pace of play.
All the best.

[Ian Andrew]

Sorry Nigel, my bad, I read your comment incorrectly

Ian

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()