[Ran Morrissett]

In recent weeks and on several threads in this DG, the subject of tough has come up. To me, it's not one of the more interesting subjects of golf course architecture (too one dimensional) but it is a subject nonetheless.

The consensus among ace players seems to be that the toughest inland course in the U.S. is either Winged Foot West or Oakmont. People I've spoken with (Coleman-calibre contestants) are evenly divided between the two with Oakland Hills and Bethpage Black the only other courses to generate meaningful support.

During such discussions, no one really has put teeth in his contention that X was harder by citing specifics. Thus, in an effort to do so, it seems to me that you can break the argument down between Oakmont and WFW as follows (add in Bethpage, Oakland Hills, or another one if you wish):

1) toughest tee to green
2) toughest around the green to recovery
3) toughest once on the putting surface

I haven't played WFW in 15 years so my memory is weak but Oakmont clearly has more variety of topography, which I would logically thinks yields more difficult stances in the fairway. WFW has interesting dips and rolls but still... Also, Oakmont's greens have more variety in terms of pitch from the front to back as well as hard right to left greens.

Meanwhile, there seems a vague similarity in WF West's green complexes of bunker left, bunker right, and back to front pitch (save for the 6th), yet NO ONE has ever mastered them except for Billy Casper during one exceptional week.

How do you analyze the two?

Cheers,

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran,

I grew up near Winged Foot and played it a couple times years go. But, I also had the chance to visit several weeks ago with a very knowledgeable, long time member.

Though we didn't play every hole, I saw enough to remind me how interesting Winged Foot's greens are. Sure the green complexes might feature a series of right and left bunkers. But, the complexity of the greens themselves offer plenty of interesting recovery shots, not to mention putts. In short, on my next visit, I'd almost like to just go around with a wedge and seven iron playing little recovery shots. They can be that challenging and fun.

As for nobody mastering those greens, I'm not surprised. My host showed me a putt that broke uphill, one that Tommy Naccarato described as "evil".

"Don't worry", my friend and host said, "less than ten percent of the members have ever figured that one out".

[Steve Lapper]

Okay Ran,

  I'll jump in. I've played Oakmont 4 times and although none more recent than last year, I think I had a good enough grasp to compare it to one of the course's (WF)I grew up on. I've only played Oakland Hills once and the Black over a dozen.

  From tee to green few are tougher than the Black Course. Maybe only Shinnecock can match it. The sheer distance coupled with  risk/reward angles make getting onto a Bethpage green a reward onto itself. Once there, they are not ridiculously difficult, just subtle. Tillinghast used a variety of cross bunkers, like the others, but also utilized native LI fescue grasses that make any lie in the rough a cherry compared to one in the high swamp grass. Oakland Hills I recall,  WFW & Oakmont all possessed a wide array of strategic cross and fairway bunkers that steer the golfer clear but leave managable shots from the nearby roughs. WFW and Oakmont have narrow fairways that pinch from place to place, but none have such narrow alleyways(ala Medinah)that they force the player to lay all the way back.

  Around the greens, Winged Foot I would argue, is the toughest. Every green is tilted, canted, bowled, sloped and the bunkers surrounding the greens are the steepest of those above mentioned tracks. More often than Oakmont, a specific area of the green yields the only route to the pin. Thus, any recovery from greenside is extra tough. Oakmont's greens are undeniably among the toughest of any in existence, but they are not as small, nor as severely sloped as WFW.  The poa annua and accompanying reading difficulties make WFW a daily dynamic near nightmare.

   Once on the putting surface, unquestionably Oakmont reigns king of toughest. Members have often remarked that they "ought to tear them all up and pour concrete...save the maintainence $$....they'll roll the same." The breaks there are more subtle yet more deadly as speed can kill. Strokes and putting lines are often tested from 2 to 30 feet in a manner like nowhere else, save Augusta National. The greens are deceptively big (save for 17), well tiered in spots and very smooth. Their pitch (front and back) are more severe than those of WFW or Oakland Hills. Only 15 at Bethpage comes anywhere close to this kind of difficulty.
 
   I'm not sure stance difficulty is as severe as Ran might think. I don't remember anything too obscene other than trying to extracate oneself from a fairway bunker on 10. Same goes for WFW and Bethpage.


   Any thoughts out there on what I've missed?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I'll take Shinnecock with the wind UP.

[Steve Lapper]

I never thought I'd say this:

I'll agree with Pat!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

slapper,

Like TEPaul, before you, you've finally come around !  

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,


   To the DARKKKKK SIDE!!....Help



Oh Noooo....Mr. Bill

[Ran Morrissett]

My conversations with folks have centered around inland courses - The Ocean Course at Kiawah from 7,600 in a 30 mph breeze or Shinnecock in the same would no doubt be a kick in the teeth.

Slapper, I particularly agree with your point re: the steepness of the recovery shots around the WFW greens - it is a recovery shot not many people have ever had the need to cultivate, much less have the ability to pull off when they show up at Winged Foot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

When my eyesight was excellent, and my green reading skills at their best, I still had fits reading Winged Foot West's greens.

And, recovery from the short side, especially on the steep side of the green was nearly impossible.

[T_MacWood]

Two very demanding golf courses no doubt. I thought Oakmont was the more intimidating of the two...starting with practice putting green. Other than the difficulty factor their differences stand out to me more than their similarities.

I enjoyed WF's par-3s more than Oakmont's--Oakmont's are certainly stern, WF's challenging but more interesting. I also thought WF's greens were the more interesting--the internal contours on some greens were unlike anything I'd seen before. Oakmont's are faster than hell and slopey, but not quite as interesting.

Oakmont has more variety. Not only the terrain, but also the variety of the holes. WF has certain repeditiveness...some of the holes don't differentiate themselves from other holes. WF is more consistant, there aren't any bad holes to speek of. Oakmont has the greater highs (2, 5, 12, 15 and 18), but also the most awkward or a little pecular (1, 3 and 17--although I like the approach on 17).

Of the two Oakmont is the more unique...which should not be discounted IMO. But I also have to say I played Shinnecock a day or two after playing WF, and left Shinnecock wondering if WF may have been the better of the two.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Played Oakmont this week. I adore WF West. I think the 36 at WF are the best 36 hole complex in the world.  But I gotta give the nod to Oakmont here.  I think the most remarkable aspect of Oakmont (other than that the members had the cojones to de-tree it!) is the effortless evolution of fairway to green on almost every par 4 and par 5 on the course.  And it has wonderful ebb and flow.  I must confess I found the drainage ditches a bit confounding, but I guess Fownes wanted to penalise those lousy drives I was hitting. Probably number 2 or 3 in the US of A.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

Are we talking "member" play ?  Or, Championship play ?

I would add an amendment to your query if I may.

If you're conducting a comparitive analysis, then I think you have to make the analysis based on both courses having the same green speeds, whether that be 10, 11, 12 or 13.

The same for the height of the rough.

One could also make the case that par should be the same, and others might make the case that the length should be the same for purposes of the comparison.

A good deal is based on the context in which the comparison is made, .... member play ? or Championship play

As you know, WFW converts the 9th and 16th holes into par 4's for championships while Oakmont converts their 9th to a par 4 for championships so that both courses are contested as par 70's, whereas, for member play, WFW is a par 72 and Oakmont a par 71

In my limited play of WFW, only two holes stand out as a rather short par 4, the 6th and the 11th.
While double and higher is easily attainable at # 6, it's a rather short hole for any level of golfer.

Oakmont has a series of short holes, starting with # 2.
# 5, # 7, # 11, # 14 and # 17 are also on the short side.

So from a member's tees perspective, I'd give the nod to WFW as the more difficult course.

On the Championship side, I think you'd have to examine the scoring histories, factoring in the variables in conditions, weather, etc., etc..

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[Steve Kline]

Patrick - excellent points on the set up and caliber of player we are debating. I would argue Pinehurst #2 is one of the toughest, if not toughest, tracks when we are talking about Tour level players. Without tricking up the course with excessively long rough (WF) or making it too fast and firm (PB) only one pro has broken par in the two U.S. Opens there. One of those opens the weather was cool and damp and the other was blistering hot and dry. And, there's little to no wind most of the time. But, of course, even shorter Bermuda rough can be more of a problem for good players than longer bluegrass.

[Dean DiBerardino]

As a reference, below are the course and slope ratings from Winged Foot West, Shinnecock and Oakmont.  All course ratings are from the highest rated tees for each golf course.  Also, I believe that all three golf courses played as a par 70 for their most recent Opens.  I’m not sure that the “par” even matters.  The course rating is basically what a “scratch golfer” would shoot on average when playing from these back tees on a daily basis (Which may not be good for one’s health!).  I’m sure that one golf course may play tougher under certain conditions though.

Winged Foot West - 76.1/145

Shinnecock Hills – 74.7/140

Oakmont – 77.5/147

[JESII]

Steve Kline,

The Open at Winged Foot a few years featured not so ugly rough AND slow greens and still Ogilvy held on at 5 or 6 over to win. I haven't played Pinehurst, and don't doubt it's difficulty, but in a US Open it doesn't seem to hold a candle to WF...I guess those same factors were in effect at Oakmont...modest rough and greens, no?

My opinion...I haven't played Oakmont but I have spent two 30 minute sessions on their putting green and haven't yet found a holes I could two putt so I would vate for it sight unseen.

[Tom_Doak]

Ran,

I have never actually played Oakmont, but that never stopped anyone else here from commenting.

Like all these questions, I think the correct answer varies depending on the skills of the individual player.  The most accurate iron player would always have the advantage at Winged Foot, while the smarter player would usually have the advantage at Oakmont.  

To me, Oakmont  is the more interesting of the two courses, because you can control the damage only by knowing what side of the hole you have to miss on, and staying there.  At Winged Foot the only way to play a similar strategy is to take the Billy Casper route on #3 and when in doubt, lay up ...but you can't really play for the safe side of the green since there are bunkers to both sides and the greens are always narrow.  

[Matt_Ward]

Winged Foot has a land areas that really runs in a major contradiction to what you see with other Westchester-based courses. What I mean is that unlike others like Westchester CC which has plenty of land movement -- WF/W is fairly benign and quite flat for the most part. The issue with the West is that the drive zones require the ability to shape the tee ball -- you just can't launch it straight ahead -- you need to turn the ball -- ever so gently -- to one side or the other.

The 1st is one of the game's great starting holes. It leaps right out in front and announces that you best be prepared for what lies ahead.

Oakmont has the better overall terrain and likely the deeper roster of mixed bag of holes. The short par-4 side clearly goes to the Pennsy course but Winged Foot / West is no slough in the greens area -- contrary to what many people would automatically concede to Oakmont.

WF/W also has the more daunting recovery situations around the greens. The smallness makes matters only more challenging -- you also have angles that don't handle such missed shots easily. Oakmont doesn't give you a pass -- but the greens there are larger and therefore less pressure than what you handle at the Mamaroneck layout.

At Winged Foot / West the approach play has to be at the highest level -- the greens are quite narrow in front and while they fan out in a pear-shaped manner they are very small and failure to hit the fairway - with accuracy and sufficient length -- puts tremendous pressure on the player to fire a long and accurate approach into such a target. A friend of mine said hitting the greens at WF/W from 200 or more yards is akin to landing a 747 on the deck of an aircraft carrier !

Others have mentioned Shinnecock and the LI-based layout would be the toughest of the lot when any serious wind comes into the mix. Check out the scores made during that wonderful weather day for the 1st round of the '86 Open !

Rarely has either of these courses been had. Miller did it with his 63 and Larry Nelson played superbly in the last two rounds of the '83 Open there -- shooting 132 for the final 36 holes. The best I have ever seen anyone handle WF/W was Love's brilliant four-round total for the PGA in '97. Only two mean had broken 280 prior to that with Fuzzy and Norman in the '84 US Open but Love's 269 total is simply mind-blowing and in my mind surpasses what Woods did at Augusta earlier that same year.

Got to go now but I'll add more shortly ...

[Phil_the_Author]

Dean,

In your listing of the course's rating and slope you left out a course... Bethpage Black (You knew I had to chime in here sometime!).

Here are the FOUR courses in question and comparison:

Winged Foot West - 76.1/145

Shinnecock Hills – 73.7/138

Oakmont – 77.5/147

Bethpage Black - 76.6/148

Pinehurst #2 - 76.0/137

The Black has the HIGHEST Slope and second highest rating. Interestingly, when Pinehurst's numbers are added, the "US OPen" course as shown on their scorecard, the Black still stands the equal among them all if not the clear toughest. By the way, according to many comments made by the players during the past two Opens there, the Black is the toughest course on the planet by some even over Carnoustie and in the US by many others.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

WF/W clearly has the better closing hole -- had to add that.

[John Shimp]

The Open course setup on SH is 74.7/140 and is "only" 7041 yds.  The numbers above are for the 6700yd red markers.

[Jud_T]

fyi- just for reference:

Butler National is 78.1/152 from the "Butler" tees and Medinah #3 is 78.3/152 from the Golds...

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

The green at Oakmont and WF/W are beyond the likes of the two you mentioned.

That's where the big time differences lie in my mind.

[J Sadowsky]

Not that this means anything, but Golf Digest has the Pines Course at the International Golf Club in MA as the toughest inland course, with a 80/154.  Of course, it's a Par 73 with such indulgences as Par 6 715, par 5 656, and par 3 277 yard holes.  Sounds more like a carnival game than a golf course, but I have never played there.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Why do you think WFW's 18th is better? To me they are both great - long ball busting par 4s with great greens - but I haven't seen WFW in person. Seems like two great finishers, with the biggest difference being the bend in WFW.

[JMEvensky]

I think he means the 18th at WFW versus BPB.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()