Oakmont and rough

[Alister_Mackenzie]

Tried to watch the US Amateur today, but those narrow fairways bordered by long grass destroyed the harmony and continuity of the match. And in causing a stilted and a cramped style, destroyed all freedom of play, particularly around the greens where every ball seemed to end up against those silly curbs of rough.

Was it just me that felt this fine layout was lessened by the rough grass?
AM

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just an opinion, but while other Golden Age courses were more open and plausibly more strategic than Oakmont is now, it WAS ALWAYS meant to be the king of penal courses.  In my mind, whining (strong word, probably wrong choice) or questioning the rough here is less warranted than at other courses....

[T_MacWood]

Freedom of play....the antithesis of Oakmont. The rough, the deep pits, the greens....I don't think Fownes had freedom of play in mind.

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, Tom has it!

[Alister_Mackenzie]

See I have the privilege of talking to Bill and Henry here, and they say they never grew 6 inch rough to achieve this purpose of penal golf.

So try this oh penal thinkers and knowers of all things Fownes.

Would Oakmont be more reflective of their vision with furrowed bunkers and light rough, or heavy rough and manicured sand? I would presume you'll say the second and I can't wait to hear your replies as to why (something about fairness I'm sure).

It did seem to be an advantage to be in certain greenside bunkers instead of the rough.

Was that part of Bill and Henry's vision?
AM

[Forrest Richardson]

Furrowed bunkers could be easier to hit some shots from, depending on your skill level. I'd take heavy rough and furrowed sand.

[Brian Phillips]

Here is a poem given to me by Howard Swan a fellow architect from England:

Bill Fownes stood by a green one day
When someone holed in four.
“I’ll put a stop to that”, said he
“I’ll build two bunkers more!”

And sure enough he built them both
Where they could well be seen,
The first one right before the tee,
The other on the green.


(from “The New Yorker”, July 25 1983)


Brian Phillips

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

Say hello to Howard for me, after asking if he remembers me! We played Gleneagles together in 1980, and also sat a Golf Builders dinner a few years later.  I still recall remarking on the coolness of the tees (a conglomeration of squares ) on the fifth at the Kings, to which he responded, "You (or these, I'm not sure which) must be a contractor's nightmare!

So, you could say he's influenced my career!  And, I enjoyed the times I spent with him.

[George Pazin]

I attended many days of the competition last week & saw many competitors hit decent shots out of the rough - nothing even approaching the almost single minded hack it out tactics at Oak Hill.

I don't know if it was due to being continually tramped down by the crowds, but I've also seen thicker & lusher rough than the rough at Oakmont. Certainly it was worse at Mystic Rock, a Pete Dye course here in western PA that is hosting a PGA event in September.

Both the fairways & greens (at least the 10th - I was one of the minions standing around the awards ceremony at the end) felt noticeably harder underfoot Sunday than earlier in the week.

[rgkeller]

I agree that the long rough just off the fairway and surrounding the fringes AND the very firm conditions detracted from the match.

Better the furrowed bunkers and lighter rough. Then the players could have experienced and we could have watched Oakmont as it was envisioned.

[MargaretC]

With all due respect, Mr. MacKenzie, could it be that you were too far away to get a good look at the course?

If, in your opinion, "...harmony and continuity..." of a match can only be achieved by bowling alley golf, then I feel sorry for you.  

My husband and I attended several rounds of the US Amateur last week between Monday and Thursday morning.  Oakmont provided an excellent venue for championship golf insofar as every golfer was required to demonstrate a wide range of mental and shot making skills.

Golfers whose claim to fame and low index is the result of power from the tee learned quickly that a true champion golfer requires breadth of skills.  

To me, Oakmont was a refreshing change.  The highly skilled golfers quickly learned that neither the rough nor the bunkers presented insurmountable challenges.  

[rgkeller]

The "highly skilled" winner was 14 over par for 37 holes in the Championship match. But not insurmountable when one's opponent is also 14 over.

[MargaretC]

rgkeller:

"The "highly skilled" winner was 14 over par for 37 holes in the Championship match. But not insurmountable when one's opponent is also 14 over."

What does par have to do with it?  

[rgkeller]

The scoring relationship to par is an indication of how severely the course played by the "highly skilled" participants in the match play.

It would have been much more worthwhile to chose a Champion at such a great course at a time when the membership/USGA is not so determined to make the course the star of the show.

[MargaretC]

rgkeller:

I sure don't share your opinion, but respect your right to express it.

We can agree to disagree.  

[Alister_Mackenzie]

MargaretC-Yes, I'm a bit far away to see the golf up close, but as you might imagine, I'm quite happy to be far from the sport as it's no longer the golf I knew (or want to get to know).

I assume it was a wonderful week, but as an old man I was just curious if the rough around the greens was reflective of the best possible setup and the Fownes philosophy.

Again, I simply ask, which would be more Fownes-like:

Light rough and more treacherous sand, or light sand and trecherous rough?

Would the Fownes boys keep adding bunkers today knowing they are more benign than the rough?
AM

[JohnV]

Remember that when Oakmont opened it had something like 7 par 5s and one par 6.  If we reassigned par similarly, the players would have been pretty close to even par for the 37 holes.

[MargaretC]

"...Again, I simply ask, which would be more Fownes-like:

Light rough and more treacherous sand, or light sand and trecherous rough?"

Mr. MacKenzie, I think the answer is obvious -- more treacherous sand AND more treacherous rough.

In 1903 when Mr. Fownes founded Oakmont, his intention was to build the most difficult golf course in the world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Margaret C,

rgkeller is an accomplished player, a veteran of USGA competitions, and is probably providing a player's/competitor's perspective, which shouldn't be overlooked.

Afterall, they are the ones that the course is setup for,
they are the ones who must do battle on its prepared surfaces.

Alister MacKenzie,

With the recent trends, and/or return to wide fairways, it is surprising to see the opposition to your point.

Almost a 180 degree reversal in opinion versus some of the comments directed at other USGA sites, with similar setups.

Perhaps its not the principle or width, but the venue that determines if the course in question is the benefactor or victim of the evaluative process.

[JohnV]

I don't believe the fairways were narrowed for the Amateur.  The rough is certainly higher, but I'd bet you can get further down the fairway from most of the rough than from most of the fairway bunkers at Oakmont.  As for the greenside, as players have gotten better and gotten 60 degree wedges and the like, I think that the rough does need to get tougher.  I don't know that short chipping areas were ever in Oakmont's past so I wouldn't argue for them there.  There were places I wouldn't have minded seeing the rough trimmed down.  For example the left of 17 green would have allowed balls to run off and away instead of hanging just off the fringe as Flanagan's drive did on Saturday.  It wouldn't have had to have been trimmed to fairway height, but just low enough to let the ball run down the hill.  A little more risk would be appropriate.

[MargaretC]

"...rgkeller is an accomplished player, a veteran of USGA competitions, and is probably providing a player's/competitor's perspective, which shouldn't be overlooked."

With all due respect, Mr. Mucci, I didn't overlook rgkeller's perspective.  He is certainly entitled to both his perspective and the opinions he draws from his perspective.  I respect both even though I don't share his point of view.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Margaret C,

It's difficult to ascertain rgkeller's perspective until it is  identified, so I'm puzzled as to how you didn't overlook it, when you didn't know what it might have been, until it was identified.  

I merely supplied some information and rendered my opinion on where his perspective might be.

Neither did I comment on the merits of either opinion, his or yours.

But, I have noticed, in a good number of threads, that the players who must compete on the golf courses we discuss, rarely have their perspectives put forth.

All too often, spectators put themselves and their views in the position of participants and their views.

It's refreshing to hear from a competitor's viewpoint, one who has the task of negotiating the architecture and course set up, rather than those who are confined to viewing the architecture and setup from outside of the ropes.

In the ultimate, golf courses are designed and built to be played on, and I enjoy hearing the viewpoints of those who play those courses during competitions.

rgkeller plays at a golf course known for its very wide fairways and extremely deep and difficult rough, so it was interesting to learn his perspective relative to Oakmont's setup.

[MargaretC]

Mr. Mucci:

More often than not, players/competitors express opinions concerning the golf courses on which Championships/Tournaments are played via media interviews even if not posted on a thread.  

Regardless, I do enjoy reading all opinions and I respect them whether I know the individual or not.  So, whether someone is an accomplished golfer or not is of little significance to me.  This web site's focus is golf course architecture.  There are a lot of opinions expressed about GCA from non-architects -- should I respect those opinions less?  I don't.  I generally find all opinions to be interesting.

Contrary to your assertion, as a spectator, I do not project my view to one of a participant.  That said, I enjoy watching and playing challenging golf.

I enjoyed watching the US Am played at Oakmont.  I played Oakmont about 6-7 years ago, shortly after I started playing golf and loved every minute even though the course was and is well-beyond my skill level.  For the last couple of years, my index has been between 9 and 10 and I'm anxious to try Oakmont again.
 
IMHO, "par" is not a sacrosanct measurement.  As JohnV pointed out, "par" at Oakmont has varied.

Some of the individuals who played The Open at RSG thought that the course was too quirky for the Championship.  I didn't.  Ben Curtis got the job done.  

[buffett_guy]

The shock on Casey's face told the story imho.

I believe it may have been the only expression on his face all day. His tee shot on the playoff hole was perfect, at least he thought it was, until it bounced to the right on a left sloping fairway and ended up in a very difficult lie just off the short grass. The horror on Casey's face did not reflect the glee on Nick's face when the eventual winner saw his opponent's perfect tee ball bounce unexpectedly to the right and quickly pulled out an iron.

One hole doesn't win or lose the championship, but I'm pretty sure Casey hit that ball exactly where he wanted to.

Shorter rough, tougher bunkers for me.

[ForkaB]

I didn't have the privilege of watching the Am (The BBC chose not to cover it, alas...), but I must strongly put my theoretical vote heavily on the side of "shorter rough, tougher bunkers."  As a player and a spectator, a course with heavy rough is as interesting as, well, watching the grass grow.........For those who think otherwise, let me just say one word (and one number)--"Carnoustie 1999"