[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - copied from the other thread:

I'm reminded of the phrase/concept that TEPaul used to use a lot, I think it was "designing up" -- in reference, I think, to that phase of course design that, in the early days of American golf, was just as important if not more so that phase one (i.e. the routing/laying out of the course.)

So, first came the decisions on (and creation of) tees and greens and basic direction and length of the 18 golf holes in some kind of routing; and then came - in the designing up phase - the addition of bunkers and other hazards and mounds and tweaks to the length of the holes and evolving maintenance practices etc. And it seems to me that, whether it's Oakmont or Myopia or Merion, the courses we now (still) consider great owe a lot of their greatness to this "designing up" phase. I have no way of knowing how many well-routed/laid out courses from the early days of American golf never benefitted/benefitted enough from the designing up phase and thus were, either soon afterwards or in the decades to come, forgotten or bulldozed over.

Edit: to state the obvious, wasn't this same question at the heart of the Merion debates? What did Wilson do in the designing up phase after his return from overseas, and of how much utility and value and defining greatness was the adding of bunkers etc etc worth to the totality of what Merion is today?

Peter 

[Sven Nilsen]

We're on the third page of this thread and there hasn't been one word of the contributions of John McGlynn or Emil Loeffler to the evolution of the course.

The following (already posted by Jim Kennedy on p. 1) gives them their due credit, as well as providing a fairly concise history of how the course was developed.

http://www.history.cmu.edu/docs/schlossman/Americas-Toughest.pdf

[MCirba]

Peter,

That's a great point and insightful set of questions that really get to the heart of the matter from an architectural standpoint.   Some believe that routing is destiny and there is definite truth that a poor routing can be impossible to overcome through "designing up" and that a solid routing provides a sound foundation for that building process.

The fact that Oakmont's routing has remained fundamentally intact for 112 years is fairly remarkable, wouldn't you say?

I think one thing this discussion has missed so far is the issue of agronomics, as my friend Kyle Harris reminded me.   I think we tend to compare and contrast courses based strictly on architectural features when indeed the biggest challenge these early pioneers had was to get good turfgrass growing that could be sustained.

So when I see that in 1904 Fownes wanted to host the US Amateur in 1907 and then wasn't "ready" until over a decade later I really think that had very little to do with architecture and probably everything to do with agronomic issues.

Sven,

Speaking of agronomy, thanks for pulling that article over here and for citing the contributions of McGlynn and Loeffer.

[DMoriarty]

So when I see that in 1904 Fownes wanted to host the US Amateur in 1907 and then wasn't "ready" until over a decade later I really think that had very little to do with architecture and probably everything to do with agronomic issues.

Given that the bunkering scheme would not be anywhere near completed for another five years after 1907, this is just silly.

[Sven Nilsen]

So when I see that in 1904 Fownes wanted to host the US Amateur in 1907 and then wasn't "ready" until over a decade later I really think that had very little to do with architecture and probably everything to do with agronomic issues.

Mike:

Little to do with architecture?  Everything to do with agronomic issues?

Are you not reading all of the accounts about what was done to the course between 1904 and when it eventually hosted the Am?

This is specious, speculative (lack of) reasoning at its best.

But yes, I'd concede that the turf (in addition to other features of the course) probably wasn't up to Fownes' standards for a number of years after 1904.

Sven

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

Another way to look at is in the context of the era -  the courses that held the early Ams were built in the style that was expected for that time period. Oakmont wasn't - it was longer, and it used long grass and ditches as hazards. It did not 'fit' into the established norms of its time, one of those norms being bunkers.

Fownes played all the other 'good' courses of the era, and he played them with a cast of characters that was fairly unique. Agronomic issues aside, he probably came to the conclusion (no doubt from his experiences and his felllow competitors) that when he debuted Oakmont it would be necessary for it to have a relatively complete bunkering scheme if it was going to be seen as a course worthy of holding a national championship. Every US Am course has had them, from 1895 on.
Oakmont surely 'worked' in it's un-bunkered state, it proved itself locally by holding many state ams and local events, but his engineer's training would have taught him that you don't take a prototype to market.

 

  


 

[Kyle Harris]

It's not very wise to down play the agronomic aspect/challenges faced at Oakmont, or any golf course built in this, and the subsequent era. When one considers that Oakmont's famous putting surfaces are comprised completely of Poa annua and furthermore a noteworthy variety which is only found at Oakmont, and which only has ever successfully established at Oakmont through years of selective pressure, it makes one wonder how and why such a variety established.

The most plausible answer is through determination.

It's extremely likely that if one were to dig deep enough, reports of almost total turf loss in the months of July and August at Oakmont went on for years.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I wasn't downplaying the agronomic conditions, I just haven't seen any evidence that they were bad enough to have had any impact. 
 
As far as I can tell Oakmont had good reviews from day one, and it held numerous and important local tournaments in the first decade and a half of its existence,. Could it have done that if the turf wasn't good?     

Oakmont also bought seed from J. M. Thorburn & Co., supplier to many fine clubs of the day.

[Kyle Harris]

Good find, Jim.

However, that still doesn't address the idea that the golf course had a sustainable agronomic plan, which was the challenge for many of the inland courses during this era. When the weather turned hot and humid with no mechanism to dry the soil, things basically shut down. I don't have the information available, but the timing of the aforementioned US Amateurs in relation to the season may tell a different story as to the why/where/when of selection for this, and other tournaments.

It is also possible that the "championship condition" ethos at Oakmont, which by all accounts existed from very early in the club's history, contributed to any issues that may or may not have occurred.

Yes, this is all speculation but one that broadens the discussion beyond something as facile as bunkers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

True, it broadens the discussion, but there is no evidence that Oakmont experienced such difficulties.

As for the weather, the USGA schedule for the the Amateur looked like this from 1895 through 1916:  Oct, July, Sept, June, Sept, Oct, July,
Oct, June, July, Sept, June, June, Aug, June, June, June, Aug, Sept, Aug, June, and June.

I'd hazard a guess that Oakmont may have had fine turf in at least one of those months.  


  

[Kyle Harris]

True, it broadens the discussion, but there is no evidence that Oakmont experienced such difficulties.

As for the weather, the USGA schedule for the the Amateur looked like this from 1895 through 1916:  Oct, July, Sept, June, Sept, Oct, July,
Oct, June, July, Sept, June, June, Aug, June, June, June, Aug, Sept, Aug, June, and June.

I'd hazard a guess that Oakmont may have had fine turf in at least one of those months.  


  

Perhaps, but if it were already hosting some form of other tournament, etc. then who knows the mitigating circumstances.

I'm in the "Oakmont took a lot of time/hard-work/dedication to become what it is/was" camp, for what it's worth.

[MCirba]

For the most part I think this has been a very good discussion and I appreciate everyone's participation and feedback.

One of the things that I've watched here durinig my absence from GCA is the need to separate fact from opinion, particularly in these historical discussions where no one can actually prove debatable points.

I've tried to state a number of facts found in the earliest articles about Oakmont that to me seem very divergent from almost all other courses that existed at that time and offered the opinion that knowing how few there were in terms of quality golf courses in the US in 1903, no matter which of the Victorian style courses held the US Amateur during those years, that Oakmont in a raw state had to be at least as good as virtually any of them and I still believe that.   I think a few others here like George Pazin would agree with that assessment.  Others disagree citing how much work went into refining it over the next few decades to what we know today and I get their point and we can hold different opinions.

During the debate process, I think we've all learned more about Oakmont's evolution, at least those with open minds.   I agree with Sven's early comment about the influence of Pinehurst with Travis and Ross as having played at least some influential role in the development of Oakmont, given the amount of time the Fownes family spent their each winter.  I do think what Ross and Travis (and Emmet) were doing in the first decade of the 20th century is largely overlooked in the story of American golf so I'm going to be spending more time here discussing that over the next months.

Thanks for everyone's input.

[MCirba]

One of the things I found most interesting in looking at old aerials is the fact that much of the tree planting at Oakmont (since removed) took place sometime after 1969.   I would have assumed that it started back in the 50s or so, but not the case.

[Curt Coulter]

This thread was sent to me from a couple friends and I thought I should chime in as I have been a member there for 38 years and still a scratch golfer there. I have done some projects with our Archives Chairman, John Fitzgerald, and learned a lot about our great golf course over the years.

I saw a comment about few bunkers from the start as I had never heard that and only know that at its peak, there were 350 of them which became a great expense to maintain. Mr. Fownes used to sit on the clubhouse porch as he could see 16 or 17 flags from there (depending on who you talk to) and watch the members play. If he saw someone miss a fairway and not be in a bunker, he had one installed there immediately....hence the increase to 350.

He designed the course for championship golf and his dream has been attained many times over as the club prepares for its record ninth US Open in 2016. It has been fascinating to watch the course evolve over my time there as Mr. Fownes was a believer that the course should evolve with the times and that "a shot poorly played was a shot irrevocably lost." And by evolve I mean keep up with the ever improving technology of today's equipment. After all, he built the course just as the new Haskell ball was being introduced to the game.  Fairway bunkers that are no longer in play have been removed and added to the far side so as to keep the challenge the same using better equipment. It's cool to see the scars from these retired bunkers as you can still see impressions as to where they were.

And the tree program has been an amazing undertaking that continues to improve the look and feel of the course, in my opinion. Many more were removed this past winter so that we can again see the famous Church Pew bunker from the clubhouse. Little has had to be done to the course (from a distance stankpoint)  to prepare for the upcoming Open since new tees were added and bunkers rolled up for the 2007 Open that was won with a score of +5.
I hope this has been interesting and infomative for the readers and I post one golf picutre per day, usually of Oakmont, if you are interested in seeing them on Twitter.

[George Pazin]

I hope this has been interesting and infomative for the readers and I post one golf picutre per day, usually of Oakmont, if you are interested in seeing them on Twitter.

Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.

-----

If the standard for "objectively" good is when tinkering is done, there are a lot of top courses that are not "objectively" good.

 

[Sven Nilsen]

I hope this has been interesting and infomative for the readers and I post one golf picutre per day, usually of Oakmont, if you are interested in seeing them on Twitter.

Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.

-----

If the standard for "objectively" good is when tinkering is done, there are a lot of top courses that are not "objectively" good.

 

There's a big difference between tinkering and finishing the conceived course.

[Jim Nugent]

Curt, how do you think Oakmont would play with no rough?  The idea that the ball would run more, and find more trouble, and that might offset the easier lies you get from shots that miss today's fairways. 

[Curt Coulter]

Funny that you ask that as the USGA has given us mowing patterns for the rough that we are trying out for this year to see how it plays. They will use the graduated rough we have grown accustomed to, but they are looking at cutting the rough into the bunkers at a short height, but I don't know the exact number since I'm not on the Grounds Committee. In my opinion that will make it play tougher as balls will no longer stop short of the bunkers and since most of them are so deep, one will not get a shot at the green unless they are in the back of the bunker.

The jury is still out so it's not a done deal yet, but that is the thinking and I agree with it.

[Curt Coulter]

Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.

It's @OakmontHooks since several have inquired. You can look at past posts for a  lot of Oakmont shots as the course is not ready for current shots....enjoy.

[Curt Coulter]

One of the things I found most interesting in looking at old aerials is the fact that much of the tree planting at Oakmont (since removed) took place sometime after 1969.   I would have assumed that it started back in the 50s or so, but not the case.

All of the tree planting actually took place after the '62 US Open when Herbert Warren Wind referred to Oakmont as "the ugly old brute" of a course and Fred Brand took offense to that. He was the Greens Chairman at the time and took $10-15k of his own money to plant trees and beautify Oakmont. The plan ultimately backfired by the 90s after they had grown so much that they changed the intended direction of play as well as obscured many of the bunkers. I did a series of before and after pictures on Twitter awhile back that showed several of the holes and it's amazing.

[Jim Franklin]

Thanks for sharing this. What is your Twitter account name? If you'd rather not share it publicly, then just message me.

It's @OakmontHooks since several have inquired. You can look at past posts for a  lot of Oakmont shots as the course is not ready for current shots....enjoy.

Why "hooks"? You play a nice fade.

[MCirba]

Curt,

Welcome, and thanks for the additional information.  It looks as though it took a bit of time for the tree planting plan to get established, but once it did it quickly grew roots, so to speak.

I was looking at www.historicaerials.com for my observations, particularly contrasting Oakmont's  aerial from 1969 followed by one from 1993.   Amazing how fast those things grow!  

I was at the US Open both Saturday and Sunday in 1983 and from pictures, I'm startled at how much better the course looks today, as well as impressed by how incredibly well Fownes used the existing landforms in the original routing.   The question of bunerking is an interesting one and clearly Fownes (and son) had a penal mindset, but I'd venture to say that the course would still play enormously challenging with wider fairways and less penal bunkering.

[MCirba]

There was some off-line discussion related to when the "Church Pews" were created and I came across this Brooklyn Daily Eagle drawing from 1919 that Joe Bausch found some time back that seems to show them in place even at that early date.   Perhaps someone with better eyes that me can weigh in on the date of the drawing (on the drawing), which looks like it may be even earlier.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Here's the description of those bunkers from the same paper:

[DMoriarty]

The map apparently shows some changes, which are either in the works or had already been made.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()