Oakmont - The Birth of Greatness?

[Sven Nilsen]

The church pews were put in place prior to the 1935 Open.  Prior to that there was a series of bunkers along the side of the fairway.

[MCirba]

Sven,

What's the source of that information?   From the looks of it, there are 8 bunkers, identical to what I understand the configuration was initially before being expanded later.   What would be required in your mind to make them officially church pews, the connecting of sand between each row?   Thanks.

Prior discussion here focused on when everyone thought the course was US Amateur capable.   From the sounds of things, the folks at Oakmont still weren't ready by 1910, but it seems everyone else was, which I think is again indicative of Fownes perfectionism.   Of course, that's not provable, but it does seem consistent with his somewhat obsessive personality.

[MCirba]

Here's an aerial view of Oakmont from 1925.   Unfortunately, it's difficult to see the 3rd/4th fairways in the distance, but it's interesting that the accompanying article mentions needing to avoid the "cemetery mounds" on your drive to the left of the 3rd hole.   It also looks like long rows of bunkers were a recurring theme.

Click on it for a larger image...thanks Joe!

[MCirba]

Here's Oakmont in 1938 for comparison purposes with the drawing published in 1919.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Oakmont didn't apply in 1912 either, but Fownes must have felt that Oakmont was ready by early in 1915, they were on the list for that years Am, but lost out to Detroit.

[MCirba]

Jim,

Didn't they skip out again in 16 which was part of the reason Merion was awarded the tourney?

[Jim_Kennedy]

I've read that no club from that section applied for the Am in '16.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.

Zombie Poa Annua - worth the few minutes read:
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/golf-us-open/2007/06/12/Oakmont-inspired-Stimpmeter-allows-USGA-to-accurately-measure-speed-consistency-of-putting-surfaces/stories/200706120203

[MCirba]

Jim,

Sorry...just found it.  In your reply #32 on this thread you link to an article that states Oakmont declined to host in 1916.  Thanks.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The question of bunkering 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.

Two things:

1. - Oakmont seems like a course that you are supposed to attack head on -  no feints, no subterfuge, no flanking moves, no rope-a-dope, just man up, sound the bugle, and charge ahead. I'm guessing that the greens are designed for that frontal assault.

How's that going to work if the fairways were wider and the defenses less staggering?

2. - All of the golf course lies in Plum Borough (except a tiny portion of the property), not the Borough of Oakmont. Do you think the Fownes' might have made it more ' user friendly' if it was known as Plum Country Club.  

 

 

[Sven Nilsen]

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.

Let's be crystal clear on this.

The "Church Pews" are not a series of bunkers, it is one bunker with a series of berms within it.  That bunker is known as the "Church Pews Bunker."  Singular.  Not plural.

That bunker was created prior to the 1935 US Open.  Before that time there were multiple bunkers that ran between the 3rd and 4th holes (playing on the left side of the third and the left side of the fourth, as noted in the article posted by Jim and as seen in the 1919 course map posted above).  But those bunkers (plural) are not the same as the Church Pews Bunker (singular), which is portrayed in the 1938 course map.

Over the years, the number of berms has been altered, as has their height.

The

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

I'd be very curious to see anything you have in regard to the evolution of the Church Pews bunker.   Later today I'll post the hole descriptions from the 1925 article that mentioned the "cemetery mounds" to the left of the third fairway that need to be avoided on the drive and I'm thinking they were probably between each of the echelon of bunkers along that side as seen in the drawing.

Interestingly, I'm unable to find any information related to them being named "Church Pews" prior to 1962 US Open articles.  Sources I've seen say they weren't there when the course originally opened (which we know) but that it was there by the 1935 US Open, citing a 2007 Golf Digest US Open article, but I'm still not sure the original source of that information and have no clarifying information on when this actually happened.   I'm thinking possibly someone drew this conclusion simply from an aerial photo from that time.

It seems from the drawings that there were originally 8 bunkers down the left, which would mean 7 rows (pews) between them, even if the sandy areas weren't connected.   If there were "cemetery mounds" between each it's easy to imagine it evolving into a single bunker over time.  Here's one thing I came across in terms of number of rows, etc. as well as progression over time, although none of it is originally sourced.   Thanks for any additional info.

According to the June 2007 issue of Golf Digest, the Church Pews bunker did not exist in the original Oakmont layout but was in existence by the 1935 U.S. Open, when it had seven "pews" and was only four inches deep.

The Church Pews was extended to eight berms in 1973, and today has 12 berms. It is around 3.5 to 4 feet deep, and the "pews" are covered in shaggy fescue. The Church Pews bunker is 102 yards long. Its width is tapered, 18 yards wide at its narrow end and 43 yards at its wider end.

Each of the "pews" is approximately three feet high, according to Golf magazine, and there is about five yards of sand between each berm.

And although today's Church Pews bunker is much more formalized and somewhat on steroids compared to the original, I do think those rows of in-line bunkers in the 1925 aerial look remarkably similar to those same type of features seen in this 1920 Pine Valley aerial.   

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

As you know, I sent you the very 2007 Ron Whitten authored Golf Digest article you cite in your last post.  Here is the pertinent language for everyone to see:

"The famed bunker between the par-4 third and par-5 fourth--that supersize patch of sand with skinny parallel islands of grass long ago dubbed the Church Pews didn't exist until the 1935 U.S. Open. It had seven pews until the '73 Open, when it was expanded with an eighth ridge of turf. For 2007, the bunker is deeper (a drop of 3 1/2-4 feet instead of four inches from top edge to sand) and has been expanded again, from eight to 12 pews, each covered in fescue, in hopes of corralling a larger congregation. (Fifty-one players hit into the Church Pews in the first two rounds in 1994.)”

We’re not discussing when the term "church pews" was first used, we are talking about when the series of flanking bunkers were altered into a single bunker with grass berms.

If you believe that occurred prior to the time period described above, please offer your proof.  Until then, I stand my original point that you took issue with, namely:

"The church pews were put in place prior to the 1935 Open.  Prior to that there was a series of bunkers along the side of the fairway."

Sven

[Josh Bills]

Mike, Here is an aerial to match up with your 1938 drawing.



Also, found an interesting article written by Mr. Loeffler in 1994 for Golfdom talking about bunkers.

[Josh Bills]

One more article from 1927 talking about "furrowed" bunkers, not sure if that is a church pew, but certainly the players did not like them.  See the portion titled "Tricky Traps" below.  Also giving credit to both Fownes and Loeffler.  Interesting read.

[Sven Nilsen]

The furrowed bunkers were the result of a particular manner of raking at Oakmont, where small furrows were created in the sand.

They are not the same as the church pew concept.

[Josh Bills]

Thanks Sven.  Kind of like Nicklaus did at the Memorial one year, and the players hated it.

[MCirba]

Josh Bills,

Thanks very much for the additional information as well as the aerial photo.   It's interesting that Loeffler remained an advocate of not bunkering courses until play was carefully observed as the most "practical" way to bunker effectively late in life.

Sven,

Sorry, I haven't been able to keep up today with the flurry of email as well as posts and just now read the 2007 Golf Digest Ron Whitten article you sent.   Thanks!  Still, I'm curious to know the source of Ron's information as there is virtually nothing I've come across in that regard.   Of equal interest would be when the bunker acquired its name, which he seems to suggest was synonymous to its creation.   Still, there is not a single newspaper mention of "Church Pews" at Oakmont in any newspaper I've seen, including in Pittsburgh, until 1962, as mentioned.  As promised, here are descriptions of the 3rd hole from the 1925 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as well as the 1922 Brooklyn Daily Eagle.   We know from photos that the string of bunkers existed but interesting to see the "cemetery mounds" noted.  

I'm not trying to prove anything but simply to understand the timing and evolution of that famous hazard.   From a practical perspective, it seems the essential elements were already there for almost two decades before 1935  and simply needed formalization into a single entity by extending the sand along the sides to connect the bunkers.   Would you agree?

[DMoriarty]

I am unclear on now various articles which neither mention nor describe the church pew bunkers are being offered in support of the conjecture that the church pew bunkers existed as early as 1910.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

Thanks for posting those articles.  I note with interest the mention of:

1.  The blind shot into the third from the fairway (necessitating a direction pole), which seems to run counter to your point from the other thread that the course had no blind holes; and

2.  The mention of a "continuous chain of bunkers" on the left of the 3rd.  Bunkers, plural.

Seeing as you're now backtracking to a stance that the "elements were all there," I think you should pay heed to how this conversation started.  Namely that a third party made an offline claim that the Oakmont Church Pews were an inspiration to Crump in some of the early work done at Pine Valley. 

I'm willing to humor the assumption that the chain of bunkers that existed were moderately (this being a strong qualifer) close in form and function to what was eventually put in place prior to the 1935 US Open, if you'll concede that there is no way Crump could have borrowed the Church Pews concept from Oakmont, as it was built well after his death.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

While I understand your point that the formalization of an in-line echelon of bunkers into a single bunker (with remaining separations of turf making up the "pews") is what makes for a (singular) "Church Pews Bunker", do you really see no direct link between the original 8 bunkers in line down the left, with 7 separations of turf between them, which may or may not have been the "cemetery mounds" referred to in 1925 and the single bunker with 8 sandy areas/7 "pews" later known as "Church Pews" in what looks to be the exact same location?

Despite some here possibly misunderstanding or intentionally mischaracterizing my question, I'm not sure when the formalization/consolidation into a single bunker took place, and I'm not sure what evidence Whitten's article claiming that it was put in place for the 1935 US Open relies on, do you?   I think it's strange that there isn't a single mention of "Church Pews" that I can find in any major US newspaper (or Pittsburgh paper) before 1962, as it's now one of the most famous hazards in the world.  

Just saying it was put in place for the 1935 US Open because a Ron Whitten article in 2007 made that claim isn't supported by anything else I can find on the matter.   I wonder if it's based on aerials that the club has?

These are questions, about one of the most famous hazards in the game and I wish the tone was more collegial and less competitive.   I'm really not trying to steal anyone's lunch.

[Sven Nilsen]

The answer is clear as day on this 1938 aerial.  It shows the Church Pews Bunker between the 3rd and the 4th as well as a similar style bunker at the 15th.  There are also numerous examples of rows of bunkers on other holes, which were what the Church Pews Bunker replaced.



Here is an undated photo showing the Church Pews Bunker, as well as other rows of bunkers in the background.  You cannot confuse one for the other.

[Sven Nilsen]

As for other alterations to the course, here's one example of some pretty drastic changes at the 15th and 16th holes (taken from the clubs newsletter, The Oakmont Links) -

[MCirba]

Seeing as you're now backtracking to a stance that the "elements were all there," I think you should pay heed to how this conversation started.  Namely that a third party made an offline claim that the Oakmont Church Pews were an inspiration to Crump in some of the early work done at Pine Valley.  

I'm willing to humor the assumption that the chain of bunkers that existed were moderately (this being a strong qualifer) close in form and function to what was eventually put in place prior to the 1935 US Open, if you'll concede that there is no way Crump could have borrowed the Church Pews concept from Oakmont, as it was built well after his death.

Sven

Sven,

To be honest, I do think we're splitting hairs here a bit.   I think the Lurker suggested that Crump could have borrowed the Church Pews concept from Oakmont by simply referencing the rows of multiple bunkers in line on both sides of the 2nd hole at PV.   Like the early Oakmont, they aren't a single bunker but instead a long straight row of multiple bunkers as seen on this aerial.  

I do think these bunkers look remarkably similar to bunkering seen in the 1925 Oakmont aerial and the 1919 drawing (seemingly dated either 1915 or 1916) shows them to be in place at Oakmont back then, during Crump's lifetime and during his development of the course if my eyes aren't deceiving me.  

Once again, I do understand your distinction of it being a single bunker with multiple rows, but think what people call "Church Pews" at Pine Valley today is simply a related, less formal concept.




**EDIT**  Sven, thanks for that 1938 aerial and I agree that the multiple bunkers in that spot were formalized into a single bunker by that date but I'm still wondering how anyone knows that this didn't already happen by say, 1927?  

As far as the photo showing both the Church Pews bunker with other "in line" bunkers on the other side of the fairway, it seems to me that the sandy parts were simply widened and connected into a single entity and I think that's fascinating on multiple levels.   That's why I'm asking the questions trying to see if there is any record of when and why it happened. 

Also, the changes to 15, 16, et.al. were referenced earlier by Jim Kennedy from articles and it's nice to see the exactness of the changes in that newsletter.

Thanks!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
This aerial is the same one you posted from an article. The back of the photo gives a 1927 date.  
If your article is from 1925 the date must be when it was copied.

Anyway, it's a clearer view.