Oakmont: Balanced and playable by all skill levels?

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I certainly understand your POV (and Mark's, Terry's, Cary's etc). But I think there is a measuring stick for playability that most good golfers (consciously/unconsciously) apply/focus on and that most average golfers don't, i.e. final score. As you note, a so-called penal course and/or one with a higher SSS will be a harder course, i.e. it will engender higher scores, and by definition an exponentially higher score for the weaker golfer. But for that weaker/average golfer, accepting that he will rack-up a high score, a course can still be playable without him resorting to irons off the tee or giving up entirely on trying to hit the greens in regulation. If an average golfer usually, on his home course, only hits 6 of 14 fairways a round and misses the other 8 fairways quite badly, he is already quite used to chipping out sideways and/or hitting a mediocre recovery from the rough or the sand, and/or scrambling simply to have a par putt and/or hitting a very. (Indeed, that is why he is a 90 shooter, i.e. a bogey golfer, i.e. an average golfer.) That's what he calls "playing golf". That's his experience of "playability".  So what real difference would it make to him if, instead of chipping out sideways from the trees at his home course he was blasting out sideways from one of Oakmont's famed bunkers? The difference would be, we all admit, his final score -- since even after he's gotten onto the putting surface he's likely never had to try to handle those kind of greens/green speeds. But if as an average golfer that score isn't (as it often is for the better golfer) what determines/defines "playability" for him, I can see how someone like George P could define Oakmont in that way. Look: I'm not particularly chomping at the bit to play a course like Oakmont; it would bruise my vanity and make mincemeat of my pride; but from what I've read I'd rather play a course like Oakmont than a course like Tobacco Road. They would be, for me, equally "playable", but the former wouldn't have the visual clutter and confusion of the latter. 
Peter
 

[MCirba]

For those who have played there, about what score on average do you think an 8-handicapper would shoot in 10 plays?   

[George Pazin]

George,
I know you.  You are a smart guy.  Why are we arguing something so stupid.

We are arguing about this because I think there is a very important notion that is being missed, and that is how the average golfer plays golf. I have long thought that about most people, both on this site and off.


Trivial matters first: ALL skill levels? No, obviously Oakmont isn't the course for beginners. I doubt that many courses discussed on this site really are, save maybe The Old Course.


But your comment was that I and others who agree with me have no clue how AVERAGE golfers play golf.


Far too many people, both on this site and off, conflate beginning golfers with high handicappers. I will grant you that many HHers are beginners, but many are not. Neither are many "average" golfers (whatever that means - I'd argue it's a meaningless term, but that is for another day).


Let's look at your 75 versus my 107. That's a difference of 32 strokes, a real butt kicking by any measure. But that works out to less than 2 strokes a hole, not 6. That's an extra shot getting on the green, and an extra putt once you're there. Or maybe an occasional lost ball penalty (or not so occasional, in my case...). A completely duffed shot, topped, fatted, whatever, thrown in a handful of times every round. Leaving a shot in a bunker, which even good players will do at Oakmont, or any number of highly regarded courses, including TOC...


Will a HHer post a 10 on holes at Oakmont? Sure, probably a few. But not every hole. He might even par a hole here or there, certainly will bogey a few. Someone who is posting a boatload of 9s and 10s is a beginner, not an average golfer, not by a long shot.


Why is this important? And why am I arguing with you? Because I don't want the lessons of Oakmont - or any other great, difficult course - to be lost on any architect, or any golfer. I don't think the gentleman who said Oakmont is playable for all skill levels literally meant anyone who has ever picked up a club. That's a trivial argument. My home course of North Park Golf Course, a muni in the North Hills of Allegheny County, as wide and forgiving a course as there is in the world, is not playable for absolute beginners. My son just started playing, but I won't take him there for a while, until he learns to hit the ball a bit at the range and at a local mom and pop 9 holer.


I happen to believe Oakmont can be not just played, but enjoyed, by many many skill levels of golfers. Furthermore, several of the things that make it so difficult could be modified almost overnight, if necessary (which it's not, to be clear) - slow the greens a hair, mow the rough a bit shorter.


I do not want the notion of Oakmont's difficulty clouding everyone's judgment, as it obviously has, as evidenced by many of the posters on here. There is so much to enjoy at Oakmont, as long as one doesn't get too focused on the occasional 10 or X.


Read Peter P's excellent post right before this one, if you still think I'm wrong, and really think about it. It's very important that architects understand how the average golfer plays, and just as importantly, why the average golfer plays.

[Kyle Harris]

Why, oh, why do you all confuse "playability" and "success?"

[Tom Bagley]

I think that there is a big difference between "playability" and "score-ability" - if that were a word.  It seems to me that many of the comments are based on what people would shoot (score).  There is no question that all of us would score significantly higher at Oakmont than on most courses we would play.  But unplayable?  To me, an unplayable golf course is one that requires shots that the player simply can't make on any kind of regular basis.  Or one that results in total calamity for anything less than the perfect shot.  With the exception, perhaps, of the approaches to the 3rd and maybe the 17th, I don't see why Oakmont is necessarily unplayable for the higher handicapper.  Where are the forced carries from the tee or the approach shots (other than 3 and 17) that require some sort of high, soft shot that is out of the realm of the weaker player?  The fairways are reasonably wide and certainly the weaker player - if smart about his game - should be able to navigate his way to the greens.  Getting the ball in the hole is going to be a challenge for all players, regardless of handicap.

The player who consistently hits drivers all over the planet is going to have a hard time.  (Although in some cases, the exceptionally wild driver may end up in an adjoining fairway).  And the player who consistently makes bad decisions, trying shots with little chance of success - particularly from the rough or one of the bunkers - is only going to compound his problems and run up his score even more. 

I am not saying that Oakmont will necessarily be "fun" for the player who is having a bad day.  Or for the player who does not accept punishment for his miscues with a "sporting" attitude.  But unplayable?  I don't think so. 

[JMEvensky]

Why, oh, why do you all confuse "playability" and "success?"

Instead of success,how about "expectations"?


A low handicapper expecting to shoot a good score at Oakmont is frequently disappointed. But a high handicapper probably expects to get beaten up.


If playability is a function of expectation,and it probably is for a lot of players, then I can see George P's point.


To Peter's point,everyone's definition of playable is singular.

[Sean_A]

George

I don't really care how you define an average golfer....to me that is a trivial point.  The point I am making is that from your's and Pietro's perspective, practically every course on the planet is playable...to the point of there be no meaning for the term "playable". Maybe that, in the end is what you are really saying...I don't know.  My angle is playability is a continuum.  Surely, if this is this case, Oakmont must be well toward the unplayable end of the spectrum.  Isn't that the very essence of penal design and a high SSS? Isn't a high score indicative of a less playable course?  It seems to me the evidence is quite clear, but you may have a totally different way of defining playability which is more black and white than mine.  But let us not forget...balanced and playable...That is how one might describe TOC, not Oakamont.

Pietro

I think if a guy is a 90ish shooter, he will likely find himself in a position at Oakmont where the score on a given hole, or perhaps for the entire course, is so high, that in essence the hole/course is unplayable for him. It is likely that out of embarrassment the ball would end up in pocket at least once...lets hope so anyway.  You may find some value in returning a card of 115 as a sign of playability.  To me that is akin to a slaughterhouse and far more evidence than is needed to say that Oakmont is not suitable from a playablity perspective for yourself.  I guess my threshold is far lower than yours, not least because I am thinking of all the time standing around watching a hack taking forever to put a ball in the hole. 

Ah well, life goes on. I clearly recognize that my game is insufficient for Oakmont so I have never had a strong desire to go through the serious effort and money to play the course.  I fully understand that if I had comfortable access to Oakmont and could play it many times over many years, my lack of game could be totally beside the point should I truly love the design.  However, I know that I am disinclined to fall hard for brutes...because they are not as playable as I would like!  Sandwich and Merion are about the extent of my tolerance for difficulty, but a big reason why I admire these courses is because they are incredibly balanced. 


Ciao

[MCirba]

Does it boil down to Oakmont's lack of unplayable hazards (i.e. water hazards, impenetrable woods, regular OB, un-findable and/or unplayable rough)?

Many modern courses are virtually unplayable by the average golfer because of a continual stream of lost balls and penalties resulting in a woeful, disjointed experience.   

I'm not sure I see that at Oakmont.

[Mark Saltzman]

Oakmont penalizes small misses more than it penalizes big misses. I'm not sure if that factors into things or not but it is playable from adjacent fairways.

[Sean_A]

Does it boil down to Oakmont's lack of unplayable hazards (i.e. water hazards, impenetrable woods, regular OB, un-findable and/or unplayable rough)?

Many modern courses are virtually unplayable by the average golfer because of a continual stream of lost balls and penalties resulting in a woeful, disjointed experience.   

I'm not sure I see that at Oakmont.

Pointing out less playable designs doesn't make Oakmont any easier. It only means there are courses further along playable spectrum compared to Oakmont.  In your heart of hearts, do you think Oakmont is even close to 50 on the playable continuum from 0 (unplayable course suitable obviously for only top level players) to 100 (so playable the course is dead boring)?


Ciao

[John Kirk]

I'll share my experience playing Oakmont, which I also shared a few years ago.

I played Oakmont on a beautiful fall day with a member who is an outstanding player, a multiple match play champion.  He had invited two young club pros from Ohio to join us, so my host decided it was best to play the whole course.  So I played the course from the full 7250 yards.  The rough was cut at about 2.5 - 3", and the greens were probably rolling in the 11-12 Stimpmeter range, a reasonably manageable speed.

At the time, I was playing well, probably carrying a 1 handicap.  To the best of my recollection, I shot about 89, even bogeys, with one or two pars (#10 for sure, maybe #4 or #6 also), fifteen or sixteen bogeys, and a triple bogey (#2, after being greenside in regulation).  Since the result is etched in memory, one would conclude the course was very memorable.  I played about as well as the two young pros, while my host shot 77.  What a player.

My objection to Oakmont is simple.  The penalty for short-siding yourself was too severe for my tastes.  If you missed the wrong side of most greens, the best I could do was a 15-20 foot putt for par.  When the penalty for short-siding oneself is so severe, my tendency is to not even consider trying for the hero play, make a conservative high pitch that ensures my next shot will be a putt, and then two putt for bogey.  And I did this many times that day.

There are other courses I can name where I feel the short-side equation is too severe.  Oakmont is a  wonderful place, gorgeous and fun to play, but the player who has difficulty chipping and pitching the ball around the greens will struggle mightily.  It is without question the hardest golf course I have ever played.

[MCirba]

John,

Perhaps I'm masochistic, but your description of Oakmont makes it sound fairly unique and makes me want to play there even more.

Sean,

What I'm hearing is the description of a golf course that's incredibly difficult, nay, many maintain even unplayable, for the average golfer without any reliance on water hazards, impenetrable rough, dense woods, or constant threat of OB.

Consider me intrigued.

[K Rafkin]

Isn't saying "Oakmont is playable by all skill levels" an insult to what Henry Fownes was trying to do?

[Mark_Fine]

Yes Fownes and Loeffler are rolling over in their graves listening to people describing and trying to rationalize that Oakmont is "playable for all skill levels"! 
Give up arguing this one guys.  It makes zero sense. 

As I stated before, Oakmont is the toughest most penal "great" golf course I have ever played.  The absolute last way I would describe Oakmont to someone is "well balanced and playable for all skill levels"! 
 

[James Brown]

For those who have played there, about what score on average do you think an 8-handicapper would shoot in 10 plays?

Depends on the quality of this person's putting on super fast greens.  Might average 83-85.  I played a West Pennsylvania Amateur at Oakmont many years ago and the winning score was a few over.  I shot 4-5 shots over my index each day, which was about middle of the field, I think.  I think Oakmont favors a very specific kind of golfer that is careful andhas a super short game.  If you are a nervous putter, you are dead. 

[Mark_Fine]

James,
I can't believe I am still arguing this but Oakmont demands far more than good putting.  Also an 8-10 handicapper (who by the way is FAR BETTER than an average golfer, 75% of all golfers are worse) would shoot well above 83-85 as an average in 10 plays.  I played a half dozen rounds there with my friend who is a multiple Oakmont club champion and he broke 80 twice in those six rounds and he is a 1 or 2 handicap.  My guess is an 8-10 handicap (playing by the rules of golf) over ten rounds would never break 80, would average over 90 for the 10 rounds and would shoot over 100 at least once.  And this is for a well above average golfer.

[James Brown]

Obviously, scoring at Oakmont doesn't ONLY depend on putting, but if someone can't 2-putt from 25 feet, they are gonna make a lot of doubles for sure.  Course rating from the back tees, 7200 is 77.5/147, which squares with the scores you mention.  It's my experience that  most of the time, it is set up a easier than that.   From 6450 it is 74/134.  The WPGA tournament I mentioned was set up closer to 6800 yards as I recall. 

[Jim Nugent]

If playable means ability to score decently relative to your handicap, Tiger once said a 10 handicapper couldn't break 100 at Oakmont from the tips. 

The 'balanced' part that Steve Kohler's champion friend talks about doesn't mean much to me, nor do I think it makes a course more playable.  In general, I think you make a course more playable for average golfers by having more par 3s and fewer par 5s.  For real good players, the formula is the opposite of that.   

According to the USGA, Oakmont's bogey rating from the tips is 103.3.  I think that means an 18 handicapper should expect to shoot around 32 over par there.  Not all that surprising for a 7200+ yard course that is kept to U.S. Open standards year round. 

Bogey ratings from other tees:

Green        101.8
Blue            98.5
White          96.5
Red             93.3

If these numbers are accurate, the mythological bogey golfer might shoot somewhat close to his handicap from the red tees. 

Does anyone know how well Oakmont handicaps travel to other courses? 

[James Brown]

If playable means ability to score decently relative to your handicap, Tiger once said a 10 handicapper couldn't break 100 at Oakmont from the tips. 

The 'balanced' part that Steve Kohler's champion friend talks about doesn't mean much to me, nor do I think it makes a course more playable.  In general, I think you make a course more playable for average golfers by having more par 3s and fewer par 5s.  For real good players, the formula is the opposite of that.   

According to the USGA, Oakmont's bogey rating from the tips is 103.3.  I think that means an 18 handicapper should expect to shoot around 32 over par there.  Not all that surprising for a 7200+ yard course that is kept to U.S. Open standards year round. 

Bogey ratings from other tees:

Green        101.8
Blue            98.5
White          96.5
Red             93.3

If these numbers are accurate, the mythological bogey golfer might shoot somewhat close to his handicap from the red tees. 

Does anyone know how well Oakmont handicaps travel to other courses?

Oakmont handicaps are one of the bellwethers of golf.  Huge respect from me. 

[Josh Stevens]

Never having played, and unlikely to ever to, and having only seen it on tele, it seems to me to be a mix - penal off the tee  where the middle of the fairway is really the only place to be, and then if you manage that, you try to position the approach to avoid an ugly putt or chip.

I wonder then if it appeals to a particular kind of player.  I'm off 5, but would shoot a million there as I'm long but wild off the tee but good around the greens. On the other hand, a mate of mine is also off 5, but would probably break 80 as he hasn't missed a fairway in 10 years - he would just bunt it down the fairway, bunt it down near the green and get enough of em up and down to post a score.

[Kyle Harris]

Playable means I could hit 6-irons off the tee all day and find my golf ball to play a subsequent stroke.

Playable does not mean I can absent-mindedly hit driver all day and expect the golf course to accommodate my subsequent lack of skill.

Playable means I can aim down the ninth fairway and hit a 60-yard slice on to the first fairway from the first tee to avoid hitting the ball into the Sheetz on the other side of Hulton Road.

Playable does not mean I can expect to miss the fairway and have the golf course accommodate a recovery to par.

That's the difference. Oakmont doesn't seem to demand one style of play; it only demands that you execute (i.e. play) whichever style of play you choose.

John Kirk's example of having 15-20 footers to recover from a short-side miss seems exemplary. It's not unreasonable to expect an expert player to make a putt of that length to save a par from a miss, and is damn sure more reasonable than asking a player to hole out from a drop zone to do the same.

[Jim Nugent]

Josh, maybe your friend could break 80 if he played the forward tees.   From the tips, no way.  A number of players in last summer's U.S. Open didn't do that, including Brandt Snedeker in his first round.

[John Kirk]

John Kirk's example of having 15-20 footers to recover from a short-side miss seems exemplary. It's not unreasonable to expect an expert player to make a putt of that length to save a par from a miss, and is damn sure more reasonable than asking a player to hole out from a drop zone to do the same.

Hi Kyle,

I agree with the rest of your post.  The course is big, and a reasonably good golfer could play without losing a ball, and have fun.

To clarify, when a decent club golfer like myself gets short-sided, and the risks involved with flubbing a recovery shot (leaving it short, for instance) to get the 15-20 foot par putt are too great, so I will be inclined to play safe and take the 30-40 foot putt.  You probably understand what I'm saying, but I thought I would say it again.

[Tim Martin]

John Kirk-Any chance you come away with a different opinion if you had played the member tees? I know it wasn't your choice but I would think we are talking about a completely different experience at 7255 yards. I don't know how far you hit your driver but that setup has six par fours listed at 482,479,477,462,499 and 484. Can you get home on any of those with anything other than 3 wood if at all? Otherwise you are talking about a "Survivor" episode.

[John Kirk]

Hi Tim,

It's been a long time since I played the course, and I can't remember what happened on most holes.  I remember a few things.  I came in playing well.  I made fifteen or sixteen bogeys.  I remember hitting a very long drive on the 10th hole.  It's way downhill, and firm, and I probably hit it 330 yards.  I think I hit gap or pitching wedge onto the green and made a par, one of perhaps two pars on the day.

But that's an anomaly.  Ten years ago my solid drives traveled about 240 in the air, so I'm sure I hit a lot of fairway woods into greens.  Of course, the 1st hole is similar to the 10th hole, and it wouldn't be impossible for me to have an iron into the green.  On a firm day the approach must play 30-50 yards short, since the greens slope away so sharply.

I would have enjoyed the round more if we had played 6500 yards worth of golf course.  At least I could have hit a few greens, as I used to be a fine short iron player.  I enjoy a course length where I use lots of different clubs for approach shots (assuming a decent drive), with a slight emphasis on shorter irons, let's say 7 iron or shorter.  I do like playing long approaches into greens a few times each round.  A well struck 4-iron or 7-wood is very satisfying.

It still was fun, and after the round, standing next to the clubhouse and looking out at the beautiful course on that warm fall evening, is perhaps my fondest memory of the day.