Did they cut too many trees at Oakmont?

[Tony Ristola]

It's been the poster child for tree removal, and I use it with potential clients to shock them as to what it can mean in the most extreme case... and the multiple benefits of the change that improved the agronomy of the golf course:


...wind was reintroduced, playing surfaces dried out faster, turf was healthier, frost burned off faster, fewer chemicals were required. All great stuff.


But...


According to what I've read about the 2021 US Amateur... they were bombing it down other fairways to gain an advantage on multiple holes. Which brings me to the question... did Oakmont cut down too many trees? Should some have been left to prevent such occurrences? I understand the "origins" of the course, and this was a return to the original philosophy... but...?
###


The "restoration"... anyone know how or if this is being addressed? Have fairways shifted over the decades? With the plethora of bunkering... it seems that's unlikely.


From aerials of the work being done, the bunkering in general looks like it has become a bit larger in scale, and the Church Pews on 3 now look more like Piano Keys... almost as it they reversed the sand-grass situation.


As an aside, I've got a 1978 article with a photo of Jack Mahaffey and Jack Brand standing alongside a poster illustrating, more length, and more trees... with the text "No More... 63". The scorecard in the corner of the page shows the course to be all of 6,989 yards.

[Steven Wade]

I think the important thing to remember is that these clubs exist primarily for member play and not solely for the two or three weeks a decade that the courses are used by the USGA. I love the look of Oakmont now, I never played it pre-renovation but I appreciate what it did to advance the idea of a tree removal plan at many other clubs, mine included.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Oakmont’s denuding can be justified by the fact that there are 175+ bunkers to punish wayward shots. Most courses don’t have this defense. Oakmont should not be used as an example for almost any other course.

[Tony Ristola]

   Oakmont’s denuding can be justified by the fact that there are 175+ bunkers to punish wayward shots. Most courses don’t have this defense. Oakmont should not be used as an example for almost any other course.

Yes, but from what I gather is players were bombing it down other fairways during the 2021 US Amateur to gain an advantage. Would leaving trees in some areas (off the tee) have halted this.

[Wayne_Kozun]

   Oakmont’s denuding can be justified by the fact that there are 175+ bunkers to punish wayward shots. Most courses don’t have this defense. Oakmont should not be used as an example for almost any other course.

Yes, but from what I gather is players were bombing it down other fairways during the 2021 US Amateur to gain an advantage. Would leaving trees in some areas (off the tee) have halted this.

Are members doing this on a daily basis?  Or is this a once every five years problem during the US Am or US Open?

[Tony Ristola]

Remember the Hinkle Tree?


Playing down another fairway for an advantage was a problem in 1979, and I doubt that's changed... though that shortcut made the hole significantly shorter if I recall correctly.


Still, I don't think the USGA wants to have it become cross country golf for the National Open. This would cause several problems... speed of play as players would have to wait for other fairways to clear, and safety issues.


If this was simply a club, then I don't see a big issue, but it's not merely a club, but a major championship venue.


My guess is they will address such issues... with grandstands perhaps?


Or does anyone have any insights as to their solutions?

[Michael Felton]

Remember the Hinkle Tree?


Playing down another fairway for an advantage was a problem in 1979, and I doubt that's changed... though that shortcut made the hole significantly shorter if I recall correctly.


Still, I don't think the USGA wants to have it become cross country golf for the National Open. This would cause several problems... speed of play as players would have to wait for other fairways to clear, and safety issues.


If this was simply a club, then I don't see a big issue, but it's not merely a club, but a major championship venue.


My guess is they will address such issues... with grandstands perhaps?


Or does anyone have any insights as to their solutions?

Grandstands would be pretty risky since they may not dissuade people from taking that line. I don't like it very much as a concept generally, but one obvious solution would be internal out of bounds. Hit it in x fairway while playing y hole and you're OOB. That would successfully stop all of it and wouldn't actually bother me that much in this case.

[Kalen Braley]

I agree here, and they've already done this at least once @ The Players.  The hill left of the pond on 18 was declared OOB, just for that tourney.

Seems putting in a few white poles for 1 week every 5 years is a much better solution to planting and managing a whole bunch of trees again.

[Carl Johnson]

You cannot remove too many trees.  That is, you can remove all the trees and that would be o.k. with me.  Internal OB would suffice for the big boy tourneys.

[Jason Thurman]

I recall guys playing down 10 fairway off 11 at Oakmont in elite events... possible I have the hole numbers wrong here, but I think I'm correct.


I don't recall it on other holes. Point just being - I don't see a trend where players are flaunting the architecture at Oakmont. I'm also not convinced that playing down another hole's fairway is inherently a problem. See: Old Course, The.


I do think you could say Oakmont took out too many trees in one specific sense: they became the poster-child for tree management in the process, and it feels like we spent two decades afterward explaining to memberships that "a tree management program doesn't have to mean clear-cutting the entire golf course."


But it's not really Oakmont's fault that tree-loving members panic when they think about what its example might mean for their home course, and it doesn't mean the course would be better with trees.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Thankfully, the pendulum is swinging back from the “you can’t remove too many trees” crowd. First we had the tree planting fad of the 70’s and 80’s. Then we had the Shakespearean “kill all the trees” of the next 25 years. Seems we may have arrived at a comfortable middle ground.

[Michael Felton]

I recall guys playing down 10 fairway off 11 at Oakmont in elite events... possible I have the hole numbers wrong here, but I think I'm correct.


I don't recall it on other holes. Point just being - I don't see a trend where players are flaunting the architecture at Oakmont. I'm also not convinced that playing down another hole's fairway is inherently a problem. See: Old Course, The.


I do think you could say Oakmont took out too many trees in one specific sense: they became the poster-child for tree management in the process, and it feels like we spent two decades afterward explaining to memberships that "a tree management program doesn't have to mean clear-cutting the entire golf course."


But it's not really Oakmont's fault that tree-loving members panic when they think about what its example might mean for their home course, and it doesn't mean the course would be better with trees.

If memory serves, the issue was some of the holes there the fairways are relatively wide at the front, but then narrow in the landing zones with bunkers and so on. In the US Am, players realized they could hit it to the front bits of other fairways and have a 40 yard wide fairway rather than a 25 yard wide fairway.


The funny thing is we like it when holes offer options for how to play them, but when those options are not "what the architect intended" then we don't like it so much. I think in this instance though it's much more of a pace of play/safety issue. US Open crowds are going to be substantially bigger than US Am crowds.

[Sean_A]

   Thankfully, the pendulum is swinging back from the “you can’t remove too many trees” crowd. First we had the tree planting fad of the 70’s and 80’s. Then we had the Shakespearean “kill all the trees” of the next 25 years. Seems we may have arrived at a comfortable middle ground.

Honestly, how many clubs have cut down all the trees? I am convinced tree cutting has been blown way out of proportion to reality. I play far more courses with too many trees than I do with too few. The one course I played in the past few years which was desperate trees is Arcadia Bluffs South. But it would take years for proper trees to grow in.

Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

I recall guys playing down 10 fairway off 11 at Oakmont in elite events... possible I have the hole numbers wrong here, but I think I'm correct.


I don't recall it on other holes. Point just being - I don't see a trend where players are flaunting the architecture at Oakmont. I'm also not convinced that playing down another hole's fairway is inherently a problem. See: Old Course, The.


I do think you could say Oakmont took out too many trees in one specific sense: they became the poster-child for tree management in the process, and it feels like we spent two decades afterward explaining to memberships that "a tree management program doesn't have to mean clear-cutting the entire golf course."


But it's not really Oakmont's fault that tree-loving members panic when they think about what its example might mean for their home course, and it doesn't mean the course would be better with trees.

If memory serves, the issue was some of the holes there the fairways are relatively wide at the front, but then narrow in the landing zones with bunkers and so on. In the US Am, players realized they could hit it to the front bits of other fairways and have a 40 yard wide fairway rather than a 25 yard wide fairway.


The funny thing is we like it when holes offer options for how to play them, but when those options are not "what the architect intended" then we don't like it so much. I think in this instance though it's much more of a pace of play/safety issue. US Open crowds are going to be substantially bigger than US Am crowds.

I'm still wondering on what specific holes we've seen good players employ this tact, besides 11.


If 10 and 11 shared a single huge fairway there would be a 35 minute YouTube video about them.

[Peter Flory]

It's just that equipment has grown out of control and players can afford to make every hole a dogleg and still easily reach them.

[cary lichtenstein]

I grew up on a very tight course with overhanging trees, I carried a 1 iron to punch out on too many holes.


When I moved to Florida on a course without many trees, I enjoyed my golf much more. I could hit irons into greens instead of hitting 80 yard pitch shots,

[Mark_Fine]

Tony,
I am generally not a big fan of holes that suggest players play up another fairway (more from a safety perspective).  However, on one of my favorite courses the prudent play on “most” of the holes, not just on one of them, is to play up the other fairway (or at least to the left).  I presume you know which course that is    It is one of the best in the world and no one complains about it.


Regarding Oakmont, I love the removal of the trees but the ones they should have left alone were the “shade” trees that Fownes and Loeffler planted near some of the tees. Those should have stayed.


As far as trees in general, I believe they can serve a purpose if used prudently and be a great hazard and source of strategy.  Golf has become more of an aerial game, why not have some aerial hazards (bunkers in the sky as RTJ called them).  Don’t ever play Valderama  for example if you don’t like trees. 

[mike_malone]

We need an electric fence for golf balls.

[Michael Felton]

I recall guys playing down 10 fairway off 11 at Oakmont in elite events... possible I have the hole numbers wrong here, but I think I'm correct.


I don't recall it on other holes. Point just being - I don't see a trend where players are flaunting the architecture at Oakmont. I'm also not convinced that playing down another hole's fairway is inherently a problem. See: Old Course, The.


I do think you could say Oakmont took out too many trees in one specific sense: they became the poster-child for tree management in the process, and it feels like we spent two decades afterward explaining to memberships that "a tree management program doesn't have to mean clear-cutting the entire golf course."


But it's not really Oakmont's fault that tree-loving members panic when they think about what its example might mean for their home course, and it doesn't mean the course would be better with trees.

If memory serves, the issue was some of the holes there the fairways are relatively wide at the front, but then narrow in the landing zones with bunkers and so on. In the US Am, players realized they could hit it to the front bits of other fairways and have a 40 yard wide fairway rather than a 25 yard wide fairway.


The funny thing is we like it when holes offer options for how to play them, but when those options are not "what the architect intended" then we don't like it so much. I think in this instance though it's much more of a pace of play/safety issue. US Open crowds are going to be substantially bigger than US Am crowds.

I'm still wondering on what specific holes we've seen good players employ this tact, besides 11.


If 10 and 11 shared a single huge fairway there would be a 35 minute YouTube video about them.

I'm not sure, because I'm not familiar enough with the layout, but I think playing 14, they play to the front of the 12th fairway rather than that really narrow space on 14 (about 28 yards between bunkers at the wider bit) and another is playing 4 down 5 fairway. It's a bit of a stretch, but also playing up 4 fairway on 3 gives a bit more room.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have not played Oakmont since they removed all the trees, and I have difficulty visualizing how the course would play. After their restorations, I have played Oakland Hills, Philly Cricket, and Baltusrol. They all removed bunches of trees that impeded play, yet they astutely left trees around tees and along fairways that were not in play. I think I like that better.

[MCirba]

No.

[George Pazin]

Allowing the playing of different fairways is a plus to me, and not just because I'm wild off the tee. My own personal preference for golf is, here's the tee, there's the hole, find your way there. It's admittedly simplistic, but I guess so am I. I'm not a fan of almost anything that dictates play, especially trees. Must be the libertarian in me, screaming to get out.....


And the look is beyond awesome, to me. Long, expansive vistas, seeing other golfers, seeing the other section of the course across the PA Turnpike, wow, I can't imagine a prettier inland course. I played it a few years ago on a stunning May morning, was about 70-75 degrees and not a cloud in the sky. It was mind blowing, and I didn't need a shade tree, though I'm probably not the best judge of that, seeing as how I work in a literal sweat shop.


The first time I ever came across a Confidential Guide about 30 years ago, when I was just starting to play, I remember turning to the short review of Oakmont, reading it, seeing the 9, and thinking, what clown wrote this book? I hadn't even played the course at that point, mind you, I was simply a Burgh homer (still am). But 30 years and much study later, I'm convinced even Tom can make a tiny mistake, and Oakmont fits his definition of a 10.


I do think Oakmont is a 10+, obviously, y'all saw the threads.....but I'm also less traveled than anyone else on here. I will add, if there's better out there, I hope to experience it someday.


P.S. What Mike said.

[jeffwarne]

It's just that equipment has grown out of control and players can afford to make every hole a dogleg and still easily reach them.

Exactly-the problem isn't with the trees, though I might say they could've cut less and not affected its greatness.

[Kalen Braley]

Took a few measurements of Oakmont using Google Earth.

- From the back tee on 11, to find the Garden spot on 10 fairway (widest spot), its a minimum 270 yard carry over a bunker on 10, which I suspect most top players can easily do these days. If they play to their own fairway its 5-7 yards more narrow and turns to rough at 280 off the tee.

- From the back tee on 14, its a 240 yard shot to a 42 yard wide spot on the 12th fairway, or for the same distance shot on 14 the fairway is only 21 yards wide (which only gets more narrow if you try to bit off more).  Seems like an easy choice.

[Terry Lavin]

No.

Really No.