Why is everyone so in love with Oakmont?

[Gib_Papazian]

This course is excellent, but I cannot understand how it consistently ranks so highly when it lacks character and charm. (In my opinion.)

[TEPaul]

Gib:I'm surpried you say that about Oakmont. I think it certainly has character but I don't really know if charm would be a word I would think of about Oakmont. It's a pretty big course and the collecting and penalizing effect of some of the fairway bunkering and the notorious green speeds (everyday I'm told) make it what I would call intimidating. That's its aura for me.I think the club has another aura about it because it was a lifelong labor of love by the Fownes family (the same aura of Merion or Pine Valley). Maybe that could be called charm.In touranments its lots of work to play (like Merion and Pine Valley), but I would say to question its ranking, Oakmont shouldn't be analyzed in a vacuum. I guess put another way, you would have to explain why you think some of the courses ranked below it should be ranked above it.

[T_MacWood]

Oakmont is not for everybody and that's the way they want it.It's not pretty. Its reputation is built on fear and intimidation. Hundreds of deep sand pits, the famous church-pew bunker and greens so hard and fast, that anxiety and 3-putting are in the forefront of your mind as you walk off the practice putting green and over to the 1st tee. Hell they used rake the bunkers with a furrowing device, talk about sick. As a test of golf, you better have all phases of your game working. If you do not it will be exposed. Oakmont might be the ultimate championship site, you won't get any surprises, as you might at course like Olympic. It will identify the best player. Armour, Hogan, Nicklaus, Miller and Els are men who have won the Open at Oakmont.For all these reasons you either love it or you hate it, no in between. I love it, but also like a good cock fight. [Note:  David]

[Ran Morrissett]

Gib,I agree with you.However, given the magnificent speed of the greens and their slope, the course would take a long time to get to know and I have only played it once, so take these comments for what little they are worth. I happened to play it the day after I played Jasper Park in Canada, which is one of the most charming, inviting courses you can imagine.After the two rounds, I preferred Jasper as a place to play golf on a regular basis - Oakmont consistently placed too high a demand on my game. The rough was well up and a missed fairway meant chopping the ball a max of 120 yards back into play (if you could find it). Boring. I  miss 4-6 fairways a round, and the harsh punishment gets repetitive. Plus I hit three fairways including the 10th and 12th only to watch the strong fairway contours kick the ball into horrific lies in the rough. I simply don't have the ability to hit a draw on demand to hold the tee ball against the slopes on those two holes.  A David Eger might thrive on that kind of challenge but the penalties that the course imposes cumulatively diminished my enjoyment (as opposed to Pine Valley where the variety of the sinister predicaments can actually inspire).The course would be MUCH better if they presented it like Augusta (ie wide fairways and minimal rough). The bunkering, ground contours and greens are so terrific that the it would have plenty of bite but again, it would become playably interesting for 20 fold more people without taking anything away from the David Egers.  Given how Oakmont has evolved from pure penal architecture to more strategic, I think this is its last logical step (and it is one of the very few courses that could do it). I know it will never happen and therefore, Oakmont will always seem like a lost opportunity. Great courses (Cypress, St. Andrews, Melbourne, National, etc.) encourage you to "play" - Oakmont doesn't and that is why it doesn't rate in the top 30 or so courses in the world for me.People who say they love Oakmont do so as a red badge of courage. The course (as opposed to the place) doesn't want to be loved nor should it be.

[TEPaul]

"The course doesn't want to be loved nor should it be".I like that Ran, good description!I have great respect for Oakmont, but the name itself makes me think of unfriendly, cold and intimidating. Actually a better way of descibing my feeling is it just makes me feel small!

[S. Mann]

Gib,I'm with you.  The only reason people love that place is for the FAST greens.  For some strange reason we americans are just mezmerized by fast greens and i just don't know why that is.  

[John Sessions]

Steve, That is a very good point. Why indeed as the faster the greens, the less bold the contouring and therefore the less fun they become.

[T_MacWood]

Gib-From the sound of it your question should have read 'Why isn't anyone in love with Oakmont.' It seems that for all the reasons that I love the course, are the same reasons most feel the course is unworthy of love.You say the course lacks charm, I agree. Just as the evil Darth Vader lacks charm. Oakmont isn't about charm or finesse or variety or even fairness, its about beating you over the head for 18 holes and playing mind games with you as it's doing it. If Oakmont was a football team, they would be the old Oakland Raiders the team everyone loved to hate, the most penalized course in golf.The green speeds are legendary and they are severe. But many other courses have very fast greens, but they don't have the psycological advantage that Oakmont has over its visitors. And the course's difficulty lies in more than its green speed. Not only are the greens fast, they are extremely firm and in many cases very small. And then there are the ever present pits of sand to punish nearly every errant shot. They are what gives the course its character, an almost primitive feel that I love. There are no water hazzards or alleys of trees, just the incessant bunkers. Boring, maybe, but I was more mentally exhausted then bored. I have to agree with everyone, in that its not a course you want to play on a regular basis, the Marquis de Sade excluded. I also agree that the place doesn't want or ask to be loved. And maybe my love for the course and what it represents is a macho thing, but I don't think so. I love the place because it's honest, no pretenses of being anything other than a frightfully difficult test of golf.

[John Morrissett]

I can't say that I "love" Oakmont since I "love" no more than a dozen or so courses, but I do like it an awful lot.I played it for the first time this spring but had attended the last two rounds of the '94 Open there.  What an improvement!  The removal of over 1000 trees returns it to what is mentioned above -- that the course is not supposed to be "pretty." It is stubbornly old-fashioned and only headed more (if that is possible) in that direction (e.g., more squared off greens).  It is simply a place where you can find out how inadequate your game is yet have a perverse thrill while making that discovery.What is so interesting is that the course does not rely on length for difficulty.  I agree that the course does not need to depend on rough either -- the contours of the land are enough.  (With today's maintenance, the bunkers are not fearsome.)  There is a nice variety of shots asked of you, in terms of length, topography and shape.  

[M. Ahern]

I'm not. It kicked my ass.

[jim_lewis]

Oakmont reminds me of my high school chemistry teacher. She lacked charm, beauty, and personality. She was very stern and demanding, tolerated nothing less than your best work, any was death on anything less than perfect behavior in class.  Her homework assignments were onorous and her exams were impossible. She gave an A rarely and only for exceptional performance. She was downright intimidating and her classes were not fun. No one loved her but we all respected her.  It took me many years to realize that she was my best teacher and helped me to expect more of myself. Today I love her and always go vist her whenever I am at home.Think Carnoustie.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim, then I must be the teachers pet because I love Carnoustie.

[jim_lewis]

So do I Tommy

[Kyle F]

I'm going to come right out and say it. I absolutely love Oakmont, and that is coming from a person who cherishes flashy bunkering and options everywhere(like its neighbors you guys mentioned--Merion and Pine Valley). Oakmont is so highly ranked, not because of its green speeds and brutality. It's anchored so firmly to the top ten because it is charming for not being charming and its wonderful sense of tradition. Oakmont is great because of its willingness to be completely un-spectacular. How many other truly elite clubs are willing to gut the place of its trees just to re-establish the wind game as Oakmont has done? Oakmont could be very "pretty", but instead they choose to keep its boring bunkers, drainage ditches, and goofy looking moguls. Also, how many other inland courses can utilize the ground game as well as Oakmont. Remember the 94 Open when it was 95 degrees and whole place was as hard as rock. Many players commented that their were many "links style" shots out there. Since they only water enough in the summer to keep it alive until the next rainfall, I'd bet this is often the case. Afterall, it was original meant to play like a links course (completely treeless). All but three holes (two par 3's a and shortish par 4) allow for at least some kind of run up shot.Between its glorious old club clubhouse (my personal favorite) and its amazing greens such as the "slope aways" at the 10th and 12th, Oakmont is a well deserving of its lofty status.P.S. No, I'm not a me member.Be gentle with your responses.Kyle                      

[michael j fay]

Oakmont makes no pretense.It is not terribly sophisticated and revels in its lack of sophistication. The penalties for a badly thought out or executed shot are harsh, drastic immediate and meant to maim. Jim Lewis, I thought I had the toughest chemistry teacher of all time. Maybe I did. She had all of the unendearing qualitites you mentioned and on top of that she was a nun.Tom MacWood- Is Sam Parks a hunk of cheese ?Johnnny Miller did not shoot 63 at Oakmont to win the '73 Open. It actually rained very hard that day so they shot the footage on the same lot that they shot the moon landing in '69.Oakmont may not be pretty but the first thing anyone who finishes the course wants to do is to go back to the first tee.

[TEPaul]

Ran:I was reading through this thread and I noticed your mention about the width of Oakmont's fairways. I haven't been there in at least ten years. Are you saying they should be widened, in your opinion?That seems to me to be the perfect course to get back to their designed widths, since they've always done so much else right. I'm beginning to feel, by the way, that for many of these old courses that if you want to see what they should really look like at their absolute best, get your hands on aerials from the late 1930s. That presupposes that they were in OK financial shape but if they were that was about the optimum time. It is definitely so of Gulph Mills and I'm beginning to see the same pattern on almost all the old Dallin aerials for all the courses in eastern PA. For any of these clubs that want to do good and accurate restoration just get those era aerials, blow them up, even put them on a computer and bingo, you really don't even have to do the research, it's just all there before your eyes!!

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom,Yes, I am saying that their fairways should be much wider and that indeed the course needs no rough, such is the superb variety and challenge found in their greens. There is always the right spot to approach the hole from, so why not let the better players seek it while at the same time allowing the rest of us to enjoy the course as well?Very, very few courses have such superb green complexes as to make the need for rough meaningless - Oakmont is one of maybe half-a-dozen in the US that falls in that category.To me, their rough masks a very clever design, and turns what could be a thought provoking course into more of a one dimensional showcase of penal architecture.I say a)bring all of Fownes bunkers backand b) cut all the roughSuch a challenge would be both unique and more inspiring.Cheers,

[TEPaul]

Ran:That's what I thought you were suggesting. It's a billiant but logical suggestion and it sounds like Oakmont is on so much of the right track that they would take that seriously into consideration. Someone who would be listened to should make that suggestion. Of course the immediate response from the usual suspects would be: "That will make the course easier". The comeback should be; "Are you joking, the underlying power of this design would never let that happen?" Followed by, "Try it you'll like it!"

[Mike_Cirba]

Count me in the "I love Oakmont" club.  The posts above are excellent, and the stern, strict Chem prof is an apt description.The fact is, Oakmont is punishing and can be a brutal test but it is harsh in the best possible way.  Way too many courses today exact their penalties in a way that suggests finality.  Drive it in the drink, fail to make the forced carry over wetlands, lose the approach in deep woods...yes, it's tough and difficult, but ultimately not a whole lot of fun.  By contrast, unless you go OB on a handful of holes (most intimidatingly, the right side of the first), you'll almost always find your ball.  Rarely will you incur a penalty stroke.  Yet, you'll also rarely relish where it lies and what you have to do next to avoid further disgrace.  The greens are perhaps the closest thing I've seen to Pine Valley in terms of an infinite number of little twists, turns, wrinkles, rises, and hollows.  A scant 4 feet of ball position on some greens means the difference between a makeable putt and an almost certain three putt.  I can't imagine one would tire of facing them each day.  Personally, I think the idea of "penal" has changed over the years, and regretfully so.  Back in the days that the Pine Valleys and Oakmonts of the world were constructed, they were MEANT to be the most brutal, significant, and unforgiving tests for the best players.  Yet, the focus was always on complicating the next shot; not eliminating it!  Today, it seems too many of our courses are built with an eye towards creating a difficult test through accumulation of penalty strokes.  Even Golf Magazine, when they profile a course, talk about "number of sleeves of balls" a player should count on needing.  That's just silly.  Golf is a game that is supposed to be played with a ball...go find it and hit it again.  Target golf, on the other hand, is some twisted anomaly of the game that suggests that there is some type of perverse enjoyment to be found in hunting for your ball, or taking numerous drops from everpresent hazards, or worse yet, making an already expensive game all the more so through hidden costs.If we need to build tougher courses to challenge the best players in the modern game, maybe Oakmont is the type of course we should be holding up as the avatar.  We could certainly do much worse.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm interested in seeing some match play from you guys on Carnoustie vs. Oakmont!

[Tom_Doak]

I've walked Oakmont four different times, but it's the only top-50 course I've never been invited to play.  So, my understanding of the course comes from watching the Opens of '73, '83, and '94.I respect it tremendously because aside from Pebble Beach [where weather is the main factor], it's the only Open course that hasn't gotten any easier over the past 25 years.  The penal hazards and the tilted greens and the fallaway greens still hold their own against the best players in the world.

[George Pazin]

How was Oakmont able to succeed in convincing it's members that tree removal was the way to go when everyone else in the golf world seems to believe in tree proliferation?Mike Cirba - loved in your description where you stated that the purpose was to make the next shot harder, not eliminate it.You guys probably already know this, but word up here in the 'Burgh is that right now there seems to be a standoff of sorts between the USGA & Oakmont. The USGA will not award another Open to Oakmont until they build another bridge to supplement the current bridge, while Oakmont does not want to spend the bug bucks on a new bridge without some sort of committment to receive another Open. I hope this situation gets resolved and quickly at that.The Amateur is coming - in '02 or '03, I think - so I just have to shave another 20 or so strokes off my handicap & I'll be able to begin the qualifying process!

[Longleaf]

I think the issue about the second bridge over the Pennsylvania Turnpike at Oakmont has been resolved. One of Oakmont's members has pledged the $500,000 necessary to do this, and it is supposed to be completed prior to 2003 Amateur. This also opens the door for a return of the U.S. Open somewhere around 2007.

[michael j fay]

I think that the first persson that would veto bringing back all the Fownes bunkes would be Fownes himself. If he were alive he would be stalking the ground, checking the players, and placing new bunkers to further frustrate the longer hitters.Legend had it that when a player in a championship found a shortcut and Fownes was notified, a new bunker would appear the very next day. He created a penal golf course and did his damnedest to keep it that way.I say bring back to furrowed bunkers and really make it the way that the originators meant it to be.

[peter_mcknight]

Oakmont is a course with total character.  It tests all aspects of one's game.  Henry Fownes certainly could be described as one with a unique personality and he certainly built a course with plenty and then some.Cutting the rough isn't necessarily the answer.  The rough is (my understanding) necessary because without the Fownes burrows in the bunkers, the bunkers really aren't as penalizing as they once were.  Remember, the topography of western Pennsylvania doesn't allow for deep bunkers to be constructed.  The rough is its penalizing factor--remember the 1983 open--the USGA cut the rough after the 2d round because it was so lush.Oakmont gets a great deal of mileage without having a number of real tough holes in a row (unlike Pebble 8-10, Winged Foot 14-18, Merion 16-18, Brookline 10-13, etc.).  Perhaps the toughest stretch is 15-18, but there is a breather at 17.  I know the 9th hole will become a par 4 for future tournaments, so the stretch between 7 and 10 will now be really tough--435, 255, 475 and 470 in a row!!Oakmont has perhaps the hardest opening hole in golf (next to Winged Foot 1) and it will probably grow to 480.  18 is a great finishing hole that will also grow to about 480.If anything, Fownes gave players a chance to score at Oakmont.  Hole 1 is great, 2 is a birdie, 3 is a hard par, 4 is a good par, 5 is a birdie, 6 is a par, 7-8 are solid, 9 (if a par 5) is a birdie, 10 is great, 11 is a birdie, 12 is one of the best par 5s in the country, 13-14 are birdies, 15-16 are hard pars, 17 is a birdie and 18 is a good par.  After a tough hole (e.g. 1), there is a birdie opportunity.  The easiest, no.9, will become a 4 for tournaments at 475.Fownes designed the course to be one of the hardest courses in the nation.  If the weather cooperated in June, it could result in a score of over par.

[Tags:]

Tags: