Week 8: The 8th at Oakmont

[Ryan Farrow]

It only looks about 160 Yards in the photos

The first shot is from the front of the mens tee so it is about 190 yards from where I took that picture.

[John_Cullum]

Rakes in the bunker, at Oakmont, interesting.

[JohnV]

Rakes in the bunker, at Oakmont, interesting.

They won't be in June.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV/JC:

I gather for rules purposes it's better to have rakes placed outside bunker - why?

Also, I've found that at most courses where any instruction is given as to where to put the rakes, it says to leave them IN the bunkers - why do you think that is if it's contrary to what's better for the rules - just for convenience?

George - another very cool hole, not much more to say, other than whereas this hole is fantastic, I'm not sure I'd want a course full of holes where one just gives up on reaching the green in regulation.  Birdies are fun too.  

[George Pazin]

George - another very cool hole, not much more to say, other than whereas this hole is fantastic, I'm not sure I'd want a course full of holes where one just gives up on reaching the green in regulation.  Birdies are fun too.  

I certainly agree, and Oakmont does not generally overwhelm one with length, so I think it fits rather nicely.

What's a birdie?

[Tom Huckaby]

George - beats me, it's been a long time.

 

And not to be contrary, but wasn't the wisest play on #1 to just go long and play back?  That is, part of the coolness of that hole was that the best play was to give up on holding the green in regulation?

If so, that's two holes in 8 where this is the case, and we're reaching a maximum point pretty quickly....

No?

[John_Cullum]

JV/JC:

I gather for rules purposes it's better to have rakes placed outside bunker - why?

Also, I've found that at most courses where any instruction is given as to where to put the rakes, it says to leave them IN the bunkers - why do you think that is if it's contrary to what's better for the rules - just for convenience?

Its better for an occasional ball to be deflected into or away from a bunker than for a ball to be stopped up against the lip of a bunker because of an improperly placed rake. And the reality that most people don't know the rules well enough to know what to do if there ball is under a rake in a bunker.

Supers like rakes in the bunker because they don't have to move them out of the way while mowing.

[Tom Huckaby]

Perfect and concise and very helpful, Sarge.  Thanks.

TH

[George Pazin]

I differentiate between playing long (btw, I read that strategy on #1 as not necessarily over the green, just not trying to stop it at the pin) as a strategy, and a hole being nigh unreachable in regulation, as Tom P suggested.

Wayne and others have indicated they hit various wedges into #1, so I think that is a good example of what I mean.

[Tom Huckaby]

I differentiate between playing long (btw, I read that strategy on #1 as not necessarily over the green, just not trying to stop it at the pin) as a strategy, and a hole being nigh unreachable in regulation, as Tom P suggested.

Wayne and others have indicated they hit various wedges into #1, so I think that is a good example of what I mean.

Hmmmm... I'm not reading TEP as saying he couldn't reach 8, but rather he gave up trying as it wasn't worth the risk due to the horrid places a driver could end up.  I read that as a strategic choice, the same as 1... That is, the best shot is trying to maybe get it on one easy portion of the green (very front on 8, very back on 1), without really trying to hit the middle of the green, not to mention any tight pins.

And there's nothing wrong with this - in moderation.  Two or three or maybe even 4 holes on a course would seem to be fine.  It's just scary to me - as a new fan of Oakmont - that we're at two and we've only played 8 holes.

TH

[George Pazin]

The difference to me is driver versus a much shorter club. Even Tom P has said he doesn't remember ever having more than a 5 iron into #1.

To me, that in no way suggests a similar approach, other than playing somewhat defensively, which appears on perhaps all of the holes at Oakmont!

Think Winged Foot. Doesn't seem like there were that many birdies out there, nor at Shinney '04. At least, it doesn't seem like one would go out hunting for them, rather one would take them when the putting opportunity arose.

[Tom Huckaby]

Of course it's a shorter club.

But in the discussion of #1, much was made about the coolness of giving up all chance of getting close to most pins - that the best play was long, etc.  That doesn't sound to me much different from the strategy on #8, except that of course it's a more dramatic choice on 1, because on 8 you might never get it on or close to the green no matter how many times you try given the long distance.

And I'm not saying birdie opportunities must be present, or that requirements for defensive play are necessarily a bad thing.  

I just do find that intentionally missing greens is a very cool thing - but only in moderation.  Yes, Winged Foot has at least one hole where apparently that is the play (#3 I guess).  I just didn't see too many others there, as I recall.  My fear - only knowing 8 holes at Oakmont - is that it might have too much of this otherwise good thing.

But if 1 and 8 are the only holes, then it's not an issue.

TH

[George Pazin]

Well, you're gonna think it's an issue, then, because this is certainly not the last time you're going to see this type of decision.

To me, they are very very different in strategy. The shots are very very different. The only real similarity is not going for the hole, instead pretty much deciding on the tee you're playing for a par, not a birdie chance. In that sense, there are more similar holes than different holes at Oakmont. Heck, you could make an argument that this type of decision exists on almost every hole at Oakmont.

I used to hate the notion of protecting par. After spending so much time at Oakmont in 2003, then watching the Open at Shinney in '04, I have a whole new appreciation for it. I think it encourages thoughtful golf more than just about anything else.

But that's obviously just my opinion, others are entitled to theirs.

 

[Jay Carstens]

If you throw out Tiger, the new back tees seems to be saying 'not with an iron, not anymore'.  Good luck to 'em.  

[Tom Huckaby]

I guess the only thing I'd think there might be too much of are conscious decisions not to even try to hit a green, as TEP clearly is on #8 (as I read it anyway).  That is different from playing defensively - playing for pars - as you describe - again as I see it anyway.  So perhaps it is a different thing going on on 1 and 8... I just had this idea lots of guys were intentionally missing the green on 1 also (or should do that). If it's just playing away from the hole, then that is different.

TH

[George Pazin]

I don't think anyone is consciously missing #1 (or #10 or #12, for that matter). They're simply saying you shouldn't fool around trying to play an unusual shot short, and leave yourself with a brutal downhill putt, but rather just accept that the ball is going to go long, and leave yourself an uphill putt, or at worst, an uphill chip.

Additionally, the wonderful grounds crew at Oakmont does a superior job keeping the ground in front of the 8th green firm and fast, so there is a reasonable chance the ball will release onto the front of the green.

[Tom Huckaby]

Understood - thanks.

Just re #8, TEP did mention that best case scenario of trying to roll the ball on the front, so I assumed conditions allowed such.  Good lord would it suck if the approach was soft and/or wet.

TH

[JohnV]

P.S. I'd love for the folks at the USGA to vary the distance the hole plays -- possibly two days from the max tips and the other two from different locations so that the pin can be placed accordingly.

Matt, you wish has been granted.  I got a letter today about the setup of the US Open and it states that #8 will be played from 252 and 288.  No statement as to how many days from each, but I'd guess 2 each.

[nandoal]

Emil Loeffler, who was the superintendent for most of Fowne's life and built quite a few courses here in Pittsburgh loved this hole as he made very long par 3s similar to it at every course that I've seen.

Your right.  Emil Loeffler designed the course I work at , and the Par 3's are brutal.