A Solitary Furrowed Bunker

[Mike Hendren]

Did I understand the talking heads to say that the USGA will "permit" Oakmont to furrow a single bunker for the open?

Is this goofy, or an appropriate nod to tradition?

Mike

[JohnV]

Does seem kind of goofy, but I suppose it is like the line of bricks at Indy which is also a nice nod to tradition.  If they can only do one, I hope they choose the Church Pews.

They handraked all the bunkers for the Amateur last week and it seemed like the furrows were a little deeper than normal.  It didn't look like anyone would get a very good lie in the bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Hendren,

I believe it was posted on the site some time ago, but could someone refresh my memory,

When and why did Oakmont move away from the furrowed bunkers ?

Was it all at once, or over time ?

[Steve Wilson]

I once read, perhaps in the Golf Club Atlas, which gives this site it's name, that Oakmont was no longer able to get the sand that was used originally.  Apparently it came from one of the rivers (Ohio, Monongahela, or Allegheny) in the area and that the supply was exhausted.  It was the denseness or coarseness of this sand which made the furrowing possible and such a problem.  The same source of this information also stated that a special very heavy rake was used.  The Fownes' were serious about tormenting golfers.  

[TEPaul]

I don't believe discontinuing the "furrowed" bunkers at Oakmont had anything to do with available sand. The rake used to create those furrows could be easily used in any sand (there's a photo of that rake being used in C&W's book).

William Fownes was obviously a very strong willed man who had his own unique ideas about what a golf course such as Oakmont should offer and demand of a golfer and he put those unique ideas into effect at Oakmont. His recommendations to the finalizing of PVGC from the Hugh Alison plan also show Fownses unique and strong willed ideas on architecture.

But I think the furrowed bunkers of Oakmont was probably just too unique and too penal to survive the attitudes of golfers and so even he decided to discontinue it!

The interesting thing about the bunkering of Oakmont and whatever penality they have has nothing to do with the actual sand surfaces anymore and everything to do with their architecture. Basically the story of the bunkers of Oakmont has everything to do with the "iffiness" of where your ball ends up in those bunkers in relation to their rather vertical faces (their architecture). A good example was Flanagan on #18. If his ball had ended up farther back in that fairway bunker he may have been able to go all the way to the green. But it ended up too close to the face and he was forced to just get it out and have over 100 yds left to the pin.

When it comes to that sort of thing it can have a real effect on the thinking (strategy) of players from the tee! If there was any yelling by players in the US Am on the tee at Oakmont for their ball to get in the bunker, I'd be very surprised!