Week 10: The terrific 10th at Oakmont

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom. P almost summed it all up with his initial post, the only aspect of the Oakmont’s greatness he left out was covered in his next response. I have not come across a better example of so many unique looking holes. I guarantee you can not find a hole on that course which looks remotely similar to another.

Here are some more pictures for you sick, sick, people out there:

From the left side rough.


11 FW


Right of the green


Approach looking back


From behind


From behind


Yes #10 looks better from behind.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just to add to Tom Paul's excellent explanation, then you have the greens.

They are simply unique, and not a one resembles another.   I recall reading back in 73 some writer saying "Oakmont's greens have more rolls than Sara Lee", which I think gives one a pretty good idea.

[Ulrich Mayring]

So what exactly *is* great about this course? Is it the difficulty? The scenery? Shot values? History? All of that?

Most everyone seems to agree it is *not* the strategy, as that is fairly constant: long and down the middle. Also, the greens may be very difficult, but if there is only one way to approach them, then all those rolls and bumps don't amount to much really.

Ulrich

[David_Madison]

Rarely do the words "penal" and "fun" appear together, but at Oakmont they do. The course is just a ton of fun to play. It would be so if you dropped a ball 100 yards from the center of every green and played in. Same length shot, but totally different challenges hole by hole and cup location by cup location. While it might ultimately be a "centered" course, I found lots of "hit it over there to have it end up here" situations. It's vexing as anything, to watch how your shots pan out, usually in slow motion as your ball trickles from here to there. And the holes with greens canted from one side to the other and running away to the backs or sides are particularly vexing, since there's so much planning involved in your approaches, pitches, and chips.