[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't the whole point of Oakmont that it *is* contrived and artificial?

NO[/color]

...in a good way?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't the whole point of Oakmont that it *is* contrived and artificial?

...in a good way?

What would make you think that?


Cirba, or Pat:

Doesn't the original picture look more like a Dye course than a Rees pieces. It would be interesting is we could dig up some of these types of aerials that show how the course looked before the bunkers were renovated.

Ryan,

The problem is that aerial views are UNNATURAL.

THE view of the golf course should be from the GOLFER'S EYE.

Oakmont, as it appears today, looks terrific, far better than it looked to me prior to the tree removal and renovations.

[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

That's not a fair comparison.

Of course it looks MUCH better to us after the tree removal.

The questions is whether it looked better after the tree removal but before the bunker renovations.

[Ryan Farrow]

Just page through the world atlas of golf, and your question should answer itself. Agree with the bunker work or not, it looks great. Of course the tree removal is the key to Oakmont's beauty as well as the maintenance, but if you look at any old photos of Oakmont's bunkers you will see just how boring they were.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

That's not a fair comparison.

Of course it looks MUCH better to us after the tree removal.

The questions is whether it looked better after the tree removal but before the bunker renovations.

Mike,

So you'd make your qualitative analysis based on how it looked, before and after, rather than how it played ?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just page through the world atlas of golf, and your question should answer itself. Agree with the bunker work or not, it looks great.

Of course the tree removal is the key to Oakmont's beauty as well as the maintenance, but if you look at any old photos of Oakmont's bunkers you will see just how boring they were.

Ryan,

That's an interesting comment.

One that I've never heard before.

And, I've paid careful attention to the remarks surrounding every tournament held at Oakmont for the last 50 or so years.

What players, in any amateur or Professional event EVER described Oakmont's bunkers as BORING ?[/color]

[Ryan Farrow]

Pat, keep in mind I first saw Oakmont's bunkers in person, post renovation. So my perspective is from what they look like now compared to what I have see from past photos. I'm not speaking in terms of number or grouping but individually on size and shape of which many tour players may not be interested.

Aesthetically, the old bunkers looked like they were transplanted from a cheap muni, not a top 10 golf course (excluding the church pews, actually exclude the church pews from all above comments) but the current bunkers are more on that level and definitely serve their penal function, which the previous bunkers failed to do without furrows.  I'm not saying it was the right thing to do but the work was successful in many ways.

[George Pazin]

JohnV -

I'm surprised you don't like the 2 pinching bunkers. I thought they did a nice job of inducing an element of doubt as to how far one should attempt to hit his drive.

It was amazing to me how many players just whaled away with the driver on this hole during the Am. I guess maybe match play will do that to you.

-----

As an aside, I think aerial views are terrific at illustrating the various elements of a hole, but I think they are terrible at offering a view toward judging the aesthetics of a hole.

And, interestingly, it was various photos/TV views of Rees holes that led me to this conclusion.

[John Mayhugh]

This post has been educational for me.  From the ground, the hole did not look like the USGA magazine photo.  Even though that photo didn't show the entire hole it still is an example of how your impression can change based on an overhead view only.  Looks much different from the ground.

If I had been able to see the overhead, I would have been a lot more nervous about the tee shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

I couldn't agree more.

Aerial photos can be terribly misleading.

One shouldn't form an opinion on the play and look of the hole based solely on an aerial photo.

# 14 at Oakmont is a terrific, short par 4

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, keep in mind I first saw Oakmont's bunkers in person, post renovation. So my perspective is from what they look like now compared to what I have see from past photos.


Ryan,

They certainly serve their intended function, they're hazards that can't be ignored or discounted.  They factor, significantly, into the thought process of the golfer, and affect his play irrespective of whether he plans correctly or incorrectly.  Execution of course always remains a factor.

I think Oakmont merely responded to the erosion of bunkers as a factor in the play of the golf course.

I think they responded correctly.

I believe that bunkers had lost a good degree of their intended effect and that Oakmont's current bunker configuration restores that effect.

As to the issue of moving the bunkers in toward the centerline, I first heard of that theory on Feb 28, 2004 at the architectural symposium I hosted at Baltusrol.

I have mixed feelings on the issue.
I understand the need for courses that host USGA/PGA events, but, I think it may be counterproductive for other clubs.

With respect to Oakmont, like early PV, they have a culture of championship, demanding golf, and for Oakmont and their members, the pinched in bunkers work quite well.

I happen to drive the ball fairly straight, but, it is annoying when you marginally miss a tee shot and pay a dear price.
But, that's golf at Oakmont.  If one doesn't like it, they shouldn't accept invitations to play there, let alone join.[/color]

I'm not speaking in terms of number or grouping but individually on size and shape of which many tour players may not be interested.

I think PGA Tour players are interested in everything that affects their score/pocketbook.

You have to remember, they effectively play nothing but medal play, hence they have a medal play mentality that extends to every facet of their game, including the field of play and architecture.[/color]

Aesthetically, the old bunkers looked like they were transplanted from a cheap muni, not a top 10 golf course (excluding the church pews, actually exclude the church pews from all above comments) but the current bunkers are more on that level and definitely serve their penal function, which the previous bunkers failed to do without furrows.  I'm not saying it was the right thing to do but the work was successful in many ways.

I would disagree with your assessment.

I think there was a time when those bunkers DID serve their penal function.

But, distance, accuracy and the ability to extract oneself from bunkers took giant leaps forward, obsoleting Oakmont's bunkers from their intended purpose.

I think that one of the reasons that GCGC has held it's interest and challenge over the last 100+ years is the penal nature of a good number of the bunkers.

Bunkers that are deep with straight faces, thus, they never had their intended purpose compromised as so many other courses had happen to their bunkers.[/color]

[Ryan Farrow]

I agree with most of your replies but when do you think, the bunkers were in their prime. Are you implying that eqiupment technology made the bunkers obsolete?

It was also my understanding the bunkers were only so deep because of the thick clay soils that house Oakmont. Has anyone come across comments on why the furrows were introduced in the first place?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I agree with most of your replies but when do you think, the bunkers were in their prime.

I couldn't cite the exact year.[/color]

Are you implying that eqiupment technology made the bunkers obsolete?

Yes[/color]

It was also my understanding the bunkers were only so deep because of the thick clay soils that house Oakmont.

That's not true.

If it was, they could never be deepened.

There's usually a relationship between function and form.

And when the form no longer serves the function, the form has to be modified to restore the function.

You have to understand the impact of Gene Sarazen's and perhaps Karsten Solheim's inventions, amongst others.[/color]

Has anyone come across comments on why the furrows were introduced in the first place?

I believe it's fairly well documented, as is their demise.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

It's unusual that I completely disagree with  you but in this case I couldn't disagree with you more.

If in 30 years golfers become proficient with hitting 75 degree wedges 120 yards on the fly, should Oakmont build 15 foot high mounds in front of each bunker?

Oakmont is a golf course with a long and wonderful history and almost no course protects par better at the "green" than do the rolls of the greens at Oakmont.   From a historic perspective, the proper decision to counter the advances in the game, and consistent with the historical design challenge of the course would have been to reintroduce furrowing in the bunkers.

Instead, I'm sorry, but they look like linear grassy speed bumps across a really neat and starkly natural rolling Steel City landscape.   That's the case on both your aerial as well as the ground photos others have posted.

Oakmont was never a course where a drive into a bunker meant a boring explosion shot back to the fairway, simply because Oakmont has 100+ bunkers of all shapes and sizes impinging on both sides of most fairways.  

At some point, it risks becoming penal overkill, but even if that's acceptable to the membership, boring chop it sideways golf should never be.   Nor should rote construction techniques that make the bunkers appear to be stamped out on a factory assembly line.

I find it a bit sad that a young guy like Ryan is so used to needing to see "WOW" bunkers on golf courses that he thinks the pre-Fazio Oakmont bunkers were "boring".  

I'm in favor of trying to keep up with technology...to a point...for our championship courses, but when it means introducing design features completely foreign to anything previous on the 100 year history of a great course, then I think we are wrong when we give it a free pass here, just because it's politically correct.

[Ryan Farrow]

I agree with most of your replies but when do you think, the bunkers were in their prime.

I couldn't cite the exact year.[/color]

Are you implying that eqiupment technology made the bunkers obsolete?

Yes[/color]

STOP MAKING ME READ IN BETWEEN YOUR LINES AND TELL ME!!!! I go to ASU and can't pick up on everything you subtly imply in your responses!!!

It was also my understanding the bunkers were only so deep because of the thick clay soils that house Oakmont.

That's not true.

If it was, they could never be deepened.

[/color]

I am talking about back in the day (it was a Wednesday) when we weren't privileged with mini excavators and dozers.



There's usually a relationship between function and form.

And when the form no longer serves the function, the form has to be modified to restore the function.

You have to understand the impact of Gene Sarazen's and perhaps Karsten Solheim's inventions, amongst others.[/color]

Has anyone come across comments on why the furrows were introduced in the first place?

I believe it's fairly well documented, as is their demise.[/color]

Could you care to elaborate? It seems like the simple answer would be to furrow the bunkers instead of renovate, I am just wondering why Oakmont did not go this way. Was it the clubs decision? Marzloffs? Did the architect even present this as an option? Wasn't the Doakster a candidate for this project? What would he have done?

[Ryan Farrow]

Oakmont was never a course where a drive into a bunker meant a boring explosion shot back to the fairway,



I find it a bit sad that a young guy like Ryan is so used to needing to see "WOW" bunkers on golf courses that he thinks the pre-Fazio Oakmont bunkers were "boring".  

1. That shot is not as you described, Ive never been forced to aim at the fairway at Oakmont. I don't know what course you are talking about. Have you hit out of deeply furrowed bunkers before? What kind of shot do you think that leaves you with? a boring shot out into the fairway?

2 Save your pity for someone else. I know what "wow" bunkers look like, and they are not at Oakmont (minus the Church Pews which are visually a hell of a lot better than the originals)

[Mike_Cirba]

Ryan,

I apologize if I sounded condescending.   And, if I am wrong here or have overplayed my hand, I'm certainly open to hearing from those who have much more experience with Oakmont than I do (having spent the weekend of June 1983 there, having studied it a bit in my research (gosh the old photos look pretty terrific to me!, and then only having seen it since in photos and television).

However, it seems to me that all of that mounding up of the bunkers was pretty unnecessary, and I think it could be reasonably termed "unattractive" aesthetically and "unnatural" looking, especially as so many of the bunkers at Oakmont appear as linear rows.  

Why do you think it looks so much better than before, and how do they play differently for better players?   Can they all still reach the green from fairway bunkers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

The bunkers at Oakmont haven't been furrowed for a long, long, long time.

To furrow them now would make them excessively penal.

Some claim that they're already very penal, hence furrowing them would make them impossible.

I tend to agree.

I first played Oakmont 20 years ago and don't see how anyone could claim that the bunkers were boring.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()