News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Oakmont
« on: September 23, 2009, 02:31:51 PM »
When I informed Tom Paul that I was going to be playing Oakmont for the first time this week, Tom asked me to write down my pre-conceived expectations of the golf course, followed by my thoughts after having played it. So here goes:

TEES
I did not expect so much elasticity from a golf course of this age. But there is so much room out there for length. Maybe it’s the fescue grasses that they grow around those championship tees that make them blend in so nicely with the terrain?  

If you ever have the privilege to play Oakmont you should walk back to the tips on number 17 tee. I swear there must be 80 feet of fill under that one tee.  The whole 17th tee is just an amazing feat of engineering, and I think it really shows you the commitment of this club to excellence.

And what’s the story behind those cool tee markers? Are those lead tank shells?

FAIRWAYS
I expected the fairways to be much more narrow than they are. But some fairways are over 45 yards wide in places. They are cut very tight too so that you get a good long roll. But that can get you into trouble too, with all the deep bunkering along the edges.

I think Oakmont shows that you don’t have to have narrow fairways for true championship golf.

BUNKERS
Of the three holes that I hooked the ball off the tee, two of them were number 3 and number 4. Well let’s just say I won’t have to go to church for a month now because I went to the pews four times yesterday.

On the thirteenth hole I hit out of the back left bunker, raked my footprints, climbed out of the pit, wiped my hands on my towel, and still had time to watch the ball roll all the way down to a front pin placement and in to the cup. That was my great shot of the day, but actually I didn’t get to see it roll in because you can’t see the green from down in that bunker. There are a lot of very deep greenside bunkers like that at Oakmont.

I can not imagine how incredible the drainage work must have been when Fownes built those bunkers. And these may be the deepest fairway bunkers anywhere. They are a true one shot penalty because you just have to accept the fact that you will not be able to advance the ball very far. In fact, you are better off hitting out sideways, because most of them have another bunker beyond the one you are in. Maybe that’s why Fownes designed so many of them – so that you can’t advance forward from the one you are in?

DITCHES
I knew there were ditches out there, but I didn’t realize there were so many of them. I went into the ditch on 12, and I found another ditch on 15. I was able to easily locate the ball in the fescues that grow in there, and while the stance was really awkward, and the backswing was more of a chop than a swing, the ball was very playable.  Oakmont has made these into the most unique features maybe on any golf course anywhere, and the quality of the fescue in there is just some of the best that you will ever find. You don’t loose the ball in the ditches, but you can sure loose your nerve in there.

I have a theory about the origin of those ditches. I think that they might have been gullies, way back in the day of the original grow in. In other words, I think Fownes just had the imagination to turn a potential grow-in problem into a hazard. I had always assumed that those ditches were there for day lighting drain tiles into, and probably some of them do serve that purpose, but so many of them looked to me like they were in areas where water could really get rolling down hill, and that’s what made me think that they might have been gullies. But that’s just a theory.

GREENS
You know the greens are going to be fast, and they are. But you can not appreciate how undulating they are, or how huge they are until you play there. And because they are so fast and undulating it is very hard to keep a chip shot close to the hole. So now you are going to be making some lag putts that are longer than any other lag putts you have ever played. Right there, with that one aspect of the course, you can add a lot of stokes to your card.

APPROACHES
The approaches are groomed to near putting green quality. And they are nice and wide so that you can run the ball up. But running the ball up is not advisable actually, because it just keeps running and running. Yes I rolled off the back of one green. Doh!!

OVER ALL EXPERIENCE
I had no idea how incredibly hospitable and helpful everyone would be at Oakmont. Our member host came out special to join us - in the rain. And somehow we managed to get around this tough course in around four hours, but we never felt rushed. I think that was because of how good our caddies were, and how helpful our host was. My caddy, Matt, is a GCAer, and he was awesome. I have never played a course where the caddy was more important than Oakmont, that’s for sure.

I have to say that this was the greatest golf course I have ever played or seen.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 07:03:36 PM by Bradley Anderson »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2009, 03:31:47 PM »
That was one of the more thoughtful course visit writeups I've read, nicely done.

Love your concluding line. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2009, 04:21:47 PM »
I really enjoyed the write up - especially your comparing your preconceived notions with your thoughts after having played the course. I like to see more of us do this.

Ash Towe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2009, 05:28:16 PM »
Bradley,

Thanks very much for your review.  Oakmont has never really appealed to me.  I think it was the level of difficulty that caused that opinion.  However you have changed my attitude towards the course. I guess that is one of the real advantages of this forum.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2009, 06:39:03 PM »
Ash,

I forgot one of the greatest things about Oakmont.

When you are on those greens, you're putting on the same grass that Ben Hogan and Bobby Jones played on. You can't say that about too many of the great golf courses now, if any.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 06:45:56 PM by Bradley Anderson »

Michael Huber

Re: Oakmont
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2009, 06:51:04 PM »
The championship tee box on #7 appears to be in another zip code while looking back at it from the fairway. 


Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2009, 07:03:11 PM »
Congratulations...she sure is a joy isn't she.

Oakmont is STILL my favorite major championship venue.
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

Ash Towe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2009, 07:16:58 PM »
Bradley,

I got that feeling on some of the Open courses.  There are also plaques on certain holes eg Royal Lytham.  Very cool to read them when playing.

Richard Hetzel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2009, 05:50:18 AM »
Congratulations...she sure is a joy isn't she.

Oakmont is STILL my favorite major championship venue.

I concur! Great review and I hope that I will be able to play there someday!
Best Played So Far This Season:
Crystal Downs CC (MI), The Bridge (NY), Canterbury GC (OH), Lakota Links (CO), Montauk Downs (NY), Sedge Valley (WI)

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2009, 10:38:22 AM »
I loved Oakmont, but do not have an overwhelming desire to play it again.  It just beat me up and we played from the correct tees, it you miss anything you paid the price - I won't even get into how difficult the greens were...  I was mentally and physically exhausted after that round.  With that said, it was most fun I had getting my butt kicked :-)

This is why I concur it is the best Open Venue (at least that I have played)
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Matt OBrien

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2009, 10:35:29 PM »
I loved Oakmont, but do not have an overwhelming desire to play it again.  It just beat me up and we played from the correct tees, it you miss anything you paid the price - I won't even get into how difficult the greens were...  I was mentally and physically exhausted after that round.  With that said, it was most fun I had getting my butt kicked :-)

This is why I concur it is the best Open Venue (at least that I have played)


Paul had the most fun of the day on the putting green before the round!!!

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Oakmont
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2009, 10:45:38 PM »
Bradley,

That's a nice write up.

For once, TEPaul gave you good advice.

The concept of writing down preconceptions and comparing them to the actual experience is eye opening.

What tees did you play from ?

One of the things I liked about Oakmont was that there were some short holes interspersed with the longer ones.
I also like the new or reclaimed wide openess of the golf course, it's quite unique and I wish more courses would follow suit.

Mark Studer, who used to post on GCA.com was largely responsible for that transformation.

There's also a unique golfing culture at Oakmont

It's not for the faint at heart.

Chris Buie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2009, 11:29:49 PM »
Bradley, I'm glad to hear that you had a great experience and that the members were so gracious.
Given it's considerable toughness would it be a course you would want to play on a regular basis?

Chris Flamion

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2009, 12:07:09 AM »
Great write up and great to hear you had a great time.

This is still my holy grail at the moment.  The 2007 US Open was when I fell in love with golf,finally, and as such Oakmont is everything I want in a course.  Hard, Quirky, Fast, and Honest about all of it.

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2009, 01:07:29 AM »
I like that Pat...not for the feint of heart.

I like it because both the fwys and greens cant from side to side at times...that and sometimes the green runs away from you.  More of that, please!
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2009, 06:54:24 AM »
Patrick,
We played the blue tees. And you are right about Mark Studer.

Chris,
Yes. I'm never in the hunt with the better players on more than three or four holes, but I guess if I started playing to say a 6 handicap, I might be discouraged out on Oakmont day in and day out, because a 6 anywhere else, might be a 12 out there, if that makes sense? But I don't approach the game from that perspective. I enjoy the game, but I also enjoy the company of the men I am playing with, the imagination of the architect and especially the accomplishments of the greenkeeper.


 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 07:04:05 AM by Bradley Anderson »

TEPaul

Re: Oakmont
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2009, 01:54:56 PM »
Bradley:

Thanks for that first post explaining your perception of the way Oakmont might be versus the way you found it when you first saw it and played it and for the various areas and categories you used to explain it. It think that kind of thing is most interesting for both people who have never seen the course as well as for those who know it well.

Shawn Arlia

Re: Oakmont
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2009, 06:13:56 PM »
ihave been to oakmont for both the 2007 US Open and the 2003? US Amateur. Its an incredible golf course, and i always enjoy reading about other peoples opinions after they play it. I was impressed mostly by the severe and imaginative greens. Much more interesting in person than on tv.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Oakmont
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2009, 06:21:08 PM »
Shawn,

I don't know how imaginative Oakmont's greens are, they seem to emerge or transition, seemlessly, from the fronting fairways, much the way many OLD courses do.  GCGC does the same but lacks the elevation changes found at Oakmont.

The green complex at # 8 at Oakmont reminds me of many at GCGC, as well at other older courses.

What I found interesting at Oakmont is the routing of the two sections of the golf course, north and south of the PATPK, the 7 and 11 hole configuration.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2009, 07:51:51 PM »
I loved the fall away greens at #1, #10 and #12.  The fairways on those holes just flow seamlessly into the greens, as if they just change the blades on the mowers!

I saw the same thing a week ago at Huntercombe west of London, where 17 of 18 greens had that feature.  It's a wonderful look, and can play hell with your depth perception.

TEPaul

Re: Oakmont
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2009, 09:32:11 AM »
"What I found interesting at Oakmont is the routing of the two sections of the golf course, north and south of the PATPK, the 7 and 11 hole configuration."


Pat:

Me too! While I sure don't want to create any threads and on-going arguments about who was mostly responsible for the original layout (routing and design) or Oakmont as has happened on this website with Merion East, Myopia and perhaps more recently WBYC, I do note that Oakmont does have a 1903 stick routing (a bit more elaborate than just a basic stick routing) which is remarkably similar to the way the course is today and always has been.

Unfortunately it is unsigned and therefore unattributed but when the club and its primary historian was asked who they believe likely did it their answer seems to be H.C. Fownes who pretty much owned and certainly completely controlled Oakmont GC.

If that is indeed the case and the historical fact it would beg the question of how a man like H.C. Fownes (probably with the help at the time of his son, W.C. Fownes) could have done something that good with virtually no former experience in golf course architecture.

As we know there are some on this website who seem to maintain or at least strongly imply that the likes of Herbert Leeds, Hugh Wilson or George Crump could not have done the things they have been given credit for with their first golf course projects since they were novices at the time. It seems for that reason these same people on here tend to assume that those men have been turned into mythical legends by their clubls with no solid basis in fact and they seem to try to find someone else who has been minimized or dismissed by these clubs and by hisotory who must have largely done it for them such as Willie Campbell, C.B. Macdonald or Harry Colt.

Will they now try to find someone else who did this (that 1903 routing/design) for the Fowneses with Oakmont or can we fairly assume that the novice H.C. Fownes (perhaps with some help from his son W.C.) actually did that 1903 routing and design plan (preconstruction) for Oakmont despite never having been involved in golf course architecture previously (a novice)?


PS:
By the way, what is now the Pennsylvania Turnpike that divides the course into two sections (sunken below both sides of the course) was formerly a railroad line that preceded the golf course!
« Last Edit: September 27, 2009, 09:42:22 AM by TEPaul »

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Oakmont
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2009, 09:43:05 AM »
I've often looked at pics of Oakmont and thought how much better it would look and likely play with all that rough within 10-20ft of the green shaved down to allow the ball to feed on/away and let the golfer play a range of recovery shots, rather than just the "lob wedge chop".

For those who've played it (particularly those who've played it a lot), would that improve the course?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back