Would Oakmont still be a great course without deep rough?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I like a course that puts a premium on straight driving. I am also partial to courses that require good iron shots and imagination around the greens. Oakmont has all three. Given the importance of hitting the ball to the correct parts of Oakmont's greens, is deep rough one penalty too much? What if the rough were only two inches high? Oakmont would still be great. I have played the course a few times. The bunkering, shots into the greens, around the greens, and on the greens were punishing enough. Deep rough isn't needed.

[Ryan Farrow]

You are 100% correct. When I was working on the grounds crew in '06 I thought the same thing, 2" rough is all that is needed. Wider fairways wouldn't hurt either. I would love to see lower rough and furrowed bunkers at a future US Open.

[Ian Andrew]

I played it with very modest rough and the fescue well away from play.
It was still an awesome golf course.

The land, those amazing greens, great holes, nice changes in pace, its close to perfect without the push to extremes.

So emphatic yes from me.

[Brad Treadwell]

Is Oakmont a great course with deep rough? 

Seems like the deep rough takes a bit away from what most of us think IS a great golf course. 

[Nigel Islam]

I played it with very modest rough and the fescue well away from play.
It was still an awesome golf course.

The land, those amazing greens, great holes, nice changes in pace, its close to perfect without the push to extremes.

So emphatic yes from me.

+1, same experience for me

[David_Tepper]

The question really isn't whether or not Oakmont would still be a great course without deep rough. There is little doubt that it is a great course without deep rough.

The question is whether or not Oakmont would be a great test for the best golfers in the world without deep rough. Clearly the USGA thinks the rough is needed to create a great test. I can't say I agree.      

[Joe Hancock]

I think the course would be just as great without deep rough. It would be more fun for the best in the world, as they could then try heroic shots from weird, wayward angles. And, it would be more fun for us amateurs to watch them try those shots. It would obviously be more fun while still being more than sufficiently challenging for all of us non-professionals.

One height of cut, through the green, except for greens, and ditch hazards.....that would really get their attention.

[Ronald Montesano]

Treads nailed it on his first try: is any course a great course in spite of a dependence on deep rough?


Deep rough and trees: ways to drive people away from the game (which, you fockers, is not the point!)

[John Kavanaugh]

I think the course would be just as great without deep rough. It would be more fun for the best in the world, as they could then try heroic shots from weird, wayward angles. And, it would be more fun for us amateurs to watch them try those shots. It would obviously be more fun while still being more than sufficiently challenging for all of us non-professionals.

One height of cut, through the green, except for greens, and ditch hazards.....that would really get their attention.

Joe,


I'm sorry but I just can't agree for one selfish reason. I love the straight ball. Most if not all tee shots we observe are from behind the player and it's fun watching the magic marker thingy either hit or miss the fairway. It's fun seeing a guy find the fairway in a clutch, it's fun watching a guy hit a drive so poorly that he will need a heroic shot to make his par.


You may also enjoy the fact that if you want to combat length make the player hit it straight. Oh my God, can you imagine what would happen to golf if the guy who hits the most fairways wins? The long ball would go the way of the dinosaur and utopia would ensue.


Hitting the ball straight is the one skill in golf that takes as much mental fortitude as physical aptitude.

[Joe Hancock]

John,

I'll only agree with you once they figure out how to make a ball that leaves a bright blue or red trail in real life. Doesn't affect how anyone plays golf, but it would be cool.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

I'll only agree with you once they figure out how to make a ball that leaves a bright blue or red trail in real life. Doesn't affect how anyone plays golf, but it would be cool.

In real life a drive under pressure that finds the gunk leaves a trail, the brown kind.

[Peter Pallotta]

I want everything to look and play like St Andrews (the 'answer' to every question ever asked on gca.com, including this one).

[Tom_Doak]

Oakmont would still be a great course without deep rough.


No course really needs deep rough.  However, not every club has an unlimited budget, so the majority have to decide where to stop mowing.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Oakmont would still be a great course without deep rough.


No course really needs deep rough.  However, not every club has an unlimited budget, so the majority have to decide where to stop mowing.

I wasn't necessarily thinking of unmown space but rough that is kept at four or five inches. It might as well be a water hazard for the penalty it invokes.

[John Kavanaugh]

Oakmont would still be a great course without deep rough.


No course really needs deep rough.  However, not every club has an unlimited budget, so the majority have to decide where to stop mowing.

I wasn't necessarily thinking of unmown space but rough that is kept at four or five inches. It might as well be a water hazard for the penalty it invokes.

That is an exaggeration. If you find the deep rough most people can advance the ball 100 yds so it is really a 1/2 stroke penalty. Yesterday Bubba hit 5 iron off 10 tee and made birdie. Do you believe Oakmont would be as great a course if Bubba hit driver 14 times a round?

[Joe Hancock]

I don't disagree that Oakmont is a great track for this championship just the way it is. I'm just saying that there would be more of a fun factor with shorter rough.


Maybe golf is like a marriage; not always fun but the challenges make it all worthwhile. Case in point was watching Jordan yelling at the course yesterday. I hope they kiss and make up today.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Oakmont would still be a great course without deep rough.


No course really needs deep rough.  However, not every club has an unlimited budget, so the majority have to decide where to stop mowing.

I wasn't necessarily thinking of unmown space but rough that is kept at four or five inches. It might as well be a water hazard for the penalty it invokes.

That is an exaggeration. If you find the deep rough most people can advance the ball 100 yds so it is really a 1/2 stroke penalty. Yesterday Bubba hit 5 iron off 10 tee and made birdie. Do you believe Oakmont would be as great a course if Bubba hit driver 14 times a round?

I am less interested in how Bubba would play as how the rest of us would play the course. With five inch rough I cannot advance the ball very much.

[SL_Solow]

Two comments.  First, David Tepper has it just about right.  the only caveat is to decide whether the USGA's emphasis on protecting par against the great players is appropriate?  If so, then they are doing what they must.  If not, then less penal rough would allow for better recoveries and more aggressive play.  As to my Peter's comment, not every course can look or play like the Old Course due to limitations in topography, soil, wind etc.  But that also provides for variety and imagination in design.