It's only one person's opinion but Tiger called Oakmont a "much tougher" members' course than Winged Foot after playing a practice round there over the weekend.  He didn't say why.  Interesting distinction between what's hard for members and what's hard for the world's best.

I think Oakmont is a tougher golf course for all classes of players than Winged Foot--members and touring pros alike.  

Terry remarked about the penal nature of the course tee to green with the fairway bunkering, but it also comes from the ditches and fescue, which are much more in play for members and guests than the touring pros.  

Another feature that elevates the difficulty at Oakmont are the varied stances encountered at Oakmont.  Winged Foot has among the least contoured and sloped fairways I've ever seen on a difficult golf course.  Sure there are contours and some slope, but nothing like Oakmont and other championship courses.  Winged Foot is just not on very great ground for golf, yet it remains a great golf course. Oakmont has excellent topography.  

While some may not like the penal nature of its design, Oakmont will present an outstanding venue for the Open.  I can't wait!

Oakmont is probably the toughest members course on the planet and probably has been as long as it's existed. In my opinion, it takes a highly talented club to condition an entire membership to actually enjoy torture.  

I laugh when people say Winged Foot / West takes a second position behind Oakmont in sheer demands. And right up front -- I want to say this before the arrows get shot my way:

I absolutely love Oakmont and rate it personally among my top five of all courses I have played in America. The issue being presented is which course is tougher -- not which course is greater.

A number of people need to bring out their history books.

Check out the scores for events played at the Mamaroneck layout throughout all events played there. Do people have amnesia from just last year alone?

Help me out with one crucial omission -- the world's premier golfer has only one missed one cut in a major championship and guess where that happened? Also -- check out how Jack Nicklaus fared during his time at the Westchester-based complex.

I don't doubt the aspect of more slope / contour on the fairways at Oakmont but the issue at Winged Foot / West is attempting to get into the right position off the tee. If you added the least bit slope to the fairways there the likelihood is that people would never finish playing the course.

The green shapes and contours at Winged Foot / West are often downplayed when other courses such as ANGC, Oakmont and Oakland Hills, to name just three are cited. They are extremely vexing and should players miss targets the probability of recovery is indeed quite small.

I love Oakmont as a total golf experience but Winged Foot / West is from the courses I have played the most demanding second shot course to handle. There are few birdie holes beyond the 5th and 12th holes and there are even more possibilities for a quick DB or TB than most will ever acknowledge.

I'll say this again for the hard of hearing -- Oakmont is a superb layout and have said so many times. However, in the aspect of sheer demands Winged Foot / West has demonstrated its tenacity many times over. I too look forward to a great US Open this coming June.

Matt,

You definitely weaken you argument when you rely on that bit about Tiger. It makes you sound like you are grasping at straws, especially since you ignore mention of the USGA setup at Winged Foot.

Matt,

Tiger will also tell you he was unprepared. How do you conveniently ignore that.

If Winged Foot doesn't need to be doctored, then why did the USGA doctor it with such narrowed fairways?

I have to agree with Matt...if Oakmont is so tough a) how did miller shoot 63 (lat day of the US Open); b) how did larry nelson shoot 65-67 last TWO days of the Open; and 3) why are the scores to par so much lower then WF?  83 oakmont, -4 84 WF -4, 73 Oakmont, 74 WF +7, last year WF +5...his year Oakmont?

I predict -2.

Tiger is hardly qualified to make such a comment as the members undoubtedly play a game with which he is not familiar.

Mike

In fairness, I do hear that its murder on the members all the time...hence that trevino comment about they could give Oakmont two weeks to prepare and they could host an Open.

Millers winning score was -5...OK, so lets say Miller had the advantage of going out early...but what about Larry Nelson?  Explain 65-67???

JES...no, what Tiger is doing is trying to psych out the competition.  he LOVEs using the media to help do his work for him...

Jay,


Which of Oakmont's members would you qualify as Tiger's competition? Or was it the members at Winged Foot that he was trying to psyche out...

It's only one person's opinion but Tiger called Oakmont a "much tougher" members' course than Winged Foot after playing a practice round there over the weekend.  He didn't say why.  Interesting distinction between what's hard for members and what's hard for the world's best.

Phil,

Did Tiger play from the Member's tees or the U.S. Open tees ?

Long historical note comparing major scores at WH and Oakmont; please bypass if this bores you.

Matt probably has the better of the argument here regarding "toughness," if that is measured by performance by winners and contenders relative to par in recent majors held at each course. Comparison:

Oakmont:

'94 USOpen: -5 wins (five other players under par); Roberts shoots 64, three shoot 65, 66 is shot once.

'83 USOpen: -4 wins (two other players under par); Nelson goes 65 (lowest round that day by 4 strokes!) and 67 (one of only six rounds that day in the 60s) on the weekend, a feat arguably more impressive than Miller's singular 63.

'78 PGA: -8 (three tied) wins (three other players under par); 66 shot three times; 67 shot five times.

'73 US Open: -5 wins (eight others under par, although six of those were at -2 or -1); Miller goes 63, but Wadkins shoots a nearly as good 65 on the same day in the same conditions (he went out early similar to Miller); 65 shot twice; 66 shot once. (Miller and Wadkins' rounds were really that good -- only two other players broke 70 that final day.)

'62 USOpen: -5 wins (three others under par); played as par 72 (par 71 in majors after this one); not many low rounds -- 67 shot just once, and 68 shot just once.

'53 USOpen: -5 wins (runner-up at +1; everyone else +4 or more); Hogan's opening 67 lowest round of tourney by two shots; only the Slammer shoots a round in the 60s (69) for the entire tourney.

WF:

'06 USOpen: +5 wins (everyone else +6 or worse); I forget how many rounds were under par, but it wasn't many.

'97 PGA: -11 wins (three others under par); 65 shot twice; 66 shot six times, three by Love; 67 shot nine times.

'84 USOpen: -4 (two tied) wins (everyone else +1 or worse); one round of 66 and one round of 67 in the tourney; both Norman and Irwin shot three rounds in the 60s, and neither won.

'74 USOpen: +7 wins; third place was +10; one 67 and two 68s shot; only seven under-par rounds for the tourney.

'59 USOpen: +2 wins; two 67s and two 68s shot during tourney; no one under 71 (+1) in the final round.

Caveat and emptors: WF plays for majors at par 70; Oakmont at par 71, and par 72 in the '62 and '53 Opens, arguably giving pros one more chance per day for an under-par score (given that pros score lower on par 5s than any other holes). set-ups, conditions, and weather obviously vary. It's been fairly well documented (yes?) the USGA set up WF extraordinarily difficult in '74 as a response to Miller's 63 the year before.

In general, Oakmont appears to be more susceptible to some very low rounds, and appears somewhat easier to finish  under par for the duration of the major.

Thanks for the history Phil. If one makes the argument that the PGA leaves the course more like it would be for the members. There is a small amount of evidence that Oakmont is harder for the members.