Oakmont & TV and their Architectural Impact on Future Designs & Alterations ?

« **on:** June 12, 2007, 10:20:37 PM »

What architectural features will emerge/reemerge and become popular as a result of the U.S. Open being conducted at Oakmont ?

And, WHY ?

« **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2007, 10:31:46 PM »

Pat-

Watching the "Live from the U.S. Open" previews on the Golf Channel, I just saw the piece with Dave Pelz demonstrating the severity of the 10th green.
He pitched several balls from just short of the green which carried to the back of the green, settling in the back fringe.
While many here may appreciate the design and architecture, something tells me many of the masses will be talking about it in a more negative light come Monday.

Check your PM.

« **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2007, 10:54:00 PM »

I would think the most noticed/commented upon feature of the course will be the "deforestation" of Oakmont. I imagine there will be a good number of before & after shots, showing how tree-lined the course was at past US Opens held there vs. how tree-less the course now is. There was a sizeable article on the Oakmont tree removal program in the US Open preview issue of Golf World.

Hopefully, the TV broadcast will highlight why it was done and the positive aspects of what it has accomplished.

The one negative aspect I worry about is that the green speeds at Oakmont might create some sort of standard that is viewed to be desireable and is emulated by other clubs. That would be a shame.

« **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2007, 11:05:04 PM »

Front-to-back sloping greens on holes that require long-iron approaches, thus bringing into play the strategic use of the run-up shot.

« **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2007, 11:55:50 PM »

Quote from: David_Tepper on June 12, 2007, 10:54:00 PM

The one negative aspect I worry about is that the green speeds at Oakmont might create some sort of standard that is viewed to be desirable and is emulated by other clubs.

David,

There was an item today in USA Today of all places re: the poa annua greens at Oakmont. The grass is a special because they've been cutting it close for so long it never seeds, and they've created their own strain that only grows on the greens at Oakmont. I read it in USA Today, so it must be true.

I only read it on airplanes, I swear.

Somehow I think those greens are going to be tough to emulate, so maybe the imitators will focus on the lack of trees!

Phil,
I hope you're right--I'd love to see some shots rolling in, and some shots played short of the green on purpose. In the Golf Channel piece that Doug is referring to, Paddy Harrington was shown practicing putts from in front of the 10th green, suggesting that he is contemplating playing short of that green and lagging in from there.

Patrick,
it seems like we are going to be watching a lot of putting this weekend, as they competitors are tested by the greens and long come-backers. Dave Pelz already mentioned 4-5% slopes on #10, and there is the undulation. Maybe those features will inspire others to forego the flattish USGA-spec greens for more creative designs.

« **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2007, 12:09:09 AM »

Quote from: Eric_Terhorst on June 12, 2007, 11:55:50 PM

Quote from: David_Tepper on June 12, 2007, 10:54:00 PM

The one negative aspect I worry about is that the green speeds at Oakmont might create some sort of standard that is viewed to be desirable and is emulated by other clubs.
In the Golf Channel piece that Doug is referring to, Paddy Harrington was shown practicing putts from in front of the 10th green, suggesting that he is contemplating playing short of that green and lagging in from there.

That would be a surprising strategy. The most reliable way to make pars there is to play beyond the pin and chip back uphill. Chips, putts and pitches from in front of 1, 10 and 12 are really difficult with the speed and slope combined.

« **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:01:31 PM »

Now that you've seen it for 4 days, what do you think ?

« **Reply #7 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:14:14 PM »

Doubt it will happen, but I still think a drivable Par 4 for a finisher would be great. The tournament sort of ended when Tiger made par on 17. Yes, he was still alive on 18 but to have the 18th be potentially a:

2 = win
3 = playoff
4+ = loss would be great theater when the leaders are not in the last group.

Other than The Old Course and Carnegie Abbey, I can't think of one drivable par 4 closer.

« **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:18:53 PM »

Several driveable par 4's was amazing, hopefully this will come into vogue in future set ups. Augusta gave up one of theirs when #7 was turned into a backbreaker par 4. The Oakmont short 4's were great swing holes. Look at Tiger and Furyk trying to birdie #17 to catch Cabrera because they knew they didn't have much chance at #18 to do so.

With the standard US Open set up a non stop slog, I thought Oakmont was a blast to watch. On TV anyway, doesn't sound like you could see much there in person.

« **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:31:47 PM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on June 17, 2007, 09:14:14 PM

Doubt it will happen, but I still think a drivable Par 4 for a finisher would be great. The tournament sort of ended when Tiger made par on 17. Yes, he was still alive on 18 but to have the 18th be potentially a:

2 = win
3 = playoff
4+ = loss would be great theater when the leaders are not in the last group.

Other than The Old Course and Carnegie Abbey, I can't think of one drivable par 4 closer.

Mike,

Was # 18 at BPB drivable prior to the changes ?

« **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:36:49 PM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on June 17, 2007, 09:18:53 PM

Several driveable par 4's was amazing, hopefully this will come into vogue in future set ups. Augusta gave up one of theirs when #7 was turned into a backbreaker par 4. The Oakmont short 4's were great swing holes. Look at Tiger and Furyk trying to birdie #17 to catch Cabrera because they knew they didn't have much chance at #18 to do so.

With the standard US Open set up a non stop slog, I thought Oakmont was a blast to watch. On TV anyway, doesn't sound like you could see much there in person.

I don't think Augusta's 7th was ever envisioned as a driveable par 4 -- the green sits up on something of a plateau or shelf, and is nearly surrounded by traps. It was designed to be a hole in which the risk of taking a driver off the tee to a tight fairway was rewarded with a shorter approach shot into a shallow green. The driveable par 4 at Augusta is the 3rd, which does share some of the characteristics of Oakmont's shorter par 4s.

« **Reply #11 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:41:58 PM »

Phil McDade,

That's not the original green.

The original green was at ground level and closer to the tee with NO bunkers.

It was moved back and elevated by Perry Maxwell after Horton Smith suggested the change circa 1938

« **Reply #12 on:** June 17, 2007, 09:52:31 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 17, 2007, 09:31:47 PM

Mike,

Was # 18 at BPB drivable prior to the changes ?

No, it is uphill and was surrounded by bunkers. Maybe Bubba types could get there from the old tee today.

Phil Young,

Was 18 green at BPB ever higher up the hill. It used to look like there was a plateau above it.

« **Reply #13 on:** June 17, 2007, 10:26:52 PM »

Quote from: Phil McDade on June 17, 2007, 09:36:49 PM

Quote from: Bill_McBride on June 17, 2007, 09:18:53 PM
Several driveable par 4's was amazing, hopefully this will come into vogue in future set ups. Augusta gave up one of theirs when #7 was turned into a backbreaker par 4. The Oakmont short 4's were great swing holes. Look at Tiger and Furyk trying to birdie #17 to catch Cabrera because they knew they didn't have much chance at #18 to do so.

With the standard US Open set up a non stop slog, I thought Oakmont was a blast to watch. On TV anyway, doesn't sound like you could see much there in person.

I don't think Augusta's 7th was ever envisioned as a driveable par 4 -- the green sits up on something of a plateau or shelf, and is nearly surrounded by traps. It was designed to be a hole in which the risk of taking a driver off the tee to a tight fairway was rewarded with a shorter approach shot into a shallow green. The driveable par 4 at Augusta is the 3rd, which does share some of the characteristics of Oakmont's shorter par 4s.

Phil, there are great short par 4's that aren't driveable, #7 at Augusta was one. It tested the player's ability to hit a wedge close to a well guarded green. That same green on a 450 yard razor thin par 4 is nothing like the same test. That's the point I was trying to make. Now 4 is a great score at #7, 3 used to be.

« **Reply #14 on:** June 17, 2007, 11:59:30 PM »

Bill:

I agree; although I think some of criticism of the changes at Augusta over overblown, I did like the old nature of the 7th there, as it tested the willingness of a player to try to get further down the fairway to use as short a club as possible. I similarily like the 5th at Oakmont, a short par 4 that's not driveable but provides some challenge, as Casey found out today.

Pat -- thanks for the insights into the 7th. I guess I was referring to its modern version and the recent changes to lengthen it.

« **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2007, 12:23:36 AM »

It's too bad #3 at Augusta doesn't come later in the round, although the back nine par 5's there certainly used to serve the same purpose - eagle/double bogey holes.

That's one reason it was interesting to watch Oakmont more than it's usually fun to watch the U.S. Open.

« **Reply #16 on:** June 18, 2007, 01:09:27 AM »

One hole that I had not seen before that looked the goods was the 3rd. A semi-blind approach uphill to a front-to-back sloping green on a high knob.

Fantastic, even without the movement in the fairway and the uniqueness of the Church Pews.

Is there another hole even close to it in the USA?

For those who have played Oakmont, is it a favourite hole?

« **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2007, 01:29:10 AM »

Quote from: Phil McDade on June 12, 2007, 11:05:04 PM

Front-to-back sloping greens on holes that require long-iron approaches, thus bringing into play the strategic use of the run-up shot.

While I would hope that more new courses would have greens that slope from front to back as it adds variety to the course, I don't think it will happen. Most golfers like the consistency of greens that slope from back to front. How many resort or public courses have greens that slope from front to back? I think to be profitable, courses have to have greens which the majority of golfers like, and that would be greens which slope from back to front.

There are exceptions to this- one of which is Rustic Canyon where there are many greens which slope front to back, and that course is very popular and busy.

« **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2007, 01:44:33 AM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on June 17, 2007, 09:14:14 PM

Doubt it will happen, but I still think a drivable Par 4 for a finisher would be great. The tournament sort of ended when Tiger made par on 17. Yes, he was still alive on 18 but to have the 18th be potentially a:

2 = win
3 = playoff
4+ = loss would be great theater when the leaders are not in the last group.

Other than The Old Course and Carnegie Abbey, I can't think of one drivable par 4 closer.

How would this be any different than if Tiger had birdied 17, then 18 would have been:

3 = win
4 = playoff
5+ = loss

After all, Tiger did bogey 18 yesterday and if his drive had bounced a few inches further right into that heavier rough and got into a bad spot he might have found himself in a place where a 4 was no gimme.

Its not as though short 4s as the only half par holes out there. Just ask any of the numerous players who failed to par the 18th this week.

« **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2007, 03:56:41 AM »

Patrick,

I think the internal greens contouring on many holes was what made the Open so fascinating to watch. False fronts on many holes also added to the precision required from the pro's iron play (aided by some gutsy pin postions). I wish they would expand the fairway width on many holes bring the fairway bunkering back into the fairways.

One of the more enjoyable US Opens to watch in many years from an architectural perspective (despite the long rough

. )

Shane.

« **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2007, 11:05:05 PM »

Will DEEPER bunkers become popular ?

Will clubs seek to deepen their bunkers in order to make them function as true hazards ?

Will deeper bunkers become more popular for private clubs where the soil permits ?

« **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2007, 12:47:18 AM »

Quote from: Mark Ferguson on June 18, 2007, 01:09:27 AM

One hole that I had not seen before that looked the goods was the 3rd. A semi-blind approach uphill to a front-to-back sloping green on a high knob.

Fantastic, even without the movement in the fairway and the uniqueness of the Church Pews.

Is there another hole even close to it in the USA?

For those who have played Oakmont, is it a favourite hole?

Mark, think back on the first three holes. Long downhill par 4, short driveable par 4 with the wickedest green on the course, mid size par 4 with blind green and false front and back. The great thing about Oakmont is there are still 15 super holes to play. #3 a favorite? It's a great hole, but just one of many. I have played with several Oakmont members, and they seem to lean toward #10, #12, #18.........masochists all.

« **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2007, 01:43:05 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on June 18, 2007, 11:05:05 PM

Will DEEPER bunkers become popular ?

Will clubs seek to deepen their bunkers in order to make them function as true hazards ?

Will deeper bunkers become more popular for private clubs where the soil permits ?

From the short time I watched, it looked like many of the bunkers were relatively flat bottomed. The sod facing came down towards the bottom of the bunker, which left very few sand faces.

I don't know if this trend will catch on as it is probably more expensive to maintain a sod faced bunker ...

Did I see those bunker faces correctly?

« **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2007, 03:33:00 AM »

Quote from: Shane Gurnett on June 18, 2007, 03:56:41 AM

One of the more enjoyable US Opens to watch in many years from an architectural perspective (despite the long rough . )

Shane.

Shane,

Just ditch your high definition LCD Widescreen plasma telly for a normal one, and the rough isn't nearly so noticeable.

« **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2007, 12:59:31 PM »

Mike Benham,

On a number of occassions, I recall an announcer stating that the player could not see the putting surface from the bunker, and that many of the bunkers had been moved and deepened.

Will increased bunker depth become a design trend ?

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Doug Braunsdorf

David_Tepper

Phil McDade

Eric_Terhorst

Bill_McBride

Patrick_Mucci

Mike Sweeney

Bill_McBride

Patrick_Mucci

Phil McDade

Patrick_Mucci

Mike Sweeney

Bill_McBride

Phil McDade

Bill_McBride

Mark_F

Scott Weersing

Doug Siebert

Shane Gurnett

Patrick_Mucci

Bill_McBride

Mike Benham

Mark_F

Patrick_Mucci