Maybe this is why I like to think back to playing with hickories.

Paul,

Oakmont-Lite?

I guess you just felt compelled to "ding" yourself.

Peter  

Oakmont Lite....that's a good one Peter ...and the gist of what might be good for the more average club memberships needs.

We seem to get very few requests to build courses 'just like Oakmont'.

I will be there next Tues and Wed. stop....need direction. stop....lets do one. stop....can't wait. stop.

If you're serious about coming, let me know, I'll provide directions all the way from Georgia!

There's a lot to learn, you just need to know where to look.

1, 10, and 12 are all fascinating examples of how to utlize a downslope without resorting to the drop shot par 3 that exists on so many thousands of courses.

There are plenty of half par holes.

#2 has to be the toughest 350 yard hole in America.

3's greensite is phenomenal.

17 is wonderful.

18 is a brutal bear finish, but a thoughtful one, I believe.

The unfortunate thing is that what most people will take from the test is that penal rough is the defining characteristic of Oakmont (and virtually all US Open venues), especially with Phil's problems.

The entire course builds on the thought process of how do you really minimize your score.

George...you're right, one really has to see it in person. I almost made it this week, but had a Cabo conflict....my unavoidable loss.

I find the half pars and short fours most intriguing, as they are  becoming more important in my own design philosophy

Paul
not so much an impression as a question:

It seems to me that Oakmont isn't an ideal venue for match play. It strikes me as the ultimate stroke play design.

Why would I be thinking that? (I have no idea.) Am I way off- base there?

Peter  

Peter, I think it's even better as a match play venue, as one does not tend to get caught up in total score relative to par.

And there's just nothing like seeing a par 5 routinely won with par, and sometimes even bogey, as 12 did repeatedly during the 2003 Amateur.

There's so many half par holes that it's almost unusual to halve a hole with someone. Someone always seems to be gaining or losing.

I'm probably not qualified to comment since I'm not an architect nor (at this stage of my life with injuries) a very good player. But you asked for impressions so I'll give you mine.

I love the look of the course as I see it on television. I think removing the trees was a wonderful thing. I recall watching the '94 Open and thinking that the trees made it just too claustrophobic.

Without trees I suppose the rough needs to be more penal. But I know I couldn't play out of that rough and I wonder how many players can. If we are talking about impressions of a course where average players will play, I would think the rough would need to be reduced somewhat.

The church pews and other bunkers don't bother me. The pews could be considered gimmicky but I like them for some reason.

The greens don't bother me either. I like fast greens and the contours of these, while extreme, still seem to allow a thinking person to play them.

The main thing that would concern me -- and I can't speak to this without having been there -- is whether the design allows someone like me to have a reasonable attempt at par if played from the appropriate set of tees. A course here (Glen Arbour) has a hole that illustrates what I think is an example of not offering a reasonable chance. The par-5 6th has an "environmental hazard" (a wetland) spanning an area extending about 190 to 160 yards from the green. The approach shot is sharply uphill. Hence the hole requires me to hit a career drive and a career second shot to clear the hazard to leave me with a feasible chance to hit the green in regulation. I'm not very good at 200-yard uphill shots from a downhill lie. For a tour (or even a single-digit handicap) player this hole would not offer much difficulty but for ones like me it is a par-6.

Too many holes like this, along with the inevitable lost balls from the penal rough, would make the course one to avoid for someone like me. But if it offers me a chance to play then I'm sure I would enjoy it. I don't dislike tough courses, just ones that make me feel overmatched because of excessively penal design.

Paul,

I don't know, the players would play it so differently and the course was never designed to be played without rough.  The interesting thing is how many players I've seen get themselves in more trouble by hitting irons or hybrids off the tee into the rough than when they hit driver.

I was with Lee Westwood and Anthony Kim yesterday here is a recap of their tee shots on the non-par 3 holes:

1 Kim - iron to left rough, Westwood - driver to left edge of fairway
2 Kim - Driver to greenside bunker, Westwood driver short of center bunker
3 Kim - Driver to middle of FW, Westwood Driver to middle of FW
4 Kim - Driver to church pews, Westwood Driver to middle
5 Kim - Iron to left rough, Westwood, hybrid to right FW bunker
7 Kim - Driver to fairway, Westwood Driver to Fairway
9 Kim - Driver to fairway, Westwood Driver to Fairway
10 Kim - Iron to right FW Bunker, Westwood, 3-wood to right Lateral WH
11 Kim - Iron to left rough, standing in bunker, Westwood hybrid to left FW bunker
12 Kim - Driver to FW, Westwood Driver to FW
14 Kim - Iron to FW, Westwood Iron to FW
15 Kim - Iron to mini-church pews, Westwood Driver just off right FW in first cut
17 Kim & Westwood went for green with driver.  Kim hit it, Westwood trickled off into rough left of green
18 Kim - Driver to first bunker on left, Westwood driver to second bunker on left

Look how many times they got in trouble with irons, hybrids or FW woods vs drivers.

Today I go with Lee Janzen and Nick Dougherty at 1:20.  I'll be interested to see how they play the course.

Paul:

I had intended to get to Oakmont this week for some study, because whenever I eventually design a course for the Tour, I figure it will be a great case study.  But I've had to be in Oregon all week working on present contracts instead, and just watching a bit on TV.

At the moment though, I'm not sure that I don't agree with Tiger Woods.  Oakmont is a great test for championship play, but I'm not sure that a lot of people would enjoy the difficulties it presents on a regular basis.

There are a lot of holes I like, the 12th probably most of all.  One I'm not so sure about is the 17th.  What is so good about a driveable par 4 where you can't tell where you are going off the tee?  If it didn't have a lot of deep rough near the green, everybody in the field would be trying to drive it, and most guys would be making 3's and 4's with impunity.

PS to John V:  Thanks for that analysis.  I think you're right, today's players are just as straight with a driver as with a long iron or hybrid (which they don't hit nearly as often), and for most, just pulling one of those out on the tee signals a lack of confidence.

JohnV:

Other than that ruling with Goosen in the drainage ditch on #10 on Thursday, what kind of rulings have you been involved in with your group's players?

Dougthery looks like he might have a pretty good sense of humor. Why don't you tell him on the first tee you're considering penalizing him at least a shot for a really bad hair week?

Oh, right, DING, DING!

Mr Paul....please do not try to usurp my authority.

If you persist you might find yourself in 'time out'.