[Patrick_Mucci]

How would you evaluate the features and this hole ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I think I was the only one on this board who stated that the bunkers (heightened instead of deepened) now look very contrived and the fact that they were moved in to permanently narrow the fairways is a very bad thing.

I have never played Oakmont (and may never now), but I've walked the property extensively and think the practice of changing courses permanently for four days every 15 years is abhorrent.

I love much about Oakmont, but the taking out of the trees is the only positive change I've seen in the past 10 years.

Also, I have heard from multiple others that the new tees look like crap.

Sorry, but the truth's the truth.

[JohnV]

Mike,

If you think the changes were only made for 4 days of competition, you don't know Oakmont members very well.

As for #14, I think it is the worst example of what was done on the course.  The fairway bunkering was overdone and probably the least appealing of the work done.  Looking at the drawing that Jack Snyder did in 1939, the bunkers around the green haven't changed much. But, the 2 on left that squeeze the fairway are an unwelcome addition.  There were bunkers left and right of the fairway in 1939, but nothing that shut down the fairway like these do.  Also the way the four on the right all look the same is very poorly done.

As for the tees, I agree that a couple (#7 back tee in particular) are not good, but really, they are just tees.

The good things that were done far outnumber the bad in my opinion.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

As we can only see a portion of the hole, could you please describe the strategy best employed to successfully play this hole?

Any other judgments on the hole without playing it would be merely stating a style preference, other than assuming some maintenance issues.

Joe

[Greg Krueger]

Not knowing it is Oakmont, I might say it is a Rees Jones design!

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
Are you asking us to evaluate a hole and its features based only on a photograph, especially one not taken from the golfer's perspective?

One thing I would note is just how much more difficult a series of four bunkers appears to play than would a single large bunker occupying the same space. Either a difficult sand shot or an awkward stance from the rough.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the right hand fairway line extend maybe 1/3 or 1/2 way into the line of bunkers, so that a running shot in the fairway could catch them. Same for the left side. Don't know if that's feasible maintenance-wise however.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

If you think the changes were only made for 4 days of competition, you don't know Oakmont members very well.

As for the tees, I agree that a couple (#7 back tee in particular) are not good, but really, they are just tees.

The good things that were done far outnumber the bad in my opinion.

John,

I'll admit guilty as charged as far as not knowing the Oakmont members very well, but I'm also aware of the ongoing history of periodically toughening the course, as well as the pride (sick and sadistic as it may be ) they take in the difficulty of their course.

That being said, I'm still going to decry permanent narrowing of fairways that are, and always have been, penally protected on both sides, and I'm also going to say that from an aesthetic point of view, I don't like the very unnatural, contrived look of the bunker shaping.  

I said it about Merion in my backyard, and I'd be hypocritical to not say the same thing about these thick grass faced bunkers that look nothing like anything in Oakmont's illustrious history.

But, I'm also certain that I don't know Oakmont anywhere near as well as I'd like to, so I'd certainly like to hear about the changes that have taken place that have improved the course.

Hope things are going well for you back west, John!      

[Eric_Terhorst]

The pic is certainly not very appealing from above.  Maybe the hole makes more sense at ground level?

[Joe Hancock]

The pic is certainly not very appealing from above.  Maybe the hole makes more sense at ground level?

Eric,

I actually had employed a new technology on that hole, called WormCam v.1.4, to bring a subterranean perspective to the discussion, but it appears that the Oakmont staff "may" (nod to Dan Kelly) have applied a certain fungicide that is widely purported to be toxic to earthworms at certain application rates.....I haven't been able to get it working for several weeks now.

Sorry I can't help further,

Joe

[John Foley]

Patrick,

To answer your question from the picture I would say the fw is too narrow and the recovery from the green somewhat bland (all sand - no other recovery??). From the picture nothing about the green contours is evident.

I played there in the outing in Oct and found #14 to be one of my favorite holes. from the blue tee's it's 340 yards. You can hit driver and challenge the hole. Hit the fw and you've got wedge in. Lay back short of the traps and you've got a mid iron in. Add some wind, fail to execute and miss the fw and your problems start.

The two big issues you can not tell from the photo:

#1 - The Green (size & movement). The green is huge and movement, as compared to the rest, is reasonable. It was one of the few holes where I felt I could aggressively go after the put. Given the rest of the course and coming pretty late in the round and before the brutal 15th, I found this to be a great hole

#2 - Depth of the FW bunkers. This is where I struggle w/ what I think. The first photo below shows how deep they are. I do not remember any which we're not this brutal. Hit into one and advancement to the green (especially from this level of player) was just not going to happen. Looking at older photo's the bunkers are nowhere near as penal. Is that a bad thing? Am I to blame the architect and say his work is wrong? They are tough, they are penal, but they fit. It's Oakmont for heaven's sake. It's supposed to provide a tremendous test for the best golfers in the world and it's member's.

View from fw landing area towards green:



View from #12 tee looking at green and down fw (angled in from the right):

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Thanks for posting those ground-level photos.

While they certainly look a bit less stark than Patrick's aerial, there is something about them visually that I find overly contrived and fussy.

While not the same style, they remind me of what's been done to the bunkers on The Old Course in recent years, where steep, vertical grass faces that are fastidiously maintained look very artificial on an otherwise very non-descript, sprawling, roller-coaster property.   Instead of becoming part of a greater whole, they seem to cry out for attention in and of themselves, which is usually the sign of an artist desperately in need of personal recognition.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The high rough surrounding the 14th green will not be there for the next US Open held at Oakmont.

[Jordan Wall]

I have never been to Oakmont, so I can't really say too much regarding the course.

But, from pictures I have seen, the course now is far better then when it was covered with trees.  And that includes the bunkers.

[Ryan Farrow]

The high rough surrounding the 14th green will not be there for the next US Open held at Oakmont.

For real?

So it will no longer have that beautiful fescue that grew in at just the perfect thickness so you can find your ball and have a difficult yet fair recovery out of it?


This stuff?




here is kind of the shot I was faced with into this green, on top of one of those hills.




And Pat, are you really asking people to judge this hole from an aerial picture? Anyways, lots of fun putts on this green. And Cirba, give the GCA folks a little more credit, they know a Reese Pieces course when they see it.

[Rich Goodale]

I am sure I would love to play the hole and the course, but from the aerial it looks like "Victorian" Architects on a bad hair day.  Yet another example as to why we should take large grains of salt before falling in love (or hate) with any hole or course depicted by aerial photography on this site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

As we can only see a portion of the hole, could you please describe the strategy best employed to successfully play this hole?

I don't think that there is A BEST strategy.
I think, how one feels as they step onto the tee will determine what's best for them at that moment.

Strategy tends to be a balance of not what you perceive is your best option, but, what you can execute to fulfill your chosen objective.

A lot would depend upon how I'd been playing, whether I'm playing match or medal, wind conditions, etc., etc..[/color]

Any other judgments on the hole without playing it would be merely stating a style preference, other than assuming some maintenance issues.

Ryan Farrow,

Sean Leary initially raised the issue of how this hole would be villified, based on the aerial photo, if Rees was the architect.

If you look at the ground level photos, you'll begin to see a substantive difference in how the bunkers look.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I think I was the only one on this board who stated that the bunkers (heightened instead of deepened) now look very contrived and the fact that they were moved in to permanently narrow the fairways is a very bad thing.

I don't think it's a universally bad thing.

One can't ignore that balls go farther and straighter and that short holes need to preserve their defenses.[/color]

I have never played Oakmont (and may never now), but I've walked the property extensively and think the practice of changing courses permanently for four days every 15 years is abhorrent.

That's a different issue.

I DO AGREE with Oakmont making the bunkers deeper and the fronting berms higher.  Modern day equipment had rendered them LESS effective than they had been intended to be.[/color]

I love much about Oakmont, but the taking out of the trees is the only positive change I've seen in the past 10 years.

Mike, surely you don't object to deepening the bunkers, bringing them back to their intended function, do you ?[/color]

Also, I have heard from multiple others that the new tees look like crap.

I'm fairly critical but find nothing objectional about them.
How do they look like crap ?[/color]

Sorry, but the truth's the truth.

No, that's a third party opinion.[/color]

[Ryan Farrow]

 If you didn't know this was # 14 at Oakmont ?


How would you evaluate the features and this hole ?



^^^^^^^^^^Right there. Where it says evaluate?

[Jason Connor]

When I saw this picture in the USGA book that arrived in my mailbox last week I didn't recognize the hole!  

And I've played Oakmont and I'm a fan of the course!

I thought it looked like a Nicklaus resort course with the artificial bunkers -- except of course a resort course would never have tees that dangerously close to the tees.  Another by product of lengthening courses the way they are.  Dangerous tee positions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

If they wanted to restore the bunkers to their historic and "intended function", they should have brought out the deeply furrowed rakes.

I shouldn't have said, "the truth's the truth".   What I should have said is, "that's my honest opinion, unfettered by political and personal motivations".  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If they wanted to restore the bunkers to their historic and "intended function", they should have brought out the deeply furrowed rakes.

Mike,  That's a maintainance issue, not an architectural issue.

The fact is that the deeper bunkers better serve their intended purpose of acting to impede extraction.  Combined with the fronting berms they serve as a clear impediment to extracting the ball with the intent of hitting the green.[/color]

I shouldn't have said, "the truth's the truth".   What I should have said is, "that's my honest opinion, unfettered by political and personal motivations".    

Agreed[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

That's one of the reasons I posted it.

As you play the hole, it looks nothing like the photo.

Yet, time after time, Rees's work is judged on the basis of aerial photos.

[Matt_Cohn]

Isn't the whole point of Oakmont that it *is* contrived and artificial?

...in a good way?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jason,

That's one of the reasons I posted it.

As you play the hole, it looks nothing like the photo.

Yet, time after time, Rees's work is judged on the basis of aerial photos.

Pat,

Even if we're guilty of that, the problem is that even from the ground level no one has mistaken any of Rees's courses for Oakmont.  

[Ryan Farrow]

Isn't the whole point of Oakmont that it *is* contrived and artificial?

...in a good way?

What would make you think that?


Cirba, or Pat:

Doesn't the original picture look more like a Dye course than a Rees pieces. It would be interesting is we could dig up some of these types of aerials that show how the course looked before the bunkers were renovated.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()