Fazio comes to Oakmont

« **Reply #25 on:** April 02, 2005, 09:19:50 PM »

TEPaul,

Quote from: Steve_ Shaffer on March 27, 2005, 01:01:07 PM

From today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Tom Fazio, perhaps America's leading architect, has been retained to ........

In addition, all the fairway bunkers will eventually be enlarged and brought right to the edge of the fairway, narrowing the landing area off the tee.

The changes, though, have made Oakmont an even more demanding course for the members, some of whom are not happy with the makeover.

"You don't build a church just for Easter Sunday," said one of America's top architects, who did not want to be identified.

Perhaps you missed the specific reference to bringing the bunkers in to NARROW the landing areas, the same thing that Baltusrol is doing.

Rather then fly off the handle, half-cocked, and uninformed, perhaps you should take more care to READ what was reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

This isn't about what Mark Studer has done in the PAST, it's about what is being done in the immediate FUTURE.

So, get out of the past, get up to speed, and get current on what's taking place and about to take place.

It's also apparent that the "membership" is splintered on this issue.

With respect to CBM's comment, that I like to reference, how can anybody have played a course that has yet to be re-configured ?

I"ve played the old Oakmont, I haven't, and neither has anyone else on this planet, played the future Oakmont as altered by Fazio, as described by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Do you automatically grant immunity to all courses in Pennsylvania that alter themselves or is it just confined to courses that you're directly or indirectly connected with, vis a vis, members ? [/color]

« **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2005, 04:23:49 AM »

Patrick:

That last post is just more jibberish.

I don't think I've been to Oakmont since the last state amateur there two years ago but if I wanted some information on what's going on out there I sure would prefer to talk to Mark Studer about it rather than rely on some blub from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette as you seem to be doing.

As far as bringing the bunkers into the fairways thereby narrowing them the only one I recall being mentioned the other day was on #2 where when that was done it was simply a restoring of a Fownes bunker back to its original size and shape.

As far as some similarity to what Baltusrol did with narrowing perhaps you should look at Mike Cirba's post on here which is my recollection too. It seems to me Baltusrol brought in their rough lines narrowing the fairways and basically leaving their Tillinghast bunkers even farther out in the rough.

But once again, what is it you're blaming the Oakmont membership for? What is this about fault that you keep mentioning? What fault? And what are those references all about you made to Clarence Darrow and the judge in "Inherit the Wind", about right vs power that pertain to Oakmont? You sound like you think the restoration project at Oakmont shouldn't have been done. Or perhaps you just think you're capable of sitting 350 miles away and reading a blurb on here from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and doing a better job at Oakmont somehow because you have no stake in anything, no bias, no prejudice, or whatever the rest of that jibberish of yours on these last few posts is about.

You and Tom MacWood should consider forming some sort of alternative architectural company where you just sit a couple of states away, never get involved with a course and tell them that you know what's good for their course better than they do.

« **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2005, 11:08:47 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on April 03, 2005, 04:23:49 AM

I don't think I've been to Oakmont since the last state amateur there two years ago but if I wanted some information on what's going on out there I sure would prefer to talk to Mark Studer about it rather than rely on some blub from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette as you seem to be doing.

But, you haven't talked to Mark Studer and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has run its story.[/color]

As far as bringing the bunkers into the fairways thereby narrowing them the only one I recall being mentioned the other day was on #2 where when that was done it was simply a restoring of a Fownes bunker back to its original size and shape.

Then you need to go back and read the article paying close attention to paragraph's # 6 and # 7. Your recollection is incorrect.[/color]

As far as some similarity to what Baltusrol did with narrowing perhaps you should look at Mike Cirba's post on here which is my recollection too. It seems to me Baltusrol brought in their rough lines narrowing the fairways and basically leaving their Tillinghast bunkers even farther out in the rough.

Once again, you recall is woefully lacking.
Baltusrol was going to move the rough in, vis a vis, sodding blue grass, then they were going to move the bunkers to the rough/fairway lines, while also repositioning some bunkers so that they can come into play off the tee for 150 guys who play there 2 to 4 days, every ten years or so.

You might also recall that more then a few, including Brad Klein and yourself, ventured out to view the 18th fairway to see the newly added bunker/s, most certainly not designed, positioned and constructed by Tillinghast.[/color]

But once again, what is it you're blaming the Oakmont membership for? What is this about fault that you keep mentioning? What fault? And what are those references all about you made to Clarence Darrow and the judge in "Inherit the Wind", about right vs power that pertain to Oakmont? You sound like you think the restoration project at Oakmont shouldn't have been done. Or perhaps you just think you're capable of sitting 350 miles away and reading a blurb on here from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and doing a better job at Oakmont somehow because you have no stake in anything, no bias, no prejudice, or whatever the rest of that jibberish of yours on these last few posts is about.

I've always favored restorations and lauded Oakmont for their efforts in the past. However, I find modernization through interpretation dangerous, distasteful and in many cases leading to disfiguration, and in this case I have to base my response on the only reports currently available to us, those from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

When golf courses are altered or disfigured many on this site choose to focus on the architect as the lightning rod of discontent.
I've always felt the fault was with the membership who retained the architect for the express purpose of altering their golf course.

That's a simple concept that even you can understand. [/color]

You and Tom MacWood should consider forming some sort of alternative architectural company where you just sit a couple of states away, never get involved with a course and tell them that you know what's good for their course better than they do.

Using your logic, you would maintain that the only ones to judge the merits of the work and the outcome is the membership.

Let me see if I have an adequate grasp on this.
You want the interested parties who felt they had to alter the golf course to judge the value of their work.

I always thought that participants were disqualified from judging their own efforts and endeavors, and that's why we have referees, officials, judges and juries. Independent third parties with no agenda, bias or special interest, who can observe, analyze and decide.

Perhaps it works differently in the State of Pennsylvania.
Perhaps litigants and participants determine the perspective by which all others must abide.[/color]

« **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:13:45 PM »

"But, you haven't talked to Mark Studer and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has run its story."

I haven't? I seem to remember talking to him last Friday, but maybe you know better.

As I said, we weren't talking about Golfclubatlas.com, it was something else altogether but after a while he did mention this thread which I didn't know about because I wasn't here last week. Mark's pretty much a can-do guy and never seems to get upset about threads like this but he did mention that he thought it was sort of pointless for him to come on here and discuss this stuff since there're all these contributors on here who seem to know all the details of Oakmont and what goes on there a lot better than he does!

« **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:26:04 PM »

TEPaul,

This story/thread wasn't created by a GCA.com'er.
And no GCA.com'er indicated that they knew exactly what was going on at Oakmont.

It was an article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, a newspaper well connected to what goes on in the Pittsburgh area, including events at Oakmont, that described the work at hand, that triggered the responses.

No one on this site indicated that they knew the details of the work at Oakmont, they only indicated their response to what the article described as the scope of the work.

And, from what was described, it had an eerie resemblence to that which you heard with your own ears and saw with your own eyes in February of 2004.

If the article proves to be lacking in facts that will come out. But, if the article proves accurate, it would signal the further disfiguration of classic golf courses for the sake of challenging the best players in the world for two to four days, once every ten years, to the detriment of members and guests who play Oakmont.

But, even worse, it sends the signal to the rest of the golfing world that it's okay to tamper with and disfigure great architecture as created by the OLD and NEW masters.

« **Reply #30 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:27:30 PM »

Patrick:

There's really no point answering your respnses on that last post. The whole thing, including all your posts on this thread simply add up to some attempt on your part to claim for some unimaginable reason you have a better grasp of what's gone on and goes on at Oakmont then guys like Studer and those involved in that project do. If I were doing research on Oakmont or trying to analyze what's happened and continues to happen out there I'd talk to Mark Studer or Zimmers or Ford and not just relie on some blurb from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. But we all have our own sources and ways of analyzing golf architecture.

« **Reply #31 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:37:25 PM »

TEPaul,

First of all, Mark Studer is no longer intimately involved at Oakmont. You keep refering to the past which isn't germane to what will happen to Oakmont in the future.

You're also letting your personal relationships with good members and friends cloud your objectivity.

I think talking to a variety of members in the know would be a desireable pursuit, but, you haven't done that yet, and until you do, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the only source of information on what lies AHEAD for Oakmont.

That your so anxious to dismiss the article as worthless erodes your objectivity and your credibility.

« **Reply #32 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:52:01 PM »

Patrick:

Although it really is a waste of my time and energy to respond to these ridiculous posts or yours I'll do it anyway for the record.

TEPaul,
First of all, Mark Studer is no longer intimately involved at Oakmont. You keep refering to the past which isn't germane to what will happen to Oakmont in the future."

Mark Studer is no longer the green chairman of Oakmont but how in the world someone like you could proclaim he doesn't intimately know and understand what's going on out there is frankly beyond me.

"You're also letting your personal relationships with good members and friends cloud your objectivity."

I'm doing nothing of the kind. The only reason you say that is to deflect the fact that I obviously know a lot more about what's going on out there than you do or can---and so you simply rely on this ridiculous "non-prejudiced" from 350 miles away logic of yours and a blurb from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

"I think talking to a variety of members in the know would be a desireable pursuit, but, you haven't done that yet, and until you do, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the only source of information on what lies AHEAD for Oakmont."

Oh really, I haven't talked to a variety of members about what's gone on at Oakmont? How do you happen to know that? I know plenty of Oakmont members and some pretty significant ones and have for years and have talked to just about all of them about the project at Oakmont.

"That your so anxious to dismiss the article as worthless erodes your objectivity and your credibility."

I never said a thing about that blurb from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette being worthless---I only said if I was looking for some real details of what went on and goes on at Oakmont I'd look to and speak to people I know at Oakmont and not people at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

« **Reply #33 on:** April 03, 2005, 03:01:48 PM »

I don't mean to deflect discussion, but does anybody think for a minute that if Fownes were consulted on this predicament what his answer would be? If he were around when the open is played in 2007, it would come as a surpise to no one if the course started out with 200 bunkers on Monday, and finished with 215 come Sunday.

There were 300+ bunker at Oakmont in Fownes time, today, I understand there are ~200. Bobby Jones commented that standing at the rear of the clubhouse you could see 17 of 18 flagsticks. Now, efforts aimed at recapturing that course are being criticized, simply because Fazio is involved (and only secondarily, I might add). This illustrates the absurdity of the views of some on this board - Tom Paul is 100% correct.

As far as the membership disliking the changes, does anybody know how they felt during Fownes time when he would build bunkers to frustrate their shots? Oakmont is a tough course, with a history of a tough course for members. Perhaps they should recall that.

Patrick - I'm confused by your discussion of rights v. powers as it pertains to green comms. I am reluctant to question anything you say as it relates to golf club administration, but this one has me scratching my head. Unless they are acting beyond the scope of their authority, it would seem that they have both the right and the power to alter the golf course. It is not analogous
to a contract, under which a party has the power to breach but not the right.

« **Reply #34 on:** April 03, 2005, 03:24:46 PM »

SPDB,

Quote from: SPDB on April 03, 2005, 03:01:48 PM

I don't mean to deflect discussion, but does anybody think for a minute that if Fownes were consulted on this predicament what his answer would be? If he were around when the open is played in 2007, it would come as a surpise to no one if the course started out with 200 bunkers on Monday, and finished with 215 come Sunday.

I don't know that any of us could predict Fownes's response.
He might have said, "I'm not tinkering with this masterpiece one bit, especially to satisfy non-members who visit us every 13 years or so"[/color]

There were 300+ bunker at Oakmont in Fownes time, today, I understand there are ~200. Bobby Jones commented that standing at the rear of the clubhouse you could see 17 of 18 flagsticks. Now, efforts aimed at recapturing that course are being criticized, simply because Fazio is involved
That's not true.
It's not that Fazio is involved at Oakmont anymore then it's Rees who's involved at Baltusrol.

It's the fact that roughs are being PERMANENTLY moved in with bunkers being PERMANENTLY moved in and repositioned for the sole puroose of making the course challenging during the PGA.

And, it would appear that the same modus operandi is about to take place at Oakmont, according to the Pittsburgh Post.
[/color]

(and only secondarily, I might add). This illustrates the absurdity of the views of some on this board - Tom Paul is 100% correct.

TEPaul is living in the past and not addressing the issue on the docket.

I'm afraid that you and TEPaul have taken your eye off the ball and are not examining the core issue.[/color]

As far as the membership disliking the changes, does anybody know how they felt during Fownes time when he would build bunkers to frustrate their shots? Oakmont is a tough course, with a history of a tough course for members. Perhaps they should recall that.

Patrick - I'm confused by your discussion of rights v. powers as it pertains to green comms. I am reluctant to question anything you say as it relates to golf club administration, but this one has me scratching my head. Unless they are acting beyond the scope of their authority, it would seem that they have both the right and the power to alter the golf course. It is not analogous to a contract, under which a party has the power to breach but not the right.

You'd have to see the movie and have a breadth of experience with the internal affairs of clubs to understand the context of the comment.

Perhaps viewing the product of what those in charge created when they altered the 12th green at GCGC might shed additional light on the comment.
[/color]

« **Reply #35 on:** April 03, 2005, 03:26:22 PM »

Sean:

If I were you I wouldn't bother to try to engage Patrick Mucci in an intelligent discussion on this subject or thread--that is unquestionably a worthless endeavor. The best policy is to just use either humor or a very big stick! When you went to school did you not have, as I did, some little hyperactive, know-it-all. weissenheimer in your class who was constantly out of control and who never shut up or offered anything benefical?

Well, that's pretty much Patrick Mucci on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

« **Reply #36 on:** April 03, 2005, 03:35:20 PM »

TEPaul,

My father taught me, that if I felt I had analyzed a situation properly to stick to my guns, even if ten angels were swearing against me.

You heard and saw, with your own ears and eyes what's going on at Baltusrol. And, you were against it.
Why are you so adamant that a similar thing can't be going on at Oakmont, especially after the Pittsburgh Post reported it ?

Discovering that the Easter Bunny was a relative must have been a traumatic event which devastated your belief system.
And now, just when you're starting to get it back, here I am, unwilling to dismiss a story about Oakmont as reported by the Pittsburgh Post. My god, will the disappointments never end ?

« **Reply #37 on:** April 03, 2005, 03:48:33 PM »

"I don't know that any of us could predict Fownes's response.
He might have said, "I'm not tinkering with this masterpiece one bit, especially to satisfy non-members who visit us every 13 years or so"

Well, we sure do know we can't ask William Fownes at this point but there just might be a way to get a pretty good indication of what he would say if he could be asked today.

I think we can be pretty certain how William Fownes felt about creating some pretty unusual severity on his golf course with what we know he did to it over his 40 years of stewardship.

We do know about his highly unusual furrowed bunkers and we do know that he and Emil Loeffler developed probably the world's fastest putting greens way back. (for that the testimony of former Merion Green Chairman, Bill Stitt, is very valuable, as Bill was Emil Loeffler's nephew, he actually lived at Oakmont and as a kid he cut those greens and sharpened those blades every night too and probably got into that process Emil figured out of fiddling with the bed-knives that no one else apparently had figured out at that point---and apparently all at the behest of Fownes to figure out how to make the greens faster).

Although I don't have the tournament or the year at my fingertips right now it seems to me it might have been the US Open or the US Amateur at Oakmont around 1925 when the way the course was architecturally and the way it was set-up, particularly those highly unusual furrowed bunkers, created a fire-storm of controversy from the field and not the least of which was Bobby Jones.

I'm glad this was mentioned because I did tell Mark Studer a couple of days ago I'd try to find the article in which William Fownes apparently answered that fire-storm of controversy he created in that tournament with his Oakmont. That should give us the best available answer to how he might feel today about Oakmont and the 2007 US Open.

Maybe the excellent research mavens on this site can actually find and post that article that was Fownes's answer to the firestorm of controversy he created with Oakmont in that tournament around 1925.

Seems to me it may've been in an American Golfer. I just saw the title but I didn't read it although I meant to go back and read it. Or it may've even been in the USGA Green Section report since in 1925 and 1926 (I believe it was) William Fownes was the President of the USGA.

« **Reply #38 on:** April 03, 2005, 04:08:44 PM »

Patrick:

Nothing at all against your Dad's advice but this time you just aren't analyzing the situation correctly, so it's a waste of everyone's time for you to stick to your guns unless you find out more. Same goes for me and I can definitely guarantee you that Mark Studer is definitely one of those where I can get any kind of detailed information on anything whatsoever to do with that golf course in the past, now or in the future if he wants to give it to me and have it discussed on here.

What's going on at Baltusrol and what's going on at Oakmont is not the same, in my opinion, no matter how much you seem to want to believe that.

I sure don't want to step on any toes here but obviously you do know that Baltusrol's super came from Oakmont. Maybe there was some change of direction in the transition.

Obviously, a question about the bunkers being taken into touch the fairways should be answered first by finding out if or how much the club and the USGA intends to narrow Oakmont's fairways for the Open compared to what the fairways generally are width-wise.

I can tell you from experience that effectively Oakmont's fairways never did play wide and on a number of holes those fairway filtered the ball directly into some of those fairways as many on here generally seem to think is a good thing strategically. In my opinion, Oakmont optionally and strategically is not a width oriented golf course like a PVGC is---Oakmont is and always has been very center directed and a lot of the options and strategies on that course are all about how much distance you can stand to try for knowing how center-directed most of those holes really are off the tees.

To me most of the strategy of Oakmont is all about distance options, not really direction options. You just have to stay out of all those bunkers often on both sides and sometimes ditches on the other side---off the tee that always was the deal at Oakmont to me----distance strategies.

And if Fownes had about 300 bunkers on that golf course while now there are about 185, what does that tell you about Fownes and about his evolutionary design intention for that golf course?

When it comes to expanding those bunkers out to touch the fairways, how do you know that's not a restoration of the original shapes and sized which as you know with old bunkers certainly can tend to shrink over time?

« **Reply #39 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:49:19 PM »

No doubt Oakmont is world famous for its difficulty and its profusion of bunkers. What is not commonly known is that the course was thought to be too easy in its early years. One of William Fownes dreams was to host the US Am and with that in mind the course went through extensive remodeling...all those bunkers and hazards and increased length...which ultimately resulted in the course being chosen to host the 1917 US Am. Unfortunately that event was canceled due to the War, but eventually the course hosted the 1919 championship--its first major.

I'm not certain how many bunkers Fownes added between 1919 and his death in 1950 (if any). Does anyone know anything about the course's architectural evolution during those years?

But assuming he did add some bunkers, I certainly would not use that as excuse to redesign the golf course in 2005. It seems to me the course has remained relatively constant for the last fifty years...trees being the exception. Many famous architects have added bunkers over time to courses like NGLA, GCGC, and Pinehurst #2...should that provide the rational to redesign today?

« **Reply #40 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:05:09 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on April 03, 2005, 04:08:44 PM

What's going on at Baltusrol and what's going on at Oakmont is not the same, in my opinion, no matter how much you seem to want to believe that.

How can you say that with respect to narrowing the fairways by growing in the rough or resodding the rough, and bringing the bunkers in to meet them at both courses ?

The process is similar, as is the intent and the result, no matter how much you want to deny it.[/color]

Obviously, a question about the bunkers being taken into touch the fairways should be answered first by finding out if or how much the club and the USGA intends to narrow Oakmont's fairways for the Open compared to what the fairways generally are width-wise.

Does it really matter if they want to pinch them by 5 yards or 15 yards ?
In principle, the concept, the alteration is the same, linear measurements are just a matter of degrees.[/color]

I can tell you from experience that effectively Oakmont's fairways never did play wide and on a number of holes those fairway filtered the ball directly into some of those fairways as many on here generally seem to think is a good thing strategically. In my opinion, Oakmont optionally and strategically is not a width oriented golf course like a PVGC is---Oakmont is and always has been very center directed and a lot of the options and strategies on that course are all about how much distance you can stand to try for knowing how center-directed most of those holes really are off the tees.

If that's the case, why did Fownes offset the bunkers so far removed from the fairway or centerline, which is where you say the course was intended to play ?[/color]

To me most of the strategy of Oakmont is all about distance options, not really direction options. You just have to stay out of all those bunkers often on both sides and sometimes ditches on the other side---off the tee that always was the deal at Oakmont to me----distance strategies.
Are you saying that Oakmont is a course of limited dimension, architecturally speaking, and that distance alone is paramount, other then the putting surfaces ?[/color]

And if Fownes had about 300 bunkers on that golf course while now there are about 185, what does that tell you about Fownes and about his evolutionary design intention for that golf course?

It doesn't tell you a thing with respect to his philosophy on the relationship of bunkers to fairway/green lines.

It only tells you that the memberships, the ones you jump to protect no matter what they do, removed 115 of his bunkers.
[/color]

When it comes to expanding those bunkers out to touch the fairways, how do you know that's not a restoration of the original shapes and sized...

Are you saying that the previous restoration work was inaccurate or incomplete ?[/color]

...which as you know with old bunkers certainly can tend to shrink over time?

It's just the opposite, bunkers expand, vis a vis the edging process. You're confused, it's greens that shrink over time.

I'm really shocked by your blanket denial or refusal to accept that Oakmont MAY be following Baltusrol with respect to the narrowing the fairways and bunker complexes.

Perhaps you hit upon something with regard to the current Super at Baltusrol and his ongoing relationship and influence at Oakmont.

If the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article is incorrect most will breath a sigh of releif, but, what if it's true, then what do you say ? Will you continue to cling to your theory of infallibility ?[/color]

« **Reply #41 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:21:23 PM »

Patrick - Baltusrol actively narrowed the fairways. There is nothing so far which indicates the same is being done at Oakmont - bunkers are being brought to the fairway lines, which is a far cry IMO from bringing the fairway lines in, and then bringing bunkers on top. In the first example, the fairway lines remain constant, and in the second, the fairway narrows.

How is this the same thing?

« **Reply #42 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:32:31 PM »

SPDB,

If you think the fairways will remain constant you've got a lot to learn about maintainance practices when manual labor at the low end of the pay scale is used.

How familiar are you with the mowing of fairways, the mowing of rough and the mowing of these areas when bunkers traverse both ?

Irrespective of whether the rough is brought in and the bunkers follow, or the bunkers are brought in and the roughs follow, the results are similar, as was the intent.

« **Reply #43 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:34:53 PM »

SPDB
Why are the bunkers at Oakmont no longer located at the fairway line?

« **Reply #44 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:40:21 PM »

Tom - My first guess would be that the fairways have narrowed over time, but that would only be a guess. I understand that, regrettable as it may be.

Pat - Describing what will or will not happen is great, but it doesn't address my point, which is what was planned and implemented at Oakmont vis-a-vis Baltusrol in preparation for major championships at their respective clubs. The latter narrowed fairway lines, as part of its plan, whereas the other has kept the fairway lines constant.

« **Reply #45 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:53:12 PM »

SBDB
That would be my guess as well. Would you give Fazio the green light to reposition, expand and add bunkers at Pinehurst #2 and GCGC likewise, since Ross and Travis added bunkers to those courses over time?

« **Reply #46 on:** April 03, 2005, 08:27:16 PM »

Quote from: SPDB on April 03, 2005, 06:40:21 PM

Tom - My first guess would be that the fairways have narrowed over time, but that would only be a guess. I understand that, regrettable as it may be.

Pat - Describing what will or will not happen is great, but it doesn't address my point, which is what was planned and implemented at Oakmont vis-a-vis Baltusrol in preparation for major championships at their respective clubs.
Do you know what is planned for Oakmont ?
[/color]

The latter narrowed fairway lines, as part of its plan, whereas the other has kept the fairway lines constant.

Are you positive that the fairway lines have been kept constant ?

And, are you positive that there is no intent to narrow the fairways at Oakmont ?
[/color]

« **Reply #47 on:** April 03, 2005, 09:03:51 PM »

Studer assures me that there are still seven trees on the course.

Tha Architectural selection process was long, involved and well thought out.

Other than mowing patterns, it appears that the second green may be altered to get a couple more hole positions, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Oakmont will be what it has always been, a Championxhip Course of the highest caliber.

« **Reply #48 on:** April 03, 2005, 09:27:01 PM »

Patrick:

This is what that Post Gazette said (from the initial post on this thread) on this fairway/bunker situation at Oakmont.

"In addition, all the fairway bunkers will eventually be enlarged and brought right to the edge of the fairway, narrowing the landing area off the tee."

Now, as you can tell if you use your head there are two ways this may have happened.

First, the fairways of Oakmont were narrowed at some point, perhaps recently, from the widths they used to be and from the way Fownes had them or,

Second, the bunkers shrunk and they were simply restored and reshaped back to their original sizes and back to the edges of the original fairway lines.

If the first is the case it's possible the bunkering has been taken in toward the fairway farther than it ever was but I doubt you know that at this point and either do I.

Whatever you do please don't try to tell me bunkering or their sand surfaces do not shrink because that is just not the case. Some of the sand surfaces of fairway bunkering on my course shrunk in some cases by almost half and they were restored and resized back to their original sand space. If you actually think that all the old sand surfaces of bunkering expands due to edging out all around their perimeters you really do have a lot to learn.

So, I do not know at this point if Oakmont has narrowed in their fairway lines from the way Fownes had them or whether those fairway lines are the same but some of the bunkering's sand surfaces shrunk back from them.

One must also realize if Fownes had 300 bunkers on that course and the course now has 186 bunkers perhaps some of the bunkers that are being relocated are restorations of those app. 114 Fownes bunkers that were removed at some point, perhaps by the remodel/redesign projects of RTJ, Garbin, Palmer/Seay, Hills et al. Check Cornish and Whitten for architectural input following the reign of W. Fownes that ended in 1950. A good deal of that redesign following Fownes has been removed in the restoration project Oakmont went through under Green Chairman Studer and following him.

I do not know if Oakmont's fairways have been narrowed in recently or some of the old bunkering has been taken out to the original fairway width but I do know where to find out and I know it's definitely not at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette newspaper which seems to be your sole source---which is nothing more than a one line blurb from the intial post on this thread.

Studer did mention to me the other day that the fairway bunker on #2 had shrunk significantly and it has been or will be resized back to its original shape and sand surface. This will be a restoration expansion to Fownes.

And what is it exactly that you're using for information on this subject---that one line blurb from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette? If that's what you're going on do us all a favor and don't waste our time!

My recollection from Baltusrol is the club is narrowing in their fairways thereby leaving Tillinghast's old bunkering even farther out in the rough. Those bunkers on the right side of #18 are not Tillinghast they're Rees Jones, and my recollection from everyone of us who walked out there and looked at them it they are pretty uncharacteistic looking wherever they're located in relation to that hole's right fairway line.

« **Reply #49 on:** April 03, 2005, 09:38:00 PM »

Pat - From the Pitt. P-G article you divined that the same thing that happened at Baltusrol is happening at Oakmont. I merely pointed out that fairway line narrowing was articulated by the club as part and parcel of Rees Jones's work. No such enunciation was included in the Pittsburgh P-G article, nor any of the interviews I've read with John Zimmers and others.

So if we are to limit our discussion to the article posted here, how can you be so certain that the work at Oakmont even vaguely resembles that of Baltusrol? I don't, but I'm going off the same source you are, which makes no such indication, despite your conclusions to the contrary.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

SPDB

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

michael j fay

TEPaul

SPDB