Tom

I agree and think that the long rough detracted from the inherent architecture of Oakmont.

"Now would Oakmont and the U.S. Open be better served the next time this major rolls around if the rough that chokes the strategic genius of the property were significantly thinned as well?

"I don't think there would be any doubts," said 2006 U.S. Open champion Geoff Ogilvy when asked if Oakmont and the tournament would be an even better test without the trademark thick rough that greeted players this week. "There should be rough, but more like the kind they have at Royal Melbourne where you can make a shot out of it. I don't like the automatic one-shot penalty."

That was from Scott Michaux's article:

http://savannahnow.com/node/307183

I'm sure most of the players would prefer the kind of rough "where you can make a shot out of it."  I'm sure they don't like the "automatic one-shot penalty".  But the Competition Committee apparently disagrees and they get to set up the golf course.  Back in 2003, the Competition Committee agreed with Ogilvy's philosophy and they cut the rough two days before the start of the Open at my club, Olympia Fields.  

What was the result?  Olympia was trashed in the media because it was too weak.  Why was it too weak?  Soft greens from nightly rains and rough that the pros could advance balls to the greens which held shots even without spin.  Olympia wound up being a one year experiment of a kinder and gentler USGA (principally because of the rough policy) and the eastern clubs were allowed to grow rough that would sprain our wrists and the golf fans around the globe cheered mightily at the golfers' struggles.

The bottom line is that the US Open is the one event that fairly demands this type of brutal setup.  This year, the USGA did everything right and they had the perfect course for their championship.  A three hundred yard par 3 and a three hundred yard par 4?  Are you kidding me?  That is a hell of a golf course.

Sorry if this has been answered already: how would Oakmont play with no rough at all, but all the other architectural features intact, including bunkers, ditches, etc?  

I wasn't able to see a lot of the 72 holes.  Can anybody tell me what % of players tried to drive the green and how their scores compared to those who laid up?

Thanks in advance

IMO, the true test of a drivable par4 in tournament play is the number of eagles and birdies vs. the number of bogies.

I don't think there were too many eagles at Oakmont's short par4s.

Given the nature of what Oakmont's 17th did -- I only smile even more so if the folks at BB would turn the boring ho-hum final hole there to a situation similar in what you saw this past week.

Phil,

If Furyk laid up with an iron and missed the fairway, as many players did thanks to that spine running down the middle of the fairway, he'd have been in a worse position than he was after his tee shot.

I think his mistake there was that he was not playing to the fat part of the green because he didn't trust his ability to two putt a long putt.  I have no idea why he was playing to the right of the pin, I don't know if he was trying to leave himself a makeable putt but it sure didn't look like he was playing safe and thinking 4 there like he should have.  He had to be thinking that if it jumped on him he'd be in bigmouth laying three and that shot is just too hard if you know that you are screwed if you hit it short or hit it long.  IMHO the correct play from where he was would have been to play for the back right of the green and try to two putt from 60 or 70 feet.  Going long there wouldn't be a big problem with so much green to work with and some ability to control the ball on the slopes.

He did mention that he was surprised how far his ball went on 17, I think he was trying to just lay up a driver short of the green.  That's an error on his caddie's part, who should have known he'd have a lot of adrenaline in his system and he should hit a 3W for a layup or hit the driver with the intent of going for the green.

I was thinking all day long that if I were there I'd just aim at bigmouth because it looked like a pretty easy up and down, but it must have been slicker down that hill towards the hole than anyone realized because every player seemed to do what Tiger did and went too far and off the green past the hole.  I always think if I was Tiger or Phil or one of the other mega rich pros I'd station one of my posse on every green and look for things like that that everyone is doing and have them relay that information to my caddy on each tee so he can clue me in.  Assuming that's legal and doesn't constitute illegal advice, that is.

Phil:

I agree with you.

The issue with BB is the inability to fundamentally provide a closing hole that ADDS to the overall excitement. The final hole today does only one thing ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Sunday: 17 bogeys and 13 birdies.

Is this really a risk/reward hole or just a difficult short par4?

Steve,

Haven't you just answered your question with those stats?

17 represents the risk, and 13 represents the reward.  If you look at the stats for say the 18th, then that would be an entirely different story.  I think the 17th worked really well for the pros, I just don't see how a 20 handicapper can play that hole.